This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 20:17, July 17, 2024 (JST, Reiwa6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Italy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ItalyWikipedia:WikiProject ItalyTemplate:WikiProject ItalyItaly articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
It would be helpful to give some geopolitical context on why these particular countries were making a deal. What of Germany, Russia, Spain, China ect.? Skomorokh16:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the only difference between "light" cruisers and "heavy" crtuisers was their armament, main guns of 6-inches or less being "light" as against 6.1-inches to 8-inches being "heavy" the claim that building light cruisers with large numbers of guns approaching 10,000 tons was a "circumvention" of the treaty is unsupportable.
For a real attempt at circumvention consider the Japanese Nachi Class heavy cruisers, that displaced some 3,000 tons over the 10,000 ton limit, or the Mogami Class, designed to be converted from carrying 15 6-inch guns to carrying ten 8-inchers.--Al-Nofi (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to Factually Incorrect Claim of Italian Scrappings[edit]
While the NYT article referenced at note 5 is hidden behind a paywall, the referenced text is clearly incorrect in claiming Italy was to scrap the only two battleships it owned, as at this point in time the Regia Marina included four battleships: Andrea Doria and Caio Duilio of the Andrea Doria class and Conte di Cavour and Giulio Cesare of the Conte di Cavour class, all four of which were still in service during World War II. Reference to other articles turned up by a search for 'Italy Will Scrap 130,000 tons', all of which are in US newspapers and apparently derived from a single agency report, shows that the proposal was simply to de-man the two battleships and place them in reserve, which would not count as deletions under the terms used by the interwar naval treaties.
The article may have meant to imply that the reality was that this was political manouvering rather than actual scrappings, by the reference to 'retiring' them being in quotation marks, but this is not at all clear unless the reader is familiar with the general history. As it stands the article will lead the casual reader to believe Italy had abandoned all use of battleships in 1932, where in fact they were about to upgrade the four in service and soon (1934) to start the construction of Littorio and Vittorio Veneto, later followed by Roma and Impero.
Until the article can be given a comprehensive rewrite by someone familiar with the history, I would suggest the entire reference to Italian scrappings be removed.
92.238.224.101 (talk) 14:32, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
