Jump to content

Talk:Indian Navy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Rearranging the images in the Weapons section

With apologies to User:Deepak gupta: with 6 or more images in a bunch at the same section marker, the result was that eight or so of the [Edit] controls were pushed downwards into a pile at the bottom end of all those images, instead of being where they belong (one at the top of each section). So I rearranged those images. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard 06:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is solved now. Cheers --{{IncMan|talk}} 21:14, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

History of the Indian Navy

There might be a flaw in the article. It says: In 1830, the Bombay Marine was renamed Her Majesty's Indian Navy. King William IV ruled the United Kingdom in 1830. Victoria became queen only in 1837. The Bombay Marine was either named His Majesty's Indian Navy in 1830 or it was renamed only later when Victoria came to power. Since I don't know when the name change actually took place I cannot correct it.--Istabraq 16:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the lead ship in that formation is a US Ticonderoga Class CG and not of Indian origin Note the AEGIS Radar panel on the front of the ship. I don’t know how to fix it, but thought I would let you'll know.

That is a Tico, you are right. The only navy operating that class of ships is the US Navy.

Ah, seems I was not alone in going "huh"? It's going, going... - Aerobird 02:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm.. I found that image in this site. I remember that the article to which the image was associated to, spoke about a naval exercise in Goa. Anyways, its good that my mistake was pointed out. Thanks --Incman|वार्ता 07:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Future ships

I took the lengthy information that was added to the "Future Ships" section and moved it (w/out any smoothing...) to the various ship pages. This included creating pages for the new carrier and frigate classes. - Aerobird 16:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Missiles Section

I did the list missiles operated by navy. Should I give description?

And ATV Project should be moved to a seperate page. writing about all ATV Rumours in Indian Navy Article may not look good

The future aircraft section is updated. ATV is not a rumour. --Chanakyathegreat 09:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Old Flag Wiki

Please change the official Indian Navy Ensign on Wiki. It was officially changed in 2001 by the order of the President of India. You can find the new ensigns at http://www.defenceindia.com/defenceind/naval_ensign.html

Cmdr. BSK, Retd. IN

This was reverted back to the former flag because the difficulty in finding the flag or something like that. In the revision they also added the Lions emblem above the cross.

Chanakyathegreat 13:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The one in use is the latest one. It was changed in 2004. Here's the link to all the versions on the official site. The above link is outdated. I found this out while answering a question at WP:PINQ :) -- Lost(talk) 13:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Reinstated the Incidents and Accidents section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

This is in my opinion as important a section as the exercises & future plans section. It gives a brief non-biased write-up of the events.Natobxl 04:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

With five major incidents or accidents with loss of lives and in each instance damage to ships for a navy of this size and importance is reason enough to think about highlighting this on the main page ... or should we create a sub-page for this ? If it can't go here, I'll create a sub page for this. Any comments from anyone ? Natobxl 12:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The article link is more than enough. those interested in accidents will read it. All Navies have accidents and it need mentioning. But did not require writeup taking a section of the page which is utilised in a very restricted manner. Event the section on Adventure is limited by only some major events not adding other major adventure events. Still a lot to be added like the Sangraha EW systems in the Information section. Also please don't mess up things. If you are editing this page then your objective must be to make this article a Featured article. Chanakyathegreat 14:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

For the 3 points you made on my discussion page : (1) I have no issue that you change the title. OK with me. (2) There were sailors who were killed and others injured in the explosion aboard the INS MAGAR (refer to the Indian press for info on this incident). (3) My bias is neutral. I'm not interested in the US Navy, French Navy or Royal Navy for the time being. But, in due course it might come onto my todo list. Nevertheless, the spate of accidents and incidents is something that cannot be ignored and has even seen the intervention of the (now former) defense minister and (former) Naval Chief to see that the accident/incident rate goes down. Finally, just for the record, you'll see that from my contribution record I've always had a neutral track-record on contributions without taking sides in any submission. So, your claim on "mess up things'" is useless to comment on. On Wiki all persons (normally) try to contribute positively. So, no point going around with a flame-thrower ... only reflects poorly on oneself. So, if you want cooperation on pages or specific topics I can help within the framework of a consensual discussion for submissions.

Natobxl 14:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to check your contributions to check your nuetrality. I am concerned about only about the article. Here you are adding things just by copying the whole thing from the article. I had at the earlier date when the article on ships of the Indian Navy was created, moved the section (with the link) after correcting it. Accidents do happen in all navies. Hence mention it. If it is the article you have added the article from IE. Fine. Now going and adding a seperate section just for accidents, unseen in any other navies articles seems a bit biased and unwanted for since the same information is already available for the readers throught the newspaper link. Chanakyathegreat 14:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that I've entirely done a cut-and-paste job of the info. I used as much of the original wording as possible specifically to remove any bias that might creep into my wording of things. If you want feel free to re-write it. I'm OK with it. Also, If you don't want to create a new section, what/where do you propose to include this ? That is why I thought of a new page so as to keep this IN main page free of main info on the navy. Natobxl 15:07, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It's already there in this article as accidents and the article link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ships_of_the_Indian_Navy I am adding a one liner in the IN article and that I think is enough. Proving the link to the newspaper report will be sufficient. Chanakyathegreat 15:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed tag

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

The addition of a tag unnecessarily without any reason cannot be justified. If you feel that there is non NPOV, point it out. Since the review to make the article a featured article has made certain observations, I will try to find appropriate links and correct to bring it to a neutral point of view. The article will be totally neutral in its contents. If there is any objections on the it can be raised here. Chanakyathegreat 05:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The Bangladesh war in 1971 was a stunning victory for India.[1] Hence reporting it as such, other wise it will violate the NPOV. Chanakyathegreat 05:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

This article has failed its good article review under the good article criteria. The review begins with an overview for a quick explanation of why and in which areas the article failed this review, and is then divided into the headings of the good article criteria. In bold is the name of the sub-section which the following comments relate to.

Key Points

Broadly speaking, this article suffers from:

  • Point of view. Reading this article from start to finish is like reading an Indian Navy publication, it is very pro-Navy when it should be totally neutral.
  • The lack of a good copyedit. Wording is at times clunky and sounds unnatural in English. Spelling errors, syntax errors and clause use errors are commonplace.
  • A severe lack of references in some places. Often reads like original research or personal opinion.
  • A lack of standardisation of spelling, capitalisation, numbering and currency.

Good article criteria pass/fail:

  1. Well Written: Fail
  2. Factually accurate and verifiable: Fail
  3. Broad in coverage: Marginal pass, but needs a lot more work in the Ships section
  4. Stable: Pass
  5. Pictures: Pass

Well Written

Lead

  • Lead section needs a redesign. Cut out the current references, i.e. tsunami relief and Israel-Lebanon 2006, and focus on establishing the context and why this subject is notable.

History

  • "After fired upon by Portuguese troops on commercial vessels and fishing boats passing near Anjadip island, decision was taken to militarily intervene to liberate Goa from Portuguese colonial holding." - Needs copyediting
  • "Two notable naval chiefs Kanhoji Angre and Kunjali Marakkar were considered one of India's finest warriors" - does not make sense.
  • The campaign led by the Indian Navy was known as Operation Cactus - this is the only operation in italics
  • This was the part of various opertions like 'Operation Madath' in the Indian - sp. Also, the operations were part of the overall relief effort, not the overall relief effort was part of the operations.
  • Also Indian Naval group was able to start the rescue operations in neighbouring countries within 12 hours from the time of the tsunami and was the first foreign navy to reach them. - needs an article, 'the' or 'an'
  • Whole of that paragraph below the losses table has "The Indian Navy" written too often, which makes it clunky to read.

Personnel

  • It says in the list that Admiral of the Fleet exists, then at the bottom it says it does not. This is very misleading
  • There is nothing about actual personnel. What is the manpower strength of the Indian Navy? Does it permit women? If yes, are there any bars on where they can serve?

Structure of the Indian Navy

  • "This is the third operational naval base after Mumbai and Vishakapatnam and the first to be controlled exclusively by the Indian Navy. It is being described by naval pundits as the largest such base in the area, Called 'Project Seabird'.[20] It is a multi-billion dollar plan to create an exclusive naval port with full facilities." Merge some of this information, we are currently told the port will be exclusively naval twice.
  • "The Indian Navy is setting up a monitoring station in Madagascar, and to patrol the coast of Mozambique to monitor and prevent terrorist activities." 'and to patrol' is confusing. Is there something missing from here? It looks like the passage used to explain a first function of the Madagascar station, and that the Mozambique patrols will be a secondary function.

Fleet Reviews

  • "The Presidents fleet reviews took place nine times and the recent one was in the year 12 feb 2006." This is time specific, you should really drop this bit of info and just go with the first ever fleet review. If you really want to keep this in, then change it so that it says "up to 28 November 2006, the fleet has been reviewed nine times". or something similar. Make sure the possessive plural of president has the correct apostrophe, in the example taken from the text, the apostrophe should be after the s.
  • "Prime minister Dr. Manmohan Singh was shown the capabilities of the Indian Navy in a specially organised show" Where was he shown this? MILAN or Bridges of Friendship? Why will someone in 10 years wish to know this? (10 year rule)

Major Exercises

  • "KONKAN with Royal Navy" This should probably say "The British Royal Navy" since there are many Royal Navies in the world, especially in South East Asia, meaning that it is very possible that India could have been conducting joint exercises with one of them

Expedition and Adventure

  • Just needs copyediting. Like "in May 2004" instead of "on May 2004". Lt Commander Kohli's Everest expedition took place in the past, so needs to read "lead the first..." rather than "leads the first". "Also it became the only Navy to put a submariner in Mt. Everest" On Mt Everest.

Ships

  • The bit about accidents looks very out of place in the Ships section, and is unannounced. If someone came to the Indian Navy article looking for info about the accidents, they would not be able to find it easily.

Submarines and UAVs

  • "India signed a deal for six Scorpene submarines with MESMA" - explain what MESMA is, jargon must be explained for GA status, most people are not going to know about submarine propulsion!

Aircraft

  • Needs an overhaul. Things like consistent capitalisation of Sea King. Also, briefly explain jargon like BVR and AEW rather than just wikilinking

Future Plans

  • "4,000 crore" The crore is used only in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It is unheardof in the Western world, and since it is not wikilinked or explained I had to look it up seperately of this article. Please either convert this to the standard 40bn or put that in brackets afterwards. Also, wikilink to the crore article and state which currency that is in. This is also inconsistent, since the res of the piece uses standard numbering and US$.
  • "There is plans to build more Indigenous aircraft carriers" There are plans...
  • "Also, six Kamov-31 attack and reconnaissance anti-submarine helicopters." That is not a stand-alone sentence, it is a subordinate clause. What does it refer to?
  • "50 Million USD" Standardise! Choose USD or US$ and stick to it throughout

Factually accurate and verifiable

Role

  • Please provide a link or reference to the Indian Maritime Doctrine.

History

  • "*PNS Shahjahan was presumably damaged beyond repair." Presumably is not factually accurate or verifiable or, indeed, encyclopaedic
  • That whole losses table is unattributed

Structure of the Indian Navy

  • "It is being described by naval pundits as the largest such base in the area, Called 'Project Seabird'." The reference given for this passage does not say anything about the base being the largest in the area. Also, do you mean area of India or area as in region? Ambiguity and lack of verification

Nuclear Powered Submarines

  • This is a very well written section. However, it has a complete lack of references! This needs to be sorted out.

Submarine Based Missiles

  • No references in this section

Future Plans

  • Need to state where you got the info about the indigenous aircraft carrier.
  • "The ship is likely to be based at Visakhapatnam under the Eastern Naval Command." - Crystal ball! Give a reference or take it out.
  • "In 2004, the Ministry of Defence spent US $5.7 billion in arms purchases making India the developing world's leading military buyer." Reference
  • "According to some very reliable defense sources" Reference
  • "India, is currently focusing on expanding its submarine fleet." Reference. And take out the comma after India.

Towards a true Blue Water Navy

  • "The Naval capacity of India already puts it as the most powerful of the Navies off the waters of the Indian Ocean" This is misleading. The reference says "capable", not "powerful". The two are not synonymous.

Neutral Point of View

Role

  • Change "our" to "India" to be neutral, and not written from the perspective of an Indian. Either that, or quote the doctrine word for word inside quotation marks and with a reference.

History

  • "Two notable naval chiefs Kanhoji Angre and Kunjali Marakkar were considered one of India's finest warriors" Considered by whom?
  • "India's stunning victory in the war" POV of a patriotic Indian

Expedition and Adventure

  • "The Indian Navy also conducts many other type of expeditions and adventure sports reflecting the resoluteness, determination, courage, mutual trust, teamwork, self-confidence and self – control of the men and women of the Indian Navy." This is pretty cringe worthy to read in an encyclopaedia. All modern armed forces undertake adventurous training to foster these qualities. This reads like you have an agenda to promote the Indian Navy.

Weapon Systems

  • "The Indian Navy uses modern technology and weapon systems" That is your point of view, and is not backed up by references. To my mind, this is not true - the Jaguar aircraft and proposals to pick up the Exocet missile are two good examples of outdated technology. Viraat, aged 62, is not modern!

Broad in coverage

Structure of the Indian Navy

  • "This is the third operational naval base after Mumbai and Vishakapatnam and the first to be controlled exclusively by the Indian Navy." Who were the others jointly controlled by? Do you mean they were joint civilian-naval ports, or do you mean that other government agencies had part-ownership?

Ships of the Indian Navy

  • This section does not relate to its title. How many ships does the Indian Navy have as of today? What is the bulk of the navy made up of? What state are the ships in? Ageing? Are most ships ex-foreign navy ships, made indigenously or made abroad but to original Indian specifications?

Stable

Pass

Pictures

  • Captions broadly good.
  • The picture of Vikrant needs the bracket after Bangladesh to be closed.
  • The picture of the submarine has a bad caption. A sortie is an operational mission, not an exercise. If it really is returning from a sortie, tell us which war.
  • The number of fair use pictures is an issue to be sorted out in the long term, but not a bar on GA.

Chrisfow 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Lot of improvement in the article from the time of the review. Many of the pointed out corrections have been made. Not trying for another featured article reivew at the moment. Chanakyathegreat 05:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reliable sources needed

Per WP:CITE#When to cite sources, all material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. In conclusion, for further addition of controversial/challenged content, editors are kindly asked to post sources. Any future edit warrings on this issue will be considered disruptive and reported accordingly. Best, --Eurocopter tigre (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

New article in The Economist about Asian navies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

Interesting. Among other info, claims Indian Navy has three aircraft carriers under contract (pp. 53 of the US print version, 7 Juen 2008). Also in online form at The Economist online. Might be a good source. N2e (talk) 21:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently, there is one in service. One (former Gorshkov) INS Vikramaditya is under refit in Russia. This is expected to enter service by 2012. Another one is under construction in India (Vikrant class aircraft carriers) followed by another one. When the INS Vikramaditya and INS Vikrant are commissioned, the INS Viraat will be decommissioned. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Origin of Navy and Navigation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

A request has been made of the Mediation Cabal for mediation on this article.

Please do not remove this notice until the issue is resolved.

The word navy originates from Sanskrit word "Nava" meaning boat and the word navigation is derived from the Sanskrit word "Navgath". Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus).

This looks suspiciously like an extract from a popular email chain that's been doing the rounds for years now [2], and contains a lot of questionable assertions. This etymology may or may not be true, but it can be cast as doubtful by association with the aforementioned chain mail, and therefore requires a citation to verify its accuracy. --SohanDsouza (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It is in any case irrelevant to this article. I am removing the entire section. The implication that it is any more related to navigation, from Latin navigare, than any other Indo-European word is nonsense.
India has a maritime history dating back to 5,000 years. Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus).<:ref>Interesting facts about India</ref> <:ref>Maritime trade with the west</ref> <:ref>Indus Valley Civilization</ref> <:ref>Economics of the Indus valley civilization</ref> The first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BCE during the Harappan Civilisation, near the present day Mangrol harbour on the Gujarat coast. The Rig Veda written around 1500 BCE, credits Varuna with knowledge of the ocean routes and describes naval expeditions using hundred oared ships to subdue other kingdoms. There is a reference to Plava, the side wings of a vessel which give stability under storm conditions, to the ship and also to Matsya yantra, the compass used for navigation.
None of this has anything to do with a Navy, which is the subject of this article; of the four sources listed, one is a set of official nationalist exaggerations; the others say nothing about being first, which is not true. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Compass has nothing to do with Navy? Ships has nothing to do with Navy? Varuna has nothing to do with Indian Navy? Harbour has nothing to do with Navy? Side wings of a ship has nothing to do with Navy?

Navy never means destroyers and frigates and the warships that we see today. In earlier times, it was the same ships that was used to travel, carry soldiers to foreign land. And later with advancement in military technology the divisions start to happen with soldiers using faster ships to fight wars. Even In Today's world one can link many similarities with cargo ships with that of warships. Britain even utilised the cargo ships as Merchant aircraft carriers. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Compasses in the Indic Valley Culture are a figment of somebody's imagination; and neither compasses nor any of the rest of this are on topic for the Indian Navy: the armed naval force of an Indian State. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Absurd, You are calling me a nationalist without any reason. Providing information with Indian maritime history is not nationalism. It's history. Trying to distort the fact and trying to remove information and facts on the basis of some personal beliefs,opinion and thoughts is nationalism.

Regarding Compass, yes it was used during the fourth and fifth century A.D.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see Chanakyathegreat is continuing his campaign to include this irrelevance. Please stop; it has nothing to do with the Indian Navy. If you wish to include it in Navigation in India or some such, please use better sources; one of these is an unreliable puff-piece, which pretends to discuss Indian foreign policy in 100,000 BCE; the others do not support these claims. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why you fell irritated by historical facts. What has been included in the article is all about Indian Naval history. Certain things may seem very odd. When one talks about Vimana or the flying machines, it must not have existed at that time. I cannot go back and see for myself weather it existed or not. Since it is written in the books we can say that it is there in the book, which is true. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your sources are websites, rarely reliable sources. Three of them do not support what you want to say (they make assertions about what the Indic culture did, but do not say, or suggest, first); the fourth is a bit of patriotic nonsense, which talks about Indian foreign policy since 100,000 BC. And above all, none of this belongs here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Since you have objection, you must exactly state on which sentence you have objection and the specific reasons for that with all the proof (from reliable sources){which you have not done till now} so that I can accept or provide reliable sources to counter those arguments.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Our objections are stated, at some length, above.
You mistake our practice, see WP:V; the burden is on those who would include material. You have presented four sources; all of them are websites, none of any exceptional merit. Three of them do not support the assertions of first; the fourth is nationalist trash. And all of this is still off-topic. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You have still not provided what I had asked you to do. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I warn you from indulging in edit wars. If you cannot provide the details asked and cannot provide information then you have no right to remove any content. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please read your edit screen: If you do not wish your contribution to be edited mercilessly, do not submit it. This is policy; see WP:OWN. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
On the merits:
India has a maritime history dating back to 5,000 years. Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus).[5][not in citation given] [6] [7] [8] The first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BCE during the Indus Valley Civilization, near the present day Mangrol harbour on the Gujarat coast. The Rig Veda written around 1500 BCE, credits Varuna with knowledge of the ocean routes and describes naval expeditions using hundred oared ships to subdue other kingdoms. There is a reference to Plava, the side wings of a vessel which give stability under storm conditions, to the ship. Matsya yantra, the compass was used for navigation in the fourth and fifth century AD.
  • None of this belongs here; it may belong in Navigation in India.
  • Navigation as a science originated on the river Sindhu (Indus). is not reliably sourced; and violates WP:WEASEL
  • The first tidal dock is believed to have been built at Lothal around 2300 BCE during the Indus Valley Civilization, is an invention; the only source to mention this says nothing about first.
  • Varuna is not history; and Rig Veda has nothing about a navy (and the speculative treatment of a collection of poetry requires a secondary source).
  • There is a reference to Plava, the side wings of a vessel which give stability under storm conditions, to the ship. Matsya yantra, the compass was used for navigation in the fourth and fifth century AD.
    • This is incoherent, ungrammatical and irrelevant.
  • Sea lanes between India and neighbouring lands was the common mode for trade from many centuries, and is responsible for the widespread influence of Indian Culture on other societies, and vice versa.

Origin of Navigation Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

A quotation which says: Of the origin of navigation no satisfactory conjecture can be offered, nor do we know to what nation to ascribe the merit of having conferred so important a blessing on mankind. An excellent reason not to ascribe it to the banks of the Indus, or of any other river, especially in an article on something else. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 06:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason why I removed it from the article. But your argument that the origin of navigation is not in India cannot be explained. There is a greater chance of it being in India but the article says It is impossible to say how the Origin of Navigation happened. Hence until there is proof from sources, that will not be added into the article. But I see no reason for you to remove the remaining content from the article. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

My only reasons are that the rest remains entirely irrelevant, partly ungrammatical, and partly unsupported, as above. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with you on that.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Then are you willing to explain your reasoning to the WP:Mediation Cabal? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

But if the claim of antiquity is enough, without Varuna and other nonsense, you may be content with the present text. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I just noticed this discussion. If several editors, including User:Chanakyathegreat are willing to discuss and try to come to an agreement, probably involving some form of compromise from both sides, then mediation might be able to help, but editors cannot be forced to participate in mediation and the mediators have no authority to render a binding decision. Would User:Chanakyathegreat be willing to stop adding the disputed material while we discuss this further? An edit war doesn't help anyone. If we could take a step back and hold off adding this content for a few days, maybe other editors would be willing to discuss whether some of User:Chanakyathegreat's material is appropriate. If not, I'm not sure mediation is the answer.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 00:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I’ve been invited to contribute a “third opinion” on this issue (albeit not as part of the Mediation Cabal). The “Navy of Foo” articles are generally focused on the naval arm of a given country. Prior to the British taking colonial control of India, the name “India” was more a reference to a region (like “Southeast Asia” or the “Middle East”), and one which was never completely dominated by a single state. It would seem then that this article, the Indian Navy, should focus on the navy of the “modern” country in regards to its colonial and independent periods. It would certainly be fair to include an introductory sentence or two noting that the region has a maritime tradition going back five millennia; however, none of those earlier seafaring states were “India”, per se, in the sense that we now perceive it. Ideally, such a comment in this article would have a link to a separate article – which I don't believe exists yet – providing an overview of the maritime history of the region, but IMHO that is too broad an area of discussion to be encompassed here. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

India was not a reference to a region. But it was used to describe a civilization itself which included the land of this civilization. In reality the word used for Indian nation from ancient times was Bharat. Even today it's used in the Indian constitution. So regarding history one cannot restrict the Indian history to that after independence from British rule. Nation states and the short history of nations suit the western nations and their concepts. It cannot be accommodated in eastern and Indian concepts since it's totally different. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I’m afraid that I must respectfully disagree, my friend. Yes, bharat is an ancient word, but I’m unaware of any pre-colonial period of time that there was ever one culture that was “India”. Indeed, many of these cultures considered themselves quite distinct and most unlike others in the region (and this lies at the root of the caste system) Even today, there are cultures that have separatist designs for independence of a country and culture which they do not feel a part of. Historically, “India” has been more an equivalent to “Europe” as a geographical meme, not one of a unified culture or state. This is especially the case for Westerners, whose perception of “India” or the “Indies” until after Columbus’ time has historically been pretty much anything that lay to the east of Persia (with a vague differentiation from China).
Yet even if “India” had an ancient and continuing real sense of unity as something akin to but different than the Western sense of “nation”, I would submit that it would be an inappropriate way to relate Indian “nationality” to the average English-speaking reader, since most have a Western perception in the first place. Explaining the difference would be worthwhile in the main article on India, but is out of the scope of an article on the more narrow topic of the Indian navy.
I think my proposal above also makes the total ancient naval history of the Indian subcontinent (or more generally, the South Asian region) more accessible to the average reader. The majority of the “Navy of Foo” articles are focused on the modern navy of Foo, and that makes for a good, “bite-size” encyclopedic article. Indian naval history, though, is so broad a subject – because of its very ancientness and complexity – that it deserves a general, summary style overview article of its own that directs the reader to further, more detailed articles on individual topics. I forget the term that Wikipedia uses for “serializing” a group of related topics, but that would be an excellent task for editors from WP:MILHIST and WP:INDIA to take on. Askari Mark (Talk) 18:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The one culture is not required to be India. India is difficult to explain. It's not a nation of a single race, culture tradition etc. It's the land with a mix of culture, tradition, religion etc. It's a civilization. Your saying is correct that it's somewhat like Europe, but is totally different from Europe. Who says that for a nation to exist, the people in that nation must have only one culture and the existence of India debunks the theory of different culture, means different nation.

The caste system is not based on region. It's based on the job one does. It's not religious but is unique to Indian subcontinent. You said that there are separatist issues and they don't feel part of Indian culture. What is this Indian culture. It is an inclusion of all cultures in India. It includes the culture from every part of the Indian nation. So the objective of the separatist organizations will become more political and the struggle to acquire power to rule the people through the use of force. It's not western perception that matters but the reality.

Regarding the Naval article, the historical part is only a very small section. So I don't think that anyone should be offended by seeing it there. Because there is no reason for anyone to find it offensive since it's not target at any particular person or nation or anything else. That small section is informative as well. Hence it must continue to be there since its part of Indian naval history and it causes no harm to anyone and is very informative.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Any relevant text that can be cited with references should be acceptable. I don't see why it should be cited and widely agreed in "western" world to be correct. Brief about the history of Indian Navy if it can be cited has every reason to exist and need not necessarily be considered 'Nationalistic'. By the way nationalism is not considered a bad word in India because in India nationalism is not divisionary in the right wing left wing sense, it is actually a concept that means accepting differences that make India.
Sure name India is derived from a name given by the Greeks but that in itself is derived from the name given by Persians. Sindhu became Hindu in Persian and the 'H' in Hindu became 'I' in Greek pronunciations. That's how river Indus got its English name. That’s how Hindus got the name for their religion and for themselves. There was never any doubt in history on what region is India. One can refer to history books by western authors like John Key to refresh this information. Assertions that English is known and spoke in western world is perhaps coming from a perception that needs correction. The modern day reality is that English speaking world is not necessarily a western world. So the audience of WP:EN articles need not be limited to western perceptions of reality. British were not the first to administer the whole of India or to unite it as such. This perception itself is incorrect. The British ruled by dividing India not really by uniting it. There were many ancient empires in India that had influence on a large landmass from Afghanistan in the west to Bengal in the east. Mauryan Empire was contemporary to Greeks after Alexander and administered much of India. The bottom line is that British were not the first to give India an Army, Navy or a pan-Indian administration, and they certainly did not give India its culture. In fact the reason why the British had to leave while every other visitor, invader, ruler or settler stayed because while others were able to mingle into the 'Indian' culture the British failed to do so and remained outsiders in the 200 years of their presence in the subcontinent. I have no hard feelings for the British though. And they gave India it Air Force and its Railways; nobody is making assertions about pre-colonial existence of these organizations. History of Navy and Army in India of course is differentIndoresearch (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Future Plans : Bias and facts

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

In the future plans section I have re-written the part about the IN being the most powerful navy in the Indian Ocean. This is factually incorrect as there is ATLEAST one another 'littoral navy' (Royal Australian Navy) with technological equivalence if not superiority. Let me recall that the Collins class submarine with it's AN/BYG-1 Combat Control System from Raytheon (which incidently is also fitted on the SSN Virginia class submarine for the USN) is the most advanced submarine currently deployed by any ASIAN country. Furthermore, there are atleast 2 super-power navies that operate in the Indian Ocean and which maintain massive military bases within the Indian Ocean : USA (out of Diego Garcia) and FRANCE (out of La Réunion). So, it is incorrect to say that the Indian Navy is THE most powerful navy in the Indian Ocean as both these 'blue-water navies' maintain and operate fleets within the Indian Ocean on a permanent basis. Finally, let us not forget that the Chinese too operate within the Indian Ocean ... and they have nuclear submarines with underwater-launched atomic weapons capabilities.

Also, I've removed the section on the Indian Navy operating the ONLY Asian aircraft-carrier. This is incorrect as Thailand operates the HTMS Chakri Nareubet 'aircraft carrier' ... which currently hosts helicopters and Harrier VSTOL planes. Therefore, even if this 'aircraft carrrier' is referred to as a HELICOPTER CARRIER (as are also the British Invincible class warships), it remains that helicopters are 'rotary winged aircraft' and therefore these ships are AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. Also see the List of aircraft carriers by country and look-up the website of JANES DEFENSE which places the Thai ship HTMS Chakri Nareubet in the 'aircraft carriers' section. Natobxl 09:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a correction about your aircraft carrier section. According to inhouse article on the carrier, it states "The ship was largely inactive due to a shortage of funds after the Asian financial crisis." Even China has a non functioning aircraft carrier. Should these be considered as operational? Owning a carrier isn't the same as "operating" so I think that information is right. Idleguy 10:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
btw, even your first para is more about WP:OR rather than quoting references. The cited source from the US Dept of State clearly states "The Indian Navy is by far the most capable navy in the region." If you think otherwise you'll have to back them up with more credible sources than that. Thanks. Idleguy 10:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
What about the US Navy & French navy in the Indian Ocean ? How come they've been forgotten to the point that a line saying "India's navy is already the most powerful in the Indian Ocean" is included into this text ? I do agree that the Indian Navy is the most powerful "SOUTH ASIAN" navy. Yes ... Definitely. But, to say that it is the most powerful navy in the Indian Ocean is a claim that needs to be substantiated especially in the context of US Navy, French Navy, Royal Australian Navy and PLAN Chinese Navy that also operate within the Indian Ocean.
As for the HTMS Chakri Nareubet being a non-functioning aircraft carrier : Even if the carrier does not currently undertake missions it still retains its operational readiness and availability. This was demonstrated during the December 2004 tsunami when it played a central role in emergency humanitarian missions. Anycase, I am not going to spend my time arguing about this. I am just trying to make the point that Asia encompasses Thailand and that Thailand too has an aircraft carrier on it's 'active ships' inventory. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Natobxl (talk • contribs) 11:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
I have reworded to what the source says. Removed the "indian ocean" to "region". Sources mention that Thailand's carrier is hardly active. The Tsunami ops was an exception and to base facts on what a country states as "active" is highly dubious per this source. Still I'll see if it needs any rewording. Idleguy 11:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Submarines did not make a navy. Having a sub is O.K but saying they are superior is unacceptable. There is no proof to state that the Collins is better than the Kilo class submarines in stealth capability. It is reported that the U.S considered the Kilo class to be the silent subs in the world and NATO calls it the black hole. Let me also remind you that in all exercises carried out with the Indian Navy

News report. "Absent from the exercises, despite persistent U.S. requests, were the Indian Navy's Russian-built Sindhugosh (Kilo class) submarines, also called Type 877 EKM or Black Hole because of their silent operation. Explained an officer: "The Americans did bait us to get one of our Kilo class subs. We did not... . Stealth is the key when it comes to submarines. If they are operated in close proximity, their distinctive underwater and acoustic signatures, emissions... can be made out." The Iranian Navy has three Kilo class vessels and the U.S. is keen to measure the submarine's distinct underwater signatures."

Regarding the Helicopter carrier, the Thai Navy is using it as one. Let them rename it as an aircraft carrier and it can be called a carrier. The reason it is not a carrier is because it is not used like one by the Thai Navy. Until all the sea harriers will be repaired and will be back in service, it cannot be called as an aircraft carrier.

The RAN is a power in its neighbourhood around Fiji, Indonesia and N.Z, beyond which it is just a force that goes along with the U.S navy. Chanakyathegreat 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Do the whole U.S navy or French Navy operate in the Indian ocean region or limited number of ships and can that be superior to the Indian Navy in its background. If the U.S report says so, then it must be reported as it is, else Idleguy remove the whole sentence, rather than spread ignorance.

Chanakyathegreat 12:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding PLAN they don't operate beyond their China seas and that with a lot of problems. it is impossible for them to venture out for any adventure out the China sea's because of Taiwan, Japan, U.S and Vietnam. Chanakyathegreat 12:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

'Blue-water Navy is the aim

The start has already been made, now it's the continuation.

Navy set for war games on foreign shores

Chanakyathegreat 12:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia and Janes Defense for info on US Navy and other US DoD operations out of Diego Garcia. Also check out Google Earth for photos of ships and aircraft operating out of this joint US-UK military base in the INDIAN OCEAN. There are almost every kind of aircraft and support-ships operating out of this base for operatons in Iraq and Afghanistan. So, to say that it is a minor base is plain ignorance of the facts. A quick search on Google or Yahoo brings up more than a few hundred credible and verifiable info sources to back-up my statement on this subject. US Navy has shown that there is not a single point on the globe where it does not operate and also it's force projection and force build-up capacity is next to none. To 'control' any ocean, you need not only a fleet of ships but also superior technology, vast military budget (capable of financing sustained combat or force-projection expeditions) and diplomatic strength. India is NOT YET a 'blue-water navy' capable of controlling the ocean ... so, if the Indian Navy with it's current fleet is deemed superior in terms of technology & logistics to the US Navy's ships (either as a 'Indian Ocean task-force' or just the fleet out of Diego Garcia), that is one of the most surprising claims that I have ever read. Natobxl 14:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
As for the KILO to COLLINS submarines comparision, I just base my facts on 'technological' superiority. If you are trying to compare 'VIRGINIA class' systems with Russian 'KILO class' systems, I am quite stumped. I think that informed readers will understand me.Natobxl 14:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding PLAN Navy, with their 'string of pearls' (read Rediff.com and Asia Times articles to this effect) they are effectively choking India by surrounding the country from Myanmar to Pakistan. The Indian Navy is obliged to count on US (atleast financial) support for FENC so as to ensure the security of it's Andamans and Nicobar islands if they come under attack or blocade by a Far-Eastern country (read China).Natobxl 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
The Indian Government (going by reports in the Indian press during Hu's visit to India last fortnight) was painfully aware that it is a bystander to China's growing power in India's own backyard. It is not only supplying all of India's neighbours with arms but also is considered as a friend by most of them (especially Maldives, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal & Myanmar). So, India is watching helplessly as each of these nations are building military relations (including in some cases leasing out naval bases) with China. IF India did have the most powerful navy in the Indian Ocean, the Chinese would think twice before treading on India's toes by creating bases all over the Indian Ocean rim.Natobxl 18:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
(Repeat) Helicopters are 'rotary winged' AIRCRAFT and therefore the HTMS Chakri Nareubet is an AIRCRAFT CARRIER. Read the Wiki article on this ship and also JANES DEFENSE to this effect. Therefore, the INS Viraat is not the ONLY Asian aicraft carrier.Natobxl 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
My final word on this is going to be that the Indian Navy page is NOT NEUTRAL. We need to really look into this to remove the BIAS and get the quality up to Wiki standards.Natobxl 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Systems is not subs. Good sleeping quaters and shower bath in a sub will not make it superior. It's ability to operate silently to target the enemy is the requirement. Collins may be a good sub, we have not heard anything about it like the news published about the KILOS and GOTLAND subs.

The chinese cannot choke anyone, because they already are chocked by its neighbours. Your imagination of U.S support is far fetched. Let me remind you that it is the U.S Navy that requires the support of the Indian Navy in the Indian ocean. Indeed there will be international cooperation in the fight against terrorism and the threat of any kind of attempt to blockade or disrupt maritime traffic in international waters. The FENC is already established and to check the Chinese the IN had already moved into the South China sea. This will be repeated at times when the Chinese enter the Indian ocean. The nations you stated are friendly to India then to anyone else except one nation. That's a threat to the U.S rather than for India, if their base is provided to the Chinese and a threat to the U.S forces based in Pakistan. It is stated by the IN chief that the Chinese are planning ahead of twenty years and the IN is also planning ahead.

Helicopters as you said are rotary winged aircraft but not a fixed wing aircraft. Now rotary winged aircraft carrier must be called rotary winged aircraft carrier and not as an aircraft carrier. Hence Indian navy is the only navy in the region with aircraft carrier. If going by your account that rotary winged aircrafts can be called as aircrafts, then Indian Navy do operate many aircraft carrier like the Delhi class, Rajput class, Brahmaputra class and Godavari class of AC's.

Chanakyathegreat 02:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Natobxl, pl no WP:OR. Indian media is a bit more forthright in analysing facts, a luxury for the Chinese media, so we'll never read from them the problems that PLAN has in its waters where American and Russian presence pose a serious threat in its own backyard. Pl do not engage in original research and hypothesis in here like "what if" scenarios on an attack in Andamans etc. To launch such an attack atleast one aircraft carrier is required for no sovereign nation will allow attacks from their base, no matter how closely they are allied with China. PLAN has only a museum showpiece of an aircraft carrier and is hardly a blue water navy by any standards. So please disengage from your war games. And I've said this before, sources say that Thai carrier is hardly being used. One source says it's dubious, just like your statements in this issue are. Idleguy 04:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Also read "China and India: Cooperation Or Conflict?" coauthored by Chinese and Indian author, pp 48, which states that india has great influence in Indian Ocean region. Idleguy 08:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Discussion = debate = free to voice ideas & opinions ... without throwing about the WP:OR boogyman. Am not interested in warring about 'this sub is better than that' and 'any ship with aircraft is an aircraft carrier' kinds of discussions. If JANES DEFENSE journal's ship classifications cannot be believed, I have to admit I am a bit stumped.Natobxl 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Read again what I said at the end of my posting in this 'discussion' page sub-section. I'm ONLY INTERESTED in getting the BIAS out of the Indian Navy article. Am trying to see how best we can get the "our Navy" type of writing (which I guess is a cut-and-paste from some Indian Navy website) to a more neutral and factual article.Natobxl 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Looks like the recent involvement of Indian Navy in Gulf of Aden operations against the pirates settled this dispute about the importance of Indian Navy in Indian Ocean. Indoresearch (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

wrong spelling of motto

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed per WP:Not a forum, comments by the BANNED editor Chanakyathegreatcoward and his sockpuppets are to be reverted and/or ignored where applicable.

The Indian Navy's motto is "Sham No Varunah" not "Sha No Varuna" as written in this artcle. I'm finding no way of correcting it, can somoebosy do it? Lokesh 2000 (talk) 08:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

From the Indian Navy website[3] it's "The Naval Crest consists of the Ashoka emblem, a foul anchor and a shield, and its navy blue colour. Below the crest is the motto of the Service- 'Shano Varuna' - meaning 'May the Lord of the Oceans be Auspicious Unto Us'".Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the folks who built the Indian Navy's web site need to brush up on their Sanskrit. The motto is pronounced "Sham no Varunaha" (the 'a' of 'Sham' pronounced like the 'u' in 'up'). That would be a more accurate transliteration of the motto. It will be good if someone can correct it.-unknown user

Yes only if the Navy corrects it in their website, we can change it in Wikipedia.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 06:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

OK... I've just found some info on Quarterdeck 2004, the Navy's official annual magazine, including a letter by the late Adm. Barboza, who uses the spelling "Sham no varunah". Incidentally, this motto was given by the late C. Rajagopalachari, based on a request in a letter from an english admiral of the Indian Navy (English officers continued to serve for a short period after the IN was formed). I've forgotten the name of the officer and which Upanishad this was sourced from (I think it is the Taittriya Upanishad, but not sure), but I'll try and find it.... however, the proper transliteration is as I pointed out just above. The basic point is that we should probably trust the Navy when it talks Naval stuff, but when it comes to the sanskrit spelling and other similar stuff, we'd better keep our own counsels. Sniperz11@CS 10:51, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The image Image:Lothal conception.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --08:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed.... please check and verify. Thanks. Sniperz11@CS 11:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

indian navy handicapped cuz of law of sea treaty

with its growing power i think a article should be added about India's sovereignty regarding its ratification of the law of sea treaty.the navy had to seek permission from the UN and not the govt of India to pursue and attack Somali pirates. 122.163.46.243 (talk) 08:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Excellent point about the ratification of treaties... an essential information that needs to be added. However, re the permission, you've got it a bit wrong mate.... the Navy sought permission from the Indian Govt itself. In fact, it answers to no one other than the Indian Govt, nor can it go to the UN or any other organization on its own - that is the Govt's job. In this case, the GOVERNMENT stated that it would seek a UN mandate to create a joint group, rather than joining a partisan organization like the NATO group or any other group operating there. Secondly, it sought UN mandate to pursue pirates inside Somalian waters, since there is no govt there. The Govt or IN do not need any permission to operate in international waters. Sniperz11@CS 11:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

where is the number 7 coming from?

go to http://indiannavy.nic.in/ships.htm for a complete list —Preceding unsigned comment added by PrometheusHR (talk • contribs) 08:47, 31 January 2009 (UTC) Don't want to be rude, but where is the number 7 coming from - 7th largest navy? If I remember correctly, in terms of size - there is US, Russia, Japan, England, France/Germany/China, Netherlands, Spain... It depends on how you calculate navy strength -total numerical number of any vessel or projected strength. I don't think anyone has ever made an authoratative list. If you relate it to size of aircraft carriers, destroyers, and submarines - the true hallmark of a naval power, India slips further as it doesn't really have any functioning aircraft carriers to project naval strength and no true ships to support its aircraft carrier if it did have a functional one. If you can state an actual resource for this number it would be appreciated. I know a lot of you guys who wrote the article are Indians but a little patriotism can only go so far. Oh, the nationmaster website seems to be a mirror of this one.

More than a couple of sources list india at 7th as per navy personnel. Here's one [4]. As per the 2003 list of International Institute for strategic studies, UK India is ranked at 7th. This was obtained in a book that quoted this source. It is much harder to obtain a comparison based on aircraft carriers, destroyers and submarines - partly due to lack of sufficient data. If you do have such information, please do go ahead in adding that. Moreover different navies have different goals, with a defensive minded one focussing on submarines more than carriers. So such a comparison would have to be holistic in order to come close to knowing the naval strength. However the encyclopedia may not be the place for discussing naval strength, rather it puts out the naval size and a comparison to make it simple. Hope that helped. Tx Idleguy 04:37, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
True, by saying 7th largest, we mean 7th largest interms of total personnel. Also see List of aircraft carriers. You'll notice that only UK, US and Russia have more operational aircraft carriers than India. Presently the Indian Navy is constructing 10 frigates and 10 corvettes. Once the project is completed, it's fleet would be the 3rd largest in terms of number of operational frigates and corvettes. Also note that a number of Italian, British, Spanish, Russian and Brazilian naval ships have retired in recent years, decreasing their naval fleet. Thanks --{IncMan|talk} 06:57, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Failed verification

I've just added a tag to a sentence regarding activities in the Malacca Strait. The article referred to does not say what the sentence says it does. The sentence needs to be changed or removed entirely. Buckshot06(prof) 09:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

why MCA image is shown in INDIAN NAVY

Why MCA image is shown in INDIAN NAVY, where in the whole document there is no mention of MCA project. Pls remove that, images should be of NAVY related. --—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.125.58.121 (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC) -

IMO, this section of the article page needs to be cleaned up for the "abundance" of external links, especially the subsection for videos. It's beginning to make the article page look very cluttered, please omit needless word as well as SPAM. People, try to keep things simple around here, yeah? --Dave 1185 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutral term

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
1.) Closed after no consensus was reached, & 2.) Bcs09 was confirmed as the sockpuppet of the BANNED editor User:Chanakyathegreat

By being neutral to India and to Portuguese dictators rule, it will be better to use the term decolonization. The term liberation may be a pain in the butt for the dictator of Portugal at that time and invasion will cheer his heart. So accepting the dictators viewpoint and taking the neutrality stance of Wikipedia to the extreme let's make it decolonization.Bcs09 (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that decolonization is a better word than "liberate", and it does describe what happened. However, it's kind of a clumsy word that I've never seen used anywhere else in the context of a specific military operation. I think it's usually used from the perspective of the colonizer, as in "France went through a process of decolonization in North Africa after World War 2", not "the American colonies decolonialized themselves with the Revolutionary War". Personally I think "Invasion of Goa" remains the best choice of words - it is non POV because it factually stated exactly what happened and it's the term used in the article on the subject. However, I don't really mind, I guess it's not so bad as it is. TastyCakes (talk) 14:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Libeation is better,the people too wanted to be free.Zoravar (talk) 15:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

"Invasion" is a neutral term. This has already been decided in the case of the US-led "Invasion of Iraq", where "Operation Iraqi Freedom" is not used except in specific cases referencing the operation itself. WP needs to be consistent. - BilCat (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with Bill, the word "Invasion" is indeed a neutral term and is in used in a lot of military related article here, an example being Operation Overlord - the invasion of Europe in 1944. Therefore, there's no need to get all sentimental or emotional over it, there is no bias shown to anyone except to be accurate in our description of what actually went on. The word "Decolonization" is liken to be a politically correct moniker for those who feel inclined to soften the impact, no different from a Weasel word, IMO and should be omitted for obvious reason/rationale. --Dave 1185 18:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think Invasion is a neutral term. The term gives a bad impression of the force that is entering the state. Using similar logic we have to use the terms like invasion of France by allied forces even though it is really a liberation of France from fascist Germany.Bcs09 (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
We do use term invasion for the Allies' entry into France in WW2 - see Invasion of Normandy. So we are only being consistent here. - BilCat (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Bil, there is a difference. The allies are entering France and not the French forces hence can be viewed as invasion, whereas in the case of India, Indian is regaining the lost territory. Similar to French regaining the territory. Think of a situation, when you "intrude into your house" each and every day.Bcs09 (talk) 16:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
"Indian is regaining the lost territory" is a POV. India as currently constituted has only existed since 1947. They never had the territory to begin with. - BilCat (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
Whao, what an observation "India never existed prior to 1947". Such ignorance. It's better to say that Europe never existed when India existed in her full glory. Just check this out.Maurya Empire, Mughal Empire You will see that India seems very small compared to the historical India that existed. So it's better that such irresponsible statements are not made.Bcs09 (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
If someone thinks "India as currently constituted has only existed since 1947" and "India never existed prior to 1947" have the same meaning, they have no business writing anything in English, especially on WP. - BilCat (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that decolonization is an ambiguous word as it could mean any number of things (i.e. even changing the names of Indian cities was part of decolonization). Invasion seems to me like a neutral term and having read many of the World War II articles referring to the allied victory over Germany. Infact, the only significant battle in World War II (on Wikipedia) that is officially titled a "liberation" of anything is the Liberation of Paris. Note however that Paris actually belonged to France before the commencement of World War II which is different from Goa in India's case as the Republic of India didn't exist before 1947 and as such it could not have territorial claims before 1947. Thus, regardless of whether Goa was part of the Maurya empire or any other empire from the Indian subcontinent, Goa was not internationally recognized as belonging to the Republic of India. This would however not be the case if India was recognized as the successor state to one of the empires in the Indian subcontinent but this isn't what happened. Thus on that note, I think that invasion is a valid title for the operation.
However, I am disappointed with BilCat. BilCat, I'm sure you're no doubt aware of WP:No Personal Attacks which doesn't permit questioning someone's competence or ability to edit the English Wikipedia. I would think that your past blocks would prompt you to more carefully observe the rules of Wikipedia but it certainly doesn't appear that way since edit warring is what you do frequently and what you do best. It doesn't appear that you build consensus, you just force your own POV on others. As I'm sure you're no doubt aware, you are not the supreme arbiter of right and wrong on Wikipedia nor are you qualified to make a value judgement of who can and should edit Wikipedia. Please review Wikipedia's policy if you find this difficult to grasp. Vedant (talk) 19:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Can I remind contributors to only comment on the subject at hand and not to comment on other users and please respect WP:No Personal Attacks, thank you. MilborneOne (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
When an individual makes a comment like "Do you always lie about what people say, or are you just that ignorant of the English language?" and then covers it up under the auspice of rewriting one's comment, do you suggest that the community not remind that user of the rules of Wikipedia? Failure to not do so doesn't sit well with me as it feels like an implicit acceptance of the situation. Also, don't you think it's somewhat of a double standard to tell me not to make personal attacks (although I don't feel I did here, and that you suggested I did on my talk page) while not relaying the same information to BilCat as well? Also, to clarify, I responded in this thread and not on BilCat's talk page as my issue was concerning his comment here. Please note that this is common practice on Wikipedia. However in BilCat's defence, there is a difference between "India as currently constituted didn't exist" and "India never existed" and Bcs09 accusing BilCat of being ignorant is also a Personal Attack (for which I left a warning on his talk page). Vedant (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry to disagree, but what Bcs09 stated was completely false, whatever the reason for it - he IS either lying, or his grasp of English is such that he should not contribute here, by his own choice. That's not a personal attack. I changed my comments not because I was trying to be sneaky, but because I thought better of them. Removing such comments before someone elsle comments is allowed, to my knowledge. In no way do I consider my comments to Bcs09 to be personal attacks, thoughtless though they might have been. I do consider comments such as "Such ignorance" and "such irresponsible statements" to be uncivil, though not necessarily personal attacks either. - BilCat (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Understood, which is why I also informed Bcs09 that he should refrain from personal attacks. If you do note, I didn't disagree with the reason for your argument just what I perceived to be a personal attack. If I may say however, he may have just misread your sentence and responded in anger. Thus, you can't necessarily jump to the conclusion that he is lying or has questionable command of the English language. Vedant (talk) 23:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Point taken. - BilCat (talk) 23:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry Bil if you found my words as offensive or in any manner hurt you. Causing hurt was not my intention and it will never be. Regarding the subject, I did not consider your point of India's existence as true. Terming a civilized nation as non-existent is not correct. It's not offensive to just me. So I request not to make such comments in the future. If you are mentioning boundary then it's better to say that there has been boundary changes in India's histoyr. Even it happened in 1987. That never makes "India non existent prior to 1987". Britain handed over power of Hong kong to China. Will this mean that Britain never existed before that. Territorial changes must not change anything much if the civilization is still intact. That nation will exist as it existed for millenia before with the same culture and pluralism may be with the adoption of modernity with changing times. Considering the point of invasion vs liberation I still think it's liberation. Liberation from the point of "liberating from the control of foreign powers" but at the same time "liberating from oppression" and liberating them to freedom. I don't know whether Wikipedia agrees to this policy but this must be the Wikipedia's Neutral point of view.Bcs09 (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are misunderstanding what I said. You are taking offense at what you think I am saying, and not understanding what I have actually said! Someone else can try to explain it to you, but we seem to incapable of communicating. Sorry. - BilCat (talk) 11:41, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
I understood what you said. But our viewpoints will never converge on this one. So it's better to forget it. Chapter closed.Bcs09 (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Divergent estimates for size

Currently the infobox claims a size of 250 aircraft though this is uncorroborated by any source I've been able to find. The two sources that do publish numbers have somewhat differing estimates (ranging from 181 - 224). Please see Globalsecurity and AviationWeek. I was wondering which source that people would feel more comfortable using in the infobox or if someone could produce the original 250 aircraft source. Given the choice, I'd go with AviationWeek though neither of the inventories appear to have been updated for some time... Vedant (talk) 04:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Intro wording change

The recent change I made reflects the outcome of previous discussions at the Blue water navy talk page, please see there if you have any concerns. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Recent edit is acceptable. G.R. Allison (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Need help - Aircraft of the Indian Navy

Hi - The article on Aircraft of the Indian Navy needs help. The material in there is slim, and this article is listed on the Military History Project as needing more work. Things you can do to help:

  • Anyone with original pictures of aircraft, choppers, aircraft carriers or UAVs should please upload them to the [Wikimedia Commons], and link to them from within the article. Please do not re-use pictures you downloaded off the web, or they will be put up for deletion by the wiki community.
  • Please help add and beef up a section on the Navy choppers. The section on history could also use more meat - What'd these guys achieve during all our wars.
  • Absolutely anything else you can do to bring out the dashing traditions of Indian naval aviation. This article majorly under-sells the reality of this proud wing of our Navy in it's current form.

Thanks!

Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC) I would also like to add that the reference to Tu22M being used by the Indian Navy is not substantiated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.1 (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion on the usage of the term "Invasion of Goa" over "Liberation of Goa"

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed discussion as the starter was identified as the smelly/shameless sock of Chanakyathegreatcoward, time to apply WP:Revert, block, ignore.

A new section is being created to discuss the term. Other alternatives can be discussed. Dave, you are invited for a discussion.Mightyocean (talk) 01:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

My experience of "working" with User:Chanakyathegreat leads me to suspect that User:Mightyocean is the same user, I don' have anything concrete, just the way he constructed and worded that sentence seems familiar. G.R. Allison (talk) 09:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Part of Indian History.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Part of Indian History.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Video

I've just removed a highly irrelevant video of a kid playing with a toy gun (it's been removed by a couple of others earlier). It's of poor quality and has no relevance to the article, please do not add it back without gaining consensus. —SpacemanSpiff 06:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism by Woe90i

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed discussion as the starter was identified as the smelly/shameless sock of Chanakyathegreatcoward, time to apply WP:Revert, block, ignore.

Woe90i, you be warned again from removing content in this page. The Indian Navy active list has ships around 170 and that itself proves the 157 figure provided by IISS wrong. It's in plain sight and if you know counting, figure it out. Also don't put marines for marine commandos. Both are different. Also you removed the information on Sagar Prahari bal. This is pure vandalism.Linestwice (talk) 02:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Refer to edit revisions. I included the Sagar Prahari bal. I suggest you read up on Wikipedia:Verifiability. The IISS is considered both reliable and authoritative and I nor any other editor will care if 'you think its wrong'.
You have been found guilty of sockpuppetry and are currently under investigation. Therefore any edits you make will likely be seriously contested and probably removed and identified as vandalism.
Good day duck. — Augmented RealityWoe90i 09:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Indian Navy don't have auxillary services to support it. It's just the Naval service

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed discussion as the starter was identified as the smelly/shameless sock of Chanakyathegreatcoward, time to apply WP:Revert, block, ignore.

You cannot separate Indian Navy ships into two different sections like that of Royal Navy. Every Indian ship is directly under the Indian Navy and manned by military crew, not by civilians. In Britain there are two services. One is military service called the Royal Navy and the other one is the civilian service called Royal Fleet Auxiliary. In India there is no such auxiliary service. Seems Britain is the only service having a separate branch that uses civilian ships in support of military duties. Correctiondetail (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit because it did not cite any reference and was inconsistent in numbers (159 and 170). List of active Indian Navy ships say 107 active + 47 auxiliaries, but looking at those auxiliaries I doubt they all can qualify as navy vessels. Materialscientist (talk) 04:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
[5] and List of active Indian Navy ships are close to 107. globalsecurity.org gives a bit larger number (this might need resolving) but still nowhere close to 159 or 170. Materialscientist (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Materialscientist, you have different categories of ships in a Navy. It starts with smaller vessels like patrol crafts meant for patrolling duties to Aircraft carriers meant to project power overseas, nuclear subs even two to three different categories meant for defense to nuclear deterrence. Similarly are tankers, survey ships and other types of ships meant for spying etc. These ships are as important in a Navy. The tankers provide the option to fuel them for blue water operations. Without which the Navy will not be able to go beyond a certain range. So this shows how important even the ships that's considered by us as unwanted auxiliaries etc. The Navies value each and every ship because each and every ship do have specific roles to play. And in Indian Naval service there is no such thing as civilian auxillary service etc. Whatever is with the Navy is a Naval vessel and their name starts with INS meaning Indian Naval Service, be it Nuclear sub or fleet tanker.
Regarding statistics, if you're counting the ships as 107 active+47 auxiliaries its wrong trend. Such calculations are not followed in calculation regarding ships Those Auxiliaries are also active ships and they are also counted as Naval ships. Regarding the Indian Navy page, i counted about ~107 ships but i found many ships missing from the list. Those ships are Bangaram class (4 ships), 14 submarines are not included (In calculation Subs are also counted as ships) +INS Shakti+Many Dvora class is missing+ Trinkat class+some Auxillaries. If needed the final Akula can also be added. That will take up the number to a higher level than quoted. So the number 159 can be considered close to the actual figure. This is without calculating minor vessels like harbour tugs, vessels of the Sagar Prahari bal etc. That's all from me. If needed let me know, i will find out and provide details whatever is needed.Correctiondetail (talk) 02:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
The CSIS data also provides a number of 159+ commissioned ships in service. Correctiondetail (talk) 01:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Correctiondetail, your not by any chance the most recent sock of the legendary sock master Chanakyathegreat are you? Your themed account name, editing areas of interest and writing style all strongly lead me to believe you are obviously a duck.
Anyway to deal with this, "issue", I hardly think harbour tugs, landing craft and other minor auxiliary vessels qualify as naval ships and its worthy to note that the official Indian Navy ship list doesn't include them. Plus the current revisions of the articles in question are quite accurate in making a distinction between Naval vessels and Auxiliary, vessels with an authoritative citation to prove each ships existence. It is also clearly noted the naval ship total excludes auxiliaries.
To my knowledge the US-Navy (like the Royal navy) also operates a separate fleet of Auxiliary vessels (under Military Sealift Command) which do not officially count toward the US-Navys strength of 270 odd ships. — Woe90iWoe90i 13:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
I see two issues, and both might benefit advice from a project like WP:MIL: (i) Definition. Any boat can be listed by a local (Indian, US, etc) navy, for whatever reasons. Thus one can take a definition by a local navy, or unify the inclusion criteria and provide consistent international numbers from an international body. (ii) Consistency. Indian Navy website, List of active Indian Navy ships and globalsecurity.org all give different numbers and list different vessels (both in + and - side). An aside note: for most countries, a government site should be trustworthy, but I have negative experience with India (say, failed to find currently circulating Indian coins), and indiannavy.nic.in doesn't give a feeling of a well-maintained site. Materialscientist (talk) 03:47, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
This recent news article gives 132 ships and if I remember correctly late 2010/early 2012 an Indian Navy chief said he expected the navy to grow to about 160+ vessels during the next 2 decades. If we go by the IISS source and exclude all tug vessels, minor auxiliary ships and landing craft we get a remarkably close figure of 135 vessels. Can I also point out that the tug vessels and other minor vessels do not fly the Indian naval ensign, nor do they have an official commissioning ceremony either, they just enter service.. As for Consistency I think as long as the article lists every vessel with a reliable and authoritative citation, which it currently does with the present IISS citation), then there is no harm in distinguishing between "auxiliary" vessels and traditional "naval" vessels, after all its hardly an astute observation to distinguish between the types.
Im sure in time more authoritative sources will become available that will help settle this matter. As for now, it should stay as it is to at-least maintain current standards and prevent a return to the poor/bad form revisions as before. I would also like to say the IISS source gives a total of around 185 Royal Navy vessels, this excludes the 70+ ship strong Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service that operates naval tugs and research vessels on behalf of the Royal Navy. So figure it out for your self.TalkWoe90i 03:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Why are you so desperately trying to provide misinformation. Who is talking about tugs etc. We are discussing the numbers without any minor vessels, let me again remind you that. Not even patrol vessels of the Sagar Prahari dal is counted. Without all that we are reaching a figure of around 159 vessels. Why you want not to include Auxillary vessels. Seems you don't understand the importance of each and every Naval vessel. Auxiliary vessels are the major component of any Blue water force. Without which the ships cannot be fuelled. They are not minor vessels. They are not like tugs. And all Auxillary vessels like tankers are counted since in Indian service they are commissioned as INS Vessels. Indian Navy service vessel. Landing craft don't come under Axuillary vessels. They are offensive platforms, meant to deploy troops in enemy territory during war and humanitarian assistance during peace time. They are well armed for their role with rocket launchers etc. They also carry offensive equipment like tanks and fully armed troops and land them in enemy shores. All Naval vessels are traditional Naval vessels be it aircraft carrier, destroyer, frigate, corvettes, amphibious vessels, subs, tankers or training vessels.Correctiondetail (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Woe90i, one more suggestion. If you go by a single source for numbers, you're going to get wrong completely. Now let me tell you how you reach a correct number. You do some basic research before making any edit. Cross check the facts by comparing it with many other sources that are available. Then you figure out yourself what is the correct figure. Just put all the vessels in service, by collecting details. try to do a search for each vessel by googling for "ship name decommission". If the vessel is decomissioined it will show up. Remove that vessel from the list and move it to decommissioned ships list. and after all the vessels are accounted for, you just count them up. Then you get the number. This is how it's done. Your'e new to it, i'm doing it for the last many years maintaining a very close accurate number by deducting and adding with each decommission and commissioning of ships. Now you're destroying everything in one stroke. And by the way, the contents you removed be restored at the earliest. The changes like grammar correction, moving to appropriate section etc are a good move. I support such moves but not removal of content because you don't like it. They are sourced content buddy. Have a thought about it. I hope you'll restore them by tomorrow, or i got work to do.Correctiondetail (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Obviously you don't know how its done, that counts as original research. TalkWoe90i 17:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Edit request on 17 June 2012

Please remove the name of "Kanhoji Angre" from the list of "Notable Commanders" mentioned under "Commanders" in the Side bar on the Indian Navy wiki page. Kanhoji Angre was a commander of the Imperial Maratha navy and this though an important piece of our history has nothing to do with the Indian Navy.

For if we include Angre, other Imperial commanders of the Mauryas,Guptas, Zamorins and other Imperial commanders should too be included.

27.0.55.10 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Do I change it?

The article links to MARCOS (Indian Marine Commandos) with an e, but all refs to the soldiers call them commandos without the e. Typo? Moriori 20:15, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The introduction refers to "a four-star officer in the rank of Admiral". That is redundant - four star IS admiral, I suggest changing to "in the rank of Admiral".203.184.41.226 (talk) 08:33, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Chief of Naval Staff

This article is outdated. Admiral N K Verma has retired and has been succeeded by Admiral D K Joshi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.133.205.18 (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

was updated Trinidade (talk) 09:13, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I changed it and added some information. Rebels were clearly inspired by Indian National Army, demanded independence and renamed it to Indian National Navy.Ovsek (talk) 06:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Shivaji listed as father of Indian Navy

Chatrapti Shivaji has been listed as father of Indian Navy. There is no evidence to support the fact. To the contrary, the article lists history of Indian Navy long before the warrior king. Kindly remove the erroneous fact represented. Arunknair2012 (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC) Arun Nair

Support The given source does not point Chatrapti Shivaji has been officially recognized as Father of Indian Navy, and the citations given are unreliable; so unless a source is given as the official recognition of Chatrapti Shivaji as Father of Indian Navy, the statement has to be removed. KAS(talk) 12:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=104430. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 22:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated ensign

I've changed the ensign to the new version including the motto in the emblem (see news reports). I don't know whether the change is significant enough to include the 2004-2014 version - I've left it out for now. JPD (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Indian Navy has Two Official Websites?

Both http://indiannavy.nic.in/ and http://www.nausena-bharti.nic.in/ seem to be official websites of the Indian Navy. I'd appreciate if someone could clarify this because a user on Commons is giving me hell for uploading rank insignia from the second website and posting it with a tag that applies to the first. It seems to me that one is handled by the Ministry of Defence and the other is handled by the Indian Navy directly. Is this the case?Myopia123 (talk) 15:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. indiannavy.nic.in is the official page while nausena is the *official* recruitment site...the otrs permission is valid ONLY for the first site. Feel free to ask for any other clarifications.. Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
So if the Rank Insignia, shown here on ends up being deleted from Commons, what is the better option? To create them myself on my computer or to reupload them with Fair Use locally on Wikipedia? Or is there a better third option?Myopia123 (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
We would be super glad if you can actually make them....else we could upload using fair-use..Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 17:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
I added JCO insignia on Naval ranks and insignia of India. I'm working on the remaining insignia. The navy insignia is much harder to derive from existing files on Commons than it was for the files for Army Ranks. The current files are not very good quality but it's the best I can do. And it's better than nothing.Myopia123 (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
I've fixed your images..hope you don't mind! I will join you from Tuesday when I get more time..Cheers, ƬheStrikeΣagle 15:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Removing Royal Indian Navy part from introduction

The big essay about the Royal Indian Navy part is removed from Introduction. Its already there in history section, so no need for it to mess the brief introduction part. The reference to blue water Navy is also added.Rrotegero (talk) 04:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

On the Blue-water navy comment in the infobox, the consensus here is simply to use Navy. - BilCat (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 29 external links on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:42, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:28, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Insertion of Template:Equivalent ranks of Indian military

See:Reversion of edit by User:Nicky mathew

It is appropriate to insert the template {{Equivalent ranks of Indian military}} in place of {| <!--{{WPMILHIST Infobox style|main_box}} but ....t:1.2em;"|} in the Organisation section. It is because the template not only portrays the ranks of commissioned officers but also the junior and non-commissioned officers of the Indian military. So this would more useful to the user than the present one.KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 13:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that this information should be included on the page in some form, I do not think that a template is necessary. Templates like {{Equivalent ranks of Indian military}} are only meant to exist when not having one would mean duplicating text across multiple pages. In this instance, this article seems to be the only one where the template is used, meaning the template is redundant and impedes access for new users to edit the information.
If there are other pages where this template would be useful, then you should add it to those pages. Otherwise, I see no need to have (or use) the template on this page. Primefac (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Primefac: But information about the junior and non-commissioned ranks is not available now. KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 15:28, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
My point was not the presence or absence of information, but rather my hypothesis as to why your first edit was undone. It's relatively easy to add/subtract information from a page, but (as I said earlier) it's not always as easy for a beginner to modify a template. The information in your template could have just as easily been added to the article rather than to the template. I see that you have added the template to a few more pages, so my concern about its use (or lack thereof) is mitigated somewhat. Primefac (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 15 September 2016

Proposal to replace the text "As of 2010 the Indian Navy has 58,350 personnel on active duty (including 7,000 Naval Aviation, 2,000 Marine commandos), and 1,000 Sagar Prahari Bal soldiers." with the following text "As of 2016, the Indian Navy has a sanctioned strength of 11,384 officers and 67,639 enlisted personnel. There was a shortage of 1518 officers with 9866 officers serving and a shortage 9640 enlisted personnel with 57,999 serving. This is inclusive of 7,000 Naval Aviation, 2,000 Marine commandos and 1,000 Sagar Prahari Bal soldiers." Replace the active personnel in the Infobox to 79023 personnel Refernce:http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=(Release%20ID%20:148814) - Indian Defence minister placing the numbers in Lok Sabha(Lower House of Indian Parliament) Adamgerber80 (talk) 00:21, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Done due to lack of opposition. Hopefully I've interpreted the request right. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

This is perfect. Thanks Adamgerber80 (talk) 13:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 21 September 2016

Proposal to add a block quote underneath the heading "Activities" as "See also: List of Indian Naval Deployments"

Adamgerber80 (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Adamgerber80 this page is no longer protected and can be edited. — xaosflux Talk 03:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I had put in the request on 21 September when the page was still protected. The changes I proposed have been updated by me on the page. Thanks for your response. Adamgerber80 (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 32 external links on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

'Her' Majesty's Indian Navy?

in 1830, when the article claims this appellation began, the united kingdom had 2 monarchs, george iv and william iv.so how come 'her' majesty? victoria didn't come to the throne until 1837.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian Navy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:39, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Enlisted Personnel rank insignia table

The table showing enlisted rank insignia refers to NATO codes OF-D to OF-10, which are officers. I think the correct NATO codes for enlisted ranks start with OR. Perhaps someone with a knowledge of how Indian Navy enlisted ranks align with their NATO equivalents — and with a knowledge of editing tables in Wikipedia — could make corrections. Z57N (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

@Z57N: A wrong template was linked, which has been fixed now. Thanks for pointing it out. —Gazoth (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Il-38

@BilCat: Yes, it is still in service. As for Do-228, Indian Navy is still buying more of them. —Gazoth (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gazoth: This was discussed here User_talk:BilCat#Indian_Navy_aircraft and is now put to rest. BilCat is a very experienced editor watches over the page for vandalism. They were not aware of them being still in service. Adamgerber80 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Adamgerber80: I'm aware, I've seen them around although I had not seen your talk page message. I was offering some references to eliminate any lingering doubts. —Gazoth (talk) 20:19, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Notable commander Ram Dass Katari

Should Admiral Ram Dass Katari be added in notable commanders since he led the the Indian Navy in Annexation of Goa against the Portuguese Navy which was also a major naval operation? Mayank Prasoon (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Use of Admiral R D katari instead of Vice Admiral

Since in the Notable commander Section in the wiki pages Of Indian Army and Indian Air Force the final ranks of the officers have been used like MIAF Arjan Singh who was promoted to MIAF after retirement and FM K.M. Carriapa who was too promoted to FM after retirement then why not use Admiral Ram Dass Katari instead of Vice Admiral as he was too promoted to Admiral after retirement. Electrofying (talk) 15:12, 29 April 2020 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Please check

Donameer, on 27 September 2020 you made this edit where you introduced a new sub-section under Equipment related to Aircraft. That edit has a cite error related to a reference you use multiple times (Cite error: The named reference World Air Forces 2020 was invoked but never defined). The same reference is currently also marked in red with a cite error. Please can you have a look and see what is going wrong. Thanks! I hope I haven't messed up any of these details. DTM (talk) 15:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Donameer, any luck on sorting out the cite error? DTM (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I can that, Thanks! Donameer (talk) 07:58, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I changed that, Thanks! Donameer (talk) 08:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Indian Navy

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Indian Navy's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "janes-16sep15":

  • From List of equipment of the Indian Army: Bedi, Rahul (16 September 2015). "India to buy Heron TP UAVs". IHS Jane's Defence Weekly. 52 (44). ISSN 2048-3430.
  • From List of active Indian military aircraft: Bedi, Rahul (16 September 2015). "India to buy Heron TP UAVs". IHS Jane's Defence Weekly. 52 (44). ISSN 2048-3430.

Reference named "World Air Forces 2020":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:38, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Founding date?

The article states “Founded 1612; 409 years ago. Preceded by the Royal Indian Navy 1947–1950”. I don’t know the politics involved, but these facts are in direct conflict. Hughpac (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

constitution of navy

As of 2018, the Indian Navy has a strength of 67,228 personnel and a large operational fleet consisting of one aircraft carrier, one amphibious transport dock, eight landing ship tanks, 11 destroyers, 14 frigates, one nuclear-powered attack submarine, one ballistic missile submarine, 13 conventionally-powered attack submarines, 23 corvettes, six mine countermeasure vessels, 29 patrol vessels, four fleet tankers and various other auxiliary vessels. 2409:4050:2EB1:B722:5C21:3226:FD8C:400C (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

indiannavyofficialfanpage

Please give indiannavyofficialfanpage information. 2405:204:5521:2145:D033:248C:C3B0:25D4 (talk) 11:41, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The official website is linked. Fan sites should not be linked, per WP:ELNO #11. —C.Fred (talk) 13:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Manpower/active personnel update

Its been a long time since the active uniformed manpower is being shown 67,000+ in this page. But the article of the official government page already linked here says there are 1,00,000 total personnel active, in which about 69,000 are active uniformed and rest are civilian. Many national reliable news articles that quote few naval officials also say the same. Should this be updated here? Suggestions PS - I didn't find mention of reserve personnel in those articles, only active units were given. 2409:4061:4E80:C746:0:0:E0CB:BB05 (talk) 14:32, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Soap Boy 1 reverting page

User:Soap Boy 1, if you have objections, its better to raise it in talk page rather than unnecessarily indulge in reverts. Thank you. Mifiin (talk) 00:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Give reference that the information is outdated before removing the image of commissioning pennant and President's Colour from infobox. Only the naval ensign was changed. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Do you see the image of President handling the new colors? Things have changed. Mifiin (talk) 15:24, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

According to your logic, Queen Elizabeth is also alive as I have not seen pictures of her dead body. Please provide proof from credible sources that colour and pennant have changed before reverting edits.

Also the revision of the article is to be kept which was before the dispute and only be changed after consensus is reached. Soap Boy 1 (talk) 04:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You are clearly being disruptive. Without even going though the image that's there in the page you are reverting, nor doing any search and figuring out, unnecessarily reverting pages is not good. If you want to contribute to Queen Elizabeth page, better figure out whether she is dead or alive rather than go and change pages and claim she is alive, just because you did not see her funeral picture. For the laziness you show, I will help sharing the news so that you don't disrupt the page. https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1880977 Thank you.Mifiin (talk) 13:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Sentence removed

I have removed this sentence:

The first use of a mariner's compass, called as Matsya Yantra, was recorded in 4 or 5 AD.

Firstly, the source is a WP:BLOG and not WP:RS. Secondly, the claims does not match what is mentioned in the secondary source (Bombay Gazetteer). The Bombay Gazetteer only talks about the name used in India for compass in the 19th century. It does not give the date from compass was first used in India. VIBHAATH GUDTROT (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Navy/Archive_1&oldid=1255089642"