Talk:Blue-water navy

Turkey

It seems that Turkey according with the world Hierarchy of Todd and Lindberg list isn't even a green-water navy. But since Wikipedia Is a bad source then I think is ok that someone add its prefer countries in the World Hierarchy of Todd and Lindberg. Thanks --LuigiPortaro29 (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

@LuigiPortaro29: the attached Todd & Lindberg ref from 2019 includes Turkey. The additional sources (×4) about the Turkish Navy that you attempted to remove are all from 2020/2021. I'm trying to understand the purpose of your edit. Do you believe the Turkish Navy isn't actually on the table, but should be? If so, do you think it should be on another level? (other than "blue water, level 4, regional power"?)

And if you believe "Wikipedia is a bad source", then help improve it! - wolf 20:54, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Todd and Lindberg classification system

It looks like people have been updating the table of navies by capability level according to their own views about the navies' capabilities, without sources for how to rank them. If I understand wikipedia conventions correctly, this is original research that does not belong on wikipedia. I've changed the table to match the book given as a source. It's an old source, and it might be reasonable to try to update it (I'd guess that it probably is more reasonable to call China's navy rank 3 rather than rank 4 now), but we need a source rather than editors' opinions. Unseemly Levity (talk) 04:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

If you look a the previous post, as well as posts in the archives, you will need multiple comments about Todd & Lindberg being used as a source. - wolf 04:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

What Todd & Lindberg ref from 2019 were you referring to in the previous section? The only Todd & Lindberg reference mentioned in the article or talk page is from 1996. I don't see anything else in the archives about a more recent Todd & Lindberg source. Unseemly Levity (talk) 05:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: (I neglected to ping you in my previous reply.) Unseemly Levity (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

It's been awhile now, I don't recall the circumstances of that comment from back then. Instead of hunting through the page history and various refs, I should, and now have, taken it on good faith that your edit is correct and have self-reverted. Sorry for the bother. - wolf 08:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• TCG Anadolu sea trials 7 March 2022.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Italian navy

If you believe that a Wikipedia article is outdated then you need to find an up-to-date source with the new information. The source that is being referred to is from 2015, which isn't that far back considering how long it takes for navies to change. If the factual evidence shows differently from what an article says then you shouldn't have a problem with finding a source which says so.

I don't know who Todd & Lindberg are but presumably they know a great deal about naval power. Therefore, their views carry more weight than just what a Wikipedia editor believes is the case. It's not for a Wikipedia editor to edit an article based on their personal view of what the de facto circumstance is. I happen to disagree on what the circumstances are. The Italian navy doesn't have any nuclear-powered submarines, which must be really important judging by the attention given to Australia acquiring such submarines. But the point here is that it doesn't matter what each of us personally thinks.

Don't take this personally. I would love to see my country's navy, Canada's, much further up the table but sources say otherwise.

What you need to do is find a reliable source that directly and specifically says that the Italian navy is now considered to be a rank 2 navy according to the Todd & Lindberg classification system.

By the way, if the information in the table truly is an "extremely old and totally outdated opinion which is no longer valid", then the whole table should simply be removed. Chocoholic2017 (talk) 01:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Vandalizing a Wikipedia article is the best way to demonstrate a coarse attitude.

The Todd & Lindberg classification system was published more or less ten years ago, which is not an irrelevant amount of time and as most of the normal people knows perfectly. Through the time things may change, even in a relevant way.

In this case is not changed the set of criteria established by the authors, which are of course still absolutely correct, valid and applicable. What is changed is the capability of the Italian Navy that is is growing rapidly.

This month of November a new 38000 ton carrier named Trieste will be commissioned in the Italian Navy. Two additional upgraded FREMM frigate (6900/7000 ton each) are under fast pace construction, same as three patrol frigates (6270 ton each, not 4795 ton, useless vintage 1980s as another G level naval service), a new Vulcano-class logistic support ship will be commissioned in 2025 (27200 ton) and the third ship of the class will be available soon.

Not only two new heavy destroyers (13500 ton each) are going to be ordered by the Italian Navy within the next year (2025), same as two FREMM evo (evolution) (7000/7200 ton each), plus a class of three LPD (15000/16000 ton and 165/170 m each), plus the midlife upgrade of the two Horizon destroyers, which will give them a dramatic increment of the capabilities, including antisatellite and anti IRBM capabilities.

This year the Italian Navy have deployed a Carrier Strike Group in the Indo-Pacific that have been on station for more than five months, during that very long period of time it has projected the power of the embarked air squadron during combined air and naval exercise in Japan, during the relevant joint and combined Pitch Black exercise in Australia, then has dispatched a frigate to the most famous Rim-Pac exercise, and then has performed combined exercise with the navies (not naval services) of the Philippines, Singapore, the 7th Fleet of the US Navy, Indonesia and India.

Also, since many years there is an Italian naval base in Gibuti, on the Indian ocean, plus Italy as tight connection with the government and the Self Defense Forces of Japan, while is rapidly growing the connection with the governments and the navies of Australia, Singapore, Indonesia and Qatar and it’s relevant to mention that the last two are only buying Italian warships. This kind of political and military connection are at the base of the capability of a navy to deploy even to extremely distant seas, because are the main door to obtain logistic support and harbor facilities, if required.

All the above facts are properly reported, because in the paragraph related to Italy, where there is the discussion about the capabilities of the Italian Navy, those facts are properly indicated and there is plenty of examples and citations, therefore no one can dare to affirm that the second tier of the Italian Navy is not achieved, nor properly demonstrated trough a citation.

But it is not yet finish, because among many relevant citations, there is one that has a really crucial importance, the one currently with the nr. 50, related to: Kirchberger, Sarah (2015). Assessing China's Naval Power: Technological Innovation, Economic Constraints, and Strategic Implications. Springer. p. 69. ISBN 9783662471272.

In fact, that professional book, not a whatever news magazine journalistic article, clearly specifies that Italian Navy is among the short number of navies with a clearly specified “high level of capability”. Again, we are in presence of book published almost ten years ago and what was true then it is indisputably true at a much higher level today.

All this said we can surely affirm the follow:

1) The rules set by Todd & Lindberg in their classification system are almost then years old but still absolutely valid, relevant and applicable.

2) The rating that they have given almost the years ago is by far outdated and not applicable today, because the reality of today is new and not the old and outdated of a past time.

3) Today each and every not blind and not totally biased person must simply correlate the framework of criteria to the current factual evidence of the capability of each and every navy. And this for the Italian Navy give us only one possible option: second tier. And this is not a mere opinion is simply factual, period.

Also, it is a total nonsense to pretend that it is compulsory required to “find a reliable source that directly and specifically says that the Italian navy is now considered to be a rank 2 navy according to the Todd & Lindberg classification system.” This can be true if and only if the two authors have clearly specified this a compulsory requirement, which is simply false.

Again, such bizarre and nonsense affirmation is against each and every approach to the reality and the common sense, because it is trying to force the factual evidence of the real world to the presence or the absence of a whatever unspecified person who may or may not jump out to say that something is in a certain condition or not.

Facts are true or false inherently in their own nature. A duck is a duck if is looking as a duck and acting as a duck, not if an unspecified “authority” says that it is a duck. Trying to insert such senseless criteria is a slap on the face of the authors, as well as on the face of each and every person who has a minimum level of understanding of the facts and of the reality of the real world.

Canada

Finally, it worth to say that Canada do not have a navy, it just has a naval service which have only a group of medium-small frigates (less than 5000 ton), having only a local area air defense system, only a single small to medium caliber gun, no torpedo launcher and only a single helicopter. Those small ships are the outcome of a program established in 1977, about half a century ago, designed in 1983 that is 41 years ago, most of them built in the 1980s or before the fall of the Soviet Union and commissioned since 1992, that is to say 32 years ago.

Thus the “first line” of the Canadian naval service has already more than 32 years or not less than 27 years and it is universally known that the operational life of a naval ship is 30 years or – in any case – not more than 35 years. This will not change until the first years of the next decade and will take many more years to have at least as little as four ships and many more years to achieve the full operational status on a completely new project.

All this given and considering that Canada do not have a single replenishment ship, bring to a single possible conclusion: Canada is not able to enter in any position of the World Naval Hierarchy, because as of today has an extremely old and unreliable bunch of ships, which are almost ready for the demolition ad not have a single possible substitute within 8/10 years.

As a consequence, Canada do not have the dignity to be present in the Hierarchy and as an unavoidable effect, Canada must be cancelled from the page for at the least the next 15 years, if not more. FrancescoC.italy (talk) 23:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh my goodness me, relax already man.

I'm not going to bother to reply to everything you've said as you're getting far too worked up about this, plus a lot of what you say is simply irrelevant. But I will respond to some points.

Firstly, this: "Vandalizing a Wikipedia article is the best way to demonstrate a coarse attitude." This is a lie. Seriously, stop taking this so personally. You didn't like that the information in that table, from the source, was an "extremely old and totally outdated opinion which is no longer valid", so I removed it. What criticism would you make to someone who tells lies? (And in addition, the best way to demonstrate a coarse attitude is to be unpleasant, again and again and again.)

"All the above facts are properly reported, because in the paragraph related to Italy, where there is the discussion about the capabilities of the Italian Navy, those facts are properly indicated and there is plenty of examples and citations, therefore no one can dare to affirm that the second tier of the Italian Navy is not achieved, nor properly demonstrated trough a citation."

And yet, having said all of the above, you still haven’t found a single reliable source that actually directly and specifically says that the Italian navy is now a rank 2 navy!

"Also, it is a total nonsense to pretend that it is compulsory required to “find a reliable source that directly and specifically says that the Italian navy is now considered to be a rank 2 navy according to the Todd & Lindberg classification system.”

It's compulsory because otherwise it means that each Wikipedia article just comes down to what individual editors personally think.

"The rules set by Todd & Lindberg in their classification system are almost then years old but still absolutely valid, relevant and applicable"

If you're going to use their classification system then what you need to do is find a reliable source that directly and specifically says that the Italian navy is now considered to be a rank 2 navy according to that system. It's not for you to basically say, hey, look at all the ships the Italian navy has, and then form a personal judgement on the Italian navy's capabilities.

"This can be true if and only if the two authors have clearly specified this a compulsory requirement, which is simply false."

Of course that's false. What matters is justifying with reliable sources any changes to an article.

"Today each and every not blind and not totally biased person"

Enough with the abuse already.

"must simply correlate the framework of criteria to the current factual evidence of the capability of each and every navy. And this for the Italian Navy give us only one possible option: second tier. And this is not a mere opinion is simply factual, period."

But what we are doing then is just going on our personal opinion. We will have editors moving navies all over the place because they personally think that that navy should now be in a different spot. It's simply not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Please educate yourself on that.

Regarding the Canadian navy, again, I really, really don't care if you want to dismiss the Canadian navy. This isn't personal! And then to say this: "As a consequence, Canada do not have the dignity to be present in the Hierarchy and as an unavoidable effect, Canada must be cancelled from the page for at the least the next 15 years, if not more." Wow! Seriously, go for a long walk or something and please try to relax.

"Again, such bizarre and nonsense affirmation is against each and every approach to the reality and the common sense, because it is trying to force the factual evidence of the real world to the presence or the absence of a whatever unspecified person who may or may not jump out to say that something is in a certain condition or not."

When you start talking about "common sense", you have made it clear that you are just going on your personal opinion. One person's common sense is another person's nonsense. And they're not unspecified people. You yourself are an unspecified person. The way that Wikipedia works, or is supposed to work, is that you use reliable sources to back up the information written on a page. You don't go on your personal opinion. Other people's opinions on the Italian navy may be different. For example, they may take the view that without nuclear-powered submarines, a navy might not last that long in a different part of the world. I don't know but then, that doesn't matter. What matters is what people with a lot of naval expertise think. So what you describe as factual evidence is really just your opinion.

"Facts are true or false inherently in their own nature."

I agree.

"A duck is a duck if is looking as a duck and acting as a duck, not if an unspecified “authority” says that it is a duck."

That's a good line but it misses the point, and it goes back to removing the whole table. You either accept the "authority" of Todd and Lindberg or you don't. You can't have it both ways. Also, what you're actually doing here is the equivalent of saying, "look at that duck, it's a big duck!" You're welcome to your opinion but who are you to decide that it factually counts as big? No-one is disputing that the Italian navy is a navy. We don't need a source to tell us that. What we need is the equivalent of a source saying that it now ranks as a big duck rather than, say, a medium-sized duck. Think about it for a bit.

"Trying to insert such senseless criteria is a slap on the face of the authors, as well as on the face of each and every person who has a minimum level of understanding of the facts and of the reality of the real world."

You're just being unpleasant here. And I don't accept that it is simply a fact that the Italian navy is now a rank two navy. Where are the Italian navy's nuclear-powered submarines for example? But again, it's not down to my or your personal opinion.

Again, this isn't about trying to personally convince other editors. Every time you mention what ships the Italian navy has or where those ships have been in the world, you are clearly demonstrating that you don't truly understand how Wikipedia is supposed to work. And I have to say, instead of reacting in a mature way to someone who disagrees with you, you have come out with unpleasant comment after unpleasant comment. It doesn't exactly suggest that you are someone who engages with a subject in an intellectual way. A great example of your poor attitude here is your criticisms of the Canadian navy. I've said it before and I will say it again, I simply don't care whatever your views on the Canadian navy are. This isn't personal.

I'm not going to carry on in an edit war with you but I just find it sad that you cannot bring yourself to argue in a reasonable, polite manner, or try to truly understand how Wikipedia works. And I imagine you will just prove my point by how you choose to respond to what I've written here. Chocoholic2017 (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

In addition to everything that I've said above, you also need to appreciate the following from this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. On Wikipedia, original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented. [my emboldering]

Chocoholic2017 (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2024 (UTC)