Talk:United States Coast Guard/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

old comment

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 15:51, 21 November 2003 (UTC)

USCG Station Montauk

Creating an effective wikipedia page an upholding the good name of the United States Coast Guard is proving to be quite a difficult task. I am looking for dedicated people with knowledge of wikipedia, and military page policies to help improve upon the article that is still in the initial stages. If you can share your knowledge about wikidedia, the Coast Guard, or Station Montauk I ask that you please contribute to the USCG Station Montauk page as you see necessary.

Thank You, Jaymt 05:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

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)

"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)

"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)

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

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toomerrm (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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/

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)

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.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.168.97.7 (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2005 (UTC)

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)

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.

Can someone provide a cite for the connection between Ayn Rand and the US Coast Guard? Circumspect (talk) 08:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed patenthetical remarks after Alex Haley's name (first African-American man to reach the Coast Guard's rank of Chief Petty Officer). The first African-American Coast Guard Chief Petty Officer was Clarence Samuels, appointed in October 1929. Alex Haley was the first Coast Guard Journalist. It is claimed that the rating was created specifically for Haley.Pat Glesner (talk) 13:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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.

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.

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)

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 16:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

MARSEC

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

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)

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).
It is not a requirement to be in DOD to be a military branch. This logic is not correct to begin with. The laws set in the U.S. Code determine the military branches and the USCG is one of the five military branches. Eighthcreek (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2008 (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

That is like saying the Marines aren't an official branch of the military because they fall under the Dept. of the Navy which is a branch of the Military. Furcifer

Yeah I see your point Marine, except for the opinions of the Geneva Convention and the United States Congress, and not to mention that during my 13 years on active duty with the United States Coast Guard I was subject to the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (I know, I was charged and convicted to non-judicial punishment according to the UCMJ) and I carried an identity card that said I was a member of the United States Armed Forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric.J.Hebert (talk • contribs) 05:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The only Coast Guardsman to receive the Medal of Honor was Douglas Munro and he was killed while assisting 500 Marines on Guadalcanal! Marine salute! Eighthcreek (talk) 21:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Actually, there are only 12 MSSTs: Boston, NY, Kings Bay, Miami, NOLA, Galveston, San Diego, LA/LB, San Fran, Seattle, Anchorage, and Hono. JNHan (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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 referenced in the Coast Guard Coatings and Color Manual (COMDTINST M10360.3C, 12.B.2). Use of red is directed by U. S. CFR (Code of federal Regulation) 33, Part 23. The color code given is a Fed-Std-595 specification. These specifications are used to standardize colors used in U. S. federal contracting. International Orange (as commonly described) is generally listed as color code 12197. BFAyer

The official colors of the United States Coast Guard are: PANTONE 307 and PANTONE 179. The "red" is actually International Orange. Reference the Authorized Colors Chart in Appendix B of the US Coast Guard Auxiliary Style Usage Guide and the US Coast Guard Public Affairs Imagery Branch (CG-09221). --Eric J. Hebert (talk) 06:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Fair use rationale for Image:Coast guard flag.gif

Image:Coast guard flag.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This issue has hopefully been resolved as 3 people have left messages on the bot's talk page. As stated thoroughly on each image page, any work of the federal goverment (including the Coast Guard) is in the public domain. It has no copyright. You don't need to a rational or justification to use material in the public domain. --Pesco 17:15, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Recruitment

I'm missing some sentences... Scriberius 20:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Class "A" Schools

I was hoping that when I couldn't find the information anywhere else that Wikipedia would have it. Alas, it doesn't. Quietmartialartist (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

corrections needed

The number of personnel and aircraft are too large. I am not going to change them as I am inexperienced...just thought I'd let you know. It's more like 35,000 active duty members and 211 aircraft. Mnolan56 (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Corrected numbers on Template:US Coast Guard. BFAyer (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you add a reference citation? bahamut0013 ♠♣ 15:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

New Rate

need to incorporate the new LE/S rate announced in June [10] I am not the proper person to do it. --Billymac00 (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

It depends on what you a referring to. The Revenue Cutter Serves was what he Coast Guard came from which was established in the 1700s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.235.218 (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The reliable sources, included the Coast Guard itself, trace the establishment to 1790. QueenofBattle (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the reliable source states that thet USCG was established in 1915. Prior to then there was no Coast Guard. The fact that the USRCS existed prior to that date does not mean that the USCG did. Barring discussions about the merger, you will find no reference to the USCG in any document prior to 1915. Thus, while the USCG may certainly trace its origins and traditions back to 1790, it cannot claim to have existed in 1790. C.f. the USMC, which traces its traditions and origins to the Royal Marines of the United Kingdom, but does not claim to have existed before 1775. dunerat (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

1790

USCG was founded in 1790. No questions there. The Coast Guard was one of the many contributions made to the U.S. by the esteemed Alexander Hamilton. Sure the name has changed, but so has the mission.

As a USCG Veteran, I find it disheartening that some of these facts are not straight.

The 1915 reference is manipulative "revisionist history" (the shield itself proudly displays 1790). Furthermore, in clarification, the USCG has always worked in unison with the Department of Navy in times of War, (reference picture with Marine from Guam), although the USCG served under the Department of the Treasury in times of Peace, until they were moved to Homeland Security post-9/11.

We have all commented on the "length" of this article. The evolution will occur eventually for this 218 year old service, but what needs to be added as well is a list of the medals, awards, honors, accolades and other unique recognitions received over the years.

Semper Paratus!

RC Delta 144 USCG OMSTA ND —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.35.96.66 (talk) 14:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello RC, 1790 is certainly reflected in the article. Look at the infobox on the right side of the article. Read the history section. 1915 is mentioned because, well, that's what the law says regarding the modern Coast Guard. Before 1915 there just wasn't anything called the "Coast Guard". There was a Revenue Cutter Service, the U.S. Life-Saving Service, etc... The article does capture that the origin of the Coast Guard is the Revenue Cutter Service, which was formed in 1790. The article also mentions the CG's ties to the Department of the Navy. (The article also mentioned being in the Dept. of Transportation between Treasury and Homeland Security.) ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 04:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the USCG operated under the Dept of Transportation during peacetime before the move to DHS, not the Treasury. dunerat (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hence the word between in "being in the Dept. of Transportation between Treasury and Homeland Security." - BilCat (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Updating Vessels

It seems the page (even though there is another page for equipment) seems to be very dated. If anyone has more information it is very needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyledanderson (talk • contribs) 04:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Merger with Navy

Are the hearings on merging Coast Guard into Navy worth mentioning? LINK Hcobb (talk) 03:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I would say that since we almost lost a Coast Guard to Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels, that the facts ought to be included in the History of the United States Coast Guard article. An overview of the facts should include some of the basic reasons for dissatisfaction with officer retirement and pay in the Coast Guard at the time. Bertholf's actions to preclude a take over should also be emphasized. I don't believe that it belongs in the main article United States Coast Guard and would be opposed to such a edit. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I recommend putting that information into the History of the United States Coast Guard article. Streltzer (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Done, go check it out. Thanks for the redirect. Hcobb (talk) 16:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Again on USCG "Racing Stripe" colors

Hi folks! after having read this [11], I would like to suggest some changes to the "web only" (just for the past version of the uscg internet web site) version of the USCG Racing Stripes.

The true colours of the Racing Stripes as stated on the "COATINGS AND COLOR MANUAL" (pdf page 105) and here (pg. 15):

"The diagonal stripes are to be painted red (12199), white (17925), and blue (15182) as shown in U.S. Coast Guard Heraldry, COMDTINST M5200.14 (series). The corresponding stripes shall be painted white (17925), blue (15182), and white (17925), respectively, on red hull icebreakers."

Other sources are: [12]; [13]; [14]; [15], [16].

So... there is a CG Red (aka the "international orange") and a CG STRIPE RED!!! (as well as CG STRIPE BLUE) [17].

Does someone know the RGB hex corrispondant colours of the "true" USCG Racing stripe?

Anyway the colours of the racing stripes must be changed. --Nicola Romani (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the confusion may lie in the fact that the offical colors of the CG are white, CG red (international orange) and CG blue. But, certain large hulled vessels or those used in arctic missions are painted in red, with blue (and/or black) and white racing stripes, and sometimes red with only a white racing stripe. Sometimes the operational mark has a black logo, while other times it is blue, and CG blue is a bit lighter than CG AUX blue. So, while all of this is confusing, the constants are that the service mark is always canted at exactly 64 degrees. QueenofBattle (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

From this Federal standard website: CG stripe blue FS 15182; CG White FS 17925; CG Red stripe FS12199.

"Please note that the digital color samples shown on this page offer approximations of the requested colors. Users concerned with accurate color matches are advised to make the final judgment on a physical sample. For best viewing experience, this site should be viewed on hardware with true (32-bit) color support on a calibrated color monitor. Colorserver.net is not associated with U.S. Government General Services Administration, the publisher of Federal Standard 595."

So, using a mix of the colors proposed here and here it seems to have the following results:

1^st version: USCG Black hull vessels

;

2^nd version: USCG white hull vessels

3^rd version: USCG red hull ice breakers

;

--Nicola Romani (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Portal?

Shouldn't there be mention/link to the Portal? [[18]]?--Billymac00 (talk) 02:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Jurisdiction in International Waters?

That's impossible! They're INTERNATIONAL waters!!!

Sorry HALIFAX, but Britannia fears the waves these days. See for example MS Achille Lauro for an example of American law applying everywhere. Hcobb (talk) 06:02, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

One instance of jurisdiction in international waters is that the Coast Guard has always had the authority to board ANY U.S. Flaged vessel regardless of where it is located in the world, even international waters. They routinely do boardings within the 200 mile economic zone that the U.S. Claims. Cuprum17 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Two Admirals

I made a similar comment in the Thad Allen bio talk page -- with ADM Allen being retained, there are two four-star admirals serving on active duty in the Coast Guard. According to this article and the reference it cites, the Coast Guard is only authorized to have one. Does anyone know if there has been a similar situation in the past, or is this unprecedented? Also did congress have to enact emergency legislation to allow for two full admirals? Mego2005 (talk) 16:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the answer may be that ADM Allen has officially retired from the Coast Guard, but has been retained as the NIC for the Gulf Oil Spill. As a retired Coast Guard flag officer, he is entitled to wear the uniform and insignia of his last rank, with the custom being that his last temporary rank of ADM be made permanent in retirement in recognition of his service. So, again technically, there is only one current Coast Guard officer with the rank of admiral. Disregard; I think LordPistacio has the more accurate response. QueenofBattle (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find a source that answers the question definitively, but something I read suggests that Allen is on active duty until his official retirement date of July 1, and has been working during what should have been his terminal leave. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 22:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Deepwater oil spill critisism from working with bp

I think the article should mention somewhere the current critisism of the Coast Guard working with BP to keep journalists away from spilled beaches and prevent them from flying anywhere near the oil spill. Essentialy preventing independent reporting. Don't know where to put it though, if anyone has an idea here are some links. They are used in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill article, so they should be ok. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6496749n http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/26/the-missing-oil-spill-photos.html 87.212.247.139 (talk) 03:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As a retired Coast Guardsman who has served in a law enforcement capacity during 9/11 and during Huricanes Katrina and Rita, I would like to point out that the public has a basic misunderstanding of the role the Coast Guard plays in situations like the BP Oil Spill or any other emergency on or near navigable waters. The CG is tasked with the enforcement of federal law with regards to an incident and may restrict anyone outside of necessary official visits to any incident scene for reasons of safety and also for forensic reasons. That the Media were denied the chance to investigate is bogus. Every incident has a Public Relations Officer assigned and the media should contact them for assistance. Media are usually welcome aboard Coast Guard vessels patrolling a restricted zone, IF prior permission has been granted by the operational commander. For anyone to go into a restricted zone in their own boat is a violation of Federal law. This is for the safety of everyone concerned, including the Coast Guard crew that has to come in and rescue someone because they couldn't follow instructions and got into trouble. Believe me, it happens. The media only has to follow established protocol and they can get their coverage. To me this is a non-issue and if this is put in the article, I will see that it has a NPOV. The Coast Guard was merely performing it's assigned duties, nothing more and nothing less. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The important issue is to ensure that any added content is neutral and comes from reliable sources. Being "neutral" means you can include content without making a judgment on the assertions, because it's accurate to say a number of reliable sources have made these claims in print. It's also neutral and accurate to say that on June 6th Admiral Allen said in an interview that he had ordered 'uninhibited access' to oil spill operations, except where safety and security are concerns.[19] The other question is where to include such content. Because the issue raised deals specifically with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the text should probably be added there. ~Pesco^{So say•we all} 12:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Pesco. Looking over the USCG article, I don't see much of a place for it here except maybe in the history section, which is mostly redirected to History of the United States Coast Guard. I wouldn't have a problem with an entry there, if it was non-biased. It probably sould be included in the Public Relations section of Deepwater Horizon oil spill as long as it conforms with WP:NPOV and WP:RS. I just don't want the Coast Guard to be the heavy in this unless an incident actually happened. Cuprum17 (talk) 15:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Coast Guard Aircraft

I just wanted to let people know that the Coast Guard is in the process of changing the model of the H-60 Helicopter. They are going from the HH-60J Jayhawk to the MH-60T Jayhawk. I work at the US Coast Guard Aviation Logistics Center in Elizabeth City, NC. I changed it yesterday but somebody changed it back. Go here for more information: http://www.uscg.mil/acquisition/mrr/ 173.17.11.127 (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)C. Davis, AMT2 ret. US Coast Guard173.17.11.127 (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, ¿what happened to the RG-8A Condor? That page still links here (and other sites still claim that the Coast Guard operates them). ¿Have they been retired from service? (Just curious…)174.25.4.28 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

On a related note, what about the ¿MH-68 Shark? Those are still in service (really, there's no question about it, there's even NEW photos of MH-68's in training, [[20]], [[21]], and [[22]]).97.120.235.182 (talk) 02:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

New? Those are dated 2002. The MH-68's are retired. --Lord Pistachio ^talk 03:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, they have all been retired from service. New Hampshirite (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Boats

The Coast Guard no longer uses the 41' utility boat (UTB). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviatorcoastie (talk • contribs) 11:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Not correct. The 41' UTB is still in use and will be for a while. The 45’ RBM is replacing the 41, but it will be several years before all 41s are retired. BFAyer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC).

The Reservist Magazine (the Guard’s official Reservist publication) in the February 2Ø11 edition (P 28) states they are still in-service. (My copy came just today… Kinda auspicious.)174.25.4.28 (talk) 00:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

"The Coast Guard does not have medical officers or chaplains"

What about Chaplain of the Coast Guard? This article needs to be revised . --77.4.116.161 (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The "Chaplain of the Coast Guard" is a Navy chaplain temporarily assigned to the Coast Guard because the Coast Guard does not have medical officers or chaplains. QueenofBattle (talk) 14:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The commenter didn’t actually say it should read “does have,” just that it should be “revised.” Perhaps “US Coast Guard Chaplains and Doctors come from the Navy on assignment, wearing a Coast Guard uniform (with a Navy Insignia).” or something to that effect… and ¿are you sure we don’t have our own doctors? I ask, because I was sent to see a doctor at Coast Guard Group Alameda a few years ago.174.25.4.28 (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Shipmate Reddson the doctor you saw at Group Alameda (Sector Alameda now) was a U.S. Public Health Service officer that was detailed to the Coast Guard. USPHS details the dentists, doctors and nurses to the Coast Guard and has for years. Cuprum17 (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

OK I did know he was USPHS (and to claerify I thought ALL CG Doctors were through USPHS, but ¿USPHS is NOT intergrated into the Navy, correct?152.121.18.252 (talk) 04:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)A REDDSON

Shipmate, the United States Public Health Service is a separate organization within the United States Department of Health and Human Services and the Commissioned Corps of doctors, dentists and nurses may be detailed to any of the armed forces but they are most commonly detailed to the Coast Guard. See the link for information on the USPHS. Cuprum17 (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

True! and they wear the same uniform of the Coast Guard with the only exception of the cap Insignia (still the Navy one!) see: ref:http://www.uscg.mil/directives/cim/1000-1999/CIM_1020_6F.pdf (See chapter 4.C.2 p. 149-150). --Nicola Romani (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Outdated Image

The uniforms pic is outdated; The ODU depicted is tucked, the new one (came on-line a couple years ago) is untucked. (It’s not a critical update issue, but it should be dealt with.) Img: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:USCG_Uniforms.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.25.16.197 (talk) 05:00, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep, good point. The image comes from the 2006 issue of The Reservist and has been used because it shows a broad spectrum of current uniforms (which the tucked ODU is, at least for a while more). Short of photoshopping in an untucked ODU, I propose we leave it for a while until a better alternative image with several uniforms is available. We could even add a little caption underneath it to clarify. QueenofBattle (talk) 19:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Shipmate QoB, I checked around for an hour or so and couldn't find anything that compared with the picture that is there. I also agree that a footnote would probably work until we can find something better. Cuprum17 (talk) 20:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

As I said, it's not a critical update. Photoshopping an untucked seems like a very poor (if even possible) option. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.120.235.182 (talk) 00:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Legal categorization

Hi, looking at the US Coast Guard's legally defined mission spectrum, a classification as a paramilitary organization would seem quite suitable, but does the US government or anybody else, such as the IMO, have an opinion on this? --Kriegslüsterner (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's definition - "A paramilitary is a force whose function and organization are similar to those of a professional military, but which is not considered part of a state's formal armed forces." 14USC1 states that "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." It stands on an equal footing with its sister services legally and is subject to the same rules and regulations under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as the others. The Coast Guard or its predecessor organizations have served in all major wars that the United States has fought since its establishment in 1790. What makes the Coast Guard unique among the Armed Forces is that it has never been a part of the Department of Defense and therefore is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. Because of this, it has the authority to enforce those Federal laws and regulations under its jurisdiction; something that its sister services are not permitted to do. While some of the missions of the Coast Guard are civilian in nature; it is not, by Wikipedia definition a paramilitary organization because it is, by law, a part of the formal makeup of the Armed Forces of the United States. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

MDLEA

The article would be improved by a section on the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act (MDLEA). See [23] and [24]. -- Dandv^{(talk|contribs)} 02:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Lucky Thirteen - D-Days in the Pacific with the U.S. coast Guard in World War II

A description of this book should be noted in the 'Literature' section of this article.

'Lucky Thirteen' is the story of a 17 year old Texas kid who enlisted in the Coast Guard in 1943 and served as a Coxswain of an LCVP in the island hopping war of the Pacific. This is a rare personal history from WWII written by Ken Wiley describing his experiance in the war-time U S Coast Guard.

SetiRich (talk) 01:17, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Article size

Well, this article is certainly pretty thorough, but its quite long, and I'm wondering if it's time to split off sections into separate articles per WP:SUMMARY. There are certainly a few areas that I could see splitting off, such as the uniforms section. The other US armed services have separate uniform articles. I find it particularly odd that there's a separate article for the uniforms of the USCG Auxiliary, but no separate article for the uniforms of the actual, active Coast Guard itself. I'm wondering if the Auxiliary uniform article should be reworked into an article covering Coast Guard uniforms in general. oknazevad (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. Coast Guard has 5 roles (Not)

I made an edit last week regarding this, it was reverted. Good--turns out I was wrong. I was confounding a couple of the missions with roles. Sad, since I'm in the Coast Guard. Glad I straightened that out before my next EPME/SWE exam. 152.121.17.254 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Consider registering with Wikipedia and use your talents to help with Coast Guard articles. BTW, good luck on that next Service-wide Exam, I calculate you have about 6 months to study before test time. Old Fart MKC (ret) sends... Cuprum17 (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I actually am registered...just not on a CG workstation Pr0carbine (talk) 14:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Heavy Ice

We use the term heavy class icebreaker all over the place, but the USCG is much more careful and simply quotes thickness each class can overcome: http://www.uscg.mil/datasheet/

So should we drop ice class from all of our articles, or use somebody else's categories? Hcobb (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We should follow what is in the reliable sources applicable to the instances of usage. It's not a good idea to make blanket approvals of such changes without examining HOW the terms are being used, and HOW they are sources. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 23:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Taking this up over at Talk:List_of_icebreakers#Heavy_ice so we can handle this universally. The CanGuard article has a box quote without attribution so that might lead somewhere. Hcobb (talk) 05:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

AMVER

Automated Mutual-Assistance Vessel Rescue System — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.70.64.66 (talk) 15:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Article exists on Wikipedia as AMVER. Not sure why this was put here.Cuprum17 (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

New Coast Guard Ethos

The Guardian Ethos has been replaced per Comandant Instruction. It reflects 14 usc more accurately, as noone has the authority to change the name of a Coast Guardsman unless they first ammend 14 USC. The following link is the Coast Guard message implementing the new Ethos as of 01DEC11: http://www.uscg.mil/announcements/ALCOAST/554-11_alcoast.txt THE COAST GUARD ETHOS:

I AM A COAST GUARDSMAN. I SERVE THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES.

I WILL PROTECT THEM. I WILL DEFEND THEM. I WILL SAVE THEM. I AM THEIR SHIELD.

FOR THEM I AM SEMPER PARATUS. I LIVE THE COAST GUARD CORE VALUES.

I AM PROUD TO BE A COAST GUARDSMAN. WE ARE THE UNITED STATES COAST GUARD. 152.121.17.254 (talk) 02:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Added to article, thanks for the heads up and link to message. Semper Paratus. Cuprum17 (talk) 21:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Cool stuff! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

System of Cutters

The "system of cutters" was the first designation of what is now USCG. Use of this designation preceded Revenue Marine. Here is one of many references: USCG Historian's Office http://www.uscg.mil/history/webcutters/USRC_Photo_Index.asp Retrieved 11 June 2014. Tjlynnjr (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC).

Here is another: USCG Historian's Office http://www.uscg.mil/history/uscghist/Policy_Changes.asp Retrieved 15 June 2014Tjlynnjr (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2014 (UTC).

Regulatory Agency?

Does USCG have a regulatory component? I think that, is Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.86.117 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Huh? oknazevad (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The Coast Guard is a regulatory agency because it enforces maritime laws within its jurisdiction. Citations for violations of fisheries, environmental, and commercial vessel regulations as well as other violations can be heard before a Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge and fines assessed if deemed appropriate. The Coast Guard assists in the writing of Federal Regulations that are related to its operations. Congress has no regulatory authority, that is the purpose of the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. Congress retains oversight on all Executive Branch operations and spending and may pass legislation to modify any Federal Regulations it deems unworkable or unfair. This action, of course, is subject to standard Presidential veto powers, which inturn can be overridden by proper vote of Congress.

All Coast Guardsmen with the rank of petty officer third class or above may enforce Federal laws and regulations. (14USC89). There is no separate "regulatory component", because there is no need for one. Cuprum17 (talk) 17:34, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I think he might've meant parent agency? Like the USMC with the Department of the Navy, or the ATF and the Department of Justice? Illegitimate Barrister 18:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on United States Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120113183820/http://www.film.com/tv/coast-guard/21328706 to http://www.film.com/tv/coast-guard/21328706

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130117053350/http://www.planetguide.com/docs/Pantone%20chart%20with%20RGB%20and%20HTML%20conversions.pdf to http://www.planetguide.com/docs/Pantone%20chart%20with%20RGB%20and%20HTML%20conversions.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Propose switching emblem and seal

As the emblem is the most common used identifier (used on official websites), and is also standard on the other military pages, I propose switching the emblem and seal here as well. For further reading: https://www.uscg.mil/public-services/Community-Relations/Trademark/insignia/ Garuda28 (talk) 05:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

President vs. Commander in Chief

Talk:United States Armed Forces#Infobox: President vs. Commander-in-Chief Garuda28 (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060426234006/http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/unit/fleet_n.htm to https://fas.org/man/dod-101/navy/unit/fleet_n.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:16, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Coast Guard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:38, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

U.S. Coast Guard official colors

Hello, I am proposing changes to the official HTML color codes and corresponding URL references for the U.S. Coast Guard's colors. My proposed edit diff is found here. My sources for the proposed changes are found here: Coast Guard Coloring and Conversion Chart (via the U.S. Coast Guard's Auxiliary Information Technology Group) & U.S. COAST GUARD HERALDRY (via the U.S. Department of Defense). Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I would refer to my comments on the Talk:United States Navy page, including my suggestion to centralize this discussion at the MILHIST talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 06:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Coast Guard Squadron One and Two Three information

I have added Coast Guard Squadron One and ~~Two~~ Three information to the history section based on these images previously placed in the section. On hindsight, I believe that the images and info should be removed as they are given undo weight in the section. I won't remove the info myself at this time. And, I have no objection if someone else does so. Any comments would be welcomed. --RAF910 (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Coast Guard Squadron Two was a notational unit that was never activated. Only Squadron One and Squadron Three were ever operational and both served under Navy commands in Vietnam waters. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Correction...I meant Coast Guard Squadron One and Three. Sorry.--RAF910 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Not a problem. Thank you for your edits...Cuprum17 (talk) 19:24, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Further Elaboration Needed

Elaboration is needed as whether or not the U.S. Costgaurd is a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act. 71.91.178.54 (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Read Posse Comitatus Act, which specifically covers the Coast Guard. If you think content needs to be included, please provide a specific, sourced suggestion. Acroterion (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"A Typical Day"

The section "A Typical Day" is not material that belongs in an encyclopedia.

It reads as recruitment copy. Wikipedia is not in the business of recruiting for any groups (itself notwithstanding).
It is an entire section reliant solely on a single source. That's a fair amount of weight to dedicate to such a small page on a recruitment website.
- The source in question gives a lot of specific figures, but is not particularly authoritative or reliable. Claims re: drugs' street values are particularly in need of additional support.
The content is almost-verbatim copied from the source. I'd call it WP:COPYVIO if I weren't pretty sure the material was public domain, but it stands that this does not meet the standards of an encyclopedia.
- Close paraphrasing of public-domain material is, of course, not prohibited, but I feel that it should still be avoided unless undeniably beneficial to the article, which this is not.
The section amounts to a list of dubious notability. Wikipedia does not compile non-notable data about the US armed forces, nor any entity.
The section is copied from Missions of the United States Coast Guard, where I'm honestly just going to leave it, as that article has bigger problems.
Frankly, this would be an acceptable PowerPoint slide in a fifth-grader's social studies presentation. That does not encyclopedic material make.

If someone feels the source can be better integrated into the article, they can feel free, or if they can turn the section in question into something encyclopedia-worthy, I'm all for it. Otherwise, it goes. 142.167.242.186 (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Remove. WikiParker (talk) 12:45, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
Likewise. Far too promotional/recruitment in tone. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Keep...It simply states what the USCG does.--RAF910 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is a section called Mission that say what the CG does. WikiParker (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Leaning toward keep, but with some copy-editing. There are some useful stats there that should be kept while trimming some of the promo-ish stuff. - wolf 00:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- Statistics change. WikiParker (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  - Yes, but the title "Typical day" basically means it's a 'snapshot' of what some stats can be like on any given day. I thought that was obvious. - wolf 17:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

US Coast Guard Falcon Lake.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Founding dispute

Been seeing a few editors try to change the founding date of the Coast Guard to 1790, so I’d like to make a proposal. So the current coast guard was formed on 28 January 1915, but it’s primary anticedent was the Revenue Marine, which was formed on 4 August 1790. The Coast Guard considers this to be its foundation (https://www.gocoastguard.com/about-the-coast-guard/learn-the-history)

There is plenty of Wikipedia precedence to back this up, as we use the formation dates for the Continental, rather than the United States, Army, Navy, and Marine Corps. So my proposal is to move the 1790 date to the main date section, and add the 1915 date into the notes section or a see also section (similar to the USAF page). Garuda28 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

SUPPORT! I agree with Garuda28. There is too much switching back and forth of the "birth date". If the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy can claim and celebrate a founding date circa 1775, then the Coast Guard through it's lineage ought to be able to claim it's creation in 1790. The date "1790" is on the service flag. A footnote explaining the origin would be in order so that the changing of the date to 1915 by future well meaning editors could be held to a minimum. Cuprum17 (talk) 16:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Support. The service flag says 1790 and the other, non Air Force, military services use 1700s dates. --Frmorrison (talk) 15:34, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Support. Go with the flag. Founded 4 August 1790 (as the Revenue-Marine). Broichmore (talk) 08:49, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Note both The modern Coast Guard was founded in 1915 by the merger of multiple predecessor agencies. That is a fact, despite their claiming the oldest date in order to sound more equal to the older services. The infobox would be woefully incomplete in summarizing the article if it did not contain that information. oknazevad (talk) 11:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note both as both are relevant. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Vietnam Marine Police Racing Stripe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Notification of MOS debate at United States Space Force

Please be advised there is currently a debate on WP:MOS at Talk:United States Space Force#MOS that could affect the article pages of other U.S. Armed Forces branch pages.Garuda28 (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Operation Uphold Democracy 1994

I am confused as to why Operation Uphold Democracy (Sep 19, 1994 – Mar 31, 1995) is not included in the list of engagements for the U.S. Coast Guard ? Lvis2025 (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The Coast Guard was in that conflict, so I added it. --Frmorrison (talk) 05:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

For those of us who were there we appreciate being added. Lvis2025 (talk) 08:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Guidon of the United States Coast Guard.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)