Talk:Royal Navy

Title

would this be better at British Royal Navy? There are other royal navies... Vera Cruz

In a word, no. There is only one "Royal Navy". All others are "Royal somethingelse Navy". For example, Royal Australian Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy, and so on. Tannin

just wait until the micronations hear about this... Vera Cruz

:)

Uhmmmm... The Dutch Navy IS called the 'Royal Navy'. I suggest a new title, this one is at the very least ethnocentric. Nonickyet 2:41(CET) 9 aug 2005.

It's called the Royal Netherlands Navy. [1] Proteus (Talk) 10:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually on the link you give it is called the Koninklijke Marine which directly translates as Royal Navy, not Royal Netherlands Navy. Dabbler 11:02, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

It's called the Royal Netherlands Navy in English, as the English section of that site demonstrates perfectly clearly ("You arrived at the website of the Royal Netherlands Navy"), and that's the only thing that matters in the English Wikipedia. The English name is not always a direct translation of the name in the local language. Proteus (Talk) 11:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I cant find any English version on the link you provided. However, even if it did refer to the Royal Netherlands Navy, the logic would still not hold. For example, when talking about The Queen, we all know the British queen is implied. But concluding that therefore, the wiki page on Queen should refer to Elisabeth is a poor choice imho. Nonickyet 14 Aug 2005 21:36(CET)

I'm afraid that is a very poor analogy in every respect.--80.47.56.33 11:14, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Here's another example: when listening to dutch radio, Radio Nederland Wereldomroep is in english always known as "Radio Netherlands" versus the literal translation "Radio Netherlands World". Consequently, "Royal Netherlands Navy" is the correct translation. As such, there is only one (1) "Royal Navy." - WorldbandDX 28th August

This is a valid criticism, but we can safely assume that on the English wiki the vast majority of searches for "Royal Navy" will refer to the British fleet. Simplicity would suggest keeping the article here, though it may be appropriate to link a "Royal Navy (disambiguation)" page at the top. Bastie 13:34, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Flagship

Is Nelson's HMS Victory the current flagship of the Navy? By this, I mean it is comparable with the reference to FS Charles De Gaulle as "the flagship of the French navy"? This Royal Navy link would suggest so, but other Wikipedia pages would suggest that ships like Ark Royal or Dreadnought have served as flagship, which would be inconsistent with Victory maintaining its flag status since Trafalgar. Perhaps, there are multiple fleets, or some other technicality? Could somebody clear this up? --MichaelWest 29 June 2005 13:58 (UTC)

A flagship is any ship in which an admiral is stationed or "flies his flag". The smallest ship in the Navy could be a flagship if that is where the admiral wants to operate from. HMS Victory is still in commission as the flagship of the admiral for the time being acting as Second Sea Lord in his role as Commander in Chief of the Royal Navy's Home Command (CINCNAVHOME). However, he does not actually work aboard the ship. Dabbler 29 June 2005 14:31 (UTC)

"Flagship" merely indicates the ship which flies the flag of an admiral commanding a particular naval force. Victory is the flagship of the whole RN, but if you take a look at Order of battle at Jutland for example, you can see that each battleship and battlecruiser squadron had its own flagship. -- Arwel 29 June 2005 14:33 (UTC)

It's incorrect to refer to the Victory as being the flagship of the whole RN (being, as it is, the flagship of the Home Command). If any ship had the claim to this status, it would be the flagship of the Admiral of the Red (pre-1864), or the flagship of the Admiral of the Fleet (1864-1996). Alternatively, one could consider any ship flying the flag of the Lord High Admiral (HMQ, since 1964) to the true flagship of the fleet. For example, HMY Britania flew this flag whenever the Queen was on board. --195.166.157.232 16:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

It is usually assumed that the current flagship of the British fleet is whichever is the 'active' aircraft carrier of Invincible (paid off), Illustrious and Ark Royal (in refit). So at this point in time would be HMS Illustrious. As a side note however, HMS Victory is one of the flagships as she is the flagship of the Second Sea Lord. JonEastham 14:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alleged inhumanity

User:Patcat88 just added the following text:

"The Royal Navy also developed a reputation of savagry and inhumane practices such as frequent [[Flagellation|loging] and unconsenting, effectivly kidnapping Impressment. This reached its peak in the 1700s and early 1800s."

I don't think this is particularly relevant. "Inhumane practices" were the norm for armed forces of that time, and have been throughout history. It's only recently (i.e. the past couple of hundred years) that soldiers and sailors have not been punished severely for any minor offence. Also, "impressment" cannot really be called "effectively kidnapping", because it was done fully within the law, and with the full consent of the government. Perhaps some mention of press gangs should be made, but not in this POV way. Proteus 09:24, 30 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• I agree with Proteus here. I don't think the paragraph belongs and I certainly think it needs to be NPOVed at least Cjrother 15:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC).

• Yes, the social life needs to be described in context. The sailors did not mutiny over flogging or impressment, for instance. Stan 16:21, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

• I have changed the paragraph to hopefully NPOV it. Cjrother 21:58, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The old myth about flogging is back. Life was harder then and what are unacceptable conditions now were relatively normal back then. While there were individual ships in which excessive brutality caused mutinies, these were very small in number. The great mutinies at Spithead and the Nore were more in the nature of an industrial strike against working conditions, as described. Dabbler 03:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC) We have to remember that on land the penalty for stealing a pair of gloves was death by hanging. Naval discipline was avtually relatively lenient and the food was plentiful, regular if not overly exciting. The myth of harsh discipline and poor conditions is modern. I am not denying that there was occasional abuse, but the great mutinies "were" a glorified pay dispute not a protest against harsh treatment. Dabbler 12:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Flogging in the royal navy was not a "myth" as you so blithely dismiss - torture is torture if it is practiced in 2000 BC or 3000 AD. Flogging was endemic in the royal navy it was not confined to a few ships. Men were not exactly queueing up to join the royal navy in the 18th century were they? Why else would they have resorted to press gangs and sending convicts and rebels to the fleet as judicial punishment.

Round robins, petions in circulation prior to the mutiny single out flogging and other tortures as a major grievance of the men (bear in mind they were not even protesting against the harsh "Articles of War" which laid down savage punishment for various derilictions of duty - just abuses of the articles) To call the mutines "more in the nature of an industrial strike against working conditions" is incredible - there was a war against revolutionary France at the time yet the mutineers threatened to blockade London, opened Fire on recaltriant ships and killed several royal marines in the course of the mutiny. --Damnbutter 12:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The "myth" was that flogging was the only or primary cause of the great mutinies. Have you read any of the excellent naval histories of the period as opposed to fiction? Try NAM Rodger's the Wooden Walls in which he explores the pay and living conditions for seamen in the Georgian Navy very closely. I agree that brutality was the cause of some individual ship's companies mutinying, Hermione for example, but this was the exception rather than the rule. The round robins etc. below were addressing the pay treatment (the army had just got a significant pay raise) and the conditions. As for the press, that was required because the pay and conditions were not very good compared to merchant ships. There were a large number of "career" navy sailors. The mutiny at Spithead was settled without violence or punishment when the admiralty agreed to improve the conditions.

The mutiny at the Nore was lead by more political leaders who did had revolutionary motives and exploited the seamen's grievances. Again this was not necessarily what the common sailor wanted. Dabbler 14:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Have I read facts as opposed to fiction? Try these for size;

Admiralty Documents in the Public Record Office -Petitions to the Admiralty 1793-97 Ref; Ad. 1/5125

Petions from the crews of;

HMS Winchelsea

""We are knockt about so that we do not no what to do. Every man in her would sooner be sot at like a taregaite by musketree than remain any longer in her"

"HMS Shannon

"the ill treatment which we have and do receive...is more than..English man can cleaverly bear, for we are born free but now we are slaves"

HMS Nymphe

“Flogging is carried on to extremes….the number that has been flogged for trifling offences would be too tedious to mention at present”

HMS Pompée

“..to crush the spirit of tyranny and oppression so much practiced and delighted in, contrary to the spirit or intent of any laws of our country”

HMS Glory

“..behaved tyrannically to the people with ordering them to be beat in a most cruel manner…beating, blacking, tarring and putting the peoples heads in bags to the mortification of the whole ship’s company”

HMS Minotaur

“It is impossible to insert in this sheet the many acts of cruelty”

These represent a mere fraction of the complaints of brutality inflicted upon the average sailor in the Royal Navy at this time and do not represent "occasional abuse". Or do you regard the Public Records Office as the Office of Legends and Fiction?--Damnbutter 17:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Presentism is a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas and perspectives are anachronistically introduced into depictions or interpretations of the past. Most modern historians seek to avoid presentism in their work because they believe it creates a distorted understanding of their subject matter.Jacknife737 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Age

An anon has added a comment that the Army is "technically older". Is it? I was under the impression that the RN has existed from the time of Alfred the Great, while there wasn't a standing "Army" for a long time after that, as forces were just raised on an ad hoc basis whenever the King wanted troops. I'm ready to be corrected, though... Proteus (Talk) 20:45, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

As I understand it from British Army, today's Army is the descendant of Cromwell's creation, thus relatively new. The RN doesn't really have a documented continuous existence from Alfred's time, but there's not a single point where the monarch said "we must create a navy", so Alfred is as good a starting point as any. The Oxford history of the Navy discusses all this, but alas it's back at the library now. The "technically older" is likely to be confusing, it should be deleted or expanded. Stan 21:15, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

This is taken from the Royal Navy Web site distinguishing various forces that may be considered a national navy: When the King Charles II came to the throne in 1660 he inherited a huge fleet of 154 ships. This was a permanent professional national force and the beginning of the Royal Navy as we know it today. Charles II was also the first king to maintain a permanent standing army, thus making the modern forces pretty equivalent in age. Since no national army exisdted until Cromwell and a Navy Royal was definately developed from earlier foundations by Henry VIII I would think the RN can be conisidered more ancient before even going back to Alfred. Hence I have docked the sentence Dainamo 13:24, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Offline I'm working on a more comprehensive history article, and it will address some of these issues in more depth. The RN website is poorly worded, because it makes it unclear as to whether Charles inherited the "permanent professional national force" or if he created it from the 154 ships. I think it's hard for moderns to really grasp the idea that entire wars were fought with less planning and preparation that goes into a Saturday pick-up football game... Stan 18:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It was my belief that the Royal navy was the largest navy in the world until mid-way into the 2nd World War, not the end of the 1st world war as this article states. I'm sure if you look at a reliable ship list, this will proove it.

Thanks -Andrew

The Naval Treaties (can't remember fofhand if it was London or Washington) of the 1920s established ratios for the fleets of the Great Powers, the RN and USN were a 1:1 ratio at the top. The US Naval expansion bill of 1916 was designed to bring the US Navy to parity or beyond vis a vis the RN. But the RN was tied for the status of largest until the end of the second world war.

Only one?

The article contains this sentence:

In 1692-1940, the Royal Navy suffered only one major defeat, the Battle of the Chesapeake against France

I know one can debate endlessly what counts as "major" or even as a "defeat", but surely this sentence is exaggerating the case; consider the Battle of Lake Erie, the Battle of Lake Champlain, the Battle of Coronel, the Battle of the Dardanelles. Gdr 18:34, 2004 Oct 24 (UTC)

I think in this context it means a "strategic" defeat. The British lost in the American war of independence (partly as a result). Other battles like the Dardanelles may have been tactical setbacks, but the wars were eventually won. Wiki-Ed 16:38, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But if so, then what were the strategic defeats in 1692 and 1940? The Royal Navy was on the winning side in the War of the Grand Alliance and World War II. Gdr 19:39, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Supremacy

What happened in 1692 and 1940? I would have thought the piece needs a sentence or two of explanation here.

There were no significant defeats for the Royal Navy in 1692 or 1940. I think the author may have had in mind the battle of Beachy Head (1690) and the sinking of Hood and the sinking of Prince of Wales and Repulse in 1941. Gdr 22:33, 2004 Oct 28 (UTC)

1692 is too early - I think for "supremacy" you really want a date after Trafalgar. 1940 seems a wee bit too early as well. I would have thought the USN overtook the RN later in the war (1942?) after it properly started building up its forces. Wiki-Ed 16:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Bigness

Is the Royal Navy still larger than that of France? If so, is this likely to change in the near future, given the recent wave of spending cuts? Also, history seems to miss out entire First World War, 19th Century, etc. Ashley Pomeroy 09:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I take it the link to History of the Royal Navy wasn't prominent enough? :-) Stan 04:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

The Royal Navy is presently bigger than the French Navy but may not be bigger than the French Navy soon but it will remain much more powerful. Most of the escort fleet of the French Navy is made up of small frigates, corvettes and patrol boats whereas destroyers and frigates make up the Royal Navy escort fleet. And the RN will still have more aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. SoLando 17:47, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Is the Royal Navy really bigger than that of Russia??

If one counts ships that are capable of getting under weigh, most likely. The Russian fleet is in pretty poor condition, apart (to a certain degree) from the strategic missile submarines.

---

I have edited the article stating that both the US and French navies are now bigger then the royal navy. For the US this is obvious but for the French my reasoning is that the French navy has more personal, ships and probably tonnage. Has a massive building program which will further increase its size in comparison to the Royal Navy in the future. Also the French navy has more modern ships and is generally more powerful espcially as it has a real aircraft carrier while the Royal Navy has ancient VSTOL escort carriers.

Also I believe the Russian navy is bigger then the Royal navy in terms of ships and personal however it is much less powerful in terms of capability thus the Royal Navy is the more powerful force.

Lord High Admiral - uniform

Does the Lord High Admiral (ie. the Sovereign, since 1964 anyway) have an official naval uniform with insignia, etc? I've never seen it, though surely there must be something the Lord High Admiral can wear which says "I am the Lord High Admiral"!

David.

I've found out myself - the answer is no, the Lord High Admiral would wear the same uniform as an Admiral of the Fleet.

"There has never been any insignia used to distinguish the Lord High Admiral, as the office was almost always in commission after the introduction of rank insignia. The Duke of Clarence, later King William IV, held the office 1827-28, but did not wear any distinctive insignia. He had already been Admiral of the Fleet, and continued to wear the appropriate insignia for this rank."

Source (see bottom)

Technical speaking, the position of "Lord High Admiral" is an office (one of the Great Offices of State), and not a rank. As such, it's not really correct to talk of it having a uniform in the same way as actual naval ranks --195.166.157.232 16:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Ranks

Why isn't there a section on naval ranks, like there is for the british army?--80.47.20.68 20:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Minor nitpick

The navy helped establish the United Kingdom as the dominant military and economic power of the 18th and 19th century, and was essential for maintaining the British Empire.

The word "military" refers specifically to armies not fleets, so the UK has never been the "dominant" military power. In the 18th and for much of the 19th century this status belonged to France, while Germany occupied it subsequently. Bastie 13:28, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Well that's just rubbish. Military involves all forms of armed force employed by a nation state. Your view is very continent-centric. Yes the UK had quite a small army compared to the likes of France and Germany during the 19th Century, but its navy ensured dominance in warfare - hence why France never conquered Britain and hence also why Britain was able to expand its empire during the Napoleonic Wars. David 11:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Not so fast with the rubbish. In British English at least, 'military' in its precise sense refers to soldiers and armies (Latin miles, soldier), as opposed to navies and air forces. Formal Government documents sometimes mention "Her Majesty's naval, military, and air forces", and the Military Secretary's remit is confined exclusively to the Army: his counterparts in the other services are the Naval Secretary and the Air Secretary.

In American usage, the word does indeed cover all the armed forces: this is influencing British usage, which increasingly refers to "the military" rather than "the armed forces" or "the services". The trend is exacerbated by the lack of another handy adjective to describe the services as a whole (the only one I can think of is "martial", which can have derogatory overtones), and by British usage's own historical anomalies (e.g., the Royal Navy used to call its executive or line officers the "Military Branch", as opposed to the "Civil Branch" of surgeons, pursers, shipwrights, etc.) Nevertheless, it is legitimate to distinguish between a military power and a naval one, though it may put you at risk of being labelled a pedant. — Franey 13:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Lists of Admirals et al.

There is List of Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, List of Lord High Admirals and First Lords of the Admiralty and List of senior officers of the Royal Navy all of which have significant overlaps and even errors. I thought this was the best place to bring it to your attention but don't really know how best to merge these. Also the successession box for these admirals usually point to [[Admiralty] or somewhere else when they probably should point to one of these lists. MeltBanana 17:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Sea Harrier Withdrawl

The BBC reports here http://news.bbc.co.uk/nolavconsole/ukfs_news/hi/bb_rm_fs.stm?&bbram=1&nol_storyid=4761130&news=1&bbwm=1 that the last Sea Harrier sorties have been flown from Illustrious and that the aircraft will be formally withdrawn. This will require the updating of the Sea Harrier page, and of course the main Royal Navy page as this makes reference to the carriers flying FA.2s. Emoscopes 20:50, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Too Many Images!

Please trim down the images in the article, there are far too many, and it causes formating problems as well as loading time issues. --Barberio 16:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd second this, many of the images achieve little except making the article larger, and are anyway available on the article of the relevant ship Emoscopes ^Talk 18:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, the picture of the carrier HMS Hermes is actually of the INS Viraat; you can see the Indian flag flying if you look closely. I'm pretty sure this photo was taken at the Indian Navy's Fleet Review a few years ago; I recall having seen this picture then. I don't know if it's accurate/appropriate to call this a photo of the Hermes, considering that the ship now sails under the Indian flag. Gokulmadhavan 21:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

There are still too many images, so I'm just going to trim ones at random. --Barberio 21:12, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I took the opertunity to move the layout of the page around. Making sure that any lists stay at the bottom of the article. (And deleting one that had it's own article) --Barberio 22:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

No disambig?

Shouldn't there be some kind of Royal Navy (disambiguation) for other Royal Navies?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Which other Royal Navies are there? --Barberio 22:25, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

See the first section on this discussion page, there are things like the Royal Australian Navy and also the Dutch Navy which is the Royal Netherlands Navy but also works as the Royal Navy when referred to in Dutch. JonEastham 14:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

In English other royal navies are all qualified with an additional adjective. The British one is not. Wiki-Ed 09:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Battle Honours

I am removing the words Battle Honours from the timeline of the Royal Navy provided here. The reason for this is that the Royal Navy awards official battle honours to ships in a very specific way, (which I am researching now, and will hopefully write an artice on in the near future). The battle honours awarded by the Royal Navy have very strict titles and awards, (see HMS Invincible for an example), and they do not correlate to the list here.--Jackyd101 07:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Insignia, Uniforms and Ship's Badges

Hi everyone, I've added two new articles for insignia, they're now in the Royal Navy template. There's some good diagrams of rank/rate insignia on the Royal Navy's website, not too sure about the copyright issues for taking the pictures though. Maybe it would be worth expanding the articles to include uniforms and other insignia (I know I get confused by all the different branch badges and the titles that go with them - an article on this would be really helpful). Also, I've started adding ship's badges to the articles on individual ships - if you can find pictures of any more badges on the internet, it would be helpful if you could add them to the Category:Royal Navy Ship's Badges page and put them up on the corresponding ships' pages. Thanks, Sharkbait784 15:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a number of publications of RN Ships' badges. (Badges and Battle Honours of H.M. Ships, Lt. Cdr. K. V. Burns D.S.M. R.N., Maritime Books, 1986 / The A to Z of Royal Naval Ships' Badges 1919 - 1989, vols' I & II, B. J. Wilkinson, T. P. Stopford, D. Taylor, Neptune Books, 1987 ). These state categorically that the official imprints of ships badges are Crown Copyright and property of the MoD. Wikipedia has been denied permission to use anything Crown Copyrighted by the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationary Office. I therefore think it is unlikely that such a project to collect ships badges and reproduce them on wikipedia would be legal, unless they were self made and / or we had permission to use a reproduction. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:29, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Admiralty and Royal Navy in the 21st century

There seems to be no mention of what tends here to be called "the Armiralty". I've added mention of its privatisation to the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service page which seemed well out of date.

Also, since the Royal Navy in the 21st century page can be a useful expansion on the topic, why isn't it linked at the relevant section with a see main? ..dave souza, talk 08:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Second largest

I've removed the statement that the RN is the second largest nvy. It's been unsupported with a citation for a long time now and a simple comparison with the numbers of ships in the Russian Navy makes it exceptionally unlikely. This page compared with this page give clear reasons for thinking this is wrong - for example the Russian Navy has 61 submarines and 186 surface ships. The RN has around 100 ships and 14 subs. We'd need string evidence that the RN ships were so much bigger that they outgrossed the Russians by 2:1. DJ Clayworth 04:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Are those ships in decent repair (ie, able to get underweigh) or the total strength of the Russian Navy? An important distinction for that force.

The RN is the second biggest as 50% of Russias navy is mothballed. User:King konger

The size of the French and Greek navies are widely regarded to be larger than the UK, just comparing a simple list of French and British leaves a force of roughly 90 UK to 100 France. Unless of course it is being decided by tonnage, in which case a calculation needs to be done by someone as i'm unable to confirm either way. JonEastham 22:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

In my experience, Fleet size is always referred to in tonnage. I understand we are 2nd in the world currently. Red7

The above is correct. British naval tonnage is second only to the USA. Further, the British fleet is the world's second strongest regarding the ability to project power. One British carrier has more airpower than most national airforces...

"atrocities at Lake Erie"

The suggestion of "atrocities at Lake Erie" probably deserves a link, but actually no atrocites are mentioned on the Battle of Lake Erie page.

Slang Terms

Have added Citation needed tag to the text about the nicknames of the royal navy and sailors. I would suggest these names be looked into properly, especially the bit that talks about names used in Portsmouth. This is because I have been living in Portsmouth for 3 yrs and also work in the Naval base, along with having several friends who are part of the Royal Navy and have never heard any of these used. JonEastham 18:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Matelot is a very old term, the source of the slang may be dated, plus traditions change. GraemeLeggett 09:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

More appropriately referenced Rick Jolly, and removed the amazon sales link (WP:EL). Got to say I'm surprised to hear of someone working in the dockyard and never having heard Matelot, the Mob, Royal or Skate (although not in the context mentioned). I aded a fact tag to Skate as I've never seen that explanation.ALR 12:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

“Covey Crump” [2] (Commander A. Covey-Crump, RN) being the authority on Naval Slang - certain alteration edits have been made. Mousescribe 17:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Personnel Figures

This sentence features in the opening paragraphs:

The Royal Navy is currently the second largest in western Europe in terms of personnel, after the French Marine Nationale.

Is this relevant ? There is a bit of a rant by someone on the talk page for the Marine Nationale, but ranting aside, there is some truth in what is said.

I vote for removal of this statement, or at least its relegation to somewhere that talks more about the details of the navy, as opposed to the 'in your face' first couple of paragraphs.

The essential point is that the number of people, whilst being a valid measure of effectiveness (and therefore noteworthy) in relation to armies, is somewhat irrelevant for navies and air forces. It's the equipment that does the job of giving a navy or air force its teeth. And in any event, the French Navy figure does not seem to make a properly noteworth comparison, as it includes, amongst other things that the RN does not, the whole civilian fire fighting force for Marseilles. Now, wouldn't Hampshire and Devon council tax payers rejoice if only the RN budget would pay for Portsmouth and Plymouths fire brigades (the two English towns taken together being approx the same population as the French second city). Thoughts, anyone else ? --Phillip Fung 02:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

FYI to interested parties: debate on this point is ongoing at the talk page for the French Navy--Ordew 13:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Categories

There seems to be some kind of re-classification going on with regard to some of the categories for Royal Navy ships - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion. It would seem to me somewhat unnecessary and counter-productive to do this, it would presumably be extended to other classes of ships in history. Royal Navy naturally covers ships before and after the creation of the Kingdom of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, I can see no point in adherring to a new classification sheme that would end up being historically anchronistic for the sake of someone's desire idea of homogenised consistency. Jooler 14:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally don't agree with the renames since RN is synonymous with UK and have voted accordingly. If others have an opinion and want to express it they should vote accordingly Destroyers here and battlecruisers here. You can see the discussion from Wikiproject Ships at these links

1. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Ships_by_Country
2. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Problems_with_Ships_by_Country
3. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Ships#Category_merges.2Frenames.2Fdeletions

GraemeLeggett 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

NEO Inclusion

Is the current NEO in the Eastern Med really significant enough to be included in the timeline section? ALR 16:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lebanon evacuation?

do you think we should make a mention of the RN operation to evacuate people from Lebanon?

Pratj 17:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

New PD Free Image

Hello ALR in particular. I have created a new image and uploaded with undisputable licence. Please feel free to distribute as appropriate, and in particular place onto the Royal Navy if it still fits with your needs. Astrotrain has not raised any objections to a similar concept new image on the Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom) and made improvements himself so hopefully you will not be wasting your time. The new image is Image:Rev reh v pd.jpg. Best wishes, Des Kilfeather Desk1 18:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I have added the image to the article, I hope nobody disagrees with it or where I have located it. Would it be possible to get a slightly larger image Desk1? The other thumbs have a width of 300px, and it would maintain homogeneity of appearance if this image too could be at least that size too. Regards Emoscopes ^Talk 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. 400px version now in, shows same width as others. Also similarly upgraded the picture of TS Royalist in Sea Cadet Corps (United Kingdom). Later today will include a picture of Elizabeth II on Endurance, waving back at international ships crews during the review. The Elizabeth II article has rejected the image on the grounds it was not a significant event for the Queen in the grand scheme of things; but you may be interested in using it elswhere. I will point you to the file when finished. Best wishes, Des Desk1 11:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fleet Review article might be appropriate for it, in context.ALR 11:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, I would only ask that you review the JPEG compression, as 107kb is an overly large file size for a 400px JPG. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

New public domain image of The Queen and Admiral Sir Alan West placed at . Best wishes, Des Desk1 15:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Will look at compression again at a later date when more time available. Desk1 15:12, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

History

The History section is pretty big, the article is significantly over the recommended page size already, and bringing it up to scrath on the current service will increase that still further. There is already an extensive, and pretty well written article on the History of the Royal Navy elsewhere. Would it be possible for someone to slim down the history section into a summary and link to the proper article. I'd do it myself but the whole history side of life just turns me off and I don't think I'd do it justice. There is still quite a bit to come into the article so it would be useful to reduce the size of that section. TIA ALR 21:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that. Unfortunately the history side also turns me off, I'm in it for the ships mainly. Emoscopes ^Talk 21:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam?

Various links to the website http://www.royal-navy.org are repeatedly added to this page (and a few others), most recently by User:189.158.160.7. I have been removing them as I consider this linkspamming, and placed a request to desist at User talk:189.158.160.7. The user responded;

We happen to be a non-profit Royal naval history website and do not spam. We also contribute and monitor the accuracy of Wikipedia historical facts and correct.

Looking round the site, it appears to be a badly organised mirror of wikipedia content mixed in with heavy advertising (and bad grammar and spelling!). It seems to belong to http://www.oceanmc.com/ group of websites, which are similar in concept. On their about page, http://www.oceanmc.com/content/section/9/45/, Ocean MC state;

Copyright Declaration and Disclaimer

The source code of the whole Ocean MC-Service is copyright protected by International Copyright and owned by Ocean MC. You may not publish and use any copies of the Ocean MC pages or of part of them without compliance of the authors.

We are not liable for the content of any of the linked services, though we check the links frequently to ensure they are directly related to Leisure, Commercial and scientific maritime world.

I find this to be an extemely inappropriate site to link to from WP, as it is basically claiming information copied from WP as copyright; you can get exactly the same information on WP and under better licenscing terms. I would appreciate anyone elses opinions on whether or not this is linkspamming. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Eugh. Spam-linking of the worst sort. My personal advice is to keep it out, and test4im the user if he does it again. If he becomes a constant menace, add me to MSN (address is on my talkpage), and I'll watch his contributions for the next few months. HawkerTyphoon 17:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

REPLY from Ocean Waves - www.royal-navy.org:

You have made several statements that some are wholly and some partially inaccurate. We have not placed, "Various links to the website http://www.royal-navy.org are repeatedly added to this page (and a few others)...".

We certainly are not a mirror website and rely on our own members to submit information.

OceanMC sponsors our website because we do not rely on funding or accept any funding of any sort at this time.

The domain names of OceanMC are completely seperate to www.royal-navy.org, therefore www.royal-navy.org does not come under the disclaimers or copyrights of OceanMC.

Anyone but anyone may use the content of our website. Also we get emailed requests and NONE are denied access to whatever we have. It is free and open to all.

We admit there are advertising on the website due to the website being revamped at this time and using 'host' templates. This issue is being resolved as we speak and should be completed gto new templates within weeks.

We might add that your attitude disappoints us. We would have expected a more professional and friendlier approach towards us to resolve any issues you have with us.

If you care to check our positioning with many of the major search engines as regards to the Royal Navy key words, we fair better than yourselves. We are not looking to better our ranking by being linked to you. Our only intention is another source of information to readership.

Lastly, it would have been appropriate to state who you are and on what authority you can make these claims against us and to take actions.

Regards

www.royal-navy.org team

Thankyou for your reply. I have personally removed links to www.royal-navy.org from at least 2 pages in the recent past;

• Royal Navy
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Navy&diff=prev&oldid=80328473
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Navy&diff=prev&oldid=81425591
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Navy&diff=prev&oldid=81425790
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Royal_Navy&diff=prev&oldid=81617403
• HMS Hood (51)
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HMS_Hood_%2851%29&diff=prev&oldid=80327644

You must forgive me for assuming you are a mirror site, when I browsed your site, the various articles on ships I pulled up (e.g HMS Beagle http://www.royal-navy.org/shiplist/content/view/118/33/. HMS Bounty http://www.royal-navy.org/shiplist/content/view/116/33/ amongst others ) were identical to their WP counterparts, but with some pertinant sections removed (such as external links, references etc.) and were indeed out of date to the WP latest versions. I would therefore assume that your contributors were contributing from WP.

This is not in itself a problem, infact, is the essense of WP. However, I fail to see the merit in linking to out-of-date copies of what already exists on WP, when you say that We are not looking to better our ranking by being linked to you. Our only intention is another source of information to readership, this seems somewhat contradictory.

Every page on your website has the footer © 2006 OceanMC.com all rights reserved. OceanMC, and a multitude of links back to OceanMC. You must therefore forgive me for assuming that this site is covered by Ocean MCs legal policies and is affiliated with the network.

I find your position about search engine rankings completely irrelevant to this issue; links are not added on a basis of search popularity, but on merit of relevance to the article and to supply sources for further reading. Never-the-less I followed your advice and was unable to bring up Royal-navy.org on any first page of results for typical keywords on google (not even for the keyword Royal Navy).

I am User:Emoscopes, and I am acting in good faith purely as a wikipedia contributor, which I believe my history edits and contributions shows. I stand by my position that links to royal-navy.org, in its current form (heavy advertising, lack of clarity regarding copyright, heavy mirroring of WP content) is irrelevant to the article, and that their repeated re-insertion constitutes linkspamming. I act in good faith on WP, and took the time and effort to make a survey of your site before removing any links which I personally deemed to be innappropriate, which was part of the reason for starting this discussion here.Emoscopes ^Talk 22:29, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ocean Waves:

I have stated we are going through transitional stage and our templates are linked. You may have a basis for your argument on the first page yet 99% of our website carries "one" banner on each page at this time. This is within the header template that is subject to change. I hardly think we are heavily involved with advertising and especially spamming. Your definition of spamming seems a miss. Regarding the size of our databases and website incomparison to one banner that seems to offend you is ridiculous.

Please go check all the other search engines:

e.g. 1. Yahoo (the leading search engine)

Position 6 Royal Naval History - Royal Navy ... years. Today a world leader, the Royal Navy history is par to none. ... Royal Navy Handbook 1914-1918 (Hardcover) ... In 1914 the Royal Navy was the largest in ... www.royal-navy.org - 29k - Cached - More from this site

e.g.2 MSN

Position 5 and 6 Royal Naval History - Royal Navy

Royal Naval History - Ocean MC, The Royal Navy shaped the world for hundreds of years. ... The Oxford Illustrated History of the Royal Navy (Paperback) by HILL . Book Description

   * www.royal-navy.org
   * · Cached page

Many key words brings us first place:

e.g.3 Yahoo again

Position # 1 Royal Naval and Commonwealth Navies Ship List - Ship List Begin Royal Naval Heritage, Royal Navy, Royal Naval and Commonwealth Navies Ship ... LIST OF THE SHIPWRECKS OF THE ROYAL NAVY, ... List of Royal Navy Submarines sunk ... www.royal-navy.org/shiplist/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1 - 70k - Cached - More from this site also Position # 2 Royal Naval and Commonwealth Navies Ship List - HMS Dreadnought ... listings and histories., The sixth HMS Dreadnought of the British Royal Navy was ... LIST OF THE SHIPWRECKS OF THE ROYAL NAVY, ... royal-navy.org/shiplist/index.php?...&task=view&id=10&Itemid=15 - 76k - Cached - More from this site

If you care to try a little harder you will find you have no justification in what you say.

As regards to removing us from links associated with HMS Hood and others, you will find we are officially connected to these organizations and many others, "Officially". We represent their historical context if you care to search through our website properly.

I do believe we do carry many links to Wikipedia too therefore we shall act in kind. Also, we shall make aware to our readers the inaccuracies that are prevailant in Wikipedia with reference to the Royal Navy from now on. We did hope to be of great assistance and benefit in regards to this area as we have just newly formed the Institute of Naval History with many world leading naval historians. Infact this came about because of the mass media machines such as yourselves are diserminating false historical information due to relying on 'some' less than professional sources. However, we believe in the benefits of Wikipedia and we had hoped to support it wholly.

Sorry we have caused you to take offence and we take our leave.

Regards.

P.S. You may wish to remove the Official Royal Naval website due to recruitment advertising. You may wish to remove the Royal Navy News due to be a commercial business with advertising, classifieds, etc. You may wish to remove the National Maritime Museum due to advertising prints, reproductions, subscriptions, etc.

Thankyou for your response. Firstly, as stated before, I act as an idividual contributor, and am affiliated with Wikipedia in no other way apart from this. I too believe that Wikipedia is an excellent tool which benefits all the more from interested and knowledgable contributors, which I count myself amongst. I would therefore invite you and your leading naval historians to get involved in the wikipedia project.

I maintain that I find your position contradictory, because of the mass media machines such as yourselves are diserminating false historical information due to relying on 'some' less than professional sources. However, we believe in the benefits of Wikipedia and we had hoped to support it wholly. Why therefore mirror so much wikipedia content, innacuracies and all? For instance, from http://www.royal-navy.org/shiplist/index.php?option=com_frontpage&Itemid=1, "HMS Warrior - The first ironclad warship"; this is a factual error, which I daresay was copied straight from WP before it was corrected (I made corrections on this subject myself). Again, I invite you to get involved and correct innacuracies that you find. Otherwise, surely you are just furthering this (alleged) dissemination of falsehoods? I trust you shall be making your readers aware of any innacuracies on your own site?

With regard to advertisments, on your front page there are adverts at the top, adverts to the left, adverts to the right and adverts to the bottom. To me this is heavy advertising as, apart form pop-ups, I fail to see where more adverts could be placed!

Regarding links back to wikipedia? http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.royal-navy.org+wikipedia&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official reveals none, and only 12 mentions of wikipedia as a source. There are plenty of other pages which do not credit wikipedia as a source despite being copies.

Regarding HMS Hood, which organisation are you officially connected to? I would presume you mean the HMS Hood Association. Surely therefore that would be a more appropriate place to link from.

Perhaps if there was an "about" page on your website it may be clearer to browsers what the mission of your site is.

Regarding link spamming, Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided issues guidelines for wikipedia articles about what sort of links to be avoided. Royal-navy.org falls foul of 1,2,4 and - potentially - 11 therefore I can be forgiven for taking repeated re-insertion of links back to it as constituting linkspamming. Regarding removing the three links that you suggest, Wikipedia:External_links#What_should_be_linked_to suggests what should be linked to, and these sites all fall under this.

I reiterrate I have acted in good faith, based on official guidelines. I stand by any actions and what I have said, and do not believe I have acted innappropriately. Emoscopes ^Talk 01:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply from Ocean Waves:

Although we disagree on some of your points, however we do take them seriously. At the moment we see you picking up on the most negative aspect of our site and not looking at the main content. E.g. you choose the main page and your point is valid yet for all the many other pages your point is not valid. We also stated we are using templates whilst we are re-developing at this time.

One of the problems that is seen in Royal Naval History are "Standards". It is a vast subject and rather confusing at times. Much has been written. With the newly formed Institute of Naval History, we hope that many issues will be resolved. It is also hoped that guidelines can be layed to create better presentation and historical fact.

As with all things it takes time. It requires support. However, we would invite you to return to our website in the coming weeks and see the changes taking place.

This looks like an interesting development. Who has formed the Institute, and how recently? Countersubject 16:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite, the essence of my argument has always been in it's current form, the link is not appropriate under WP guidelines. Perhaps when the site has original content discrete from what is available here at WP, and is in a format with less templates leading to less intense advertising it could be reviewed. My main interest here is the Royal Navy, and not WP. I use WP as a vehicle for my interest as I enjoy it's "anyone can contribute" factor, and that articles are peer reviewed by a small army of like minded individuals with the facts at their fingertips. Naturally I shall be taking a keen interest in your site as it develops and wish you success with your project. Emoscopes ^Talk 16:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

In the meantime though, it should be noted that the link should not be added to Wikipedia without first coming here and stating your case again. HawkerTyphoon 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

"In the meantime though, it should be noted that the link should not be added to Wikipedia without first coming here and stating your case again. "

I do not believe you may set yourself up to be judge and jury over Wikipedia or www.royal-navy.org. You may have your 'interests' but they should not interfer with the works and good judgement of others. It seems you have no authority to set yourself up as a judge and jury. If the Authority of Wikipedia makes a case then we shall hear and respect their decision. In the mean time I would suggest you leave our links and works alone. If you care to see our website today, it has changed dramatically compared to what you had considered previously because you are not aware of the developments or good works in progress. We have spent much time and finances for a good cause and it is dis-heartening when someone "jumps the gun", makes judgement and publicly denounce. If you had considered taking up matters with us first then we may have discussed your concerns.

I have consistently set out reasonable grounds for your link not being on this page. I am only an amatuer Royal Navy historian, but, speaking as an individual, royal-navy.org, in it's current form, has no educational value. It is un-navigatable it has no original content, it is full of adverts and quite frankly, it is a shambles. Please refrain from abusing wikipedia and wikipedia users, it is not a vehicle for discussing the merit of individual websites, if you truly care about educating the public about the Royal Navy you should contribute to our project. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply:

Your statements are wholly untrue. Obviously, you have nothing better to do with your time. Good Day to you Sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.158.160.7 (talk • contribs)

I've reported the user due to consitent ading and ignoring policy. I suggest you all do the same whenever he spams. HawkerTyphoon 20:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have reviewed the site and agree that it is worthless as a resource. --Guinnog 20:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

One administrator's review

After reading the website and the discussion here, it is my opinion that this link cannot currently be allowed to stand, as per points 2 and 3 here. The site's content is partially copied from Wikipedia, which cannot use itself (or mirrors) as a reliable source, and partially user-driven which, also per WP:RS, makes it no more reliable than IMDb or social networking sites specifically prohibited under WP:EL. For an external site to qualify for a link, it must be verifiable; ""[t]his is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking." RadioKirk (u|t|c) 20:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

RNXS

As per Talk:Royal Navy Auxiliary Service, can anyone clarify if it was the Royal Naval Auxiliary Service or the Royal Navy Auxiliary Service. My feeling is the former, if for no ofther reason than it is the Royal Naval Reserve, University Royal Naval Units etc. Emoscopes ^Talk 17:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

This Blue Water Navy carry on

Blue water is anything outside of the littoral, anything inside the litorral is brown water. The current use of Blue Water is profoundly inaccurate. The RN has always been a blue water navy given the capability to power project globally, as an example OP CORPORATE was Blue Water. ASW operations in the North Atlantic were blue water.

Expeditionary means the ability to power project as part of a joint force delivering Land Effect at range, which is what is currently going on in the Persian Gulf. That is what was lacking for the latter part of the Cold War when Intrepid was laid up at R14, and Fearless was the only real token to Amphibiosity. ALR 21:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The current force in the gulf is a type 23, an RFA tanker and an RFA repair ship that is NOT an "Land Effect" force giving power projection on land. The RN did lose its main blue water capabilities in the 60's with the loss of 4 of its 5 fixed wing aircraft carriers, that were then replaced by 3 tiny helicopter carriers which were designated cruisers and intended for ASW. Though Ocean, Albion and Bulwark aswell as the new RFA bay classes are transforming the RN into a power projection force, until the new CVF's and type 45's are in service i dont think the RN can be called an effective deep water force. yerkschmerk

I think you're presupposing that Blue Water means you have to have an aircraft carrier. Given the range of capabilities available to naval assets that's a limited point of view which doesn't actually fit. Discussing current ops in any depth is inappropriate, but as part of the Joint Force package the current patrol contributes to Land Effect, there is no need for power projection ashore, which isn't what I said anyway, given the existing presence.

What do you mean by Blue Water anyway? Once we're both discussing the same subject, which I'm not convinced we are right now, we might make some progress.

Some might consider it intellectually dishonest not to be open about the reasons for designating the CVS as a Cruiser, the politicians wouldn't wear a fixed wing aircraft carrier, so it got called something else. They're also not helicopter carriers, they have always had the fixed wing capability to deliver both RN and RAF harrier capabilities. Purely rotary wing is one of the modes that they can deploy in though, whether that is for ASW purposes, amphibiosity or supporting Apache. They've also had the capability to host the Joint Task Force HQ afloat, reducing the dependence on host nation support.

I also note that you've not mentioned the SM capability for a range of missions, including the delivery of Block III Tomahawk.ALR 13:53, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, it's just that the blue water navy link emphasises to naval enthusiasts breast-fed on US terminology what this modern RN is all about. I do not think that the RN ever lost blue-water capability over the last 60 years, just that it lost governmental support as such and has it once again, what with the fleet subs having cruise and whatnot ;) Emoscopes ^Talk 03:29, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The Blue Water Navy article itself leaves a lot to be desired, I'll dig out the doctrine publications, when I get a chance.ALR 08:24, 21 October 2006 (UTC)