Talk:Sinbad (dog)

Rank

A recent edit from an anon IP frequently warned and/or blocked added great detail as to "Cheif Dog" being abreviated as K9C, a combination of dog and CPO. That seems clear in the article and it certainly wasn't appropriate lead material. It was reverted, but is this seemingly obvious and otherwise addressed designation in need of greater clarity here?--Rwberndt (talk) 00:50, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is the title given in the lead as K9C rather than as Chief Dog? Most of the articles I have seen that lead with a rank use the full title rather than an abbreviation.Publius (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Several examples of other military biographies begin as follows: "General Colin L. Powell? (from infobox not lead, "General of the Army Douglas MacArthur" (from lead), "Hermann-Bernhard "Gerhard" Ramcke (24 January 1889 – 4 July 1968) was a German general." (from lead) and "Sergeant Stubby" (United States Army - opening words of lead), The emphasis is on the name, not the rank - but rank is signifiacant to the subject matter and must thus be included. "Chief Dog" seems cumbersome, but if references elsewhere as K9C so as to communicate the legitimacy of the rank as military pay grade - the irregularity that sets Sinbad apart from mascots, that being that he was recognized as a soveriegn being - would not deter from a scholarly article. The prior edit obsessed on the designation and implied honorary status downgarding that which makes this unusual case, a dog treated legally as a being, noteworthy.--Rwberndt (talk) 00:20, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree that it's cumbersome, but Dog was his rating and Chief Petty Officer his rate, so Chief Dog is the correct full form (similar to "Chief Boatswain's Mate" cited in this very article, a Boatswain's Mate who is a Chief Petty Officer). "K9C" is a conventional American nautical abbreviation (cf. BMC for Chief Boatswain's Mate, QMCS for Senior Chief Quartermaster, GMCM for Master Chief Gunner's Mate), not a title in and of itself. I agree that it should be emphasized that Chief Dog Sinbad wasn't an mascot or honorary gesture (like Sergeant Donald F. Duck), but I think it a little odd that the article uses the abbreviation first then defines its meaning -- K9C ("Chief Dog") -- instead of the other way around -- Chief Dog (K9C).

I don't mean to say that the full title must be coupled with his name; I simply think the Chief Dog should come before K9C, particularly because the K9C itself is a little pat and could easily be taken as a joke (which it is) of no actual significance (which it isn't). Rick D. West's entry introduces him as just "Master Chief" instead of his full title of "Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (Submarines/Surface Warfare)," which is perfectly fine, but it does go on to note that he holds the position of "Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy (MCPON)," giving the title before the abbreviation; in the same vein, I think "General Colin L. Powell" preferable in form to "GEN ("General") Colin L. Powell." It's not wrong to speak of MCPON(SS/SW) West or K9C Sinbad, but I think it more encyclopedic to identify them more fully beforehand. Publius (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm convinced. I have made the edits (without delving into unnecessary explanation in the lead).--Rwberndt (talk) 23:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Tone

   It is evident that www.uscg.mil's Webmaster fails to prevent tongue-in-cheek Web pages. The lesson of that is not that WP should tolerate such material, but rather that the domain name of a page is found on can be misleading when attempting to verify a RS. One partial remedy for the accompanying article is immediate removal of what is written here -- or derived from parts of the one immediately available source that are written there -- in language that is obviously facetious. It would not be surprising if there are no sources on the subject where the literally accurate info can be clearly enuf distinguished from the statements that are credible only as facetiousness, in which case we should not have any article on the topic.
--Jerzy•t 07:20, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Your unbelievably biased edits, insinuating your own interpretation of what is stated in the sources cited before that too was vandalized, have destroyed this article. It is an insult to those who served with this dog, a dog that despite your disbelief and modern military rules, was enlisted, was paid, was awarded service ribbons (even inanimate objects like boats are awarded ribbons), and was the first member of the USCG to be the subject of a biography.

It is obvious that anthropomorphizing a dog upsets you. It is history, One that lives on aboard the new cutter Campbell that flys the "Sinbad Lives" banner - the crew of which you have also insulted by your aggressive denigration of their symbol. Your dismissive and POV modifiers for every significant fact in this article show contempt for both the subject, who is deserving of respectful memory, and for the Wikipedia ideal of free access to information without bias. This is why Wikipedia cannot hold onto participants and why it is not accepted as a valid source when it matters.

It is sad, but what is left of this should be deleted. - as it makes mockery of history.--Rwberndt (talk) 14:57, 28 November 2013 (UTC)