Talk:Richard Dixon (USCG)

prod

A {{prod}} was placed on this article -- asserting the article was not compliant with the essay WP:SOLDIER, and asserting that it lacked independent references.

First, I think the tagger`s interpretation of ″independent″ is incorrect. Dixon didn`t write the references, the author`s aren`t in a conflict of interest. I don`t think there is any question as to whether the information in the references are accurate or reliable.

Dixon is notable for two things:

• remarkably he won two separate awards for heroism on a single weekend;
• he is the namesake for a coast guard cutter.

So, WP:BIO1E is not a concern.

I removed the prod. Geo Swan (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Still fails WP:SOLDIER.

Still no "independent" references. Coast Guard references are not independent.

There are plenty of other redirects of people to the ship that bears their name. Bgwhite (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• We have the General notability guidelines, supplemented by about a dozen topic-specific notability guidelines, like WP:ACADEMIC and WP:POLITICIAN. The last time I looked WP:SOLDIER was not a guideline, it was an essay maintained by the military wikiproject. Is that still true?

My experience with WP:SOLDIER has been that fans of the essay act as if it is of more significance than the actual notability guidelines. I think that is a mistake.

• The USCG references are independent in that Dixon didn`t write them. They weren`t written by his friends or family. You haven`t said why you don`t think they are independent, you have merely repeated yourself. If you are aware of a policy or guideline that says references published by a large institution shouldn`t be considered reliable sources for information about individuals employed by that institution then may I request you point to that wikidocument? Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• References from a person's employer are not independent. They are reliable for talking about things done while being employed (position, accomplishments), ut do not meet GNG's independence statement. So, only having references from a person't employer is now enough to meet GNG? Hey, that means I'm notable because I was written up multiple times in my companies on-line news letter.
• You don't understand what WP:SOLDIER and other guides (ie WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO) actually say. (FYI... WP:ATHLETE and several in WP:BIO are maintained by individual WikiProject) They say a person is presumed to be notable if they meet the requirements. It is a way to meet notability without having to prove GNG. If a person doesn't meet WP:SOLDIER or WP:ATHLETE, they have to meet GNG like every other article does. It is a way to include rather than exclude people. Bgwhite (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Question taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Independent ref question Bgwhite (talk) 19:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think I do know the significance of GNG and other topic specific guidelines. In my experience, those who rely on the advice of the WP:SOLDIER essay have treated it as if it were more important than our actual topic specific guidelines, which I think is a serious mistake. I have found that those who rely on WP:SOLDIER can be overly aggressive in claiming jurisdiction over biographies that have limited connection to the military. Yes, I know that during wartime elements of the USCG are placed under the overall command of the US Navy, and that even during peacetime some elements of the USCG perform military duties, like port security patrols at Guantanamo Bay, but, during peacetime most members of the Coast Guard perform non-military duties.

1. Life-saving and search and rescue is a non-military duty;
2. Inspecting civilian vessels, and issuing certificates of seaworthiness is a non-military duty;
3. Making sure boaters aren't drinking while boating is a non-military duty;
4. Maintaining buoys, lighthouses, and other aids to navigation is a non-military duty;
5. Patrolling for smugglers is a non-military duty.

So I would ask our tagger to consider the possibility that they were being overly aggressive to claim that WP:SOLDIER applied to Dixon, who wasn't serving in a military capacity, when he received his awards, for whom there is nothing on the record to show he ever served in the Coast Guard in a military capacity.

As to whether our tagger is notable for being written up in their organization's online publication -- well, that would depend, surely, on whether we accepted their organization's online publication as a verifiable, reliable source. Surely it would depend on what his or her online newsletter said about him.

Is their organization's online publication behind their organization's firewall? Then, no, it would not be considered verifiable, because we couldn't access it. Similarly, if the online newsletter had a "norobots" tag on it, so it wasn't found by online search engines, so we couldn't find it, then, no it would not be considered verifiable. A key element as to whether a reference was considered reliable is whether there is some kind of meaningful editorial review. Publications where a writer's work is reviewed by editors to make sure it is accurate, coherent, properly fact-checked, and responsible are considered more reliable than a blogger in his underwear, who only writes a single draft, and doesn't do any fact-checking.

It seems to me that, if, for the sake of argument, coverage of our tagger in their organization's online newsletter is verifiable, and if their online newsletter has editorial control, so its article's undergo fact-checking, etc, then the notability would depend on what the article said. The online newsletters of smaller organizations often tell members of the organization when employees get promotions, move to other branches, take maternity leave. Coverage in the online newsletter of such routine matters would not make our tagger notable. But if that online newsletter was not behind a firewall, and had meaningful editorial control, and it recorded something remarkable, truly non-routine, about our tagger, then it would be contributing a factor towards their notability, and, IMO, could be used right next to a reference from the NYTimes. If our tagger's organization's online newsletter wasn't merely saying he or she was going on paternity/maternity leave, but had received a medal for a daring rescue, or had a $50 million vessel named after them, or even was recognized locally for pulling a pedestrian out of the path of being run over by a bus, I would agree this helped support the idea our tagger was notable.

By these standards I suggest most online biographies, published by large organizations, should be considered reliable. I suggest even the online biographies of someone like Kim Jung Il should be considered an WP:RS, if properly attributed. WP:VER says we should aim for verifiability, not truth, since truth is much harder to agree upon. Kim Jung Il's biography may say he did things we have doubts about, and if other references contradict them, we should cite those too.

If there was any real doubt that what the USCG had to say about Dixon I would have liberally sprinkled, "according to the USCG". But this would be wasted, as no one is claiming the USCG's account is inaccurate. I don't think our tagger is actually challenging whether Dixon did what is claimed about him. Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)