Talk:Pete Hegseth

Controversies?

How is pointing out that Congresswoman Talib is an Hamas supporter controversial?-She is in fact and has been quoted as such. 168.103.165.237 (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The source reports on Hegseth saying the congresswoman has an 'agenda', beyond support. What are your "quoted" sources? —ADavidB 22:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I have removed it. Nothing in the source suggested it was controversial. "Agenda" is a vague word, of course. StAnselm (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

NYTimes Controversy

In a list of "controversies" one of the included ones is that he mocked the NYTimes for not covering something but it turns out he was wrong. It appears out of place amongst the much more legitimate controversies listed. Gb003k (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I checked it out. That (first) paragraph/sentence/period was an easy read. ('Not much to dwell over', was my initial thought. However, the next paragraph (about a different topic) was arguably not an easy read.)--For now i disagree with user:Gb003k, however my view might be a minority view. 2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 14:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC) /2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 14:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

'Time in service' as a full-time soldier

Should the article be more clear, about how many 'periods' has been a full-time soldier, and how many months each of those periods lasted?--Even if he 'only' had, say, two six-month periods as a full-time soldier, it would still seem like there is 'nothing to take away' from his remarkable full-time career. Thoughts? 2001:2020:32B:F22A:BC9D:9EA2:D8C1:9CBA (talk) 14:34, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If we can find WP:RS that states the inclusive dates, I think that would be a great idea to add to the article. But, as he is living and currently serving in the Guard, I doubt those records will be easy to come by. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 04:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The military does not divide into "full-time" and "part-time." There is National Guard (state funded and Regular/Active Army (federaly funded). There is activated and deployed Guard, but they are still not the same. They are important distinctions for military and legal purposes.

His units deployment history is a matter of public record, both state and federal, excepting ongoing operations. His individual records may be different, at least in parts. OmnesJudicata (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

The lede is terrible

The lede doesn't explain what he did in the military other than smearing him of war crimes. It currently reads: "He reportedly persuaded Trump to pardon three American soldiers accused or convicted of war crimes related to the shooting of non-combatants in Iraq. Hegseth, who was a platoon leader at Guantanamo Bay during his military service, defended the treatment of inmates detained there." This may be true, but does it really define his military service? Or him? Why is it in the lede, particularly since it includes weasel words like reportedly? 2604:3D09:C77:4E00:25E2:50A:A2C8:1302 (talk) 15:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Especially this, since it comes out of nowhwere and begs lots of questions - it isn't immediately clear why Hegseth would need to "defend" the treatment. "Hegseth, who was a platoon leader at Guantanamo Bay during his military service, defended the treatment of inmates detained there."| 205.193.239.44 (talk) 01:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024

This should be removed: Questions about Hegseth's qualifications have been raised by Democrats, Republicans, and those close to President-elect Trump, with Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski saying, "Wow," and numerous defense officials saying, "Everyone is simply shocked."[43]

This is editorializing at its lowest especially if you read the referenced article in full and presents only negative response to the naming of Hegseth to the position. 96.246.137.82 (talk) 16:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't strongly care if this is included or not, it seems fairly trivial to me at least so far and even if it remains it probably won't in a year, so I tend to think it probably shouldn't stay since it's likely very time sensitive commentary. But I will also say, negative reaction can be a significant fact. It may even legitimately be one-sided if there is no prominent figures reacting credibly ('ima trust trump on everything' isn't a credible reaction) in an opposite way, I am not aware of any prominent senators who have said 'Wow is right, but a good wow, this guy is a brilliant choice, I absolutely think that a fox host should be running the DOD' Qalnor (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If it won’t be here in a year then there’s no need for it to be here now. Again, present facts not opinion and the only thing this does is to present opinion as fact which has no place in an encyclopedia. 96.246.137.82 (talk) 17:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but I will say that Wikipedia is not exactly an encyclopedia when it comes to current events because, as much as it would like to be one, it is difficult to judge in the moment what that happened today will be significant in a year (much less many years which is a truer test of the question). If the criticisms fizzle out and he is nominated, these first reactions will be judged as irrelevant, but if criticism grows and his nomination dies then it is likely that the words of initial critics will be remembered more than critics who pile on. After the Thune election today republicans in the senate have sent a fairly strong signal that they are not Trumpist pawns. I still personally think this is likely to fizzle out, I do not think they will show resistance here as they would if he selected RFK Jr for Secretary of HHS. Qalnor (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 (2)

The second sentence of the first paragraph begins, "A political commentator for Fox News since 2014 and co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend from 2017 to 2014," The 2014 at the end should be changed to 2024. Theshindigg (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a news article saying he'd left Fox & Friends, but as a source, the Fox & Friends wiki page says he was a host until 2024. Also, the Fox & Friends site has him still included in the hosts list, but clicking on the link leads to a 404 page (only for Hegseth, not for other hosts), and archive.org had daily snapshots of his host page on the Fox News site until Oct 10, then nothing until Nov 13, when it archived the 404 error page. Theshindigg (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done I noticed that [1] includes "was named the co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend” in 2017. Hegseth’s deal with the network ended Tuesday, Fox News said." In case it is decided further sourcing is required. Skynxnex (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 (4)

Needs to be edited to show that he does not wash his hands because he does not believe that germs exist. 2601:C2:1500:7640:BD4D:39AC:6B43:A835 (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 22:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-47201923

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/feb/11/germs-are-not-real-fox-news-host-pete-hegseth

https://www.independent.co.uk/tv/news/trump-pete-hegseth-washing-hands-b2646396.html

are these sources good enough? (sorry -- don't usually edit on here but i know there's media coverage of this situation) Notnullptr (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

All three of those sources (not known to be conservative-friendly, especially The Guardian) reference the same bit of joshing banter among the hosts of the talk show in which he participated. When asked about it later, per the first BBC article:

'Mr Hegseth later told USA Today that his remarks were intended to be a joke.

"We live in a society where people walk around with bottles of Purell (a hand sanitiser) in their pockets, and they sanitise 19,000 times a day as if that's going to save their life," he said.

"I take care of myself and all that, but I don't obsess over everything all the time."

Of the public reaction, he said it was ridiculous how people took things so "literally and seriously" so that their "heads explode".'

So no, that wouldn't seem to be very strong evidence that he really "does not wash his hands or believe germs exist". Cathammer (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Cathammer. Trivial information with very little source material, and later detracted by Hegseth, seems unworthy of mentioning in this article at this time. Besides, what value would it add to the article in an encyclopedic way? I vote NO in support of Cathammer's comment. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 04:24, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 (2)

The second sentence of the first paragraph begins, "A political commentator for Fox News since 2014 and co-host of Fox & Friends Weekend from 2017 to 2014," The 2014 at the end should be changed to 2024. Theshindigg (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I couldn't find a news article saying he'd left Fox & Friends, but as a source, the Fox & Friends wiki page says he was a host until 2024. Also, the Fox & Friends site has him still included in the hosts list, but clicking on the link leads to a 404 page (only for Hegseth, not for other hosts), and archive.org had daily snapshots of his host page on the Fox News site until Oct 10, then nothing until Nov 13, when it archived the 404 error page. Theshindigg (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done I noticed that [2] includes "was named the co-host of “Fox & Friends Weekend” in 2017. Hegseth’s deal with the network ended Tuesday, Fox News said." In case it is decided further sourcing is required. Skynxnex (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2024 (3)

As a former university faculty member active in media and journalism startup spaces, I find the paragraph in the Military career section that begins with "In 2020, Hegseth..." (1) uses poor sources that report secondarily (re-report) earlier journalistic reports, those based on anonymous sources (only Newsweek, and it, twice), then (2) poorly represents the Newsweek recasting of the earlier published content, and thus (3) misrepresents what one can be certain about, regarding the history of the events involved.

We would point out that Wikipedia editors are under no restriction to limit their sources, or to propagate poor reporting by specific individual sources.

Here, we would note—just based on the two sources appearing—that the facts of the matter appear to be:

(i) that 12 NG members were stood down;

(ii) that by his self-reporting, Hegseth was stood down (placing him among the 12);

(iii) that according to official explanation, "two guardsmen were removed because of 'inappropriate comments or texts that were put out...' on social media";

(iv) that in contradiction, the AP, reporting on a DoD anonymous leak (but unverifable, as no AP source appears), "two guardsmen have ties to a right-wing militia group";

(v) that Hegseth self-reported in the Ryan podcast that he was stood down, giving a cross-tatoo the reported reason, attributing his intelligence (likewise) to an unnamed, anonymous source; and

(vi) that JimLaPorta of CBS tweeted the self-report, taking it at face value, and concluding that Hegseth was (per his self-report) one of the twelve NG members that were stood down;

(vii) that there is no means by which anyone might, based on these two sources, assign Hegseth (or any of the 12) to either the group of 2 (for which we conflicting accounts of cause for being stood down) or the group of 10 (for which we have poor or no account of cause for being stood down).

In short, strictly speaking, in the sources provided, we only have Hegseth's self-reporting that he was stood down, and that LaPorta believes the self-report. We know that Hegseth self-reports a reason (his tatoo), but that Garrett and Bickerton of Newsweek (see below) dismiss this self-report, while accepting the other (Hegseth's being stood down). Rather, Garrett and Bickerton combine reliable sourcing (a DoD statement) with less reliable information (the AP's reporting, based on an anonymous DoD leak, two possible reasons the 12 were stood down). In combining these sources of differing reliability, and setting both reasons—either of which may have something, or both of which may have nothing to do with Hegseth, per se—alongside the Hegseth's report of being stood down, the apparent aim is to propagate a poorly reasoned and poorly sourced insinuation—that we know with certainty why Hegseth was not present at the Biden inauguration.

It can likely be firmly established that Hegseth was not there (using additional, better sources), and various reasons which "may" explain his not being there can be presented (again, using better sources, including the AP and other reliable outlets). But we should not be presenting as certain, reliable historical knowledge, even if just journalism-based, that we know why a military individual was not not deployed at a certain time (based on anonymous sources on both sides of the issue). Neither Hegseth's pronouncements, nor anonymous sources we hope were reported by others (as no WP editor appears to have cited or has checked the AP) are reliable sources for an authoritative account of current events.

Request:

Change from:

That paragraph, as it currently appears.

Change to:

No paragraph appearing, for the time being.

[Hide from view the paragraph in question, until a registered editor with journalistic understanding in evaluating such sources as those summarised above and below can be tasked with reviewing those sources, and gathering further, more neutral and reliable sources, and rewriting the paragraph—to just state what is actually known, to the exclusion of conjecture, and without improperly stringing together content of differing levels of reliability and certainty, and without relying on anonymously sourced assertions on both sides. (It is fine to limit what is stated, if what we want to know cannot be reliably known.)]

73.211.140.61 (talk) 23:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The Hegseth-stated reason for his being stood down—marginalised by the Newsweek reporting and likewise offered as second tier by the WP summary—as arising from his sporting a tattoo that might be linked to extremist groups, has now been substantiated by reporting from WSJ.com, reporting that includes interview of the NG security personnel identifying what was seen to be an incrimating photograph, and that individual's subsequent email calling the tattooed image evidence of a nascent security threat. See this article, for content that should clearly drive a rewrite of the poorly substantiated

"Military career" section,

beginning with "In 2020, Hegseth...".

We once again call on WP to pull this paragraph until it can be rewritten to better sources, now to include the WSJ reporting—which unlike the Newsweek article cited (and a second Newsweek article simply citing the first, and propagating its journalistic missteps), actually relies on verifiable information (interviews of named sources, and email evidence) rather than anonymous leaks to other news agencies. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Specific analysis regarding the above

The facts seem to be—drawn only from the two sources currently cited in the Wikipedia article, following the paragraph in question—

(a) Without linking to the original journalistic source, Newsweek reported that at first two, then an additional 10 National Guardsmen were stood down from a unit assigned to provide security for President Biden's inauguration, per reports of the Associated Press (AP, not cited in WP article), according to Garrett of Newsweek (January 19-20, 2021, cited in WP article);

(b) That two administration officials violated DoD media regulations, and leaked to the AP that "two guardsmen have ties to a right-wing militia group", words of same Garrett of Newsweek, re-reporting the AP stories (not cited in WP article);

(c) General D. Hokanson of the National Guard stated that "two guardsmen were removed because of 'inappropriate comments or texts that were put out there' on social media", words of same Garrett of Newsweek;

(d) Without linking to the original journalistic source, Newsweek reported "Hegseth was one of a number of National Guard members ordered to stand down" citing reporting from "CBS News reporter Jim LaPorta" according to Bickerton of Newsweek (November 13, 2024, cited in WP article; the CBS reporting not cited in WP article);

(e) The second Newsweek article then presents a Tweet (and only a Tweet), from LaPorta, stating "Interesting. Couple of years ago, I had a scoop which the Pentagon later confirmed that Twelve U.S. National Guard members were removed from securing then President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration after vetting. Turns out one of them was @PeteHegseth https://0lSzyOjzzm pic.twitter.com/QcQQmtUJJ1 ["t.co" removed from following "https://"] — Jim LaPorta (@JimLaPorta) November 7, 2024", thus the same Bickerton of Newsweek establishes the primary source for the claim regarding LaPorta, in this dead link to Twitter);

(f) Report then is made that "Hegseth claimed he had been due to help guard Joe Biden's 2020 presidential inauguration but was ordered to stand down because he had an 'extremist' tattoo", words of the same Bickerton of Newsweek (followed by a quote attributed to Hegseth, drawn from the linked podcast), from the same Bickerton of Newsweek;

(g) A link, ostensibly to the Shawn Ryan podcast, connects successfully to the aforementioned Jim LaPorta Tweet (now X), and establishes the content of the Hegseth statements attributed to the podcast via an attached video, per the podcast link appearing in reporting by the same Bickerton of Newsweek;

(h) The link also establishes that the conclusion of LaPorta, that "...one of them ['the [t]welve U.S. National Guard members... removed from securing then President-elect Joe Biden's inauguration after vetting...'] was @PeteHegseth", is LaPorta's comment on the self-report by Hegseth, in the podcast, per the podcast link appearing in reporting by the same Bickerton of Newsweek;

(i) In further reporting from the podcast, Hegseth indicates he was not informed of a reason by his C.O. at the time of being stood down, and that later, on researching a book, he reached out to his own unnamed, anonymous source, "somebody in the unit who could confirm with... certainty, because he was in the meetings and on the emails... [that] someone inside the D.C. Guard trolled your social media, found a tattoo, used it an excuse to call you a white nationalist..." and had him removed from the assignment, per the same Bickerton of Newsweek;

(j) The report concludes by repeating the content of the earlier Newsweek report by Garrett regarding the AP reporting, once again improperly setting alongside each other two quotes, one from the reliable DoD announcement, the other from an anonymous DoD source, restating the LaPorta conclusion without questioning LaPorta's acceptance of a possible self-serving self-disclosure by Hegseth in a podcast, describing Hegseth's tattoo and asserting, in a weasel-worded argument, the possible reasonable interpretation of the tattoo being a right-wing nationalist proclamation (in stating, "some right-wing nationalist groups have adopted Crusader imagery"), and then closes with a standard, boilerplate description of Hegseth's 2006 and 2012 deployments overseas with the Minnesota NG (noting his two Bronze Stars), all according to same Bickerton of Newsweek.

73.211.140.61 (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Unbalanced?

"... but was removed from that mission because he was one of twelve soldiers "linked to 'right-wing militia groups,' or found to have 'posted extremist views online".

How about replacing the end of the paragraph, with "He (and some others) were not chosen for the mission." 2001:2020:301:DC0D:6118:3C2B:A07B:137 (talk) 23:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

People should know when others are linked to fascism. Ampersandcastles (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the Newsweek sources state Hegseth was linked to fascism. The anonymous user that started this thread is right. The statement as it stands is quite unbalanced and must be corrected. The proposed change is well stated. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 03:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see the foregoing long edit request. Whether balanced or imbalanced, the statement is poorly sourced (on both sides, relying on clear bias-involved reporting—Newsweek repeating its own mistakes, and to oppose, content from an interview podcast). As such, it represents the poorest form of encyclopedic writing based on journalistic coverage of contemporary events. Rather that requiring the best analyses and journalistic sources in support of inflammatory accusations, both the prosecutorial and defensive aspects of this WP presentation are very poorly supported.

Hence, we have argued that the content should be removed until a careful search for further sources can be conducted, and then rigorous and scrupulous summary of those sources take the place of what is currently presented. [Among other things, the Newsweek reporting and its lockstep Wikipedia extract both juxtapose a fact known with certainty (based on a DOD disclosure) with clearly questionable information that journalistically demands independent verification not appearing (information derived from a single leak by an anonymous source, to the Associated Press, where care was not even taken to cite the AP source).] 2600:1008:B13A:C330:48B4:3682:DDEB:EFC0 (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Church

Does Pete Hegseth belong to a church or denomination? Docmo (talk) 14:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes - added. StAnselm (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:DOB

I've removed the addition of an unsourced date of birth twice now. Please don't restore it without reliable sources. Per WP:DOB, the standard for inclusion of personal information of living persons is higher than mere existence of a reliable source that could be verified. Toddst1 (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Someone misspelled Hegseth as Hegeseth under "Israel-Palestine".

yeah that's about it, someone should probably fix that. 162.221.118.106 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Don't forget you can use the edit request template to bring requested changes with protected pages to the attention of registered editors. PianoDan (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Pete Hegseth's Bronze Star Medals

There are two kinds of Bronze Star Medals: 1) for service, and 2) for a specific act of valor. The version for valor includes a "V" device on the medal. Is either of Pete Hegseth's Bronze Star Medals for valor? None of the few photos I have seen of him in uniform show clearly whether either of his BSMs is for valor; and I have found nothing in writing which addresses a BSM for valor for him. 2603:6080:8201:FF8F:DCCD:38AB:A4A3:FF44 (talk) 18:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Most talk about him has a cynical tone

Everything he has accomplished has a cynical tone to it. If you're conservative, you can feel the negative vibes from the Wikipedia authors. This is why I do not donate to Wikipedia. It can often be very informative, but it is persuading people to think negatively about a very positive person.

So what if he withdrew his candidacy. He knew he had lost. So what if his brother was paid $100k...over 2 years...50k a year job...whoopti-do. He may believe the individuals who needed pardoned, really deserved it, and they were victims of leftist politics. He has a tattoo of a cross? Ooh, what an evil Christian.

I could go on, but this is crazy, slanted, leftist talk that only a leftists can lap up, an independent might be fooled, and a conservative can see right through your extremist, communist viewpoint. 24.113.161.58 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is true across all WP articles, especially concerning any political person (living or dead) or any social question. Also unfortunately, WP seems to support this nonsense. They publish their WP:NPOV style policies then hide behind that and “the people edit by consensus”. But the pattern of abuse is obvious. Before Hegseth was proposed to be nominated, there was no mention of most of the topics you called out above. Inexcusable and way too common practice. Like someone above said, it is no wonder why WP cannot be cited as encyclopedic. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 23:03, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@User:StAnselm, @User:Cannolis, @User:Skynxnex, @User:Toddst1, @User:PianoDan, @User:Qalnor, Please see our reply to the very long edit request above, asking that a particular paragraph in the "Military career" section be pulled. The further reply is date-time-stamped "04:13, 16 November 2024". The reply in question cites new WSJ reporting that further undermines the accuracy of the currently appearing, questioned paragraph. The reply to which we refer you begins, "The Hegseth-stated reason for his being stood down...". We again ask that this paragrpah, an inaccurate and likely biased derivative of Newsweek reporting, be pulled from reader view until it can be rewritten to the WSJ and other reliable sources citing solid journalistic evidence. 73.211.140.61 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Jerusalem Cross

The article says that the Jurusalem Cross "is just a Christian symbol". According to its Wikipedia article, it is associated with the crusades. I propose to either remove this subordinate clause or correct it. Bdschi (talk) 10:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

No. The statement is in a quote from Hegseth as a kind of explanation. It should stay. — TadgStirkland⁴⁰¹ (Tadg^Talk) 10:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

ok, after switching to a larger screen, I saw that there are quotes around the statement. Bdschi (talk) 16:29, 16 November 2024 (UTC)