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)