Ranger Steve (talk | contribs) →Canada's Navy: re |
David Underdown (talk | contribs) →Canada's Navy: re |
||
Line 74: | Line 74: | ||
::(edit conflict) Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but I don't think that's what the contentious statement said. Irrespective, the main goal of wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability, not truth]] (or fact I guess). To me, that website looks fairly good, however I would welcome any additional sources stating this in black and white. I fear your own reasoning and presentation is wandering into OR though. I don't think referencing the constitution act of 1867 is a suitable way to present these facts. A more direct ref should be found if it exists. [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC) |
::(edit conflict) Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but I don't think that's what the contentious statement said. Irrespective, the main goal of wikipedia is [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|verifiability, not truth]] (or fact I guess). To me, that website looks fairly good, however I would welcome any additional sources stating this in black and white. I fear your own reasoning and presentation is wandering into OR though. I don't think referencing the constitution act of 1867 is a suitable way to present these facts. A more direct ref should be found if it exists. [[User:Ranger Steve|Ranger Steve]] ([[User talk:Ranger Steve|talk]]) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::(double edit conflict) For heaven's sake LinuxDude, by any reasonable defintion of the term, ''[[de facto]]'' Canada has a navy, even if ''[[de jure]]'' it is called something else. And whatever the precise legal position, there's a perfectly good reference to show that even the Canadian Government/MARCOM itself, in informal usage, which is all the article ever claimed was the case, uses "Canada's Navy" as a description of the funtion of MARCOM. Your interpretation of the combined effect of legislation and the original permission to use the title Royal is just that, your own unsupported opinion - see [[WP:OR]]. I haven't read the legislation, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the RCN was technically put into abeyance, rather than completely dissolved. There is self-evidently continuity between teh RCN and MARCOM, commissioned ships continue to use the HMCS prefix, and I suspect it would be too difficult to show that ships also continue to use essentially the same badge wehre there was one of the RCN that bore the same name, and also bear the same battlehonours if applicable, and I don't suppose it would take too much effort to find other "naval" traditions either - is the loyal toast drunk seated, for example. If you really want to be legalistic, I should be very surprised if there was any evidence that MARCOM is treated any differently under international maritime law than something explicitly calling itself a navy, I'm sure commissioned vessels will claim the right of [[innocent passage]] as defined under [[UNCLOS]] for example. You keep throwing 3rr warnings about, so you are evidently aware of the concept, but it appears to be you who is editing against consensus and edit-warring. No other editor has expressed any support for your position, yet you continue to insist you alone are |
Revision as of 19:38, 7 May 2010
Military history: Maritime / National / Canadian / North America / World War I / World War II C‑class | ||||||||||||
|
Infobox/Ensign
I attempted unsuccessfully to do so, along with placement of the Royal Navy White Ensign. Should not all MARCOM information be revised/deleted, since it has to do with post-1968 Canadian naval operations?--MarshallStack (talk) 20:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Would it be possible to move the ensign at the bottom to the top of the page, much like what is done for the Royal Canadian Air Force? This is not the page for Maritime Command, after all, but a historical commandCpt ricard 03:25, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
- I moved the historical ensign to the top and put in a more appropriate infobox as suggested since this is a page about the pre 1968 historical RCN, not today's Maritime Command. Letterofmarque (talk) 22:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree fully with the above comment. In fact, the MARCOM ensign should not be shown at all since the Royal Canadian Navy and CF Maritime Command are two distinct entities, and the MARCOM ensign did not come into use until after unification, even though the RCN did exist when the Canadian Flag replaced the Red and Blue Ensigns in 1965. To be historically accurate, the White Ensign of the Royal Navy (also used by the RCN) and Canadian Blue Ensign should be the only ones depicted.--MarshallStack 20:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
"Mutinees" in 1949
Is this a spelling mistake? Should be "Mutinies" surely? Bastie 01:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Rank
Could someone add what the ranks are for the RCN? Thanks. --Funky Hum24n (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
It may be popular to believe Canada has a Navy, but it is not correct. Canada had a Navy starting in 1910, which was designated Royal in 1911, and dissolved in 1968. In 1968, the Navy, Army and Air Force were blended into the Canadian Forces. The Navy ceased to exist, or it would still be "The Royal Canadian Navy" since by Royal proclamation it was declared such and according to constitutional law, only a Royal proclamation can undo a Royal proclamation. Because the Navy, or the Royal Canadian Navy was dissolved in 1968, Canada's maritime force, now denoted by Law "Maritime Command", lost the right to call itself Royal, and indeed "Navy". It is incorrect to assert that Maritime Command unofficially is Canada's Navy since that assertion has no legal basis. I'm as much a fan of the Navy as anyone, but lets be clear here Canada's own laws state that the Navy no longer exists; If Canada had a Navy today, it would be Royal according to Royal Decree, and there is no such thing as 'unofficial navies'. If Canada's government has appointed its Maritime Command as its 'unofficial navy' please show me where this was enacted and so designated. I am happy to leave the assertion in, if you can show me something more formal than an incorrect website. LinuxDude (talk) 16:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sure if the Canadian governtment considered the website on the "Canadian Navy", they would remove it, as it is on the officual DND website. So your points make no real sense in any way. - BilCat (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Isn't this discussion on the wrong page. This is an article about the RCN which there is no dispute about became part of CF in 1968. Therefore a discussion about what the MARCOM is unofficially called seems out of place here and is better dealt with on the article on Canadian Forces Maritime Command. But if you want my 10 cents worth the ref to MARCOM being colloquially called the Canadian Navy seems fine to me. Even the Minister of National Defence called it that recently - see here [1]. NtheP (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- (ec) That, and navies don't need to have "Navy" (proper noun) in their name to be considered a "navy" (common noun). You are splitting semantic hairs in a textbook case of pedantry. Much the same as in this instance, the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force is the current incarnation of the Japanese navy, even though it doesn't have "Navy" in its name. Parsecboy (talk) 16:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence in question stated: "The modern Canadian navy is officially known as Canadian Forces Maritime Command (MARCOM), however, unofficially MARCOM is represented as the "Canadian Navy" and maintains many traditions of its predecessor." The key words there are "unofficially ... Represented", which is what the Canadian Navy website shows. "maintains many traditions of its predecessor" is also true, notabliy in MARCOM's return to Naval ranke ca. 1975 (I think that's the year, but in any case, they now use naval ranks agai, when they did not for several years after unification in 1968. As to this being off-topic for the page, I think that sentence is fine as is, and sufficient to cover the topic here. - BilCat (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- The website seems perfectly adequate to show that the title Canadian Navy is used unofficially/informally (since it's the official website it could in fact be taken as offical endorsement of the usage) which is indeed all the article says. Nor do I see the metion as being off-topic. David Underdown (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- The sentence in question stated: "The modern Canadian navy is officially known as Canadian Forces Maritime Command (MARCOM), however, unofficially MARCOM is represented as the "Canadian Navy" and maintains many traditions of its predecessor." The key words there are "unofficially ... Represented", which is what the Canadian Navy website shows. "maintains many traditions of its predecessor" is also true, notabliy in MARCOM's return to Naval ranke ca. 1975 (I think that's the year, but in any case, they now use naval ranks agai, when they did not for several years after unification in 1968. As to this being off-topic for the page, I think that sentence is fine as is, and sufficient to cover the topic here. - BilCat (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Folks, the sensitivity meter in this article has to go down abit. Here are verifiable facts. Canada had a navy establish by law in 1910. Canada's Navy was made Royal by George V (as his first official act I might add), in 1911. Canada's navy was dissolved in 1968. The Canadian Forces was created which has a maritime force. No current government policy establishes that Canada has a navy. The Canadian governments own legislation (The National Defence Act) says we have a maritime command. As much as members of MARCOM may believe they are in Canada's navy, there isn't a single bit of legislation or policy that establishes this belief. Unless someone can show a Canadian government document that says otherwise, the factually correct edit must stand according to wikipedia policy. LinuxDude (talk) 17:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Whether "Canada has a navy" legally or otherwise, the fact that MARCOM is referred to as "(Royal (or not)) Canadian Navy" is notable and really should stay. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed, but it should be noted that this is only by convention, not official policy. This very own article says that the Canadian Navy's Commander in Chief (in George V) declared Canada's Navy 'Royal'. This declaration has not been revoked by Canada' Head of State (or the Navy's Commander in Chief). If Canada officially has a Navy it must still be Royal. But it isn't, because Canada officially doesn't have a Navy. If no one can show that Canada officially has a Navy, or show policy that directly connect Canada's current maritime force with its predecessor we are going to favour factual correctness IAW wikipedia policy.
- Since the official Canadian Forces website says "Canadian Navy", I believe that's all the evidence needed, policy or not. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think you've missed the point .. I've asserted this is merely a mistaken belief not substantiated by policy or legislation. I've provided references of my own. A website does not constitute proof. Wikipedia is not simply looking for articles that cite websites. Recently the Governor General of Canada's website stated that the Governor General of Canada was Canada's head of state. She was corrected by Canada's Prime Minister and her website is now correct. Simply pointing to a MARITIME command website only proves belief and convention, not policy. LinuxDude (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
In addition to that, since forces.gc.ca says "Canadian Navy", and their press releases say "Canadian Navy", I think it's a bit more than "mistaken belief".- The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 17:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. Re your edit summary "I assert that removed comment is unsubstantiated (government legislation, who cares what websites say). Leave edit until resolved", well, we're the ones that care. The point of wiki is to reflect what reliable sources say. Your points are valid, but these observations might look better further down the article. The lead is rapidly earning itself a tag if it goes on like this, because its placing undue weight on a minor issue and not really summarising the contents of the article. Ranger Steve (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I think this coment on Linux's own talk page may shed some light on exactly what his issue is: "I know people associate MARCOM with the RCN, and have asserted this is convention not policy, yet no one has bothered to refute that assertion with facts."
- No, we, and the MARCOM wbsite are associating MARCOM with "Canadian Navy", not "Royal Canadian Navy". There is a clear difference, though Linux does not accept that, as his uncited references to the royal decree not being revoked show. - BilCat (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- Folks, Canada does not currently have a Navy. That's verifiable. The National Defence Act is here [2]. Canada's Navy was established by an Act in 1910, and dissolved by an Act in 1968. It was also made Royal by a Royal declaration, and notice that King George assented to the use of RCN only 5 months after he became king [3] even before the Navy was established officially in 1910. I also happen to know that it was actually the intent of King Edward VII who intended to make Canada's Navy Royal, but who had the unfortunate circumstance of dying before he had a chance, which is why it fell to Edward V. But I'm not going to cite that here, or provide anything other than anecdote. Even so, the assertion that MARITIME COMMAND represents Canada's Navy is true only as convention. If you disagree, please cite Government Policy or CF policy - I will concede. But it isn't enough to merely point to a website that reflects the mistaken convention as proof the convention is policy, when that's not how governments or militarys work. As evidence look at the fact the US Navy is changing its identity and look at how it has to go about it (thats right, legislation).
- If anyone can prove this isn't mere convention, fine. But if you cannot this article has to reflect what is factual, not what is sentimental. LinuxDude (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- I'm seriously tired of these word games. The sentence in question stated "unofficially MARCOM is represented as the 'Canadian Navy'", yet you removed it anyway, even though it said what you want it to say. Anyway, the consensus here is clearly against you, so let's just go back to the orignal wording, and move one to other things. - BilCat (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Perhaps there's something I'm missing, but I don't think that's what the contentious statement said. Irrespective, the main goal of wikipedia is verifiability, not truth (or fact I guess). To me, that website looks fairly good, however I would welcome any additional sources stating this in black and white. I fear your own reasoning and presentation is wandering into OR though. I don't think referencing the constitution act of 1867 is a suitable way to present these facts. A more direct ref should be found if it exists. Ranger Steve (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
- (double edit conflict) For heaven's sake LinuxDude, by any reasonable defintion of the term, de facto Canada has a navy, even if de jure it is called something else. And whatever the precise legal position, there's a perfectly good reference to show that even the Canadian Government/MARCOM itself, in informal usage, which is all the article ever claimed was the case, uses "Canada's Navy" as a description of the funtion of MARCOM. Your interpretation of the combined effect of legislation and the original permission to use the title Royal is just that, your own unsupported opinion - see WP:OR. I haven't read the legislation, but I wouldn't be surprised to discover that the RCN was technically put into abeyance, rather than completely dissolved. There is self-evidently continuity between teh RCN and MARCOM, commissioned ships continue to use the HMCS prefix, and I suspect it would be too difficult to show that ships also continue to use essentially the same badge wehre there was one of the RCN that bore the same name, and also bear the same battlehonours if applicable, and I don't suppose it would take too much effort to find other "naval" traditions either - is the loyal toast drunk seated, for example. If you really want to be legalistic, I should be very surprised if there was any evidence that MARCOM is treated any differently under international maritime law than something explicitly calling itself a navy, I'm sure commissioned vessels will claim the right of innocent passage as defined under UNCLOS for example. You keep throwing 3rr warnings about, so you are evidently aware of the concept, but it appears to be you who is editing against consensus and edit-warring. No other editor has expressed any support for your position, yet you continue to insist you alone are