Talk:United States Coast Guard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Additional information:

	This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: `<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. -->` `\|B-Class-1=yes/no` `<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->` `\|B-Class-2=yes/no` `<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->` `\|B-Class-3=yes/no` `<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->` `\|B-Class-4=yes/no` `<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->` `\|B-Class-5=yes/no`
Related task forces (general topics):
	Maritime warfare task force
Related task forces (nations and regions):
	United States military history task force

United States Portal

This article is within the scope of the United States WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.

???

This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

That logo is a little big ain't it? Could we try and find a smaller one instead.

In fact, I'm due to get a number of graphics from the USCG to flesh out the article, and a smaller logo will be in place. GABaker

[edit] Size

Nice content, but getting big! I suggest making a History of the United States Coast Guard and moving the history stuff there, leaving only a paragraph here as the "thumbnail", similar to how the standard country articles work. Stan 03:53, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I second that - If I'm sure the WikiPatrol won't remove it, I'll create it.

That way there is also a central page to provide links to the Wiki pages of the now decommissioned cutters like WAGB-83(Mackinaw) and WLB-392(Bramble).

This article is longer than desired. Perhaps an daughter article etitled History of the United States Coast Guard would be helpful, seeing how that is the longest section. Pepsidrinka 23:02, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Any reason why it can't be made into its own article? Or maybe use the format of the nation articles and do summaries on this page and then link them to full description pages? --Woohookitty 04:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I just tried copying the article into MS word and at standard settings (1.25 inch right and left margins, 1 inch top and bottom margin, single space 12 point Times roman) it was 40 pages! I think it will be an excellent idea to make a History page Skapur 23:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the article has a "B" rating, while the Marine Corps has "FA", meaning Featured Article, the highest ranking. Go and take a look, it's quite long and has an extensive historical section. Obviously that's the standard, then. The CG, Navy, Army and Air Force are all B-rated. Perhaps we should try to look at the Marine Corps format for an idea of what the peer reviewers are looking for. Pesco 16:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "1st Fleet"

The USCG == USN 1st Fleet assertion puzzles me - check out the reference in [1] to the Tang operating in a 1st Fleet exercise SLAMEX that sounds decidedly non-CG, not to mention this patch: [2]. What's going on here? Stan 04:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

IAW the USCG article, when the CG was established it was established as the First Fleet. So, by tradition and as the CG becomes part of te Navy whennecessary, is s flagged as the First US Fleet.--Numerousfalx 21:02, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to need a lot of references before I believe that the USCG = USN 1st Fleet. Numerous references to the First Fleet as being part of the Navy exist, none of them during war time and all of them after 1915.

According to DANFS, a Navy ship, USS Saint Paul (CA-73), was the flagship for the First Fleet, as were USS Curtiss (AV-4) and USS Helena.

At 1 VADM Ramage is listed as being the Commander, First Fleet in the 1960s. Other Navy Commanders, First Fleet are Martin and Struble.

Again, 2, dated Nov 1941, discusses a Battleship division in the First Fleet. The book, Life in the Navy, written in 1964 and available transcribed at 3 talks about the Pacific Fleet being comprised of the First Fleet and the Seventh Fleet.

Please provide reference for the assertion that the USCG becomes the US First Fleet. Jinian 22:11, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I will be changing the information on "first fleet" soon unless I get some objections. Thanks. Jinian 16:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 1915, 1790, or... 1789?

Could someone explain me which is true, 1909 or 1915 the USCG was established? I found 28 January 1915 but couldn't find about 1909. Or am I misunderstood the meaning of "create" or "established" ? -- Marsian 13:20, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

It's hard to say an 'established' date. The Coast Guard was combination of 5 different services combined into 1. If you look at the logo it says 1790, with is the date the first of the five was established.

I believe a more appropriate answer is depending on what you mean by "established". We were in fact established in 1790. I think you just need to realize that the USCG only has taken up more branches and jobs since then.

1790 is based on the birth of the Cutter world. And it is the oldest of the five services merged in 1915. But here's a question: In 1939 the USCG took in the U.S. Lighthouse Service. THAT agency was formed by congress on Aug 7, 1789 as Congress' 9th law ever, on the same day as the Department of War was formed. So why shouldn't we use 1789? Pesco 21:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Fifth Smallest?"

Huh? If its the smallest of the five armed forces, and there are only 2 other "services", this can't be. Please someone who knows this stuff, straighten it out. Sfahey 16:34, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There are actually five branches of the Armed Forces; Army, Navy, Airforce, Marine Corps and Coast Guard. There are seven branches of the Uniformed Services; the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine and Public Health Service.--Numerousfalx 20:59, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Merchant Marine is not one of the seven uniformed services. The seven uniformed services are the five armed services, the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service. The definition of uniformed service is a matter of law. 10 USC 101(a)(5)(B)

This last assertion is correct; a reference is here, among other places. Note that in the latter two cases, it's specifically the commissioned corps; that is, roughly, the officers. The USPHS is headed by the Surgeon General, which explains the uniform which C. Everett Koop was entitled to wear, and did. I'm not certain who heads CCNOAA. But those pilots who fly the Hurricane Hunters are therefore uniformed servicemen and -women as well. Baylink 22:57, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In case anyone's curious, this seemingly odd legal distinction exists because NOAA and USPHS officers might be expected to operate on battlefields in wartime (NOAA doing reconnaissance, USPHS as medics) and the "uniformed" status secures them protection under the Geneva conventions from espionage charges and the like.

Members of the merchant marine, and specifically graduates of the Merchant Marine Academy (unless they choose another service) are often in the Naval Reserve. Astarf 03:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Size of Coast Guard

Although the U.S. Coast Guard is the smallest of the U.S. Armed Services, it is the world's largest Coast Guard and larger and more capable than most of the world's navies. Some mention of that seems to be appropriate somewhere--if not here perhaps in a general article on coast guards or navies. See Myth 5: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1993/OFX.htm

[edit] Cleanup

I've just added a cleanup tag. There is simply too much random information on this page broken up into entirely too many categories. The page should be condensed and put into a more consise paragraph format 22:37, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)~

Hey Guys I'm new to this so I hope I’m not stepping on any toes.

7 services: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, Coast Guard, USPHS, NOAA. All are on the same pay scale and benefits schedule. All get deployed, big deference is the NOAA is only 300 officers with one admiral, and the PHS is medical in nature. PHS officers do duty as Battalion Aid Station officers and medical for the CG and more more than that. I transferred from the Army to the PHS in Nov and I am serving in Bush Alaska for 2 yrs, then I'm applying to come aboard the NOAA as a ships medical officer. Many folks think the PHS and NOAA are navy personnel because we wear the same uniform as the navy. In the end no mater what services you are in u serve the people of the united states via the discretion of the President.

I came into the PHS at a time were it is changing to a deployable service, in fact you cant get promoted if you are not deployable, I am behind that reg 100%. OK let me end now before I begin to rumble. Good to met you all.

Joe

http://www.angelfire.com/nc2/joenewc/

[edit] Coastal Patrol Boat (WPB):

Someone helpful person added a sentence following the link to cutters with the WPB pennant numbers. They added: "These fall into several categories, including 41-foot patrol boats, 27-foot patrol boats, and 25-foot inflatable boats." I do not believe this is correct. The Coast Guard has a minimum standard for what it considers a cutter. 65 feet I think. And even if they didn't have that standard, those smaller craft wouldn't use the WPB pennant number. So, I am going to remove this line.

You are correct. WPBs include the 82' (decommisioned), 87', 95' (decommisioned), and 110' patrol boats. Smaller boats include (but are not limited to) the 41' Utility Boat and the Motor Life Boats (44' and 52'). When I get a minute, I'll review and correct that section. Dave Cohoe 20:00, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I took a look, and what I'd really like to do is merge both the Patrol Boat pages into one and have a subsection for each type. Currently there are two current classes (87' and 110'). Any thoughts or objections? Dave Cohoe 20:14, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganise

I think all of the pages - US armed forces, US Department of Defense, and all the services (US Army etc.) need to be reorganised, First so that there is not uneeded overlap, and Second so that Army, Navy etc. are all set out the same way (eg. similar headings and article structure, just with different content.)

and maybe Joint Chiefs of Staff etc.

[edit] USCGC Munro

The USCG page says, "A cutter, the USCGC Munro, was commissioned in his honor in 1944, and the name has remained in commission ever since." The Coast Guard doen't seem to have anything on this ship[3], and all Google seems to have are echoes of Wikipedia. Is this a mistaken reference to the Navy ship, USS Douglas A. Munro (DE-422)? —wwoods 22:25, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Look at http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/Munro/ Rogerd 04:48, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the question becomes, was the current Munro, homeported in Alameda, the first CGC Munro? -- Dave C. 05:18, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

There certainly is now a cutter Munro: USCGC Munro (WHEC-724). She was commissioned in 1971, and is still on active service. http://www.uscg.mil/pacarea/Munro/History.html

And there certainly was a ship named in Munro's honor, and commissioned in 1944: USS Douglas A. Munro (DE-422), a Navy destroyer escort. She was decommissioned 24 June 1960. http://www.history.navy.mil/danfs/d5/douglas_a_munro.htm

But was there an earlier cutter? The Coast Guard's website doesn't list one (http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/CutterList.html). GABaker mentions an article in "Coast Guard Magazine", which sounds like a good source, but I can't help thinking there's some confusion here. (Well, I know I'm confused.)

—wwoods 07:21, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alumni...

I was doing RC patrol and noticed some changes, but can't verify that several (Lloyd_Bridges, Jimmy Buffett) have ever been in the Coast Guard. I'd like to recommend that unless their article asserts it, anyone listed should be removed. Comments? Wikibofh 00:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard that Buffett served in the USCG. Researching online hasn't turned up anything (and I don't recall this from his "Behind the Music" episode). According to http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/faqs/celeb.html, Lloyd Bridges was a member of the Coast Guard Auxiliary. -- Dave C. 02:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nice find. Thanks. I've removed Buffett, verified everyone with the list you provided and added that as a source to the top of the section. Wikibofh 03:27, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(I'm a former Coast Guardsman.) The story is that Buffet was thrown out for using marijuana and the Guard therefore doesn't consider him a luminary worth mentioning. I never heard or saw a shred of proof on it, but it's a popular and widespread rumor within the Coast Guard.

[edit] Wartime or not?

From Talk:Coast_guard, is it wartime or not as far as who the U.S. Coast Guard reports to? What about the deployments during the war on Iraq? I think this would be an interesting addition to the article if someone knows the answer. --Scott Wilson 20:44, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Presently, the Coast Guard is under control of the Department of Homeland Security. However, Coast Guard cutters and PSUs deployed overseas are under the operational control of the theater commander, per the Goldwater-Nichols Act. GABaker 14:54, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

14 USC 145 - "When the Coast Guard is operating in the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary shall provide for such peacetime training and planning of reserve strength and facilities as is necessary to insure an organized, manned, and equipped Coast Guard when it is required for wartime operation in the Navy. To this end, the Secretary of the Navy for the Navy, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, for the Coast Guard, may from time to time exchange such information, make available to each other such personnel, vessels, facilities, and equipment, and agree to undertake such assignments and functions for each other as they may agree are necessary and advisable.

From the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, signed July 11, 2006: SEC. 211. OPERATION AS A SERVICE IN THE NAVY. Section 3 of title 14, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘if Congress so directs in the declaration’’ after ‘‘Upon the declaration of war’’. So now, even IF there's a formal declaration of war, Congress has to specifically state that the Coast Guard as a whole will operate within the Navy. I feel the intent is that this trigger will never be pulled, thus leaving the Coast Guard intact under DHS, even in a declared war. This is NOT a limitation to the types of joint service operations referred to above per the Goldwater-Nichols act. --Pesco 15:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The USCG has taken part in every American war.

[edit] unofficial slogan

Isn't the unofficial slogan of the Coast Guard: "You have to go out, but you don't have to come back"?

That one is certainly popular, although I don't know that it really bears mentioning in the main article. Scienda 03:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

For those wondering, the official slogan is "Semper Paratus". Any other slogan is only used for comical or figurative purposes.

[edit] Life Saving or Lifesaving

It mentions in the article "United States Lifesaving Service" and then goes on to say "The United States Life Saving Service." Which one is correct?

Actually, it's the Life-Saving Service according to the Coastguardsman Manual, Ninth Edition. Scienda 15:55, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organization Chart

The Coast Guard Headquarters has completely reorganized and the current chart on this page is no longer correct. Needs to be updated to reflect current organization as of Jan 3, 2006.

Do you have the current data? If so, I'll do a new chart. GABaker 1632Z 12 May 06

[edit] Let's get it right

Evidently, the person who posted the information on the Coast Guard is not aware of the full spectrum of the Coast Guard. It's a disservice to the Coast Guard men and women when only boats and planes get listed. Need to incorporate all the Sectors and the units associated with the Sectors, such as the Marine Safety Units, Groups, Stations. The Sector concept needs to be discussed in detail since that is how the field operations works.

Maybe, and maybe not; I've been poking around and helping revise this article for months and don't see the need to include MSU's and their ilk. For the vast majority of people (speaking from experience here), a Pollution Investigator at work isn't even worth noting. A 378' cruisng by gets notice, a response trailer being hauled out doesn't. -- MST3 Scienda 07:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Scienda, I don't think that's a good way of looking at things. Wiki is supposed to expose people to what they don't know, not just be "flashy". It's Wikipedia, not a recruiting poster. --Pesco 11:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Pesco. Skapur 14:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coast Guard ensign

The text describing the 16-striped RCS flag of 1790 noted that 16 stripes matched the number of states at the time. However, in 1790, no states beyond the original 13 had been admitted (the 16th state, Tennessee, was not admitted until 1796). Was this just a typo, or did perhaps the ensign evolve with the number of states for a period of time -- perhaps indicating that the 16-stripe version is not the original? — Lomn Talk 20:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The U. S. Coast Guard Ensign was not approved and adopted until August 1, 1799. The stripes do represent the number of states when the Ensign was adopted. See [4] BFAyer

Please note that the image of the U.S. Coast Guard Ensign is from the Office of the Historian of the U.S. Coast Guard and as such is a public domain image. Do not delete it again. GABaker 04:07 27 Aug 2006 UTC

[edit] USCGC

What does this abbreviation stand for? It's used as a prefix for ships, e.g. USCGC Hamilton (WHEC-715). The home page of the USCG does not explain it. Thanks, Scriberius 19:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

United States Coast Guard Cutter, perhaps? I can't say for sure, though. Vansice 12:37, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, USCGC = United States Coast Guard Cutter (see Cutter) Any Coast Guard vessel with a permanently assigned crew and accommodations for the extended support of that crew is called a "cutter". --rogerd 13:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, Scriberius 04:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it has been mentioned before, the official definition of cutter is any vessel with a length greater than 65 feet. Scienda 15:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The above is not correct. That is not the "Official" definition. Length has nothing to do with the definition of a Cutter (See Ch 10 USCG Regulations). Historically Cutters have been 65 ft. or longer, but the USCG has boats (Not Cutters) over 65 Ft. BFAyer

USCGC Stands for United States Coast Guard Cutter. Somtimes it's abbreviated CGC. A cutter is defined as a vessel over 65 feet long that is named and has a permenantly assigned crew. Medicjm

There is no length restriction stated in the definition and the 65 foot stipulation is in fact not part of the official definition. The U. S. Coast Guard operates several vessels that are over 65 feet in length that are not designated as “Cutters”. Currently there are no commissioned cutters that are under 65 feet, however there have been in the past. The 65 foot stipulation is a common misrepresentation of the official definition and can be found on Coast Guard web pages and training material, it is nonetheless incorrect [5]. BFAyer
- There is no "truth"WP:V in wikipedia, just preponderence of citations. There are many more citations to the 65 foot definition in Coast Guard and non-Coast Guard sources to the 65 foot definition than the one without. The "regulations" are not the final word on this topic and the definition there may not be complete either. One way to state this would be: Althought official Coast Guard regulations do not specify a lower length for a cutter, other Coast Guard sources list the lower length limit for a vessel to be listed as a cutter to be 65 foot --- Safemariner 01:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Hold on a second. I don't see why the regulations wouldn't the final word. Words have definitions and the acutal definition of a "cutter" appears to make no mention of length. Still, I think a way to put it would be something like: Although a cutter is offically defined as any vessel with a permanently assigned crew, there is an unoffical minimum length of 65'. or Although there are currently no cutters under 65' in length, a cutter is offical defined as any vessel with a permanently assigned crew. ---(previous unsigned comment added at 3:39, 23 January 2007 by Lordjeff06 (Talk | contribs))
    - How is http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/ any less official? ---- Safemariner 12:44, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
      - "There is no truth in wikipedia" I understand your point, however what you are saying is if an un-truth is repeated often enough we should start treating it as fact, or at least a possible alternate fact. For example, I can find multiple sources that state that Elvis is still alive, and each one is a verifiable link. From a verifiability point of view, the U.S. Coast Guard has established a hierarchy of documentation. Commandant Instructions such as the Regulations Manual take precedence over all other Coast Guard publications. It is not up to us to redefine what the official definition of a Coast Guard Cutter is just because we find more links to other definitions. The reference to Coast Guard Regulations is a verifiable source; whereas the other definitions that include length do not state their sources and cannot be verified, we can only verify that they exist, not that they are correct. What we can do is offer other “common” definitions as long as we point out that it is a commonly used definition, and not the official definition. There are recent examples of USCG vessels greater than 65 feet that are not cutters, a 72 foot cable boat, and an 85 foot fast patrol craft are two that come to mind. Historically the USCG has had Cutters less than 65 feet. These are also verifiable facts that discredit the 65 foot fallacy. BFAyer
        
        Unfortunately, if you read WP:V if it is found in enough verifiable sources, it is eligible for Wikipedia. I think using the phrase "official definition" is improper. A better phrase would be "definition found in Coast Guard regulations". Also, the common definitions should be listed --- Safemariner 00:34, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
        
        I understand. How about we just say "A cutter is defined in Coast Guard Regulations as ... which commonly refers to any vessel over 65 feet in length ... that should cover both POVs. BFAyer
        
        That would be perfect. Actually it is not as much a matter of POV but differing information from different sources presented neutrally. By the way, have you looked at Elvis#Elvis lives.3F ? :-) --- Safemariner 19:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MARSEC

is missing! http://www.uscg.mil/safetylevels/whatismarsec.html Scriberius 20:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TACLET

Are there TACLETs in other places thant the USCG? If not, we should make a redirect from TACLET to here (or a disambiguation page, because I found 1 or 2 other meanings of the word). Apokrif 22:25, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not a Military branch

The US Coast Guard is not apart of the Department of Defense. Therefore it cannot be classified as a Military Branch. I have spent 10 years in the US Marine Corps and this is a known fact. Bunns USMC 13:43, June 7, 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to convince Congress to change the law, then: Title 14, United States Code, Section 1, states "The Coast Guard as established January 28, 1915, shall be a military service and a branch of the armed forces of the United States at all times.". (Also -- please place new comments on the bottom of talk pages, and sign with ~~~~ to automatically insert your signature.)--jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 13:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Not to mention that they are paid on the military pay scale, have their operations integrated with the other four armed services -- including the Marine Corps -- and they get buried at Arlington, too. The law, history, and customs are on the side of the Coast Guard, and I'm astonished a Marine would show this much ignorance of another sea service.GABaker 2002 Z 7 June 2006 (UTC).

Just in case you don't believe us here is a link to the section of the United States Code from the United States Government Printing Office web site. --rogerd 23:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC

The U. S. Department of defense was not created until 1947. Prior to that each service operated under it’s own department. Using the logic that the Coast Guard is not military because it is not DOD, is like saying the U. S. Marines did not become a military service until 1947, which of course would be a foolish thing to say. For some more good reading [6] BFAyer

[edit] MSST

Perhaps since MSSTs were created in direct response to the events of 9/11, it might be worthwhile to include a bit on them. There are 13 of them now and with each having roughly 75 personnel, they are not a negligible part of the Coast Guard.

There is an MSST page. I would say, due to the size of this article, it would be best to place a small blurb about MSSTs in the Missions section under Homeland security and then provide details in the MSST article. BFAyer

[edit] Medal of Honor

I was under the impression that there exists a Coast Guard variant of the Medal of Honor, however it had never been awarded. My reading of 14 USC 491 only supports my impression. The recent revision to the article about this cites CIM 1650.25c, but I can't get a version to load, so I can't review it to see if there has been a change recently. Scienda 15:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I have put in a link to the manual that I could load. I have also put in a link in the "External Links" section to the CG Directives system (i.e. manuals) --Skapur 14:24, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The current revision of the manual does not list a Coast Guard version. The Medal of Honor is listed in chapter 2 under "Medals and Awards Authorized for Issue by Department of Defense (DOD)"

Chapter 2 states: "Medals and Awards Authorized for Issue by Department of Defense (DOD). (For Coast Guard members when operating with or under DOD). The ensuing paragraphs detail the military decorations authorized for awarding to Coast Guard members by DOD, by precedence, when operating with or under the Navy.

1. Medal of Honor. Awarded by the President in the name of Congress to persons, who while serving as members of the Coast Guard, distinguish themselves conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of their lives above and beyond the call of duty:" BFAyer

I have removed the reference to the "Special Medal of Honor" awarded to Hudson because it is not related to the Medal of Honor dicussed in the section. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardenas_Medal_of_Honor BFAyer

[edit] Very Long tag...

Hey guys. I've just tagged the article with the Very Long template. This article is very good, but its just too long. I've noticed that various users have suggested converting sections of the article to new articles, an idea which I support. New readers may find it useful to have a main US Coast Guard article with links to more detailed articles on its history and organization. Users who are familiar with the article should post suggestions on how to improve this situation. We may just have a Good or even Featured article of the US Coast Guard if we correct this. Post what you think. Mtmelendez 13:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm currently working my Edit-Fu on this article and splitting the big sections off into articles.--Kross ^Talk 21:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

See my comments at the top under "Size". The Marine Corps article is a Featured Article ("FA" rank vs. "B" for USCG). It's a long article with a lot of history, so it's not so much lenght, but clarity and structure. Pesco 17:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chief Warrant Officers

The proper way to address a CWO as stated in the article is correct. Whether or not calling a CWO “Chief” is an insult, is all point of view. Many CWOs in the Coast Guard believe that once a Chief always a Chief (Most CWOs are appointed from the rank of Chief E-7). Some may consider it an insult others may not. This all leads back to POV. Not stating that it is an insult does not make it true or false. We need to stay with facts not opinion. BFAyer

I don't know that this point is so essential it must be included in the article, but addressing someone as a lower rank is indeed apt to be taken as an insult. Try calling a Commander 'Ensign' and see how it goes. Even if some individual CWO doesn't mind, it falls under the general rule of addressing someone with a lower title tahn you know he holds being insulting. Also, don't many CWOs come in directly as warrant officers, particularly if they're physician assistants and such? JJL 17:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Calling anyone an Ensign is an insult :) (Except maybe a Cadet) My point is just that some may consider it an insult, some may not. This discussion alone shows that there is more than one point of view on this. I'm just trying to keep the article as neutral and factual as possible. How to address a CWO is a fact, how they react to being called a Chief is speculation. In the Coast Guard almost all CWOs come from the Enlisted workforce, most from E-7, some from E-6, some from E8/E9. It is a rare find if they did not. I agree better left to an article on Military Etiquette/Courtesy with a link here. BFAyer

I put in the "insult" reference originally. I agree that this point is not essential and is not worth arguing about. I put this reference in because I did not realize that this is a POV as I had been told many times by many people including training sessions where CWOs were present that it was an insult. I have wikilinked Chief Warrant Officer. I suspect that insults are better addressed in the article on Military courtesy which unfortunately at this time is a stub. --- Skapur 21:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stub category

I have proposed the creation of a stub category for the United States Coast Guard at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals. Please leave your support or opposition to the creation of that category on that page. --Skapur 16:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Will do, Skapur. Good idea. Pesco 19:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a stub category {{USCG-stub}}. Please tag stub size articles related to the US Coast Guard with that template --- Skapur 20:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:United States Coast Guard

I have created a new portal at Portal:United States Coast Guard. It is currently a skeleton. Please help fill it out. General information on Portals is available at WP:P. Some instructions are available at Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. You can look at related portals to get an idea by looking at Portal:United States Marine Corps and Portal:Military of the United States. Any ideas on a good color scheme? --- Skapur 20:13, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Issues" section

While the "Issues" section does attempt to communicate the service-wide needs of the Coast Guard, current publicized events have the potential to add a lot of extra length to the article. Right now, there are six paragraphs about the proposed water training areas in the Great Lakes. I propose that if that the "Issues" section continues to exist, each issue should get one paragraph with external links or other wiki links for further reading. Pesco 12:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Since vague, possibly innacuarate, and unsourced material continues to be added to the taget practice / live fire excercise part of the "Issues" section, I am editing it into one referenced paragraph. I feel anything further is beyond the scope of the U.S. Coast Guard article. If anyone feels strongly against my edits I hope they will choose first to discuss the issue here. Pesco 20:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I feel strongly that you have done a good job of editing the section. --- Skapur 00:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USCG Racing stripe

Image:CGMark W.gif looks orange, but http://www.uscg.mil/top/graphics/logos.asp [7] and [8] look red. Which is the correct color? I know one says "web safe", but the ones on the USCG site all look red. Any ideas which is correct? --Dual Freq 02:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

After a bit of digging, it would appear that it's officially red - Pantone 179 to be exact: [9]. --Scott Wilson 17:45, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I've replaced it with http://www.uscg.mil/images/graphics/logos/cgmark.gif but the original uploader appears to be associated with USCG Public affairs, so I'm still wondering where the orange one came from and what it is used for. --Dual Freq 18:04, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

The correct color is red (color code: 12199) as refrenced in the Coast Guard Coatings and Color Manual (COMDTINST M10360.3C, 12.B.2). BFAyer

[edit] Uniforms, Pop Culture, and Naval Fraternities

There are plans to change the ODU blouse to the kind that is left untucked and has lower pockets. There are also plans to modify the cargo pocket closures on the ODU pants to buttons because the velcro is not holding up. Don't know if this is worth mentioning, but thought I'd put it out there.

Under the Pop Culture heading, the USCG was also featured in Overboard (1987) Starring Goldie Hawn and Kurt Russell, as well as Yours Mine & Ours (2005) starring Dennis Quaid and Rene Russo.

Regarding the Alumni Organizations section and specifically the Ancient Order of the Pterodactyl, perhaps an article should be created to cover naval fraternities (Golden Shellback, Golden Dragon, Plank Owner, etc) both existing and historical. I'm suggesting a separate article because mentioning all of the fraternities applicable to the USCG will make this long article even longer. Cordelya 02:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] confused: peacetime vs. wartime authority

I found the following statement a bit confusing; can someone help clarify?

"The Coast Guard is currently part of U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), unlike the other branches of the military, which in peacetime are under the authority of the Department of Defense."

I think the idea is this:

While (all?) other branches of the military operate under the authority of the Department of Defense even in peacetime conditions, the Coast Guard operates under the authority of DHS during peacetime.

Please correct me if I'm mistaken; I still do not have a clear understanding of the status of the National Guard or the authority that controls it.

This article clarifies later that the DOD can call the Coast Guard under its authority at will for military operations, if I understand this correctly:

"The Coast Guard reports directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. However, under 14 U.S.C. § 3 as amended by section 211 of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2006, upon the declaration of war and when Congress so directs in the declaration, or when the President directs, the Coast Guard operates under the Department of Defense as a service in the Department of the Navy."

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

—flatrockdam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.224.200.91 (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Welcome, flatrockdam. Allow me to take a shot and see if I understand your questions. The United States National Guard is a very different entity from the Coast Guard. I'm not an expert with the National Guard's legal status, but my understanding is that normally the National Guard operates under the authority of the governor of that state, but the U.S. DoD (Army) is still in the loop as far as training, etc. When federalized, as when units are sent overseas, that National Guard unit answers only to the federal government. For more info on the National Guard, I'd check out that article.

The Coast Guard is its own branch of the military and does not fall under any governor, although the Coast Guard does coordinate and work with governments at all levels. To answer your questions further, please see the "In wartime or not?" section above. In peacetime, the Coast Guard reports to the Secretary of Homeland Security. If specifically directed as part of a Declaration of War by Congress, the Coast Guard would operate as a service within the Navy.

The President or the Secretary of DHS may direct the Coast Guard to contribute to DoD operations around the world, even in "peactime" like we are now, technically. While deployed, those units report to the operational control of the theater commander, most likely an Admiral/General from another service that falls under DoD. See the Goldwater-Nichols Act. The other branches of the military can't just call for Coast Guard forces at-will. Pesco 22:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I see how the section you quoted from might not be clear. I edited it; hopefully it is more clear now. -- Pesco 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Talk%7EUnited_States_Coast_Guard_aec1.html"

Categories: B-Class military history articles needing review | B-Class maritime warfare articles | Maritime warfare task force articles | B-Class United States military history articles | United States military history task force articles | B-Class military history articles | Unassessed United States articles | Unknown-importance United States articles