Talk:United States Coast Guard Auxiliary

Merge Proposal

I propose merging USCG Auxiliary Flotilla 6-9 into United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. There is a significant Notability problem with the Flotilla 6-9 page. I can't see any reason why this one single flotilla out of hundreds has its own page. Granted, there are 3 secondary sources listed on the page, in addition to the inappropriate primary sources from the Auxiliary itself. However, one article basically just acknowledges that a flotilla exists, no different from any other flotilla. The other two are about a single passenger boat capsize that the flotilla supposedly assisted with, but neither of these sources actually support the claim-- neither mention the flotilla or the Auxiliary at all, and only one even mentions the USCG in passing in one sentence.

Even assuming we can find a proper source to cite for this one incident, the only real notability argument here is that there was a single SAR case that the flotilla responded to. Thus, even giving the flotilla the benefit of the doubt that they were involved in this case and it was significant, notability here is still lacking.

The flotilla article should be merged into the main Auxiliary article. Perhaps the main article can include a section on notable operations, noting this flotilla's involvement in this particular event. 149.101.1.117 (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: There are almost 800 flotillas in the CG Aux, it would be impractical and not particularly encyclopaedic to have a stub for each one just to denote it exists. Just the same, having a list of almost 800 flotillas on this page would not be practical either, and goes against WP:NOTADIRECTORY. So basically, this page should have a section, with information about the CG's flotillas in general, and if any specific flotilla has enough noteworthy history to make an article worthwhile, then create a page for it. (jmho) - wolf 04:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Replay and keep I do not want a page for all of the flotillas. However many flotillas do have major events, for example serving during 9/11 or responding to one of the worst maritime disasters in Conroe and the surrounding areas. LuxembourgLover (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

"responding to one of the worst maritime disasters in Conroe"

1. This is completely unsourced. The sources listed in the article do not support this claim at all. Let's parse it out:

a. No evidence that this flotilla or anyone from the USCG responded.

b. No evidence that the event was "one of the worst maritime disasters in Conroe." The article merely states that a boat capsized and one person died.

For the record, I BELIEVE you, as far as what you're saying about the flotilla and the capsizing. I'm making a guess here that you're an Auxiliarist there? No doubt, responding to an event like that is a big deal for any flotilla. But that's not how Wikipedia sources work. Everything in an article needs to come from a secondary source, not a primary source, and not just whatever whomever is writing the article says.

2. EVEN IF the sourcing issue were completely resolved, and your statement that the flotilla "respond[ed] to one of the worst maritime disasters in Conroe" was inarguably true, we still have a significant notability problem here. "Serving during 9/11" is not on par with responding to a single vessel SAR case on Lake Conroe, a small lake in a suburb of Houston-- even if that incident was the "worst maritime disaster" in that suburb. Is there to be a Wikipedia article dedicated to every USCG Auxiliary Flotilla that has participated in a SAR case?

If you read nothing else here, please read the Wikipedia notability guidelines, in particular about "significant coverage," "sources," and "independent of the subject."

149.101.1.117 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge I agree with wolf that if there is a Aux flotilla that has enough notable history then it could have an article of its own, but that the flotilla as an organizational feature should be mentioned in the CG Aux article in a general manner; i.e. what purpose do they have, how they are organized, etc. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Would you support a new article that has a list of flotillas? At least the article could list the divisions within the Auxiliary. LuxembourgLover (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge Very poor article. With the main event a sinking that does not even warrants an own article? The Banner talk 20:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Merge I think we should have a list of flotillas either as a seperate page or kept within this article as @LuxembourgLover stated, that said a single flotilla should have noave its own page Sunnyediting99 (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Any idea how many flotillas there are? I can't see that a listing of flotillas adds much to the Aux article. I'm still in agreement with wolf. Just my opinion. Cuprum17 (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

At least according to their own website, there are 793 flotillas Sunnyediting99 (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes that's a lot, I feel if a new artical is to be created it should only be notable ones. We do not need to mention the one in New mexioc with 5 people. LuxembourgLover (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

So, a flotilla have on average 26 members? How many of them would be notable on their own? The Banner talk 20:09, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure, though i suspect regionally, the most relevant ones would be in New York (9/11), New Orleans (Hurricane Katrina), Florida (constant hurricanes), maybe also the Midwest, Hawaii, and Washington DC flotillas. Sunnyediting99 (talk) 23:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I can not check the website given, as I am outside the USA and we have better - INMHO - privacy regulations. But fact is that notability must be verified, preferably with independent sources. That means that every flotilla should be judged on its own merits. Existing is not enough. For example: the New York CG would already qualify due to its involvement in the SS Andrea Doria-disaster and rescue. The Banner talk 17:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it is worth noting as this is being discussed that the issue appears specific to the USCG AUXILIARY in particular. The Auxiliary is an organization that supports the USCG-- the active duty military service-- strictly on non-military, non-law enforcement missions, with strictly civilian volunteers.

To me, this seems like a really important distinction to make-- even where there is a particular event giving notability to the USCG in a particular area, it doesn't necessarily warrant notability for a particular flotilla of the Auxiliary, absent sources indicating the Auxiliary played a significant role.

To me, then, the issue seems to require two levels of notability: first, event or events that were significant enough for the USCG, AND, separately and specifically, that the Auxiliary itself played a role-- not just the USCG itself. As you said, the Auxiliary flotilla itself must be judged on its own merits, not simply that it exists and that the USCG did something.

I'm trying to catch up on all the recent discussion here, having just read this discussion and these two articles, a well as recent edits to and discussion on Lake Conroe, which is related to this article about the Auxiliary flotilla. I have to say I am getting the impression that @LuxembourgLover is obfuscating the important difference between the USCG military branch and the volunteer members of the Auxiliary. I hope it's accidental and not intentional-- I am trying to assume good faith. But perhaps he/she has a personal interest in the Auxiliary. If you read the main article about the Auxiliary, they have certainly made notable contributions throughout the history of the USCG, and hopefully this is a source of pride for he/she. But obviously that is not how Wikipedia works. It seems like the issues here are really obfuscating the notability of the USCG as a whole with the notability of particular USCG Auxiliary volunteers. Murray Hewitt NZ Consulate (talk) 21:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Oops, my mistake of mixing them up. But in fact it makes the chances on a notable auxiliary flotilla even smaller. The Banner talk 22:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Another thing to note, if an article is created is that the Auxiliary has districts and divsions, there are around 15 districts and multiple divisions. For example 6-9 is in the 6th division commanded by Commander Robert Schwartz. LuxembourgLover (talk) 13:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. My point exactly-- even if the USCG is involved in a notable event somewhere, and even if there is an Auxiliary flotilla nearby, that is still not Notable without specific sources linking the Auxiliary flotilla itself to the event. And I just don't see that here. The Auxiliary does a lot, but there is also a lot they don't do.

Just thought I'd clarify as most people aren't aware of the distinction, or the rather unique status of the USCG compared to many other countries' Coast Guards. Murray Hewitt NZ Consulate (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

"... uniformed, non-military volunteer component of the United States Coast Guard."

It is my opinion that the words "non-military" are important in the description of the Coast Guard Auxiliary because it is a non-military organization whose mission is to assist the Coast Guard in it's non-military missions. If the words "non-military" are left out of the description then the reader of the article might be left with the impression that somehow the Auxiliary is conducting military missions like the Coast Guard does. The Auxiliary is currently prohibited from armed defense or law enforcement missions by law. There could be some confusion about this in the readers mind because of the Auxiliary's history during World War II when Auxiliarists were sometimes armed and conducted military operations. In the current environment Auxiliarists assist in many of the day-to-day operations of the Coast Guard but they may not directly participate in law enforcement or military actions. This distinction is important. While Auxiliarists serve in a uniform it is not required that other military members practice military courtesies upon meeting an Auxiliarist though many do so. "Auxiliarists wear military rank-style insignia that signify their leadership position but do not hold substantive military ranks and are not typically addressed by their position title." Therefore, by logic, Auxiliarists are non-military because they do not have a rank structure. "The rank-style insignia sported by Auxiliarists doesn't denote authority in a military sense but rather identifies an individual's position within the Auxiliary." This statement illustrates again that the Auxiliarist does not have the same authority as a Coast Guard officer. Just because the Coast Guard Auxiliary is non-military does not take away from the fact that the Auxiliary helps the Coast Guard as a whole in savings of manpower and money each and every day. The Auxiliarist serves alongside Coast Guardsmen in all missions except direct law enforcement and military missions. There is nothing wrong with being described as the "uniformed, non-military volunteer component of the United States Coast Guard" and every Auxiliarist should be proud of that fact. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the Coast Guard Auxiliary as "non-military" serves to emphasize their non-involvement in the military aspects of the Coast Guard, even though their name, "Coast Guard Auxiliary," inherently conveys their supportive and non-military nature. To avoid overusing "non-military," a more straightforward approach would be to describe their specific functions. While recognizing their historical involvement is essential, it shouldn't solely determine their present-day description; rather, their contemporary role is shaped by current legal constraints. It's worth noting that the repetition of "non-military" may suggest a negative perspective on the organization, potentially implying its lesser importance compared to the active-duty and reservist components of the Coast Guard.COASTIE I am (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

The use of the term "non-military" is accurate and is used exactly once in the article United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. This is not an overuse of the term "non-military". The fact is that legally the Auxiliary is a non-military uniformed volunteer organization that supports the missions of the Coast Guard under the present laws that exist. The "non-military" nature of the Auxiliary mission could change if Congress so desires and the President signs legislation to that effect but that does change present day realities. In the lede of the article the mention of the term "non-military" is meant to help accurately reflect the definition of the Auxiliary and does in no way demean the Auxiliarist or the Auxiliary. To leave out the term "non-military" would be misleading to the article reader and it should therefore remain in the lede. Cuprum17 (talk) 12:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

In response to derogatory comments about the Coast Guard Auxiliary and the misconception that it is not a serious organization, it is crucial to emphasize the organization's significance and its unwavering commitment to serving the nation. The use of the term "non-military" in the article might not be the most effective way to characterize the Auxiliary, as it risks overshadowing its valuable contributions. Instead, the focus should be on highlighting the Auxiliary's mission, functions, and its pivotal support to the Coast Guard, which includes activities like Maritime Domain Awareness Air Patrols, Academy Introduction Mission (AIM), and various other critical roles. It's worth noting that in 1996, Congressional Legislation significantly expanded the Auxiliary's role, although it did not grant deputized law enforcement powers or involve it in military combat tasks. Reducing the Auxiliary's significance to the level of the Civil Air Patrol, primarily focused on youth, would undermine its vital contributions, especially in promoting recreational boating safety and its diverse involvement in activities such as search and rescue, marine safety and security, environmental protection and response, as well as some law enforcement and national defense-related tasks. Auxiliarists contribute by providing vessels and aircraft, directly supporting active-duty operations, managing radio stations, assisting with boat maintenance, handling administrative tasks, providing interpretation services, boosting morale, and fulfilling supportive roles at various Coast Guard units, particularly at small boat stations.COASTIE I am (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

No where in my comments have I been derogatory about the Auxiliary or said that the Auxiliary is not a serious organization. Additionally, better read up a little on the mission of the Civil Air Patrol. I only mention this because you keep bringing up the Patrol in your comments. CAP is a Congressionally chartered organization that exists as the Air Force's Auxiliary and while it does have youth programs, it also is the Air Force's main go to for search and rescue involving downed aircraft in the United States. The CAP also provides emergency services to government and non-government agencies. See Civil Air Patrol Emergency services. If the Coast Guard Auxiliary were also focused on youth programs they might actually be very similar to the Civil Air Patrol. Both are Congressionally chartered and both are civilian volunteer non-military auxiliaries of armed forces branches. They sound pretty much alike to me. No one is reducing the Coast Guard Auxiliary to the Civil Air Patrol's level...they are on the same level. Both serve their parent organizations and the general public in the same missions. Your lack of objectivity is noted. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any prior published reliable sources about the "non-military" status? The Banner talk 12:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

See United States Coast Guard Auxiliary. In the history section it tells of the conversion of the Auxiliary from military duties to that of non-military duties with the creation of the United States Coast Guard Reserve. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, that is not an independent source. And unfortunately, I can not see that website as I am outside the USA. But in general, it is about providing sources for what someone is writing. That is your duty, Cuprum17, but also the duty of Coastie. The Banner talk 00:34, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

How is this for an independent source? Title 14, United States Code, section 821. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, it will do. The Banner talk 12:13, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Of course it will do because it is the law and a reliable source. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Agree with Cuprum17 here. I think COASTIE is making unsupported assumptions here, and reading way too much into some standard language that is being used appropriately to describe this organization in neutral and factual terms. (jmho) - wolf 08:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. oknazevad (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. "Non-military" is simply a fact. And a fairly important fact here. It is neutral, not "derogatory," nor does it "overshadow" any other fact about the Auxiliary.

  149.101.1.117 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Redlinks

The following list of redlinks was added to this tp header as requests/tasks for potential articles.

I'm not sure how constructive this is, are these all potential articles on their own, or more likely to individual subsections or even just paragraphs within this article? (pinging Cuprum17, you know more about the USCG than I do so perhaps you can comment on this. Feel free to revert me if you think it's needed. Cheers) Meanwhile, this was a large block of redlinks that that you don't typically see in a tp header. - wolf 06:52, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild. Although during my service with the Coast Guard I worked with a few Auxiliarists, I really don't know a whole lot about the inner workings of the Auxiliary. In my opinion, Notable United States Coast Guard Auxiliarists could be a list article with some details about each notable Auxiliarist. Awards and decorations of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary would be a good resource for the reader. Missions of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary would be a good stand alone article but the proposed article United States Coast Guard Auxiliary Interpreter Corps should probably fall under the missions article. Coast Guard Auxiliary Association might stand as an article. The articles Director of the United States Coast Guard Auxiliary, United States Coast Guard Auxiliary National Commodore, and United States Coast Guard Auxiliary National Executive Committee, in my opinion, belong in one article about the leadership of the Auxiliary. I'm not sure what the best title of that article could be. Since I know only a little of the Auxiliary and I seldom write articles anymore I would leave that to editors that have an interest and some knowledge of the Auxiliary. My main interest in editing on Wikipedia is limited by my other non-wiki work/hobby life and the WikiGnome in me. I applaud your efforts to improve the understanding of how the United States Armed Forces fit into the everyday life of all Americans and your interest in improving those Wikipedia articles. Cuprum17 (talk) 13:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

List of active divisions by district

@TheSausageMcMuffinVA: has added an excessive list of non-notable flotillas without independent sources. In my opinion, this list must be removed and only notable (= with own article on ENWP) can be mentioned.

I like your opinions. The Banner talk 22:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Divisions, not flotillas. I agree Flotillas would be extremely unnecessary as there is at least 700 currently active and many of those are less than 50 people. On the other hand the reason I believe having a list of divisions is valid is so that the general public is made aware of what is potentially around them, maritime safety is important and many people like myself use Wikipedia as the first place to go to when finding information. The idea is people can see the list of divisions see that something is around them and then go about their business regarding the auxiliary for whatever they may need.

Regarding the claims of non-independent sources I would like to say my source is only reporting on the USCG Aux's own internal structure it is not providing any other information so I don't see why it couldn't be considered acceptable - furthermore there practically is no other sources providing information on the structure of the auxiliary to the detail that they report it themselves, I understand biased sources exist but this is simply objective

regarding "Notable" flotillas there is only 1 that automatically redirects to the main page, I cannot find any other examples.

and the flotilla list before I changed it was "list of active flotillas" with only 1 mentioned, it has been incomplete for quite some time and there was frankly no way all active flotillas would've been listed given their amount. TheSausageMcMuffinVA (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Both divisions and flotillas are not notable. The Banner talk 23:35, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a separate article titled List of active Coast Guard Auxiliary divisions by district would serve the purpose of unclogging the main Auxiliary article. The lead would explain the purpose of a division and the work that they accomplish and how the division helps fit into the Coast Guard itself. The section titled "List of active divisions by district" takes away from the rest of the article in my opinion and does not convey much information about the Auxiliary in relation to the amount of space in the Auxiliary article. Cuprum17 (talk) 12:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Without independent sourcing or notability, the split off will have no chance of survival. The Banner talk 15:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia allows primary sources as long as they are factual and straight forward

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a musician may cite discographies and track listings published by the record label, and an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source." (Wikipedia:No original research#Primary)

Given that the source (USCG AUX) Is not stating anything new but only presenting its internal command structure / makeup I don't see why there couldn't be a separate page. dedicated just for a list of active divisions and possibly flotillas aswell with the main page being used to highlight "Notable" units as the banner would want

I think it could work if that is the route taken as long as it doesn't divest from just having a list and maybe some pictures TheSausageMcMuffinVA (talk) 18:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that is always the claim when there are no independent sources to prove notability. The Banner talk 23:04, 20 July 2024 (UTC)