Jump to content

Talk:Blue-water navy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs)
m Archiving 10 thread(s) (older than 100d) to Talk:Blue-water navy/Archive 2.
Line 110: Line 110:


I think that should be an end of the matter. --[[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I think that should be an end of the matter. --[[User:Jim Sweeney|Jim Sweeney]] ([[User talk:Jim Sweeney|talk]]) 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

:I think GRA's proposal seems fair provided it is backed up by a reliable source. I should caution I am not a military expert. A world of advice to Bcs09, repeated making tendentious points when everybody seems against you can lead you to become alienated. [[User:Nirvana888|Nirvana888]] ([[User talk:Nirvana888|talk]]) 00:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


== Indian Navy ==
== Indian Navy ==

Revision as of 00:07, 13 January 2011

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMilitary history: Maritime Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.
B checklist
Associated task forces:
Taskforce icon
Maritime warfare task force

Historical content

This article is missing all aspects of historical context. It doesn't mention historical high seas fleets, it seems limited to the current state of affairs, or at most, from the late-90's onward. This misses almost all of naval history. 65.93.13.227 (talk) 14:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Navy

The Royal Navy has decommissioned the Harriers and currently did not have any carrier strike capability.The Harrier takes its final bow "Wing commander David Bradshaw, who had flown the plane earlier in the day, will be heading to London for a desk-based job for the Ministry Of Defence (MOD) when the Harrier is formally decommissioned at RAF Cottesmore on Wednesday. Also please note that retired is the equivalent word used for decommissioning by the media. It's not different. The harriers are gone. And the carrier strike capability of the Royal navy.Bcs09 (talk) 02:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aircraft infoboxes on Wikipedia all have the "Retired (date)" section, we use the word retired here in place of decommissioned. If you doubt this I insist you check out the infoboxes of some military aircraft articles, thanks. G.R. Allison (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, no one at all is disputing the fact the Harriers have been retired. G.R. Allison (talk) 08:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I am saying. Whether decommissioned or retired. The carrier strike capability of the Royal Navy is gone. No need to put temporarily, for some time, etc. Clearly state the point as it is. Now one more question is should the Royal Navy be part of the blue water fleet? Who will provide the carrier strike capability to the Navy? Americans or French or the Chinese or the Indians? We need to think about this point as well.Bcs09 (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm (MrGRA) not home just now and that IP edit was me. It is important to signify with "temporarily" that the lack of carrier strike is not a permanent feature of the navy, leaving it out suggests the RN plan to stay out of the carrier game for good when in fact they plan to regenerate a carrier strike ability (this is pertinent information and should only be removed if many editors disagree). Also the article states that a BW navy is "a maritime force capable of operating across the deep waters of open oceans", "While what actually constitutes such a force remains undefined, there is a requirement for the ability to exercise sea control at wide ranges." and "In modern warfare blue-water navy implies self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range." all of these still apply to the Royal Navy (you'll note carrier strike is not essential), also please remember "As there is no clear definition of a blue-water navy, the status is disputed.". I have noticed in your past edits and talk page contribs that you seem intent on diminishing the status of the British military, I remember your argument for Britain losing great power status a while back which was defeated. Despite the 'definitions' given on this page you still seem to imply removing the Royal Navy, which shows that either you have not understood the article or you are being biased. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To help resolve this I have asked for the opinions of experienced editors, please do not act until we reach some sort of agreement. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not going to argue with you. But let me explain it for the final time. Whether you take it or not, it's left to you. "Temporary or permanent lack is not the issue here. Rather than speculate about the future, it's best to remove the term that explains futuristic trends rather than present, because you don't know in 2020 it will be temporary or permanent. Now regarding the blue water capability all of that is not there. The ability of the formation from being attacked by enemy aircraft beyond the range of it's AA Missiles is very much there. And why should I be biased. It's the Royal navy that's removing this capability. Not me. British military is diminishing itself, may be due to issues related to a weak economy. What's the use in blaming me for that. You better be blaming David Cameron and his predecessor. Expert editors, that's the best way and I'm leaving the headache to them. Bcs09 (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and understand that is hardly speculation because as it stands now, carrier strike will be regained as per the SDSR. If that changes in the future then it makes sense to adapt related articles. Also, "The ability of the formation from being attacked by enemy aircraft beyond the range of it's AA Missiles" has nothing to do with the status of a blue water navy, the descriptions of BWN status listed in the article however do appear to apply to the Royal Navy and as you'll see from the article, carrier strike is not necessary. Spain has the CS capability but is not a blue water navy for example. I am not blaming you for anything or claiming that the UK armed vforces are not changing, simply pointing out your editing pattern regarding UK related articles (to me) seems questionable although I admit that my doing that is unproductive here and should be taken up elsewhere. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:02, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me explain again. Things on paper and things on the ground are two different things. Let the carriers arrive and be commissioned, along with the F-35's then it can be said that Royal Navy has the capability. Until that happens how will you know whether it's going to happen or not. Like say a ship may be under trials. Whether it will be inducted or not will not be know. Then how can we speculate about things happening in 2020? Look I will quote from the same stuff you posted. "In modern warfare blue-water navy implies self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range." I would like to point out that at present due to the lack of Carrier based fighters, it lacks the capability to protect itself from airborne threats (Especially beyond it's ship based AA missiles). It's a major lacunae. Bcs09 (talk) 14:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, you have claimed "futuristic trends were removed following discussion and agreement" I don't doubt you but I would like to see those discussions msyelf as I have helped edit this article for a long time and I'm not aware of such discussions. Secondly, the RN does have the ability (albeit reduced) to protect against airborne threats via AAW destroyers, the description does not detail how airborne threats must be dealt with, simply that they must. While I appreciate your addition (that I have subsequently adapted for now) of "the plans are to reacquire this capability by 2020" I still do believe the inclusion of "temporarily" is better suited to the short descriptive nature of the section. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any dispute here is pointless as the article itself states As there is no clear definition of a blue-water navy, the status is disputed. so both sides can claim to be correct. A compromise would be to states the Royal Navy has from 2010, no carrier strike capability until the expected commissioning of the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier in 2019.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had originally put that in and I think the current edit will cover it. Thanks for the opinion, much appreciated. G.R. Allison (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding whether the Royal Navy remains a blue-water navy post-SDSR: clearly (until the new carriers are built are are in operation with F35s, c. 2020 -) the Royal Navy has lost a key capability, albeit (in theory) temporarily. However the Royal Navy retains its decent SSN & SSBN fleet, as well as good amphib forces and support & supply ships. It can operate around the globe, though quite what punch it can now throw without aircraft carriers is another matter. Clearly if up against a state like India it would face difficulties, but then any navy currently would with the exception of the US Navy. I would say the UK continues to have a blue-water navy, albeit without carrier capabilities... though the new QE-class and F35s are definitely on the way and will restore those capabilities. (Indeed post-2020, if all goes to plan, the RN will have better carrier capabilities than pre-2010.) If the Royal Navy cannot be considered to be a blue-water navy now, then neither can France's or Russia's navies, leaving only the US Navy. David (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't seem so. Even the French Navy can sink the Royal Navy pretty well with their air strike capability.Bcs09 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you off your rocker? The French have air strike capability only once in a blue moon when their aircraft carrier actually decides to work. And then the Royal Navy is superior in every other respect, from SSNs to AAW destroyers. You seem to have become very anti-Royal Navy at the moment. Feeling grumpy? David (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol, Atleast they do have it. The Royal Navy surface fleet is vulnerable to attacks from air strikes at the moment. Anti-Royal Navy. lol. What else. Anti-King, anti-queen. That will be even better.Bcs09 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite frankly, I can't see the problem with the current state of the article. It still lists the Royal Navy as a navy spoken of as a blue-water navy, it makes clear of the notion that the Royal Navy has lost its carrier capabilities, aswell as its plans to reenact those said capabilties in a (relatively) close future. Whether the sentence itself refers to the temporarity of those capabilities is secondary to if the readers would understand from how the article is written, which I think they would. Of course, if you wish to make sure of said readers' understanding of the matter, than you may wish to spell it out as temporary. My point is that there isn't a right or wrong to this, it's just a matter of clarity. There is also no wiki-guideline (that I know of that is) of how to treat dates in a sense of speculative future. That's my two cents atleast, other than that listen to both David and Sweeney, they both seem to know a lot more about the subject than me. Swedish pirate (talk) 00:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ten years seems not that close. If so, then there are many more additions to be made which are even more close like the inclusion of PLAN carriers. With futuristic trends being added, the article is going to be in a mess very soon.Bcs09 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input gentlemen, I'm sure both Bcs09 and I appreciate the opinions given here as it seems to have help resolve the matter. G.R. Allison (talk) 08:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure that the current plans will see the inclusion of carriers by 2020? Can you predict? Also why should Wikipedia take your predictions? So better try to put it as "has planned". That's the correct way to put it. Hope you'll correct it.Bcs09 (talk) 10:02, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Bcs09, Yes... current plans will see the introduction of the carriers. The only way the carriers will not come to be is if the current plans change. The phrase "current plans will see" implies that if the plans in place at the moment are not changed with regards to delivering the carriers, then the navy will see the introduction of them.
"Can you predict?" Yes I can given the SDSR (the whole reason for this situation).
"Also why should Wikipedia take your predictions?" They are sourced to the most senior source on the issue.
These are not my predictions (if you really can call them predictions) but that of the SDSR. David I should give you a heads up if you haven't seen this before, user Bcs09 has displayed pretty unproductive rhetoric against the British armed forces over the course of his talk page contributions on various Brit Mil articles. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Defense review is actually a plan and not a prediction. Again I say plans are different from things on the ground. There can be any plans. Not that it's not being implemented. But will the carriers will join the Royal navy? The plans are there but will the carriers will be there in the Royal Navy in 2020? Who knows. No one. So don't speculate. Just state that there are plans to introduce aircraft carriers in 2020. Bcs09 (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now I checked the Royal navy page. It got so many errors and outdated information. Need help in cleanup and updating the Royal Navy page as well.Bcs09 (talk) 14:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Just state that there are plans to introduce aircraft carriers in 2020." It already says that.
"But will the carriers will join the Royal navy?" Under the current plans, yes.
"So don't speculate." Using information from a source which sets out the future force structure of the British military is not very speculative.
"The plans are there but will the carriers will be there in the Royal Navy in 2020?" Hence the phrase "current plans will see".
You seem to just be picking holes in this for the sake of it... every person who reads the article will likely understand that it's possible for plans to change. Please stop being awkward with this, it helps nothing. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should futuristic issues need to be mentioned? If so, the whole article need to be re-written to accommodate all the futuristic trends, plans, building etc to make it a neutral article. It's better if you remove those futuristic trends just concentrate on the present one. The danger in not doing so, is that, we will be seeing daily edit wars with each and everyone from every nation participating in edit wars. Hope you'll understand this and remove the statement meant to take place in 2020. We can add it then. Not now. Please. Else you rewrite the whole article, and improve it to the new standard.Bcs09 (talk) 02:43, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This issue is mentioned as the RN are the only BW navy without a CS ability just now, you yourself said "Just state that there are plans to introduce aircraft carriers in 2020" and that has been done. The other editors involved agree on this it seems. I believe the article is fine as it is now, we'll deal with any edit wars if they come and resolve as needed. G.R. Allison (talk) 11:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Might I remind some here that the definition of a blue water navy is a navy which operates across multiple oceans. The Royal Navy operates across multiple oceans, as do the other 3 blue water navies: The United States Navy, French Navy and Russian Navy. If some here wish to remove the Royal Navy from the article as a blue water navy then they should provide reliable sources stating the Royal Navy does not operate across multiple oceans, although this might be somewhat difficult to do considering practically every source, from the Royal Navy to the British government to the press, confirm the Royal Navy operates across multiple oceans, including the Atlantic Ocean, the Arctic Ocean and the Indian Ocean. The fact the Royal Navy will have period of not operating jet aircraft at sea until 2020 does not change the fact the Royal Navy operates across most of the globe. Might I also remind some here that a navy merely possessing an aircraft carrier does not make it a blue water navy. If this were true then the Brazilian Navy, Italian Navy, Spanish Navy and Thai Navy would be considered blue water navies, which they are not because they do not operate across multiple oceans. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:01, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you eloborate on the point of "operating in multiple oceans". It will provide important inputs to the discussion. Do a navy simply sending ships across seas be considered as blue water navy? Royal Navy's weakness was first demonstrated when the confrontration with Iran took place. So that provides some details into a Navy that can go out but still cannot do anything. That's what the Royal Navy has become. Now even the AC's are gone. How they will confront the Argentines if an issue flare up? The Admirals are very pessimistic about it. So have a relook into your point before saying Royal Navy goes on sightseeing all over the world and hence is a blue water navy.Bcs09 (talk) 12:41, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By "operating in multiple oceans" I mean just that, a navy which performs operations and deployments across multiple oceans. Your assertion of the "Royal Navy's weakness" in confrontation with Iran in 2007 is your own personal opinion. My personal opinion is that a minor incident with Iran in 2007 in which the United Kingdom sought not to escalate tensions for the sake of its (and the Royal Navy's) operations in Iraq and Afghanistan does not disprove the Royal Navy is a blue water navy. The Royal Navy has in recent years proved itself to be a blue water navy by performing operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Sierra Leone. Judging by this discussion I think you need to be reminded that content on this encyclopaedia is determined by reliable sources and not by personal opinions or original research. You conveniently fail to mention that the Royal Navy performs many deployments globally as mentioned in the Standing Royal Navy deployments article or that it possesses a number of naval bases across the world. The Royal Navy performs deployments almost everywhere, ranging from supporting operations in Afghanistan via the Indian Ocean to combating the drugs trade in the Caribbean or pirates off the Horn of Africa to patrolling the Arctic Ocean and Persian Gulf and protecting interests in the North Atlantic, South Atlantic and Mediterranean. The Royal Navy operates from numerous overseas bases such as Gibraltar, Ascension Island and Diego Garcia to name a few. If you believe the Royal Navy is no longer a blue water navy and no longer performs deployments and operations world wide then please provide reliable sources supporting your claims rather than expecting the article to adhere to your original research. I can assure you that there are a great many reliable sources which can be produced to support my claims that the Royal Navy performs deployments and operations world wide. Quite vivid blur (talk) 17:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never disputed the fact that the Royal Navy is not going. That's what I also said. Yes they go, even now. Reasons for not acting against the arrest of Royal Naval personal seems so vague. Yes, in operations the U.K has been acting as a partner of the U.S forces. No wonder the recent cutting down of the fleet has resulted in some angry response from Washington. Also for the Naval personnel who fight the war are not happy about the cutting down of the forces. They mince no words when critizing the governemnt for this kind of an action.Officers Tie British Cuts and Risk to Falklands. This gives an indication that even though the navy goes worldwide, it lacks the power to act (either due to lack of resources or due to politics or a combination of both).Bcs09 (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite vivid blur, Bcs09 judging by past edits and posts seems to be displaying an undue bias on diminishing the British military based on original research or conjecture. Quite simply I urge you to only engage when needed with Bcs09. Merry Christmas by the way! G.R. Allison (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comments.Bcs09 (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bcs09, things like this "It's better to remove the Royal Navy from the list of blue water Navy" are the problem and why I question your neutrality. You are not taking the editing of this article seriously. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for Royal Navies removal is because it's not a blue water navy. You are not agreeing for it's removal and still sticking to your belief. A blue water Navy must have atleast one aircraft carrier in service. When the Australian AC was decomissioned their cheif at that time said, without an ac we are no more a blue water navy. And it seems you have nothing to talk about other than Anti-royal Navy stuff.Bcs09 (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Royal Navy still has two aircraft carriers in service. Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two carriers? where did it come from? I know about the Ark Royal being decomissioned and with only one remaining without any aircrafts to fly from excpet helicopters. So more or less it's a Heclicopter carrier now.Bcs09 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it's not a blue water navy!" (in your opinion). The majority of descriptions given by the article disagree. The RN are still capable of operating and fighting globally. "In modern warfare blue-water navy implies self-contained force protection from sub-surface, surface and airborne threats and a sustainable logistic reach, allowing a persistent presence at range" still applies, whether the RN have aircraft to launch from their remaining carrier (HMS Illustrious) or not. "A blue water Navy must have atleast one aircraft carrier in service" is not an absolute definition at all. Unless there is consensus from regular editors of this article for its removal it should be staying in. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many times it need to be told that Royal Navy is incapable of protecting itself from airborne threats which is a requirement for a blue water navy. Then it did not have the strike capability provided by the aircraft carrier which are the basic requirement for a good navy even for limited blue water capabilty.Bcs09 (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a requirement of a blue water navy to have aircraft carriers. And of course the Royal Navy can protect itself from airborne attack. Type 45s? A blue-water fleet does not have to centre on an aircraft carrier, something which is clear in this article. It can be centred on an amphibious landing ship/fleet or a helicopter carrier(s). "Blue-water" means being able to operate globally: the Royal Navy can and indeed does do this. David (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The type 45 cannot protect the fleet beyond it's AA missile range. Hence impossible to be called a blue water navy. Aircraft carrriers are very much a necessity for a blue water navy. Why do you think the Chinese Navy is building Aircraft carriers. Bcs09 (talk) 23:59, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
David sums it up very well. Basically Bcs09, making sensationalist claims isn't contributing. All you are doing now is repeating claims that have already been dismissed (such as the no protection from air threats claim). The description states "airborne threats" not "airborne threats at a distance greater than XX-Km", there is no range or platform criteria within the description that implies airborne threats must be dealt with by aircraft. As David said, "Blue-water" means being able to operate globally: the Royal Navy can and indeed does do this". G.R. Allison (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Airborne threats include all threats as you said. So if it cannot defencd an airborne threat beyond so and so kilometers then also it's vulnerable to air attacks and hence not capable of defeating airborne threats. Bcs09 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you will note that some navies in the "Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities" operate an aircraft carrier but are not blue water forces. This applies both ways. G.R. Allison (talk) 00:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No. The U.K is not actually a blue water navy at the moment. It will take time to get to that status in 2020. Having an Aicraft carrier will not make a Navy a blue water navy but it's absolute necessary for a blue water navy. Bcs09 (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In your opinion it is not. The U.K is not a navy anyway, it is a country. Besides, the article does not state that it is necessary to have a carrier, simply "Usually it is considered to be strongly linked to the maintenance of aircraft carriers". Usually does not mean "absolute necessary". Please read the descriptions given in the article. Could another editor please join in here? I feel like I'm being forced to respond to the same points over and over. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above the Royal Navy still has two aircraft carriers in service Ocean and Lusty. They have the newest AA destroyers in the world with the Type 45's. An amphibious force second only to the USN in size. A fleet of SSBN and SSN with ICBM's and cruise missiles. BUT all this is in the article. If User:Bcs09 wants to remove the Royal Navy from the list all that is required is to propose it here on talk and gain a consensus for the change. Simple if no concensus no change. Jim Sweeney (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comments on your aircraft carrier part. The news agencies must be nuts when they say "Royal navy don't have carrier strike capability". Type 45 is a good, newer destroyer, but lacks in many ways. At the moment, don't seem equivalent to the Forbin class. Second? What about France? Even South Koreans do have good Amphibious capability. Sure SSBN's and SSN's armed with the Trident and Tomahawk. Some reports suggest the control is still with the U.S to intitiate the use of Trident SLBM's. Don't know whether it's same with Tomahawks.Bcs09 (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say Bcs09 appears to me to be a troll and as a result I don't think I can take this user as a serious editor. Quite vivid blur (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No comments.Bcs09 (talk) 02:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree, the user seems to be deliberately ignoring points raised and then saying things which are either urban myths or baseless nonsense. To any editors reading this, I advise you do not engage with user Bcs09 unless they appear to be serious about editing, much time has been wasted here with no ground covered at all due to the perhaps willing inability of said user to understand points raised by multiple editors. G.R. Allison (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conclusion is this. With the Removal of Arc Royal and the harriers, Royal Navy is without carrier strike capability and above all the fleet defence functions can now be performed within the AA missile range of the Type 45 class destroyers. HMS Ocean the helicopter carrier is in service, similarly is lusty12. This leaves the Royal navy vulnerable to airborne threats. Even the Queen Elizabeth class that's being built is said to have been cancelled if the penalty for cancellation is lower. The number of surface fleet has been reduced and is going to be reduced further with the decomissioning of Type 22.34 Hence it's said that Royal navy is not a blue water Navy. Bcs09 (talk) 14:09, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's your conclusion. All (ALL) the other editors who have contributed to this discussion disagree with you. "Hence it's said that Royal navy is not a blue water Navy." - got a source? And no, the Daily Mail isn't a valid source. The Royal Navy like the Belgian Navy? It's more than 10x the size even after the latest cuts. Now stop being a troll and leave this article alone. David (talk) 17:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not my conclusion, it's a conclusion from all the articles before and after the strategic review. Yes oppose, but not logically. Daily mail is quoting from a person who is so closely associated with the Royal navy and knows it better than an outsider. Yes, the VTOL variant was cancelled because it was costly.1 The Belgium Navy comparision is to drive home the point that the size of the Royal navy is reduced to that of a small navy. It's atleast half the size of French Navy and the size of Italian Navy2.Bcs09 (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As for the QE carriers - were they cancelled? No. I don't care about why they weren't cancelled in the end, the matter of fact is that they are going ahead and are both under construction. (And indeed will be built to CTOL standards.) The UK will also purchase F35s AND they will be the USN carrier variant (CTOL). That's commitment to restoring - indeed vastly improving - the Royal Navy's aircraft carrier capabilities. David (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The plan to have the carriers has affected the Royal Navy[1] in a big way. Bcs09 (talk) 03:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the posters who criticized me for being Anti-Royal Navy must realize that I have not posted critical review of the defence cuts. I felt it was not needed, not because it cannot be posted. If you all wish to see what was the opposition to the cuts, you all be better reading this. 12345678 9These reports are before and after the review. It will give an idea of how bad is the situation. Those who still want to boast about the Royal Navy can do it. Thank you. Bcs09 (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bcs09, every user here opposes your proposed changes. You are the only user here who supports your proposed changes and many users have told you many times why your proposed changes are opposed. Your attempt over the past couple of weeks to gain consensus on this talk page for your proposed changes has clearly failed and users' opinions are unlikely to change. Weeks of incessant and nonsensical arguing on your part has lead some here to believe that you are a troll and continued arguing on this talk page will only reinforce that view. If you are truely not a troll then you would surely realise that your energies would be better redirected to improve Wikipedia. Quite vivid blur (talk) 11:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why the users opinion did not change, that I don't know. I am not reinforcing my views. I am just pointing out what the articles state. In here there is no value for personal opinion of mine or yours. I personally wish to see a strong Royal Navy under the present PM. But personal belives have no value in here. So things must be told the right way and the straight way. That's what I did. Now some of you may not like it because you people take it differently. Bcs09 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether he is a troll or not, he certainly doesn't know what he's talking about. "The Belgium Navy comparision is to drive home the point that the size of the Royal navy is reduced to that of a small navy. It's atleast half the size of French Navy and the size of Italian Navy.." What utter nonsense. Half the size of the French Navy?! I'm not going to bother with this "discussion" any further, as it's futile, but (and I suggest others do the same) I will be keeping an eye out for editing done by Bcs09. He clearly has an agenda. David (talk) 12:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the articles? It's all in there. Bcs09 (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a extract from Parliamentary Answers for December 2010, which shows that the UK government still considers itself capable of blue water operations.

Madeleine Moon (Bridgend, Labour)

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effect on naval operations in British Overseas Territories of changes to Royal Navy capability resulting from the outcome of the strategic defence and security review; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Luff (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Defence Equipment, Support and Technology), Defence; Mid Worcestershire, Conservative)

The Government reiterated our commitment to the defence of the UK’s overseas territories in the strategic defence and security review. The Royal Navy is a modern, powerful and capable force and remains able to deploy a taskforce worldwide in support of our national interests. Inevitably, with fewer ships there will have to be some reduction in activity, but the Royal Navy will continue to send ships to priority regions such as the north and south Atlantic, the Indian ocean and the Gulf.

I think that should be an end of the matter. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:22, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think GRA's proposal seems fair provided it is backed up by a reliable source. I should caution I am not a military expert. A world of advice to Bcs09, repeated making tendentious points when everybody seems against you can lead you to become alienated. Nirvana888 (talk) 00:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Navy

No consensus was ever reached on this talk page to include the Indian Navy as a blue water navy, hence I moved it back to the Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities section. If you disagree then please provide reliable sources stating the Indian Navy is a blue water navy and gain consensus on this talk page before including it to the article. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet.Bcs09 (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet and not ever without reliable sources. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's your problem. Why you seem angry and upset (May be very upset with the Strategic defence review (I am helpless in that matter and hence cannot help you) and your imagination of me being an Anti-Royal Navy person like Hezbollah or something.) cool down dude.Bcs09 (talk) 04:23, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Indian navy article implied the IN is a BW navy. I have since corrected this oversight in line with established facts raised on this article and in line with sources given in that article but Bcs09 is keen on reverting this alteration. If any editors have the time, whatever their point of view, please head over there to help resolve the problem. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there really any need for this section in an article about blue water navies? It's turned into a jumble of various navies and there is no direct source to support claiming those navies have "limited expeditionary capabilities". Would anyone object to removing it? G.R. Allison (talk) 06:27, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

lol. Let's only have the Royal Navy in the article and then remove everything else. It's better to remove the Royal Navy from the list of blue water Navy and put it into the Navies with limited blue water capability section.Bcs09 (talk) 01:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why must you be so counter productive? If you have nothing related to the proposal to say then don't say it. Bcs09, I was looking for serious opinions here not this insulting nonsense. If you feel we should keep that section that's fine but why? If we are to keep it then I suggest formatting it like the other examples section with relevant information. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, that section is original research is it not?G.R. Allison (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See the links.Bcs09 (talk) 14:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have done, hence bringing this up. There's nothing that directly claims these navies have limited expeditionary powers unlike the other sources which directly state those navies are blue water forces. Let's see what the consensus is. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Long back it was agreed to put those navies which can/cannot be put into the Blue water Naval list but has got good expeditionary powers even aircraft carriers, because all these will go into the blue water navy list if such a list did not exist.Bcs09 (talk) 23:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it resolves many problems but it too has become very over pronounced. On reflection I now think it would be better cut down to a basic listing if it remains but I still think it would be better removed as it provides little value. G.R. Allison (talk) 00:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's very valuable.Bcs09 (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, valuable in your opinion but it is not valuable in mine. Obviously that's the case. That's why I want consensus before any removal. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If I don't get any valid objections soon I'll remove the section or shrink it. Editors feel free to voice your opinions. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:35, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section is original research and was added without consensus on this talk page. The section appears to have been included merely as an attempt by a certain biased user to present a certain non-blue water navy as being as close to being a blue water navy as possible after it was rejected from the blue water navy list. Quite vivid blur (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I will now remove it. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you mean by certain blue water navy. May be referring to Royal Navy. First remove the Royal Navy from the list. Then we can talk about other things.So you're taking it personally. If you have to remove it, you better discuss about the navies not having blue water capabilities. The links in the articles is more than enough for them to be there. Any removal based on origianl research and your whims and fancies will be treated very seriously. This is a final warning to you.Bcs09 (talk) 15:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is for navies with blue water abilities, not aiming to be blue water or to have limited capabilities. It has been agreed they be removed as the section was original research. You can propose it be restored if you wish, but that may only happen with consensus. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In no way it's original research and it was not. The article linked clearly states that. Do you have any counter to prove otherwise. Else you cannot remove it. If you remove it, you're indulging in POV pushing and vandalism. Beware.Bcs09 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sources given do not directly imply that the navies mentioned have limited blue water abilities. Even if they did, there is very little place for such a section on an article that describes what blue water navies are. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You must read it seems you have not done it which can be judged by your second statement. If you cannot constructively contribute, you better leave editing. It's not you who decide what must be in Wikipedia, everyone can contribute their own bit with the intention of providing proper information. If you understand it better.Bcs09 (talk) 16:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your continued removal and nuisance is a big cause of concern. This is not the way to discuss things. If you can provide proper souces to counter the persent articles and links, then yes we can remove it, until then you must not revert back anything and don't push your POV.Bcs09 (talk) 16:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"it seems you have not done it which can be judged by your second statement" Your English is not of such a bad level, don't play dumb and pretend you did not understand my meaning. Please understand the issue, both I and another editor have looked at the sources and both agree that they do not directly state nor imply that those navies have limited blue water abilities. The other concern is that this navy is for the description of what a blue water navy is and examples of such navies. There is no place for navies that may one day be blue water navies. We cannot keep this section simply on your whim. I see you have reported me now rather than add points as to why you wish it to be kept? Useful action. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not that much bothered by me not mastering the English language. I do feel what I know is more than enough to contribute to Wikipedia. What I meant was your statement present in the second sentence clearly states that you have no idea of what you're saying and you're least bothered about any proper discussion and contribution. More like a vandal, you're destroying the article because you feel like playing with it. You must stop such behaviour. When you say directly, it did not state that they are blue water navies, if so these navies must be in the blue water list rather than on the list of limited blue water capablity. Why they are there is beause they cannot be added to the blue water list but they do have blue water capbilities as well. If the last class is to be removed, then all these navies goes to the blue water navy list because they do have some blue water capablities. I hope you understand it. Remember it was not me who added it. It was there for a long time and why? Beause it seems thats how the discussion was made and decided. Hope you understands, but still you want removal add all of them to blue water list. I don't like to repeat things again and again. If you cannot understand it, my contibution has no value.Bcs09 (talk) 17:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content poll

For reasons listed above, I propose a straw poll to determine consensus. Should the 'Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities' section be removed? Please keep replies brief.

-Yes. In my opinion it is of little value to the article and acts like a target for nationalism. This all besides the fact no sources given support the claim those navies have limited expeditionary capabilities, making this original research. G.R. Allison (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-Yes although alternatively it could be massively shortened (and no longer with a separate heading) with simply a mention of those countries/navies with limited blue-water capabilities. A single sentence in the article stating that some navies have limited blue-water capabilities/ships that can operate globally and then a quick list of example navies. Detail can go in the actual articles of the navies in question. David (talk) 19:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - Section is currently synthesis. Is there a professional source that makes a three tiered distinction between brown-water, blue-water and, "limited blue water?" I'm only aware of such sources describing the first two cases. The sourcing for the "Navies with blue water capabilities" subsection could also use improvement, as it also appears to suffer from synthesis.  ::Makes note to self to go digging for sources someday when free time magically appears:: Sailsbystars (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(response to point raised) To address your concern on the 'Navies described as blue-water navies' section, a reliable source from a political think tank has been added which directly mentions the US, Royal and French navies as being blue water navies. G.R. Allison (talk) 21:38, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah, I wasn't doubting the description of that section, since I've read several rs that agree (although not everyone agrees on the ones aside from the US). When I get time I will try to find some of those sources again (which are various academic books and thus not immediately accessible). Sailsbystars (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - they can form their own article Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if the nations cited do have blue water navies, they should be mentioned in this article. "Limited" is a judgement and thus a matter of one's point of view. Editors cannot put their own points of view into the article. Thefrefore, the article should use the word "limited" - either in characterizing a specific nation's nay, or in a section dedicated to "limited," only if the sources cited explicitly use this language, otherwise it violates NOR. Otherwise, it is enough to provide the number of vessels that operate in deep oceans, and let readers make their own conclusions. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:26, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. The key issue for me here is that the sources do not use the term "limited" in relation to any capability and appear to be sources cobbled together to support a viewpoint not directly implied by any of the sources, this is why I am seeking the removal of the section. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But are there verifiable sources saying these nations navies operate beyond their coastal waters i.e. in oceans beyond national control? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe so but we can't combine sources on deployments and such to make the claim they are capable of limited blue water operations. My interpretation of the policy is that we need sources that directly state they are capable of limited BW operations rather than just include sources to suit our own definition as that becomes synthesis. Basically sources should state they are capable of limited blue water operations (or something along those lines) or the section should be cut. G.R. Allison (talk) 14:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the point about NOR, but according to you this only applies to claims about "limited." If the article is simply about blue water navies, why not simply list all nations with navies that have carried out operations beyond coastal waters? What difference does it make, limited or "unlimited" - my point is that a compromise is possible because we are not in an all-or-nothing situation. Remove the OR claim about "limited" and include all navies that have operated in blue waters. Wouldn't this be a workable compromise? It seems to me that it is only the unnecessary question o "limited" that is at issue, so just chuck it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about blue-water navies, not "all navies that have operated in blue waters" - the difference between the two is massive and is rather the point of the article. Lots of navies have operated in blue waters; lots of navies have ocean-going vessels; lots of navies frequently send vessels as part of a multi-national fleet (usually around a core blue-water navy fleet of the US, UK or France)... a blue-water navy (which is what this article is about) is about a navy which can deploy and operate from the oceans, far from home, not as part of a multi-national fleet but acting on its own. David (talk) 17:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
David said that better than I could have, I agree with him fully. G.R. Allison (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"a navy which can deploy and operate from the oceans, far from home, not as part of a multi-national fleet but acting on its own" is certainly a good clear definition! Whose definition is it? I mean, where did you get this definition from? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:25, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think he got it from "Blue-water naval capability means that a fleet is able to operate on the high seas". It means the same thing, with 'far from home' being the 'high seas' and also "The vessels of a green-water navy can often operate in blue-water for example. A number of nations have extensive maritime assets but lack the capability to maintain the required sustainable logistic reach. Some of them join coalition task groups in blue-water deployments". G.R. Allison (talk) 23:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No ... "Blue-water naval capability means that a fleet is able to operate on the high seas" is the definition I was using. It is sourced and in the article, and if this is the definition, any nation that has a fleet that is capable of operating in the high seas should go in this article. The definition that Dpaajones proied is much more specific and exclusive. If we wish to use Dpaajones definition, then we either need a source, or we are violating NOR. Please reread what I wrote: "why not simply list all nations with navies that have carried out operations beyond coastal waters?" By "coastal waters" I meant those waters patrolled by green navies, i.e. in the high seas. This would be a reasonable compromise and would not violate NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mean the definition David used is a paraphrased version of what is in the article. Also, any modern warship is capable of operating on the high seas, a blue water navy however is one that has "a sustainable logistic reach allowing a persistent presence at range" this means a navy must have a sufficient fleet of assets such as replenishment ships and oilers in order to keep warships indefinitely deployed and very few navies have this ability. The source for the navies listed directly calls them blue water navies and the source listed gives the definition "to maintain a forward presence globally, and the ability to influence events tactically throughout the world" it also states "no ‘blue-water’ fleet is complete without a coastal assault capacity" and very few navies have this either. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You now provide additional quotes that are not in the article. So you can't really blame people or addin material that fits the current definition in the article. But the ensuing conflicts could be prevented simply. If these quotes are as you say in the source cited, I highly recommend you add them to the first sentence, so that our article provides a complete definition. Then at least some improvement to the article will com out of this discussion! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think the current description of a blue water navy is appropriate and is nearly identical in meaning to the definition given in the source. The problem here has been people adding navies without a source calling them blue water etc, not the description of the term itself but I don't see the harm in including it as it will benefit the article. PS, why did you feel the need to say "our article"? G.R. Allison (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this page is to discuss improvements to the article, which is all I have been trying to do. The material you quoted is not in our article, and therefore not in our articles definition; if you and another editor think this extra material is important - and since you brought it up to answer my questions, it seems important - thn yes, I do think adding it to the article woulc be an improvement. To answer your question, I emphasied "our" article only to emphasize the difference between it and the book or article that we are using as a source for the opening definition. That's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do anyone ask for opinion in any naval page or it's just the people who has been discussing here deciding on it? A better thng to do is to call for expert view on the matter and then decide. I will object to the removal. Also what about adding the navies listed in the limited section to blue water navy, if the section is removed? Else the Royal Navy should be removed from the list to make it nuetral. The Royal navy has been reduced to a small navy due to the ongoing defence review and cuts and from the sources it can be found that its not capable of overcoming the challenges meant for a blue water navy. Hence only three Navies will be really qualified to be in the blue water navy list. U.S, Russian and French. That's what we get on being realistic. Britain's power has diminished to a level that it's no more a power. Don't understand why it's so sad for some to put the realistic things in perspective and rather hold on to belives. But if things are not seen the way it should be then, no comments. Bcs09 (talk) 02:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-Yes. The content is original research and was included without even an attempt to gain consensus here, let alone achieved it. Quite vivid blur (talk) 15:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really? You better check history of the talk page.Bcs09 (talk) 02:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mediation Cabal request

Hey, guys. I'm a volunteer mediator. I saw this request over at the Cabal pages, and after looking over the conversation here, it looks like you could really use someone who isn't invested in the article to help you sort things out. Mediation is totally voluntary, and I don't have any special qualifications or authority. I'm just a friendly voice of reason who likes to help people reach middle ground when they can. As such, any decisions we make will be made by the group, and the only blanket statements I'll ever make are my (nonbinding and subjective) interpretations of policy. However, by accepting my help, you are agreeing to:

  1. Assume good faith - remember that everybody wants what they think is best for the article;
  2. Remain civil - when you're not being nice, people don't hear what you're saying, they just hear the way that you're saying it; and
  3. Abide by this blunt but accurate essay - it's fundamental to getting along in a huge, collaborative community.

Of course, the first step is to be sure that everybody's on board to participate in the mediation process. Things tend to be lopsided when some people aren't along for the ride. So, if the parties involved in this dispute would still like help from a mediator, please reply here and let me know. I hope I can help! --Moralis (talk) 05:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for responding. As you can see above there is an almost unanimous consensus for removal of a section which is synthesis (navies with a limited expeditionary capability) as it's synthesis as mentioned but also it does not fit in with a description of a blue water navy and the list of examples of such a navy. Every time an action is taken to perform the removal backed by consensus, user Bcs09 simply reverts it. We can't get any removal of synthesis done without it being reverted by a single user, what should we do about this? G.R. Allison (talk) 13:46, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two issues here (to which only Bcs09 forms one side of the argument) - the inclusion of the Royal Navy as a blue-water navy (even though it obviously is one; it has been included as one since the beginning of this article's history) and the matter of this "limited capabilities" section. As I say, the consensus is clear - the Royal Navy should remain in the list of blue-water navies and the "limited capabilities" section removed or radically reduced and demoted to not being a separate section in the article. Only Bcs09 forms the other side of the argument and all he can do re: the Royal Navy is spout tabloid press articles about how the Royal Navy is somehow now equivalent of the Belgian Navy, which is a bit daft. David (talk) 12:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth including the section Bcs09 started on my talk page as he seems to have been threatening me? It's hard to assume good faith with that going on. G.R. Allison (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me now that given the near unanimous consensus on the proposed removal, the situation is pretty much resolved, I'll remove the offending article section in a few hours if nothing significant pops up. G.R. Allison (talk) 15:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As we have consensus for the change and no objections have popped up, I have acted in the manner agreed upon. G.R. Allison (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem in you helping. The best way seems to invite naval experts and let them sort it out. When we do it, it will look non-professional.Bcs09 (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think since consensus has been reached that the situation has been resolved. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:50, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad to see that you guys seem to have sorted things out! Since there doesn't seem to be a dispute anymore, I'm going to go ahead and close the MedCab request. If you feel like you need somebody to step in at some later juncture, you know where to find us - or just leave me a message directly. Happy editing, everybody! ---Moralis (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality

The Navies with considerable blue water navy section has been removed with the so called consensus. The reason for it still cannot be accepted, because it seems totally stupid like "It's original research". What's original research when there are articles that describe them to be having blue water capabilities to a certain extent. How can such things be removed just like that because if three people agrees can anything be removed from Wikipedia? The logic for the removal is not there. No links no source has been provided to state that the navies don't have limited blue water capability. And also why should not there be a section in blue water navies that describe limited blue water naval capability? Why is it haram? I did not get the answer for it. And should I bring in more people may be three more to make up a total number of four to make the changes that I like to make it, the way i like and then claim the article is correct now. I don't get it. Bcs09 (talk) 03:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been keeping an eye on the page since the day the MedCab request was filed, and I think this discussion could benefit from an uninvolved commentary after all. I think you've all become too frustrated with the situation to really hear each other.
Bcs09, I think that the editors who removed the content have been very clear about their reasoning: they say that the sources in question don't call the navies in question "blue water navies," nor do they refer to them as having "limited blue water capability," and Wikipedia policy states that content that isn't sourced should be removed. If there are articles, as you state in the above comment, that describe those nations as having blue water navies, those articles are acceptable sources.
That said, I haven't looked in detail at all of your sources, but from skimming them, it appears that other users on the talk page are correct in saying that they do not describe these navies as blue-water navies, or support the statements made about the navies in the section that was removed. Indeed, the source for the statement "All 4 of [the Indian, Italian, Japanese and Spanish] navies are capable of limited oceanic operations" is a BBC article titled "Japan ships join piracy patrols"; the article does not address the other three nations listed, nor does it describe Japan as a blue-water navy, a nation with "limited expeditionary capabilities". No other sources are provided regarding Japan, Italy or Spain.
Several of the other sources support statements that the listed nations possess carriers, or the ability to deploy ships at long range. However - and again, I haven't looked in detail at all of them - if the sources do not directly state that the navies in question are blue-water navies, limited or otherwise, then those sources do not justify the material being included in this article.
What makes it original research is the drawing of our own conclusions. We have sources that state, as in the above example, that Japan has helicopter carriers and is able to deploy ships at long range, and this satisfies some definitions of a blue-water navy. However, the sources do not actually or explicitly state that Japan's is a blue-water navy, and we aren't allowed to make that leap on our own.
I hope this helps clear some things up. I know this has been a frustrating experience for everybody, and if you guys need a cool head moving forward, I'll be available. --Moralis (talk) 04:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's something worth to hear, yes it can be. The points raised were merely sidelined because the other editors don't belive in it (I do think belief without any credible sources don't have any validlity in Wikipedia). The articles do say blue water capabilities. So should there be seperate article for blue water capability article or a subsection will be enough? Regarding Japan this may be enough to add them to blue water navy section.[2] Since it did not have the nuclear capability (due to Japanese constitution) and don't have full fledged aircraft carriers (some articles point it out that it's a requirement to have aircraft carriers), it will not be wise to add it to the list of blue water navy, hence the requirement for a sub section. Is it necessary to remove the whole section if the sources are missing for some. Only that must have been removed rather than the whole section. Similar credible links can be found (not just one multiple) for the Indian navy and PLAN. No objection on everyone's point that, articles don't say blue water navy, articles dont' say limited blue water navy but it says blue water capabiitiy? What does that mean and why should navies having blue water capability be removed from the article? Also the herny jackson society link need to be removed, it's not a good source, more like an association for purposes other than nuetral. Bcs09 (talk) 01:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bcs09, this has been done to death. For the sake of moving forward, let it go. Missing sources for some were not why the sub section was removed, as Moralis said "Several of the other sources support statements that the listed nations possess carriers, or the ability to deploy ships at long range. However - and again, I haven't looked in detail at all of them - if the sources do not directly state that the navies in question are blue-water navies, limited or otherwise, then those sources do not justify the material being included in this article." Also, The HJS source has been discussed and accepted before. From the wiki article "The Henry Jackson Society is a non-partisan think tank (with charity status in the United Kingdom)" it seemed fine to us and must be to you as you give a source for Japan from the same type of institute, the closest the source you give gets to calling the MSDF a BW navy is "For the blue water interdiction ambitions of the MSDF, four years of practical experience in the Indian Ocean is invaluable", that is not the same as calling it a BW navy. Your proposal was defeated and editors gave a reason for why it was not accepted. Please try and help in other ways and stop pushing this. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Only navies that have reliable sources citing them as blue water navies may be placed in this article. G.R. Allison (talk) 12:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The task has been left to the experts. Let's hope that they will bring in the sources and their expertise to improve the pages.Bcs09 (talk) 17:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The task has been concluded Bcs09, the solution has already been implemented. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, now the article did not appear nuetral.Bcs09 (talk) 03:57, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]