Talk:History of the Royal Canadian Navy

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)

Royal (Canadian) Navy White Ensign
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)

Canada's Navy
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 . 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)


 * 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 fire Flank 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 fire Flank 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)


 * "Agreed, but it should be noted that this is only by convention, not official policy." What do you think "unofficially MARCOM is represented as the 'Canadian Navy'" means if not just that? - BilCat (talk) 17:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not "a" webiste, it is "the official" website. How does the official website not constitute proof? Moreover, no ever said it was policy. The sentence you keep removing quite clearly says "unofficially." Parsecboy (talk) 18:00, 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 fire Flank 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)


 * I also concur with Ranger Steve that Lead is giving undue weight to the subject. Thigle original senstence is sufficient to deal with the topic. Further discussion ought to be at the MARCOM page itslef. - BilCat (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Folks, Canada does not currently have a Navy. That's verifiable.  The National Defence Act is here .  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  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)
 * The original sentence was: "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. He removed the portion I've italized. - BilCat (talk) 19:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bilcat, I spotted that (that's why I wondered if there was something else I was missing)! It doesn' seem to be contentious to me (should probably have said that). Ranger Steve (talk) 20:12, 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 right. David Underdown (talk) (due to edit conflicts, the end of my intended reply got lost earlier)


 * This is from a news release regarding the 100th aniversary of the "Canadian Navy":
 * "Tuesday, May 4, 2010 marks the commemoration and celebration of the Canadian Naval Centennial (CNC). Throughout the centennial year, the Canadian Navy is celebrating 100 years of naval service in Canada."
 * That's an odd statement to make is the Navy ceased to exist entirely in 1968. Btw, the CN's official anivesary site is at http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/centennial/0/0-c-1_eng.asp - BilCat (talk) 20:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * BilCat what 'word games' do you believe are happening? Government's establish organizations using legislation, which also define rules of governance.  Calling something MARCOM or Royal Canadian Navy is not simply word games, but reflects legislative reality.  It is not correct to say Canada has a Navy today.  It took an act to create a Navy for Canada in the first place, and to melt it away into a new thing called the "Canadian Forces".  You may not agree with that level of formality, but its how governments work.  This article cannot assert that Canada has a Navy today unless it can show that Canada does. I assert Canada has no Navy today, not because I'm against Canada having a Navy, but because I'm reflecting what the Canadian government itself said in 1968.  Since then nothing has re-established a Navy.  I assert a new thing exists in the Canadian Forces, because the same act which got rid of the Navy created the CF.  Within the CF there are Commands, including Maritime Command.  My semantics are not my own, but the Canadian Government's, as established in legislation. LinuxDude (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I know so far there has been no other editor supporting my changes, but truth is not something we vote on. I can prove that the RCN ceased to exist in 1968 when the CF began to exist.  I also admit that calling MARCOM Canada's Navy is common practice, and convention.  I'm willing to grant that if its identified as such.  But unless anyone can show that in fact Canada has re-established a Navy, Wikipedia should not assert it (policy indicates that this article (like all) must be factually correct). I am not being unreasonable in expecting this article to not present factual errors. LinuxDude (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * News releases and Web pages show convention .. they do not prove Canada has done anything to preserve or re-establish its Navy. LinuxDude (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * And neither did or does the article. It just said that MARCOM is informally described as Canada's Navy.  Look at the dictionary definition of the word, as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it, "The whole body of warships belonging to a ruler, state, or nation; (now usually) spec. a regularly organized and maintained naval force, esp. considered as comprising ships, personnel, maintenance systems, equipment, etc."  In what way dos MARCOM fail to meet taht common usage definition?  No matter what the legal status, in broad terms Canada has what would commonly be called a navy.  The goverment itself informally uses that description as effectively a "brand name" for MARCOM.  No more was claimed.  David Underdown (talk) 20:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but when the MARCOM site on the DND's official website calls itself the "Canadian Navy", that's not simply convention . Yes, the name is not official (hence "unofficial" in the stament you removed), but it's what they call themselves. If you genuinlly believe that is incorrect per Canadian law, then you sue them in court, or take whatever legal action is appropriate there. WP is not the place to pursue your own agenda, per WP:SOAPBOX. BilCat (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The self-evidence of the original, removed statement, and the ridiculousness of the argument against it, is rapidly sending this into WP:LAME territory... - The Bushranger Return fire Flank speed 21:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This is lame. Whether a navy is called "navy" or "sea army" or "coast guard" doesn't matter. A navy is a military force that operates from the water. Canada has military elements that operate on the water, in blue water even, therefore, Canada has a navy. There is even a division in the military force structure that cleanly divides this force into a specific element, MARCOM. 70.29.208.247 (talk) 06:28, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agreed with that. De Grasse (talk) 04:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)


 * As an after note to this debate, Canadian Senator Joseph Day (and others) have been looking at this very issue in the Armed Services Committee and come to the same conclusion I was advocating here, that indeed Canada did not currently, officially, have a Navy. Though many disagreed with the effort to make that precise in this article, and thought the discussion was thought 'lame', in the end the Armed Services committee agreed with my point that words are important, and that Canada does not officially have a navy - but should.  Accordingly, the Armed Services committee passed the motion (on 16 Dec 10) "That the Senate of Canada encourage the Minister of National Defense to change the official structural name of 'Maritime Command' to a new name that includes the word 'Navy'".  This all shows that even edits that sometimes at first appear to be unreasonable, aren't always  It also shows that before reverting edits, we must make an effort to understand the positions we don't agree with before rejecting them. 129.100.44.100 LinuxDude (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Conclusion
This article is very intersting. It might be that the whole argument above will be made moot soon. No mention of "Royal", however. - BilCat (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm a former Canadian Naval Officer, having served my entire career (25 years) in what was originally called the Sea Element of the Canadian Armed Forces, subsequently renamed the Canadian Forces. For more than half of my career, we no longer used the term "Sea Element." It became Maritime Command. None of these terms is "cast in stone." If one reads the National Defence Act (see links below), the Minister is free to organize the Canadian Forces into units, elements, and organizations as he/ she sees fit, more or less. LinuxDude is only partially correct. My understanding of the facts are as follows: the Royal Canadian Navy was NOT disbanded, but was zero-manned in 1968, and all serving members were transferred to the Canadian Armed Forces. Therefore, the Royal Canadian Navy still exists, it just has no personnel in it. (LinuxDude is correct, here, I believe. It would take a royal proclamation to disband it.) Several changes to the makeup of what was the Sea Element (as constituted in the original interpretation of the National Defence Act (NDA)) have been made since 1968 by Order-in-Council--basically Cabinet Directives and Ministerial Directives. (cf. NDA, Part I, Section 12(1) and 12(2), http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/N-5/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:l_II) The National Defence Act is interpreted and put into force through the Queen's Regulations and Orders for the Canadian Forces (QR&O's). The Qr&O's are, in turn, given detailed interpretation through the Canadian Forces Administrative Orders (CFAOs), now being superseded by the Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAODs). Without a detailed search, I could not quickly put my finger on an 'official' directive authorizing the nomenclature, "Canadian Navy." However, if one reads the details of the Defence Terminology Directive (DAOD 6110-0, Defence Terminology, http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/dao-doa/6000/6110-0-eng.asp), one can "read between the lines," particularly this policy statement, "ensure defence terminology is consistent, if practical, with that of other government organizations, the defence industry, the principal allies of Canada and other interested parties," one can see that the term "Canadian Navy" has been authorized to avoid confusion with, for example, the Canadian Coast Guard, and other marine services of the Government of Canada that might confuse non-military Canadians, including civil servants in other departments, as well as out allies. The nomenclature to be used is authorized "from time to time" by the Minister of National Defence (cf. NDA, Part II, Section 17 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/N-5/page-2.html#anchorbo-ga:l_II). These directives have the force of law, as they are authorized within the Act and by Parliamentary procedure. Naval ranks were returned in the late-1970s (can't remember the exact date), as our usage of "Green" (Army) ranks confused our naval allies in the passing of courtesies, etc. This did not require a change to the Act, merely a re-writing of QR&O's, as THAT is where the rank structure (as determined by the Minister, remember) is laid out. In 1985, Distinctive Environmental Uniforms (DEUs) were introduced, which put the majority of personnel into a uniform that reflected their historical origin (i.e., a Canadian naval (dark blue) uniform for those personnel in "naval" occupations, a Canadian air force (light blue) uniform for those personnel in "air force" occupations, and the Army retained the original green uniform, but was authorized to "tailor" it to better reflect Army uniform traditions. Those in trades not associated with a particular service were equally distributed among the uniforms, with as much effort made as was possible to place individuals in the uniform of their choice.). Note that these uniforms are NOT the old uniforms! In fact, they would not be confused by anyone familiar with the former service uniforms and the current ones. (For instance, there are several notable differences in the Canadian naval uniform from our fellow "Royal" (Commonwealth) Navies: six tunic buttons (signifying a Republican Navy, vice a Royal one, which has eight buttons), "scrambled eggs" on Lieutenant-Commanders cap visor (an "Americanism"), enlisted ranks wear the same style of uniform (i.e., shirt-and-tie-with-tunic)as the officers.) Again, this was accomplished by changes to the CF Dress Manual, the publication that prescribes all uniforms for the Canadian Forces, authorized under QR&O's under the "Schedule of Canadian Forces Publications." Around the same time, authorization was given to OFFICIALLY refer to the Canadian Navy, the Canadian Air Force, and the Canadian Army, again, in part, to avoid confusing our allies in written correspondence, among other reasons. Note that the "Canadian Navy" includes more than simply Maritime Command. It conceptually includes the units of Air Command that fly under the operational command of Maritime Command, i.e., the Sea Kings and Auroras. Although I can't find it quickly, there is extant legislation and legal authority referring to "the naval forces of Canada." In order to have "naval forces" one must have a Navy, as opposed to a Coast Guard, a Fisheries Service, a Marine Division of the Department of Transport, or a Marine Division of the RCMP--just some of the SEVEN (at least) OFFICIAL marine services of the Government of Canada, operating under the LEGAL AUTHORITY of various government departments and their covering legislation. The G&M article referred to above would indicate to me that these OFFICIAL (passed by Order-in-Council or Ministerial Directive, remember) changes in nomenclature may, in turn, be folded back into the National Defence Act in a minor amendment to the Act. Finally, let me say that I agree with a MUCH earlier comment, in that I think this entire discussion should have been moved to the "Maritime Command" page, not held here. C'est la vie. Hopefully, end of discussion. Spartan26 (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Name change
Notwithstanding the arguments put forward above, Peter Mackay will announce tomorrow a change of name back to "Royal Canadian Navy". A discussion of how to handle the names of our articles is happening now at Talk:Canadian Forces Maritime Command. -Rrius (talk) 21:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Hull classification symbols
When was the change made from pennant numbers to hull classification symbols? 104.153.40.58 (talk) 17:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)