Talk:Anchor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Ship-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Start rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale
Mid rated as mid-importance on the assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Anchor article.
Article policies
Archives: 1

Contents


Archives

[edit] Medieval double stock kedge ... not!

Close examination of the image claiming to be a double stock anchor will show that it is two single stock anchors. My uncalibrated Mark I eyeball also thinks they're not medieval. Not in bold mode this evening, so will just leave the note here.--J Clear 02:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed now and the description of the image corrected. Badmonkey 10:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding more information from the West Marine test

I participated in the West Marine 2006 test, as well as many other anchor tests, and have all of the raw data and graphs. If it is deemed appropriate, I can supply data regarding each individual anchor, the anchors compared, a Google Earth plot of where the test took place, or the strain graphs for each pull. I know this is too much for Wiki, but it could add to the factual information about each anchor style. I also have some information about holding power Vs. scope, but it is not conclusive.

Incidentally, I think that modern yachtsman's anchors should be divided as follows:

Danforth-type (or Lightweight Type); mention conventional steel, high strength steel, and aluminum Bruce-type (Bruce, Claw, Manta) Hinged Plow type (CQR) Non-hinged Plow type; further differentiate those with a plow style (Delta) and a scoop style (Rocna) Others (Bulwagga, XYZ, Box, etc.)

I think it would be interesting to describe how anchor designs are stabilized through ballasting (CQR), inherent design (Bruce, Bulwagga), "flatness" (Danforth), and roll-bar (Rocna, Manson, Wasi).

Cheers,

Chuck Hawley Chuckhawley (talk · contribs) 23:15, November 12 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Models

I removed a section detailing modern models, with names of manufacturers. Nothing in the section had precise sources, including positive and negative points. There were links to sites of manufacturers, and this degenerated into complaints to the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:OTRS). We should not have that kind of "advertisement" sections.

I suggest the section is reworked to include precise references to textbooks, reputable tests etc. so that it deters salespeople from trying to put up their advertisement in there. The less it looks like a brand list, the better. David.Monniaux 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sales people should not be editing this!

Looking at the various edits by people who seem to be anchor sales people, I must say that they are incapable of writing neutral, encyclopedic copy for this article. (Are you guys for real or just jerking my chain?)

I suggest these unenforceable rules:

1. Nobody who has a financial stake in the anchor business should touch this article. Get your own web site. Put your ads on Google.

2. Other people, please use verifiable, disinterested sources for your information, like Chapman or Royce.

3. Hesitate to mention actual brand names. Use brand names only when they are necessary to identify a highly noteworthy type of anchor.

4. Keep novel developments in anchor technology in perspective. If a type of anchor has existed for 10 years out of the 100's of years of anchor history, its mention in this article should be appropriately brief. If there is some amazing new development in anchors, document it briefly, with reference to disinterested sources.

5. NO COMMERCIAL LINKS! For crying out loud. Get a Google ad like everyone else.

Editing a wikipedia article about your stock in trade is like editing an article about yourself. Very bad form. Mrees1997 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alain POIRAUD (Spade designer)

Removed prohibited material from talk page (possible libel, indirect product disparagement, personal attack, unsigned comments) in additions from Alain POIRAUD. Badmonkey 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Backing an anchor - a percieved whisdom

Also known as Tandem anchors, in this technique two anchors are shackled to a single cable running crown-to-shank. With the leading anchor holding the cable down and the tension between the anchors taking load off, this technique can develop great holding power and has been used in "ultimate storm" circumstances.

DISCUSSION:

This technic has never been proved to increase the holding, but only give a false sense of security.

as I was not happy at all with my plough anchor, I did try the tandem set technique.. with no more success..

I personally almost lost my boat trying out this idea. At the time, my first anchor dragged, so I decided to try something new. I added a smaller anchor in front of the large one. This worsened the holding power as opposed to doubling it, drifting swiftly on the smaller anchor while the larger one couldn’t grip at all.

I have done a series of approximately 70 tandem anchorages in the clear waters of the Med, diving on nearly all of them.. in 62% of the cases, only one anchor was set.. During bad weather, you will not have the possibility to dive to check your anchors.. and you only have to “trust” your anchors.. Which is what I call “the Russian Roulette” anchoring..

Therefore attaching two anchors to one rode, known as tandem anchoring, should be avoided.

On an imaginary level, it might seem like two anchors should hold better than one. This is however only true when both anchors can set perfectly. Whatever anchoring technique you use, there’s never a guarantee that both anchors are going to set well. On the contrary, once the first anchor is set in the seafloor, it will hinder the other anchor from setting also.

When an anchor has dragged, a trench formed behind it and this quickly backfilled with loose un-compacted sand. These areas can be still visible after several tides and may explain why some popular anchorages are criss-crossed with patches of poor holding.

Then, if the most proximal anchor set, they are very good chances (?) that the distal anchor will fall down in this loose bottom, with, as a consequence, a poor holding!.


Below, you will also find a letter from Jean Louis GOLDSCHMID (Nautical Center of Glénans) published in N° 114 of Glénans news letter (August 83) (“badly” translated from French)

<< The Tandem set technique it is a very good technique with Fisherman anchors and I personally made some experiment at time when the Glénans’s boats only had this type of anchors on board.

On the other hand,. I began one day to have doubts while seeing tandem set anchored boats dragging. I thus carried out a series of measurements of traction with a motor boat. Almost all the tests gave the same results: one needed 200 rpm less to drag 2 tandem set anchors (CQR or Fluke anchors) than only one of these anchors alone. I thus checked what occurred, with small anchor on the dry maërl beach of “PEN MARYSE” in the Archipelago of Glénans, pulling by hand.

First problem with the CQR:, it doesn’t have any fixation hole to attach the second anchor (that should have been a sufficient reason for not using this technique), I thus tested the bar, the trip line hole, the elbow of the shank. On these 3 points. the effect is the same one: the articulation plays badly, the plow cannot dig in. Remain the extremity of the shank, but it is not better. Almost each time, the chain comes to obstruct the plow The whole system does hold only on the most distant anchor. If this one is smaller, it holds less than only the large anchor one. I noted too that an anchor holds very badly in the furrow of another.

With the “Fluke” anchors: this is again the same problem of devoted fixation, and it does not have there anything which can be used except sometimes the trip line rings which are usually not strong enough. However, from time to time y obtained results comparable with the holding of only one anchor.

I thus concluded from it, that I had sufficiently poisoned my life by re-installed useless scrap heap to definitively give up the tandem set technique.

Hylas 00:21, 27 March 2007 (UTC) Alain POIRAUD

[edit] Relative performance of temporary anchors section deletion

I am deleting this section, as it amounts to spam. The copyright on the chart shown is held by Ronca anchors, which of course shows at the top performer in the chart. Now they were indeed clever in adding a disclaimer that the chart makes compensations for anchor weight, it should be noted that even though the tests were conducted by West Marine, that the weighting of the data was then added by Ronca, this chart does not show the actual data published by west marine, but modified data by Ronca. I am deleting the entire section as spam as the whole section uses this spam chart to support it. I will state here I have nothing against Ronca anchors, but this chart and the entry surrounding it is biased and does not belong on wikipedia. I also suggest both Alain Poiraud(formerally of spade anchors) and Craig Smith(of Ronca Anchors, suspected to be user Badmonkey) not contribute to this article at all unless they are offering unbaised information on anchors/anchoring in general, but not information on their specific products (or former products). Both are infamous on internet discussion boards for arguing about anchors and wikipedia is no place for them to extend their arguments. Russeasby 03:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] West Marine / SAIL testing

The chart of results from West Marine testing is created by Rocna Anchors but for all intents and purposes is identical to the graph published by SAIL (refer SAIL October 2006, page 63). This data is independent and unmodified. The Rocna chart simply displays the data as scaled to a fixed anchor size, which accounts for variation in the weights of anchors tested. This improves the comparability and fairness of the results and avoids unduly criticizing the CQR, XYZ, and other types.

Use of this graph, permission of which has been granted, also allows legal publication, as SAIL has not to my knowledge been approached concerning copyright.

Badmonkey 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but your admission "The Rocna chart simply displays the data as scaled to a fixed anchor size" contradicts your statement "for all intents and purposes is identical to the graph published by SAIL". You admit the chart your trying to show, which is published by Ronca (an anchor manufactuer, not a third party), is modified to show scaled data, West Marine or Sail, if they felt it important to scale the data, should have, but they did not, thus a private company that sells one of the anchors in the test, scaling that data themselves is inappropriate and unecyclopedic. The graph itsself of course there is nothing wrong with it being uploaded and permission granted for its use in wikimedia projects, but in this article its use is inappropriate. If Sail or West Marine wants to release their data or charts as public domain, as third parties that would be okay, but releasing their data to a manufactuer who then has rights to weight that data and rerelease it and offer it as public domain I am not so sure. It is certainly biased simply because it comes from a manufactuer of anchors, the data itsself though, you may not even have the right to release, Ronca probably was given rights to use said data in advertising, but since wikipedia is an encylopedia it would not qualify as advertising (and if it did qualify, it has no right to be here). I dont know your agreement with Sail or West Marine, but likely your use of this data actually infringes on your agreement with them, but even if it does not infringe on that agreement it still has no place on wikipedia. If you insist on including this data, I suggest rights need to be given by the origonal testers for use of this data in wikipedia, and specificly use of this data in the modified form you are presenting it in. Russeasby 05:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
No. You state that the data is scaled, but this is entirely untrue, and you are clearly not in full possesion of the facts. A little more thought before editing would be appropriate. The data remains unchanged. Only its presentation as a ratio of size to holding power alters to the SAIL method. This is certainly a better solution since the anchors tested vary greatly in size. It is unfair and false to imply that Rocna is attempting to present biased, or worse, modified, data. The chart remains NPOV and entirely valid content. Your knee-jerk response to the lamentations of Alain POIRAUD, a commercial stakeholder and recent vandaliser of this page on more than one count, not to mention well known for his relentless and bitter campaign against his competitors, on a separate message board, is very bad form. Badmonkey 05:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have filed a request with the Association for Member Advocates. I wont revert a third time. I will say one more time that if Sail or West Marine wishes to releas their data to the public domain then that is valid third party data, but ronca presenting weighted data in wikipedia is most certainly biased, and I will say again as I did on your user page, your presentation of this data may violate copyright, Sail or West Marine has to release this data to the public domain or wikipedia before you can modify it and represent it in your own form. What you are trying to add to wikipedia is uneclyclodidic, as is what Alain is trying to add. I have no bias agaist either of your products, but neither of you should be adding biased information to wikipedia. Russeasby 06:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Unnecessary removal of valid NPOV content (which has been present and accepted for a considerable amount of time, during multiple other edits - I am not trying to add it, you are trying to delete it) is rightly considered vandalism. Your comments concerning copyright of the data are incorrect. Furthermore your attempts to associate my username with Rocna Anchors is contrary to Wikipedia's intrinsic right to anonymity and is an effective personal attack. Badmonkey 07:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion requested

I have requested a Wikipedia:Third opinion reguarding the above dispute. I suggest those offering a third opinion also see User talk:Russeasby and User talk:Badmonkey. As well if more detail on the controversy of this image is desired you can see these external links:[1], [2] . Russeasby 17:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)‎

My first thought was to remove the section entirely, since articles like battery or dishwasher do not contain any kind of cross-brand comparisons. However, I suppose if someone like Consumer Reports had done a study there would be no reason to dispute the findings. Of course copyrights would come into effect and I can only assume that Rocna has appropriate permission from West Marine and/or SAIL magazine (I maintain that the chart is properly tagged for Wikipedia's use). This topic suggests that the original data is free to be distributed. It's not a clear cut case of spam because the data represented in the chart was collected by an independent group. On the other hand, any manipulation of the results that unfairly favors one manufacturer or design over another is clearly biased and should be removed. The crux of the problem is whether or not the Rocna chart, which plots a ratio of release force to anchor weight, is a valid comparison of anchor performance. I have no idea what all the factors are that go into selecting an anchor, but this appears to be a fair evaluation of the design. Still, I question the whole intent of the section. It concludes that modern designs are better in general, but not always. This is true for any industry, so why include it at all? Hoof Hearted 21:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] One third opinion

Other third opinions may be welcome. Here's mine: I see one single purpose editor trying to bully Neutral point of view editors into approving content which is of questionable and marginal utility at best and, at worst, just plain spam. — Athænara ✉ 21:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

POSTSCRIPT: The chart's utility may or may not be more than marginal. The data it represents may or may not be more than questionable. In any case, antagonism on behalf of its inclusion should cease at once. — Æ. ✉ 21:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
With all due respect, when and independent study concludes that design X has superior qualities, what's POV about that? And if that data is available for distribution, why shouldn't it be included in a wikipedia article? I've compared the Rocna and SAIL charts in question (on the referenced link), and the data scaling is a non-issue in terms of making its anchor "appear" to be the best. These are my best guesses at reading numbers off of the charts, but the Spade is roughly 70% of Rocna's strength in both, Delta is roughly 67%, etc. Several designs made slight improvements on Rocna's chart. The only design that was significantly penalized by the scaling was the the Fortress which dropped from ~45% to ~35% of Rocna's strength, but always remained towards the bottom of the pack. The only claims to non-neutrallity could be in the test methods, which are well beyond my knowledge. Perhaps Chuck Hawley could provide some hard numbers. Hoof Hearted 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Æ, calling me single purpose is unfair. I have contributed to many other articles, including a full re-write of Anchor windlass - although I do not claim to have had the input some of you others have. Anchor is over-represented in my contribs on account of the continued controversy and involvement of commercial interests. Furthermore, the issue at hand is not the addition of this NPOV comparison, but rather its deletion. It has survived a good number of edits since its introduction with no problem. This debate now is brought about by the external influences of a commercial stakeholder simply unhappy with the position of his product in the comparison (Alain POIRAUD), as witnessed in the links provided by Russeasby. Badmonkey 00:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Response to third party comments

Thanks to both of you for stopping in to comment on this disagreement. I want to respond to a couple of points. First about the POV issue with the chart, even if only one anchors results was signifigantly changed once the data was modified, then that is 1 too many, if the neautral third party doing the testing felt it important to weigh the results then they would have or should have. Secondly, throughout the years many magazines and organizations have done similar anchor tests, all with results that can vary pretty wildly. Which one can argue makes any such test inconclusive, but of course I cannot provide this data so its hard to make my point about this. The sheer number of variables in anchoring makes just about any test impossible to be inconclusive. This test in question was done on one kind of seabed, where perhaps certain anchors do well, in another seabed the results could be drasticly different. Wikipedia is not here to show what is better then the other, especially if there is no true consensus or fact on what is best. From the comments provided by the third parties, though not nessisarily conclusive in agreeing with one view or the other, I do feel positive enough about them to go ahead and remove the section again. Hopefully badmonkey will contribute here as well. Russeasby 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I should hope that the above comments illustrate why this content has been present and unchallenged for a considerable amount of time, although Russeasby appears to want to hear what he wants and disregards the rest. The reality is that this chart is NPOV and entirely correct/valid, and provides a very useful comparison of the critical performance characteristics of modern anchors. Involvement by an apparently biased individual solicited by a commercial stakeholder is hardly constructive - my opinion, summarized, is that unnecessary removal of valid NPOV content is to be considered vandalism. Accordingly I have reinstated this section - hopefully for the last time. Badmonkey 23:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Waves a white flag - There have been a number of complaints about this article and the Modern Anchors section floating about in different places. It appears that the dispute is mostly limited to Russeasby and Badmonkey for the time being and I appreciate that fact that you've tried to use some of our dispute resolution procedures. Russeasby, I believe you need to abide by the third opinions you received and leave the section as is, per our procedure. If you have additional concerns, you may wish to consider mediation or continued discussion. Both of you need to immediately stop edit warring over the article; I'd hate to see one or both of your accounts ending up blocked for disruption and violating our reverting policies. If there's anything I can do to help, or any questions about editing on Wikipedia or Wikipedia's policies that I can answer, please just let me know. Happy editing! Shell babelfish 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Shell, I appreciate you chiming in. But I do have to point a few things out. First I used appropriate methods to resolve this dispute while Badmonkey accuses anyone who removes his POV additions as vandalism. I did leave the section as is and I abided by the 3 revert rule (Badmonkey has not) until a third party opinion was stated, given the opinion given I did revert again. Also, please look at contributions by both me and Badmonkey, you will see that I am not here with an agenda, but Badmonkey has clearly focused primarily on making edits about anchors, more specificly edits about the anchor made by Ronca. Note that he even removes additions to the article about an anchor called Manson Supreme, which is a direct competitor to Ronca. Sorry but Badmonkeys edits and his history shows it are blatant spam. Personally I would see a correct resolution being that Badmonkey be restricted from editing this article due to obvious bias, but even though my personal feelings are such, I have in no way even suggested this. I am nothing more then a yachtsmen and to be honest, if a Ronca anchor was sold in the caribbean I would buy it without hesitation, before any other anchor, but I do have idealistic views of what wikipedia is and I do not think the biased edits made by Badmonkey belong here, no matter what i think of the product he is attempting to show in a positive light. You can note as well that I disagree with Alain POIROIDs edits as well, who also is biased as he designed the Spade anchor. Alain did bring this issue to my attension in the first place, as this is an article I do not normally watch, and after his bringing it to my attension I also suggested to him that much of his edits were inappropriate. Badmonkey has posted an imaged of a Ronca anchor and given copyright to wikipedia as well as posted an image of a chart produced by Ronca and given copyright, even if he is not Craig Smith of Ronca anchors he is still connected in some way to Ronca, a commercial company who certainly has a POV. Please go over Badmonkeys edit history, and mine as well, before suggesting anything. And I will continue to remove this blatend commercial spam from wikipedia, as I am in the right. I live on a yacht, and sail full time, I have no bias (myself I am sitting now anchored on a CQR anchor, which I cant wait to replace), I am a Commadore in the Seven Seas Cruising Association, I have seen Ronca and specicily Craig Smith of Ronca (as well as Alain of Spade) tout their products all over the internet, I do think both are great products, and probably (thats NPOV, PROBABLY) the best available right now, but its entirely subjective and antectodal right now, this chart and said claims do NOT belong in wikipedia. Wikipedia should not be a buyers guide for anchors, it should present facts, not biased propiganda from specific anchor manufactuerers. Russeasby 02:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have again reverted this document - after all this, it is back to the original vandalism removal by Hdt83 after Poiraud's first attempt to skew things in his favor. The comments by Russeasby are misleading at best; attempting to slander this content as POV and spam is hardly constructive, after it has been outlined how it is anything but, and 3rd party opinions appear to agree. Discussions of identity and anchor brands are not helpful; this is about the existing content. Badmonkey 03:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I plan for this to be my last post on the matter because it seems that everyone involved is determined to prolong the debate. However some new information has been brought to my attention. Here are my final thoughts:

  • Are West Marine and Sail Magazine independent from anchor manufacturers (and therefore neutral sources)? Yes.
  • Is it permissible for the results of their study to be reproduced directly? Possibly, but more importantly the Rocna chart has the appropriate tag for our use.
  • Does Rocna's scaling unfairly skew the neutrality of the results? No consensus. Apparently my assumption that weight was a good "normalizer" is not necessarily true. There is debate in the industry over whether surface area is the better comparison and this is probably why Sail did not scale the results at all in their presentation. Russeasby is correct in that if just one design is significantly penalized by scaling, the entire chart must be considered "altered". Whether or not this is a "fair" alteration is a point of contention even for the experts in the field. If an automobile manufacturer declared their car had the best fuel economy in the industry it would be acceptable for others to point out that it only goes 40 mph, or can only carry one passenger and make appropriate comparisons based on these normalizing factors. In reality anchor holding power must be balanced with many individual needs (do you want to lift a heavy anchor, store a large anchor, look at an ugly anchor, etc.).
The surface area argument is nefarious and originated from Alain POIRAUD who is attempting to sidestep the fact that his anchor (the Spade) was in fact roughly 10% larger (35lbs vs 32lbs) than the Rocna, yet still did not perform as well. The fact that any given anchor has a larger fluke area than another of the same weight is a good thing, but in design it must be balanced against other factors (e.g. strength). It is not a standalone defining factor, and weight / physical size (volume) continues to be the most important characteristic in boaters' minds. A claim to the contrary is very disingenous. Badmonkey 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is Rocna's chart representative of the entire study? Probably not. I have come to discover that this chart represents only one of three published studies which reached differing conclusions. In fact, I'm embarrassed to admit that further down the very Sail article I examined were other charts indicating other design's superiority for other test conditions (scope and seabed location). Furthermore, West Marine questioned some of their own findings and published an addendum a month later in Power and Motor Yacht listing Hydrobubble as having the highest holding power.
Again, with respect, you are being misled. The other two studies do not draw a distinction between holding power while static and holding power while dragging (refer the different columns for each anchor on the SAIL chart). The other charts in SAIL are not representative of the entire test; they cover only one of the three scopes tested, and not all anchors tested are included either. The chart on page 63 is complete and is an ideal summary. Lastly, the Power & Motoryacht write-up is not an addendum by West Marine, but rather a less involved interpretation by that magazine (who were not present at the 2nd round of tests). Badmonkey 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My recommendation is to keep the chart out of the article, not because it's POV in itself, but because it is not representative of all the facts, and therefore misleading. The fact that it's been tacitly accepted by being in the article for a long time is irrelevant; it's been caught now. I think Rocna can rightly claim they obtained the highest averaged holding power in SAIL magazine's comparison testing in 2006 because this is in fact what the chart in the article shows. However, I would like to see it balanced with something like However other anchors outperformed it under certain conditions. There are many other factors that determine an anchor's merit. Hoof Hearted 20:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Appreciated, but the fact is that it is the only chart which is representative of all the facts - this is why it was used in the first place.
This topic is complex and subject to manipulation by the interested parties. Badmonkey 02:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I am astounded by the breadth and depth of your background checking, Hoof Hearted—very well done—and I agree with your primary points with one addendum: Wikipedia truly is not a buyers' guide. — Athænara ✉ 00:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Claim for several personal attacks

First I have to apologize , as I’m not a frequent contributor to Wikipedia, I am not very familiar to all the rules. As a non native english speaker, they are also some terms that I do not understand, such as NPOV??

But I have to complain here for several personal attacks from one editor, as he is anonymous, I do not need to say who..

I have been presented here as a “commercial stakeholder and recent vandaliser of this page on more than one count,” - If the fact of not perfectly knowing the Wikipedia procedure is vandalism, Yes I’m a vandal, and I have to apologize.. as this was absolutely unvolontaire .

- Then I’m presented here as an “commercial stakeholder” ? As an boat builder, as a liveabord sailor for 13 full time years, as a designer of a successful anchor, as a writter of a book (in French) on anchors and anchoring, translated in German, in English, and soon in Italian, I’m considered by some (?) as an anchor expert.

I have been the general manager of a company manufacturing anchors, but now, beeing 64 years old, I’m retired and I spend most of my time traveling around South America.


I DO NOT have any more financial or commercial interest in relation with any anchor. Thus, presenting myself as a “commercial stakeholder” is inexact and could be considered as a personal attack.


The sentence” the external influences of a commercial stakeholder simply unhappy with the position of his product in the comparison (Alain POIRAUD),” is again a personal attack.


Unlike some editors, I’m there in full identity and not in anonymity. I believe the fact to hide beween anonymity to post commercial SPAMS is not a correct practice.


A MANUFACTURER who will clearly identify himself as an anchor manufacturer will not be allowed to write on this forum, an anchor manufacturer clearly identified as such, hiding behind an anonymity should not be either allowed to post advertising spams.


Now concerning the incrimined paragraph “Modern anchors” and the “Rocna modified curve” published here. They have been several complains by a great number of editors, several attempts have been made by several different editors to modified or remove them.. and again, and again, the same editor has revert to his original posting.. (see comments from David.Monniaux 03:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Mrees1997 04:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC))


The “Modern anchor” paragraph should be rewritten by an Independent editor who doesn’t have any commercial interest in anchors.


Hylas 02:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Alain Poiraud

Apparently the immediate revert by Hdt83 after your first attempt at vandalism does not count. It is only my continued involvement that has kept the current NPOV content present, and avoided the introduction of a considerable slant toward a particular brand (and away from another which appears to threaten it). Regarding the insistance that no commercial stake is held, I might only say that if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it's probably a... duck. Badmonkey 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alain vs Badmonkey

I feel I should say here that I do not support Alain or his attacks, nor do I support Badmonkey and his attempts to delete said attacks. As I have pointed out before, Alain (to his own admission) is the designer of the Spade anchor, Badmonkey seems to represent the Ronca anchor (see his edit history). Both have very POV stances reguarding this article and I am doing my best to ensure that neither comprimise its integrity. Russeasby 05:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You're right. If they don't stop, perhaps it should go to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. — Athænara ✉ 12:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there another avenue to take in resolving this? I hate to escalate this all the way to an admins noticeboard. Badmonkey just reverted your removal of the section again though. I am going to sea shortly and will not be around to offer my take on this situation in any other mediation that may come about in the next couple days. I do hope this gets resolved as it is rather tiring. Russeasby 13:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well Badmonkey is now using a notice board to list ME, I guess I dont have qualms about escalating to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard in light of this. I am absolutely astonished by all of this. Russeasby

[edit] The issue continues

It seems User:Badmonkey is back and now restoring the disputed content even though consensus was reached here on its being inappropriate. I will not revert his edits for now, but I do welcome others to give input on the situation. I am not going to allow the situation to cause me the greif it did last time around, but I also will surely make sure this wikipedia article remails neautral. Russeasby 02:45, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


To user Badmonkey:

Please note that the {{talkheader}} advisory includes:

You may also find it useful to read:

Wikipedia:Grief very much applies here as well. — Athænara ✉ 23:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A suggestion:

Thanks for your comments Russeasby. I fully agree with you, this disputed part on Modern Anchors should remain neutral .

I would suggest:

1° - First to remove the photo of the Rocna and to replace it by, for example the Bügel which has been on the Market for at least 10 years, and which is more representative of the “modern” anchors (I may supply the photos)

I suggest also to change the text for the following one:

In recent years, there has been something of a spurt in anchor design. Primarily designed to set very quickly, then generate high holding power, these anchors (mostly proprietary inventions still under patent) are finding homes with users of small to medium sized vessels.

• The German designed Bügel, first built by steel producer WASI, has a sharp tip for penetrating weed, and features a roll-bar which orients the anchor to the correct attitude on the seabed

• The Bulwagga is a unique design featuring three flukes instead of the regular two. It has performed well in tests by independent sources such as American boating magazine Practical Sailor.

• The Spade is a French design which has proved successful since 1996. Thie anchor features a demountable shank and the choice of galvanized steel, stainless steel, or aluminium construction.

• Several new models such as: - the French Sword - from New Zealand (Rocna – Manson Supreme) - Australia (SARCA) or - South America (Araia), recently appeared on the market. Although having only little experience, these new models seem to have excellent characteristics of penetration and holding and could become the modern anchors of the future.

• All links to Manufacturers web sites should be removed

I will be very pleased to receive any comments to my proposal, including the ones of Badmonkey.

Alain Poiraud Hylas 03:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


Alain, reguarding your comments:
  • I agree an image of the Buegal would be more appropriate then the Ronca, as it is certainly one of the most established of the "modern" anchors. Also given that 4 of the 5 external links on this page are hosted by Ronca as well this article still feels a bit spammed by Ronca. But that being said, the Ronca does represent a modern anchor and it is the image available to us, I am comfortable leaving it for now. As for the links, I would prefer to see some of them removed, for instance reading the NZ Coast Guard article hosted on the Rocna site, well, its extreamly biased. As for the one titled "An essay on boat anchors... " well, considered the second paragraph contains the line "The author must confess at this stage to being the designer of the Rocna" I feel this one should be removed as well. But the two external links to anchor tests hostsed on the ronca site, even though there is much issue with tests, I thikn as external links they are useful to the article.
  • Reguarding your suggestions for changing the wording of the Modern anchors section, I can see adding mentions of the other anchors which are not currently mentioned. But you are at the same time suggesting that the Rocna section be gutted and Rocna be breifly mentioned with these other anchors. While generally I agree with this, as the Rocna is no more established in the market then any of these other very new anchors among small vessels, I can assue you User:Badmonkey will have a fit and I am not up for another battle right now. Also, the Rocna section is properly cited and really other then the fact that it was written by a biased person involved with the company, I think it should be left as is. The other anchors you mention which are not currently mentioned in the article could certainly be added though in an additional bullet in the section. Your requesting a change to your own designs mention(the Spade), it seems you want the text "Although relatively expensive, it performs well" removed, I can understand and agree with removing this, as mention of cost is not in other entries and indeed anchors like the Rocna are very expensive as well and considering that text was added by a competitor I think its completey valid to remove it.
I am not doing any of this right away though, perhaps later today. Russeasby 13:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


For once I tend to agree with Russeasby. There is nothing wrong with adding pictures. The mention of the Spade's price could be removed, although the reality is its performance depends on a complex production process which makes it more costly than other types. However, the rest of Poiraud's suggestions are simply part of his continuing anti-competition crusade, and do not deserve a response.
On the topic of anchors mentioned, there was a semi-agreement a while ago that
  • if brands are to be mentioned, only brands noteworthy should be mentioned, e.g. by virtue of popularity, longevity, comparison test performance, etc, and
  • only original designs be included. There are literally thousands of anchor copies worldwide, and to include one copier brand such as Manson would imply the necessary inclusion of all others in a vain attempt at completeness and fairness. Such an excercise is of no value.
These two points seem to exclude all brands/types not already mentioned.
bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 13:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I just took a closer look at the two reviews linked in External Links. I actually have to say I think they should be removed as well, due to the fact that they are not just the magazine reviews, but each contain an entire page added by Ronca which included biased critisism. Badmonkey if you can offer links to these articles which do not include these added pages, I can support them remaining. Your anchor is still shown in a very good light in these articles even without this added page so I hope you can see this as a valid comprimise to keeping the links while maintaining the integrity of wikipedia. Russeasby 13:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A further suggestion

In the light of Poiraud's strategy, to get the West Marine results interpretation removed, having worked, I intend to replace them with the raw results direct from West Marine. This will not be in a graph form, but rather a simple table including verbatim summary comments as published by West. Such a table format will avoid the copyright issues associated with using a graphic from the magazines. I will do this in the next few days.

These will be less fairly comparative, and some anchors such as the XYZ will be badly hurt in their portrayal, but I will make sure to point out varying weights - and since the XYZ designer, unlike the Spade promoter, is apparently not yet aware of Wikipedia, perhaps this will not prove to be a problem.

Any problems, this is the place. Russeaby and Poiraud(Hylas) excluded.

bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 13:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes there are problems with you readding another table back to this article, please see this comment from a third party editor, which at this point two other third parties agree makes the most sense: [3]. Russeasby 13:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes I agree there are problems. This is an Encyclopedia, and not the place to ADVERTISE about anchors.

They have been so many anchors tests done during years by several magazines and independent organizations, and to be objective it would be necessary to publish the results of the most important ones.. Just talking about the last West Marine tests, the results have been published by three different magazines and the published results are quite different from one magazine to another, to be objective it should be necessary to publish the results of the three different magazines.. and an encyclopedia is not (to my humble opinion) the place to publish magazine tests results.

Everybody is welcome without exclusion to give his opinion on this subject, including Badmonkey and Craig Smith from Rocna.. ^ Alain_POIRAUD [4]

[edit] Answer to the comments from bad•monkey

". if brands are to be mentioned, only brands noteworthy should be mentioned, e.g. by virtue of popularity, longevity, comparison test performance, etc, "

Why not?? But this will completely exclue all recent anchors such as the Rocna – Manson Supreme – Sarca etc.. as those very recent models doesn’t have neither popularity nor longevity..

"If only original designs be included.." this is also a rather difficult point:

- The Bügel anchor is copying the Roll bar design patented by Peter Bruce.

- The Rocna is copying both the Bügel roll bar and the Spade concave shape.

- The Supreme is also coyping the Roll bar, but has an original cylindrical fluke


- And in this regard, most modern anchors should be excluded, with the exception of the Bulwagga, the XYZ and the Spade..

Hylas 20:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of link spam

I have removed 4 external links to the rocna.com website, per WP:LINKS, WP:COI and WP:SPAM, see my comments in discussion above for more details. Russeasby 21:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Badmonkey, I at least gave explanation for my removal and additions. If you want to do this right, I suggest you contribute to the conversation and explain why four links to your anchor companies website is acceptable. In addition explain why breif mentions of other modern anchors (which happen to be your competitors) is not acception. Unexplained reverts are not going to look good in any argument you will have to make against your COI in editing this article. Russeasby 02:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Badmonkey, don't you realize that these external links are nofollowed, so there is no SEO advantage to your site? Please, we can't have everybody adding links to their own site in Wikipedia, or it will completely destroy the place. Let's not be selfish, ok. Jehochman (talk/contrib) 09:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit request

{{editprotected}}

There were at least five commercial links in the article before they were removed. Examples:

Two commercial links, both to the same company website, were again in the External links section when the article was protected. As per links normally to be avoided and advertising and conflicts of interest guidelines, I request that they be removed. — Athænara ✉ 11:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Objection: this dispute is the very reason the article was protected. The "commercial links" are magazine articles. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 11:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
The links are indeed commercial, they are hosted on a commercial anchor manufacturer website and they are not purely magazine articles, they are the articles with additional pages added by the anchor manufacturer containing biased information. These are not appropriate, as I said in my talk page entry before I removed them. They qualify as link spam. Russeasby 19:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Modern anchors

{{editprotected}}Modern anchors: As already requested before. I request again :

1° - that the photo of modern anchor (currently the Rocna) will be exchanged for one photo of the Bügel anchor, by far more representative of the modern anchors by virtue of popularity, longevity.

2 ° if talking about the last new designs, I request that all new designs with enough popularity will be listed in addition to the Rocna anchor: the French Sword - Manson Supreme from New Zealand – and SARCA from Australia

All these changes have also to be made on the French version of Wikipedia for the same reasons:advertising spam by commercial stakeholder

Alain Poiraud Hylas 12:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

In general I support much of this. As for mention of other modern designs, see this diff where their minor mention was removed by WP:COI editor User:Badmonkey. Its worth noting that the chart Badmonkey edit warred over before for inclusion mentions 2 of these 3 anchors, so any argument he has about them being less notable then his anchor is rather silly. This breif mention of other modern anchors is useful and relative to the section of the article. I suggest this minor mention in the diff that was removed be restored, perhaps to be expanded on in the future.
Reguarding User:Hylas suggestion to include an image of a Bügel does make sense in the sense that of modern anchors the Bügel is probably one of the most established, well known and used anchors in this group. its worth noting here, that even though Hylas is an admited anchor designer and could easily be suggesting the inclusion of the Spade anchor which he designed and is also more established and notable then the Rocna, he is instead advocating the inclusion of a design he had nothing to do with and accepts its notability. However, there is no available image uploaded to use here and the only image currently available for use is the one of the Rocna currently there, so unless a good image of a more notable anchor is uploaded, I see this particular edit request as rather moot and the Rocna should remain at least until a more appropriate image is made available. Russeasby 02:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The reasons against this are adequately given above and still stand. If you continue to add brands, you will be obliged to add dozens if not hundreds of others.
  • "It is worth noting", Russeasby, that Poiraud's sole motivation in recent months appears to be not to promote his Spade but rather indirectly support it by attacking its primary competitor, by either belittling its status, attacking any independent testing, or vandalizing whatever natural exposure it has. This is evident all over the internet, not to mention in his new book. You are only falling for his strategy and allowing yourself to be manipulated.
Just by the way, I also question the Spade's present establishment. It is older but if establishment is defined by a combination of both supply and demand, it appears the Rocna is semi-equal. The Spade is no longer easily available in the USA, as nor is the Rocna, but the Rocna is far more easily obtained in New Zealand, the UK, and some European countries. There was a survey on a British forum recently which asked boater's preference of a new anchor; Rocna is currently leading Spade, although they are fairly equal. See here. This demonstrates balanced acceptance.
bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 06:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please stop personal Attacks..

Well, first I will suggest to discuss ONLY about anchors and not doing PERSONAL attacks

. “If you continue to add brands, you will be obliged to add dozens if not hundreds of others.”

The contested part is talking about “Modern designs” and this “THE” place to talk about NEW designs, including all new improvements that will appears in the future and that will be more ‘modern” than the actual modern achors.

The proposal was not to include hundreds of others brands, but anchors that are at least as representative as the Ronca, namely the Manson Supreme, the Sarca and the Sword.

I’m quite pleased to note that bad•monkey finally agree that I “appears to be not to promote his Spade” As many times explained before, I do not have anymore financial or commercial interest with any anchor manufacturer and I do my best to stay as neutral as I can.

The fact to pretend that I am“ attacking its primary competitor, by either belittling its status, attacking any independent testing, or vandalizing whatever natural exposure it has.” his once again a personal attack and is out of the subject.

My only requests are to keep this interesting article as neutral as it should be, by:

- removing ALL links to manufacturers Web page

- changing the photo of the Rocna for one of one “more representative” anchor, Ideally it should be the Spade, but to remain as neutral as I can, I suggest the Bügel – (as soon as the photo replacement is accepted, I can supply any requested anchor photo)

- adding others modern anchors at least as representative as the Rocna

By doing this request, I do not attack any competitor (as not being involved in the anchor business, I do not have competitors) nor vandalizing anything…

Hylas 14:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: User Alain POIRAUD (Hylas) has not engaged in edit warring and has not edited the Anchor article since March 24 2007. — Athænara ✉ 02:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] edit requests

The edit requests do not seem to have clear consensus. Since this page was blocked for edit warring, the appropriate thing is to wait until the page is unprotected, which can happen promptly if consensus is reached on the talk page. CMummert · talk 01:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is consensus wont be reached with the involved parties. This is not so much a problem of lack of consensus as it is a problem of one editor being a WP:COI editor, he will never agree to the edits which remove his WP:SPAM. I am starting to think I have to go through the third opinion process again, otherwise this page will have to remain protected until User:Badmonkey is forced to stop editing it (which he shouldnt do acording to COI policy, in which case if policy was followed there would not be a problem in the first place). Russeasby 02:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you have a valid complaint, you may want to consider a WP:RFC on the issue, as part of dispute resolution. Third opinion is a much less formal process that is only suitable when everyone is willing to work together. CMummert · talk 02:36, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, this issue has been lised on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anchor for awhile which I thought would have sorted it out. I will look at WP:RFC and see about listing there for comment. Thank you for the advice. Russeasby 02:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

This is a dispute reguarding edits made in relation to Rocna anchors, links added to Rocna anchors website, a previous dispute relating to a chart of anchor performance and mention of other modern anchors in this article.

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • One can clearly see my opinions by reading through the talk page, but I will try to summerize here. I am a neautral third party uninvolved in any way in the anchor design or manufacturing buisness. I feel that this article is clearly being spammed by someone representing Rocna anchors, including biased information, including link spam, preventing other competetors from being mentioned and including general information favorable and biased towards their anchor in this article. I do not dispute the notability of this particular anchor, but I do dispute the WP:COI editor making POV edits to this article, including link spam, unreliable test data which shines their product in a glowing light and their insistance on disinclusion of their competitors. Note that this aricle is listed on the COI noticeboard here [5] and note above the third opinions provided above. Russeasby 02:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Since User:Badmonkey wants to suggest I was "solicited" by User:Alain_POIRAUD I want to make this very clear. Yes, as I have already admited, this article was brought to my attension by Alain, but in bringing it to my attension I still came as a neautral party and have told Alain I felt his edits were not justified either. This was my first reaction upon looking things over, note I do not like either Alain or Badmonkey editing here Talk:Anchor#Relative_performance_of_temporary_anchors_section_deletion. If you want to see where I was "recruited" you can look here: [6] note I am "russell" in this discussion, also note that even though Alain brought this to my attension, I clearly suggest he should not be editing here any more then Badmonkey should be editing here. So any suggestion I have been "recuited" by Alain is nonsense as I found him initially just as much wrong being here as Badmonkey. I am truely a neutral third party and have been so from the start. Russeasby 05:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Russeasby has been solicited by Alain POIRAUD (who often mis-signs himself as Hylas), the designer of a particular brand of anchor, who is pursuing an agenda of attacking the competition. As above, he focuses on its primary competitor, trawling the internet, by either belittling its status, attacking any independent testing, or vandalizing whatever natural exposure it has. We are talking about content which simply happens to be hosted on a commercial website because it is nowhere else; extensive credible testing which has been published no less than four times by separate independent organizations on separate occasions, articles which have been published by Coastguard organizations, etc. Russeasby in turn appears to reject anything which might provide useful comparison data. Russeasby has requested 3rd opinions, but universally rejected them unless they agree with his only single minded views - e.g. those comments from Hoof Hearted, who was subsequently spammed with false and misleading messages from Alain POIRAUD, and Shell, whose advice was: "Russeasby, I believe you need to abide by the third opinions you received and leave the section as is, per our procedure".
  • A seperate issue is then the desire by certain editors to "water down" the presence of particular brands by adding more others, some of which are just copies/clones/knock-offs of the originals, or creating implicit negative associations or categorizations. The problem here is that, as consensus has happily indicated before, WP is not a consumer guide, and brands should not be mentioned at all unless particularly relevent. The four "modern anchors" listed are entirely representative.
bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 04:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Comments by uninvolved editors


[edit] Comments by uninvolved editor Athaenara

  → My comment as originally posted without interjections. — Æ. ✉ 18:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am one of three dozen Third opinion Wikipedians who respond independently to posted requests for a neutral third opinion on the Wikipedia:Third opinion project page.

Anchor came to our attention 06:45, March 29, 2007 (UTC) with Russeasby's WP:3O request which mentioned two users who were hindering the encyclopedic neutrality of the article.

Hoof Hearted, who simplified the wording of that request, also contributed a neutral summary of a specific dispute about a Rocna company graph* to Talk:Anchor. [1st interjection]

More often than not, disputes which WP:3O is asked to address resolve amicably, but not in this case. Like other editors who got a little too close to the fire here, I've been maligned, misrepresented and targeted with sarcastic gibes by what I now see as a conflict of interest single purpose account (COI SPA) with article ownership issues. [2nd interjection]


→ Survey of edit history of user Badmonkey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • 23:04, May 9, 2006 (UTC) - removed competitor info & links (did not remove Rocna info & link) (4th) [4th interjection]
"…The 32 lb Rocna anchor did not hold nearly as well as several of the anchors, namely the 22 lb. Fortress FX-37, in two out of the three bottoms where these holding power tests were conducted.
"A chart from the October Sail magazine on page 68, which specifies the above mentioned test results, was ignored by Rocna anchors when they authored their chart."
   (Content which had been added 13:40, October 18, 2006 (UTC) by 74.225.42.250)
And substituted the following text for the content he removed:
"…To ensure fairness this chart shows averaged results as ratios of holding power to relative anchor weights. "Max Before Releasing" is the force the anchor withstood before moving (i.e. the effective holding power). "Max Pull" is the peak force measured after the anchor started moving." [7th interjection]
  • 04:43, February 1, 2007 (UTC) - removed another user's post from the Rocna graph* talk page, with an edit summary which claimed he had "Blanked sabotage from commercial stakeholder"—ironic in light of the evidence which supports the hypothesis that he himself is a commercial (Rocna) stakeholder.


→ The examples above early in the user's edit history illustrate a pattern which has continued.

A walk through the user's entire edit history is not terribly taxing—it is only 3.5 pages. Misrepresentation of events, causes and effects (and personal attacks) escalated whenever neutral point of view editors noticed the predominance of Rocna material, including Rocna external links, and removed it. [9th interjection]

In my view, Badmonkey's numerous false claims about consensus and his incivility to neutral editors are evidence of the first two of the five stages of grief every Wikipedia spammer will go through when his content is removed: Denial and Anger. He should have been blocked weeks ago for edit warring and incivility, not to mention dishonesty.

The occasional reasonable and obviously knowledgeable comment, such as this 09:14, January 18, 2007 (UTC) post (n.b. however: "Most of the original text was written by myself"), suggests that iff this user confined his activities to the talk page,

  • without pursuing commercial Rocna company interests
  • without misrepresenting consensus
  • without personal attacks on other editors

as per "Avoid writing or editing articles where your close connection to the subject may cause a conflict between your agenda and Wikipedia's goal of producing a neutral encyclopedia," his participation could be valuable to the Anchor corner of this encyclopedia project. That's a big if, though, and I make no predictions. — Athænara ✉ 13:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttals embedded above. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Nine embedded interjections reformatted below. — Athaenara 06:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
[1st interjection]: That is a single diff which happens to weakly support your POV. Try this one, or this one. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[2nd interjection]: I think you are now anything but uninvolved AE, and your careful selection of evidence and preferred diffs exemplifies this. You are misrepresenting the facts and some of your comments below betray a wild misunderstanding of the content disputed itself. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[3rd interjection]: This was blatant spam from SPADE, using easily confused brand names instead of generic terms ("Skrew" as opposed to screw). Furthermore this anchor is hardly a 'competitor' to the Rocna; it is a form of permanent mooring. Reinstate the spam if you truly believe your comment. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[4th interjection]: This was removal of two anchors which are copies of other types, added incidentally by the retail chain that sells them. If one allows these, then one is obliged to include hundreds of others. I think most will agree that it was spam. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[5th interjection]: That is an article from SAIL magazine which is entirely valid and simply happens to be hosted on a commercial site. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[6th interjection]: That is an article from the Coastguard which was published in their annual member's handbook this year. Like the magazine testing, it simply happens to be hosted on a commercial site. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[7th interjection]: The content replaced the existing description (vandalism) and appeared to be sabotage from an anchor manufacturer evidently unhappy with the SAIL results. The statements were false or extremely misleading. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[8th interjection]: Come on, that was blatant spam from Manson Anchors. It was also reverted a few times by other editors. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
[9th interjection]: Editors such as those from SPADE and Manson Anchors attempting to spam the article themselves, or sabotage their principle competitor's standing... bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 15:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by uninvolved editor Ronz

A few, brief comments:

I agree that there are problems with editors' behavior here. Definitely WP:COI and tendentious editing, sometimes disruptive. I suggest following the recommendations from Wp:de#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors.

As for the article, I encourage the editors to find secondary and tertiary sources (per WP:ATT#Primary_and_secondary_sources to determine appropriate weight for the issues in disagreement. Too much of the current discussion is based upon editors' personal knowledge (and biases) of the subject, rather than being based upon verifiable information from reliable sources. --Ronz 03:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by uninvolved editor EdJohnston (proposal to decommercialize the article)

Wikipedia is *NOT* a directory, and is not a consumer guide.

I would remove ALL of the sections of the article that refer to specific brand names that are currently available for sale. These sections are:

I would remove all the non-book references and external links that discuss the testing of specific brands currently available for sale:

  • Practical Sailor: "Anchor Reset Tests", Belvoir Pubs, January 2001
  • Lowe, Colin: "Gear Test: Rocna Anchor", Boating NZ, July 2006
  • "Ultimate Holding Power" - Anchor Test from Yachting Monthly December 2006
  • "Holding Power" - 14 Anchors Tested from SAIL magazine October 2006

I would keep all the actual books cited, and any references that discuss mooring and anchorage generally, except Poiraud's French-language book. I believe that his book in English will be sufficient. Here are the references I would keep:

  • Poiraud et al. (in English), Edwards, Hinz, Hiscock, Pardey, Rousmaniere and Smith.

EdJohnston 18:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually mostly disagree with your proposal, but have held off on commenting, hoping to see more comments from the RFC first. Almost every variant of anchors is tied directly to a commercial product, as they can be drasticly different and then patented, I see no way to remove commercial brands or names from the article without losing considerable information on anchors. The sections you suggest removing basicly cover the only anchors actually in current use, to remove those sections you lose a considerable amount of the value of this article. But indeed Wikipedia is not a buying guide, which would support the removal of commercial brands, but I dont see how they can be entirely removed without reducing the value of the article considerably. Which is why I have been trying to propose keeping them listed and described, but keeping out any biased data, test data or anything claiming one is better then another. But User:Badmonkey is making that very hard. I am increadably frustrated this has gone on for so long now, I would be happy if the article just remained protected forever so I wouldnt have to deal with this anymore! But that doesnt work. I do agree however with your suggestions on references. Russeasby 19:27, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Additional comment. Decommercializing the article also will not make the problem go away, as editors here to promote their products would not agree to such and would continue to argue for the inclusion of their spam. So it would just change the conflict, but not get rid of it. I hate to say it, but at this point I think about the only solution is a community ban on any WP:COI editors attempting to directly edit the article to promote their products, considering how long this has gone on now and how aggresive the editor in question is I dont think this is an inappropriate suggestion. But myself I am not a fan of bans as a solution which is why I have held off on bringing it up, hoping to exhaust every possible avenue of resolution before hand. Russeasby 19:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Something like WP:CEM might be a solution if you are hoping to get specific editors banned from commenting on articles. In practice, most every COI issue gets resolved through diplomacy, through AfD, or through a block of some kind, though blocks are rare. Obtaining a block takes firmness and an incredible length of time. That's why I'm suggesting the decommercial option. WP readers are free to get ideas on the web for what anchor to buy, they needn't depend on us. If you look at the link about actual mooring failures you might notice (though you're probably an expert yourself) that the average user should be paying attention to a lot of factors besides whether his anchor weighs 32 lb or 22 lb. Do we really need to instruct the WP readers down to that level of detail? EdJohnston 21:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
The pdf article you posted is about permanent moorings, not temporary anchors as we are discussing here. Though of couse most of the information is relevent to both. And yes the topic of anchors and anchoring goes well beyond the specifics of the particular anchor one uses, but the most important factor is the anchor itsself. The article as a whole could use expanding to cover other issues, but that will bring in a whole lot more controversy as well. The topic of anchors and anchoring is one of the most controversial issues involved in yachting. Put a group of yachties together in the room and throw out the topic of anchoring and you will he every opinion imaginable on every minor detail. Any article on anchoring though would be pretty ridiculous without mentioning the designs such as the Plow/CQR and the Bruce at the very least, walk down any dock and you will find these are the standard in anchors, it would make no sense not to mention them. New designs in anchors though are making a big impact currently though, and they should be mentioned. Its more important to think of them as design styles, rather then "brands". I think we can include descriptions of styles and even theories on their concepts without the article being commercial at all, so long as we can keep commercial intrests out of the article. If we can get the article to a stable situation where its not being spammed then certainly it can be expanded to things beyond the anchor itsself, as in more concepts and equipment related to anchors and anchoring. As for my suggestion on a community ban, I just cant see how User:Badmonkey will ever cooperate on any level, he wont follow the suggestions in WP:COI to keep his input to the talk page in the form of suggestions. This article has gone through WP:3PO and now a WP:RFC, more then one uninvolved editor has stepped in to remove the edits made by this user, yet he persists. No matter what input gets given, he insists on doing all he can to use wikipedia to market his anchor, blanking talk page contents, suggesting well meaning editors are vandalizing by removing his spam, edit warring, he has not once shown any sign of comprimise or cooperation, he is nothing less then disruptive. Russeasby 21:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
You may not like his behavior, but unless you can find a reform proposal that will win consensus at Talk:Anchor, I don't see how you can resolve this. You could try to get him blocked as a disruptive editor, and there is always WP:CEM. Nobody short of Arbcom or WP:CEM can actually ban people from specific articles. Another possibility is to put in a complaint that will get the link http://www.rocna.com added to the m:Spam blacklist. That would prevent its use in any Wikipedia article. EdJohnston 22:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Well there is certainly a big case against him for WP:DE violations, looking over that it seems a Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct is probably a step to take now. This guy has violated so many policies and guidelines at this point, even leading to respected neutral editor User:Athaenara stepping away due to User:Badmonkeys behavior [7]. Russeasby 22:21, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Wow, what a mess! I just happened to stumble across this article and I saw the protection template and thought "what could possibly have made this necessary on an article about anchors?" This is an easy one. Wikipedia is totally not Consumer Reports. I heartily support the proposal to decommercialize this article. --JayHenry 06:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see how this article can discuss anchors in the last 100 years of history (which would mean almost every anchor currently used on a boat) yet still not manage to discuss what happen to be brand names. I agree commercial emphasis should be removed, but as I have suggested before, I dont think brands can be all together removed. I agree WP is not consumer reports which is why I came to this article trying to remove commercial bias, graphs showing test results, etc.. But I think modern anchor design (meaning anchors of the last 100 years, not just whats labeled modern in this article) can still be be discussed and should be discussed without bias and in an ecyclopedic way. Russeasby 12:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by involved editor Alain Poiraud

Although I’m trying to stay away from the discussions, as I’m once again directly attacked by user Bad.monkey, I would like to make a few comments.

- 1° - First evidence – once more user Badmonkey is not arguing about the content of the text, but against others paticipants.

- 2° - My pseudo on Wikipedia is Hylas, but I never hide neither my real name, nor the fact that I am the designer of the Spade and the Sword anchor – I believe it is a question of HONESTY

- 3° - As wrongly stated by Bad monkey, I do not focuses on any competitor, as I’m now out of the anchor business, I do not have any competitor, but as a former anchor manufacturer, I have a very precise idea of what are general neutral comments about anchors and anchoring and what is direct advertisement for a specific product.

- 4° - They have been hundreds of testing reports published about anchors, and to be honest it would be necessary to publish the most recents ones, not only the one of West marine. If user Bad.monkey will honnestly report the results of those tests, he should point out that no reporting magazine says that the Rocna anchor came out as #1. Out of the three magazine reports, the only one that make a classification is Yachting Monthly magazine who wrote [(http://www.yachtingmonthly.com/ym/any_questions/20070208105551ymanyqs.html)] “The December 2006 issue of YM contained the magazine's biggest ever anchor test. One innovative anchor - the HydroBubble - stood out.”-

5° A seperate issue is then the desire by certain editor to eliminate the presence of particular brands, such as the Sarca and the Manson Supreme anchors, and others..

- In this regard, talking about “copies/clones/knock-offs’ of the originals, it has been reported tens of times on the Net that the Rocna anchor is a knock-off of both the Spade and the Bügel anchors; and such, following the comments of Bad.monkey himself, shouldn’t have the right to be cited on Wikipedia.

- Talking about “representativity”: - Manson company is a big, old and very reputed anchor manufacturer of New Zealand, and the question of its representativity shouldn’t be asked.

- What is the “representativity” of the Rocna? This very small company has been created a couple of years aggo, and except on Internet, (where Rocna company (Craig Smith) is publishing on every available nautical forum, that the new Rocna anchor is the best), they are very few comments about this product coming from “neutral” sailors. Outside of the Net.. nobody has even heard about this very recent desing, and boats equiped with this anchor can very seldom be seen on Marinas and harbors.

The Rocna anchor is absolutely not representative of new anchors.

- 6° - Then I may have to fully agree on Bad.monkey’s comments, could we reach the consensus that “anchors which are “copies/clones/knock-offs’ of the originals, and anchors which are not representative, should not be mentioned at all” then all comments about the “Rocna’ anchor, should be removed.

Hylas 21:23, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC for User Conduct of User:Badmonkey

An RFC for User Conduct has been opened for User:Badmonkey, all those who have been involved with the dispute here and elsewhere with this user are invited to comment. Please read the instructions on the page (additional instructions in comments when in edit view) carefully and place your comments appropriately. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Badmonkey . Russeasby 00:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blog post reguarding Rocna sales tactics

Given all the disputes reguarding Rocna and their attempt to use WP for advertise their anchors, I though this external blog post would be an interesting read to any involved in the dispute [8]. The blogger explains some of the aggressive online marketing tactics used by Rocna in various online communities and even mentions Rocnas involvement in WP and this article. I have no involvement with this person, I just happened across this today. Russeasby 23:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by uninvolved editor htom (Ottersmith)

Declaration of interest: I own a 7.5 pound HT Danforth (which may be a fake.) I don't own a boat at all, although I'd like one. The Danforth was a gag gift at the end of a garage sale when it didn't sell. If I ever build a boat (perhaps a Joel White Pooduck or a Iain Oughtred Ness Yawl), I'll use it then, and try to get someone to buy her a bronze fisherman style as well.

It seems to me that this article needs to be divided into several articles.

  • Anchors, which would include descriptions and illustrations of the various "historical" anchors and hardware, for the use of those who are reading sailing tales, real or fiction, historic or current, and are confused or curious.
  • Moorings, which would include descriptions of the hardware, placement and use thereof.
  • Anchor selection, usage, and technique, for both yacht and ground, which would be more orientated to the modern yacht, perhaps with descriptions and illustrations of "modern" designs, and perhaps a trio of articles, rather than one.

To me, in a marine context, a "temporary anchor" is a line tied around a rock, not a Fisherman or a CQR or ... the "temporary anchor" usage is confounding anchor, the thing, with anchor, the practice, mooring, the thing, and mooring, the practice. Some other way needs to be found to distinguish them. An anchor is a temporary mooring, I suppose, but "temporary temporary mooring" sounds really silly.

The hole in the hull for the anchor cable or chain is the "hawse" or "hawse hole" (and the usage is sometimes extended to the hole in the deck); the pipe(s) or metal fittings lining the deck or holes in the deck or hull, are "hawse pipes". I suppose they could be wood in historic vessels. http://www.history.navy.mil/books/nnv/dh.htm#H

There's no mention of the pick anchor, either.

htom 16:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

While much of your comments are beyond the scope of the dispute, I would like to comment on a few points. First, a mooring is indeed an anchor, weather set with a sand screw or a mushroom or however, permanent anchor is proper termonology for an anchor set as a mooring and not intended to be regularly moved. Likewise an anchor that one keeps on their boat, which is ment to be deployed and retreived regularly, like a CQR, is indeed a temporary anchor, this is correct termonology. The problem with splitting it up as you suggest is that in some cases the equipment is very similar between the two, for instance a mushroom style is often used as a permanent anchor or mooring, but is also frequently used, especially on small tenders, as a temporary anchor as well. I can however see the posability of "Anchoring" being split into a seperate article, but the current length of this article does not warrent it. I am not sure what your pointing out reguarding hawse pipes, they are already defined and mentioned in the article. As for the pick anchor, it could certainly be added if we can ever resolve the current dispute and get back to improving the article. Russeasby 16:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by mrees1997

See my previous post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Anchor#Sales_people_should_not_be_editing_this.21

I think that anyone who is an anchor sales person, an anchor designer, an anchor company executive, or who has some other personal interest in a particular brand of anchors should abstain from editing this article. You are not objective enough to contribute to the article and you are not objective enough to evaluate the contributions of other anchor trade people. Just lay off. Go work on your own web sites. Mrees1997 20:00, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Alain POIRAUD 03:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC) Well you can also include: anyone who has used and anchor, who is still using an anchor, who has some knowledge about anchors, who has written articles or books about anchors and anchoring.. should abstain from editing this article.

On my side, I will rather suggest to limit the list to people who have any financial, commercial, or marketing interest with anchors.. and not to everybody who have some kind of knowledge about anchors..

Alain, I think User:Mrees1997s comments are very valid. You were involved in designing an anchor, and a highly notabable one at that as the most modern anchors go. You are as well an acknowledges expert on anchors and anchoring, having been part of writing probably the most comprehensive book on the subject to date. But the very fact you designed a certain anchor does make you biased and even if you no longer make a dime from sales of that anchor, you are still inherently biased because you may not have a commercial stake, but you do have a stake via reputation and maybe even emotional biased towards your creation.
But that aside, I applaud you, in the sense you have been honest from the start about your affiliations, you have not hid anything. And the first time it was suggest that you should not edit here, you stopped editing and restricted your comments to the talk page instead. If only User:Badmonkey would do the same, I think Wikipedia would benefit increadably.
You are very right in that anyone who has used an anchor is biased to a degree. Its one of the most controversial topics in yachting. Which is why the article needs to stay away from making even the slightest suggestion that one is better then another, its increadably subjective and even those who do testings admit to problems in testing. I meet sailors all the time, and even most sailors I know, always suggest the anchor sitting on thier bow is the best, because its worked for them, but as I stated early on in this debate, it is purely antectodal. I do have my personal bias as to what works and what doesnt like most do, but I keep my bias out of the article. As I have said before I do not think the article can work without mention of commercial brands, can you imagine an article about anchors without mention of Bruce or CQR? But the article can certainly be written in a way that designs are mentioned, but no suggestion is made that one is better then another. This I think would be fitting for the ideals of wikipedia. But I will maitain that you continue to suggest and contribute via the talk page, as you have been doing, it doesnt matter that you dont make money off of your design anymore, the fact that you designed one of the anchors in the first place still makes for a confict of interest. Russeasby 04:48, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

As usual Russeaby, I fully agree with your comments.. I do not want to edit anything, but I will be pleased to have the possibility to comment on the talk page..

As you said, the fact of having designed several anchors can lead to biased comments from my side, but on the other way, I have been accepted by four (nearly five) different books editors for publishing books about anchor and anchoring (French – German – U.S.A. – Italy) – Do you think any book editor will accept to publish a book that is biased??

And I do not see any reason why Wikipedia organization will not accept my participation??

I came to this article to protest about all commercial links and spams from one specific user, and not to promote any material..

Going a little bit further on. It seems that user Bad,monkey has deserted wikipedia?? Then could we request unprotection and could you or another editor, rewrite the contested part ??

Both the anchor page in simple English and the French one (ancre) should also be modified on the same way.. As my French is probably better than yours, I request the right to make the exact translation of the new anchor English version and to modify the French one accordingly??

Alain POIRAUD 12:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need consensus about which modern anchors to discuss

I am happy that conflict of interest is being frankly discussed and I appreciate the comments that everyone has been making. However, we need to get a consensus as to what coverage should go in the article, after the protection is removed. I already suggested omitting all the brands currently for sale. If you don't want to go that route, then there needs to be another plan. Which anchors should be covered, and what criterion shall we use? Other articles have a problem that they are constantly spammed, because everyone will think their product is just as important as the ones currently included. To avoid that, you should have an explicit criterion. EdJohnston 13:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Some consensus has been agreed before, if the article's history is examined. I.e., only significant types - and if brands are to be mentioned (pertinant because 1] some brands established the type, and 2] some types are new, still under patent, and therefore the design is commercial by nature), only notable and original designs mentioned. "Notable" can be defined by great popularity, cited preference by reputable experts, independent testing results, etc. Otherwise you end up with dozens of brands which are copies or variations and of no worthy inclusion. The existing article reflects this well.
However, Hylas/Poiraud is less concerned with content than erroding the status of any brand he considers dangerous competition to his own, so you will simply now not get consensus. Accordingly I am tending to agree with your own recommendation. Of course this will be like having an article on shoes and not discussing the difference between sandals and cross-trainers, but so be it.
bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 00:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Can you please cite, with diff links, where you suggest this consensus has been reached? As for your personal attacks on Alain, note he stopped editing the article when asked, you most certainly did not, your attack on him has no basis and is purely disruptive. Personally, at this point, I do not care if he has commercial stake or not anymore which you like to frequently bring up, since he is abiding by guidelines set by WP:COI and offering input appropriately via the talk page. Russeasby 01:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not just follow wiki policies and guidelines by relying mainly upon secondary sources, and avoiding use of partisan sources? --Ronz 15:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

As has come up already, some secondary sources are unreliable and even biased. Such as Rocnas provided article written by the NZ coast guard, or the SAIL Magazine or West Marine tests. The issue isnt with providing secondary sources, but as to the reliability of them. Which is why its important to keep any suggestive information about performance of anchors out of the article (which BadMonkey, affiliated with Rocna disagrees with). Instead simply explaining the design without suggesting it works better or worse is what I have proposed. This article is unfortunately deadlocked, though Badmonkey has not returned in awhile, I suspect as soon as page protection is lifted he will be back. Though if that happens it might be time to take him to the Community Sanction Noticeboard. I have considered asking to lift page protection and go forward on improving the article and removing POV content and changing the style it is written in (avoiding lists and such), but I this article has taken a lot out of me and I am not up for the inevitable battle with this COI editor yet. Russeasby 15:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Once again, please STOP personnal attacks.

"However, Hylas/Poiraud is less concerned with content than erroding the status of any brand he considers dangerous competition to his own"

Do not consider that everybody is acting as you do.. Alain POIRAUD 00:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sugestions for a consensus

Like Russeasby, I think “the article can’t work without mention of commercial brands, can you imagine an article about anchors without mention of Bruce or CQR?” and there is no risk to see R.J. Taylor or Richard S. Danforth spaming this article..

Fisherman anchors and Grapnel are still currently for sale.. but again, no risks of spam.. I will also suggest keeping Bruce, as the genuine Bruce is no longer for sale.. (but many “clones” are..)

I suggest to remove the following sentence from the “Plow” paragraph: “Owing to the use of lead or other dedicated tip-weight, the plow is heavier than average for the amount of resistance developed, and may take a slightly longer pull to set thoroughly. It cannot be stored in a hawse pipe. The genuine CQR and Delta brands are now owned by Lewmar, although they have both been on-sold several times during their lifetimes.”

Bruce/Claw. I will suggest to remove the phrase “Claimed by the inventor to be based on a design used for anchoring floating oil derricks in the North Sea,” as this is wrong.. only a commercial argument developed by the manufacturer of the Claw: Lewmar. Anchors for oil rigs are completely different models and used differently. I will also remove the last sentence: “and the only options are knock-offs, mostly inferior in build quality.”


The most sensible point is Modern designs

First I will suggest either to change the photo of the Rocna anchor, by the one of the Bügel, or better no photo at all..

Modern designs In recent years there has been something of a spurt in anchor design. These new anchors are very different from the old generation ones and are primarily designed to set very quickly, then generate high holding power.

These anchors (mostly proprietary inventions still under patent) are finding homes with users of small to medium sized vessels.

References: I will remove: ^ Lowe, Colin: "Gear Test: Rocna Anchor", Boating NZ, July 2006

as well as : External links • "Ultimate Holding Power" - Anchor Test from Yachting Monthly December 2006 • "Holding Power" - 14 Anchors Tested from SAIL magazine October 2006 ('links to a commercial Web page')

(the same modifications should be made on the Simple English Anchor article and on the French Ancre article)

Alain POIRAUD 01:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate everyone's suggestions, but I don't think we can come up with anything if it comes to an anchor-by-anchor vote. There has to be a criterion that we can cite. Supposing we were writing the article about American cars, how could we possible come up with a selection of four car models to discuss? It would be hopeless. That's why I favor discussing design issues generally, and not including specific anchors. If you could document the four top-selling anchors in some specific year, from a reliable source, that would be a criterion. EdJohnston 03:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Ed, thank you for your words of wisdom and advice, its interesting that your lines of thought have actually been close to mine. I have not commented much lately here, because I have been trying to formulate in my mind a reasonable solution and opinion. Your car analogy is one i have considered actually directly many times. In an article on cars throughout past and modern history, what would be mentioned and what would not be? Would one talk of designs and how would the mention of manufacturers in those designs be relevent? Unfortunately, anchors are a much smaller subject, so citable sources are far fewer and far between. One could dig through old stakes of magazines, and there is well over a dozen notable sailing magazines, that could give citable references to just about every anchor manufactuer out there. What I would suggest myself is unique designs are warrented mention so long as they are something available. IE-
  • If some guy in his backyard comes up with a design, but you cannot buy it anywhere, or even find information about it anywhere, its not worth of inclusion.
  • If a manufactuer makes a direct copy of a design, its not worth of mention. The danforth is a good example here, there are many copies of the danforth, direct exact copies of it, this is not worth a mention, the copies (but the danforth certainly is). The Bruce is another example of this, many copies of the Bruce exist, the individual copies do not deserve mention, Bruce does deserve mention, and the fact that copies exist since the patent expired, deserves mentions, but those individual copies dont deserve mention.
  • Modern anchors, at least in the sense modern enough that patents are held, the designs are new, this is where it becomes complicated. I dont think anyone who knows anything about anchors would suggest Bruce, CQR, Danforth, etc.. even though commercial brands, would warrent exlusion, if anything the article would be seriously wrong to disinclude them. But with modern designs and brands its tough. Certainly anchors like the Spade, Buegel, Fortress(which does happen to be a danforth copy, but extreamly notable still as it did make changes and massive improvements), these all deserve mention as not only are they modern, but they are extreamly established in that they made a huge impact on anchor design. Spade with its concave design which goes against the traditional plow design. Buegel with popularizing the rollbar rather then weighted tip, but also as well going with a flat design focusing on surface area(this is probably the most revolutionary design in modern times) and the fortress for its focuss as well, less on weight and more on surface area, and taking a proven design like the Danforth, making it out of Aluminium instead of steel and making a much larger anchor with more surface area and less weight. All of these designs are highly influencial in the designs that have come in the past 10 years and were groundbreaking in their own right. I will make no claims that any of them may have been the first to do what they did, but they were the first to bring these concepts into the world widely. I doubt anyone can dispute this. But when you get beyond these designs (which all should be included) it gets trickier. Anchors like Bulwagge, Rocna, Manson Supreme, XYZ, Sword, etc, these are new designs, very new. Some do deserve mention I think, but where do draw the line becomes less and less clear. THe Manson Supreme for instance one could argue shoudl be mentioned because its a widely available new design, at least in North America. Rocna will argue that this design is based on theirs (though there is notable differences), both are NZ companies, I cant say if Rocna is more widely available then Manson Supreme outside of North America, I wouldnt know, but both deserve mention I think due to the fact that they do indeed represent the next generation of anchor, incorperating the design philosophies of many others before them to come up with mix of all those before them. So then we get to the minor players, Bulwagga, XYZ, Sword, etc.. which represent some designs which ma be more extream, but perhaps they point to the future beyond. Personaly my view would be towards inclusion of all, as opposed to inclusion of none. Inclusion of none simply cannot work, you cannot say that you cannot include the Fortress, yet still include the CQR, because both are commercial brands, this is where the non commercial argument fails. Some commercial brands and designs are so solidified in yachting that their disinclusion would be ridiculous. But where to say the line gets drawn then becomes a problem. Thus I actually propose an all inclusive as opposed to a noninclusive view. If an anchor is not a direct copy in all aspects (and User:Badmonkey this does not mean Manson Supereme, it is unique in some ways), and it is reasonably available (not someones backyard job, no matter how unique), has had indepentant mention in the press (barring the copy issue, some tests may compare the Manson Claw (ie Bruce) to the West Marine Claw (ie bruce), neither of these warrents mention as they are not unique (both very direct copies of the Bruce, and admit to such).
  • I can assure you where we will run into problems here from these points, Rocna has a huge beef with Manson (one of the worlds largest anchor manufactuers for yachts), Rocna feels the Manson Supreme was a rip off of their design. Manson Supreme does have charicatistics that distiguish it from the Rocna, the tip is an obvious example. You will not much of User:Badmonkeys early editing involved removal of Manson mentions. You will also note that A Manson rep was at one time trying to add Manson mentions (but gave up and is no longer present).
  • My proposal is not to disinclude commercial brands (per my argument it is not possible) But rather change the format of the article. Rather then formatting it based on brands, it should be formatted based on design evolution. So no more bullets where the first word after it is a commercial design. Rather a paragraph on new design might open with discussion of the Buegal and end with mention of the Rocna and Manson. Lets discuss design and evolution rather then brands as bullets. It decommercializes the article, but still retains the modern designs even if brands have to be mentioned. I am willing and happy to open a sandbox version of the article here and see what we can come up with, while leaving the article protected. One which both Alain and Badmonkey could contribute to (if they behave, especially Badmonkey).

So those are my suggestions. Russeasby 04:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

This is going in the right direction, but it still lacks an objective criterion for including each modern anchor. Will you leave it up to the author of each paragraph which modern anchor he feels best illustrates the point he is trying to make? Then won't every anchor maker want to insert his own paragraph? My suggestion before about picking the top-selling anchors was not frivolous; if chosen as a criterion, it would be objective. EdJohnston
But what does "best selling" mean? Most units in the last year? Highest total retail prices adjusted to the US$? Sales in the USA, in the world, for wooden boats, ... recommended by ...? Some companies may not want to release sales data. I understand that modern manufacturers will want to be mentioned, and to especially not have competitors mentioned if they are not. I forget which topic it was ... can't find it. One of the sections of the page (perhaps part of external references) was a list of manufacturer's websites, with brand names (one link, the brands were text). The rest of the article was written without reference to manufacturer. htom 03:26, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, top selling anchors as an objective criteria is certainly a good suggestion, but its not something that we can easily prove with valid references. Sure, one can walk down a dock and quickly know what sells best and what is common and what is almost nonexistant. But one cant use that as a source. You can also look at major retails and see what is offered and what isnt. For instance, in north america, west marine and boating world are by far the top retailers, I can tell you what they sell and dont, but it will be different in europe. FOr instance in north america the buegal is almost unheard of and nonexistant, yet in europe it is extreamly popular. Anchors like the xyz, sword and bulwagga are certainly uncommon, but I am not sure that makes them unnotable, the rocna and manson supreme are very uncommon as well (but certainly growing in popularity quickly), if overall sales were the only factor then none of these anchors would warent mention, the article would probably be restricted to: CQR, Bruce, Danforth, Fortress, Delta and Spade (I am missing some, not trying to be exact here, just making a point). If one was to suggest notability for anchors uses the same criteria as it does for most things on wikipedia, then just about every anchor that has ever been attempted to be mentioned in this article would qualify, even the more minor anchors have all had their mentions in various articles in sailing magazines and books.
Given this, I would lean towards an inclusionist view, but being careful not to overly favor one or another and completely avoid bias or suggestions to performance. But here is where it gets tricky though as well. Lets take the Bruce as an example, the Bruce was an origonal design, but the patent ran out and copies of it abound, certainly there is no need to mention every copy of the Bruce design(there are lots!), in fact I would suggest not mentioning any copies other then to note that copies exist. But here is where Badmonkey gets upset, as he asserts for instance that the Manson Supreme is a copy of the Rocna. Well, it is similar for sure in many ways, but if it was an exact copy certainly all sorts of lawsuits and legal battles would be going on and Manson would not be allowed to produce it. This is where COI issues come up. Since the Manson Supreme is legally being sold without issues of patent violation, and does have unique features, it should be included (I want to point out too that in North America at least the Manson Supreme is easily available for purchase, where the rocna is far less so). A Bruce copy on the other hand is a blatant and obvious attempt on a copy, and legal too since the patent has run out. But, it doesnt end there.. its easy to argue as well that the Fortress is a copy of a danforth, just made in aluminium (though there are more differences then that), danforth is another which has had the patent run out and copies abound, the copies are not notable, but the Fortress is, especially as a very recognizable brand who has actually gone forward with improving on the concept rather then making a direct copy.
I know this is long winded, I would rather give a concise response, but its not such a simple issue that a one sentance policy can work in. Which is of course why this issue has been deadlocked for so long. I guess the best proposal I can make is that anchors be evaluated individually for notability rather then try to suggest some blanket simple rule for inclusion. I do want to avoid the current list format the Modern Anchors section has now, I think it deserves a total rewrite, focusing on traits of the designs. For instance, a few sentances on concave flukes and the reasoning behind them, noting the anchors which use them, like wise with rollbars, use of aluminium vs steel, etc.. take the focus off brands, and put it on design traits, and try to remain neautral in the mention of brand names which make use of these features. Russeasby 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your new suggestion. I suggest, though, that you make a very brief summary of your idea (20 lines or less) and then ask for a straw poll of the other editors. Anyone who votes 'no', we can of course ask them what alternative they would propose. Otherwise this discussion may be non-terminating. EdJohnston 17:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
How bout just:
  • Inclusion of individual anchor designs and/or brands should be evaluated on a case by case basis subject to their specific notability using regular notability guidelines at WP:N. Mention of specific designs or brands should avoid biased information and suggestions to reletive performance, as wikipedia is not a buyers guide. Not mentioning brands is unavoidable as it is strongly tied to the uniqueness of the designs themselves. Design characteristics are important to an article on Anchors.
Granted my above lengthy explaination may need to be pointed to for anyone who wants to suggest a cut and dry approach that works without individual evaluation. Russeasby 18:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Straw poll on Russ's suggestion as a criterion for including modern anchors

As good Wikipedians, we realize that voting is evil. Hence this is a way of collecting opinions, and objections, that will be evaluated on their merits and used to help in forming a consensus. In spite of all this malarkey, if nobody supports Russ's suggestion, above, we probably will not adopt it. If you are voting AGAINST, feel free to expound on what would propose instead. EdJohnston 18:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Inclusion of individual anchor designs and/or brands should be evaluated on a case by case basis subject to their specific notability using regular notability guidelines at WP:N. Mention of specific designs or brands should avoid biased information and suggestions to reletive performance, as wikipedia is not a buyers guide. Not mentioning brands is unavoidable as it is strongly tied to the uniqueness of the designs themselves. Design characteristics are important to an article on Anchors.

[edit] For

  • I looked over the Automobile article, because it is also about a generic object with strong brand name associations, and was surprised to find that few brand names are mentioned in it. Keeping in mind that the requirements of different anchor designs which suit different anchoring conditions can be exacting, this might be accomplished on Anchor as well. — Athaenara 03:14, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Against

[edit] Suggest unprotect

Badmonkey has not been back to edit for awhile, I am wondering if he took this post seriously perhaps [9] (probably a good move if he did). The straw poll has not had much activity. This article is now the oldest non bot listing on the COI/N and no COI editors are currently active. Even Alain, who is COI but was following guidelines has not been active in awhile. I would like to suggest unprotection to see what happens, I realize I can do this myself but I would like the thoughts of other parties on this. Russeasby 01:40, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see more details of your proposed revision of the article first. The lockout gives us a chance to discuss the issue more abstractly. If we can't get at least a sketch of the revision now, and get some support for it, I'm afraid the article will fall back into chaos once unprotected. I think you wanted an anchor-by-anchor vote based on perceived notability, so I think there should be an attempt to get agreement on which ones to include. Moreover, if Badmonkey revives, he can't be charged with disruptive editing unless there is an agreed consensus that he can be shown to be ignoring.
If you are pointing out that no-one has objected to your solution, then you're right, you have the consensus! The problem is that you haven't given us any details, so we don't know what the consensus is. EdJohnston 02:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Russeasby – I’m not active as I do not want to interfere with all comments there, but I’m following all interventions with interest – As an anchor designer, I do not want to interfere too much but I agree with all suggestions.. Alain POIRAUD 23:49, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
After reading Chuck Hawley's post (Adding more information from the West Marine test), I left a note on his talk page about the issues here in the hope that he might have time to drop in and contribute additional expertise. He doesn't often edit Wikipedia, though. — Athaenara ✉ 15:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind he was involved in the test which we had much discussion on before, potential COI here. I hope we dont end up back to the origonal (settled as far I as know) argument about the graph and testing information. Russeasby 16:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
As he said, he participated in the test and offered information including "raw data and graphs," "Google Earth plot of where the test took place" and "strain graphs for each pull" on the talk page. In his only edits to the Anchor article (one year ago, in May 2006) he added one line: "Also from Germany, the WASI appears very similar to the Bügel with a fixed shank, triangular-shaped fluke, and a roll-bar. It is made in stainless steel." This is not a disruptive POV-pushing editor. — Athaenara ✉ 18:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
I was not suggesting he was disruptive, just pointing out possible COI. Russeasby 19:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has been protected for seven weeks: nearly two months. What now? Compile a fresh conflict of interest noticeboard report as a hedge, before protection is lifted, in anticipation of the disruption which can be expected from Rocna's Badmonkey when it's unprotected? — Athaenara ✉ 10:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rocna anchor photo

The image Image:Genuine_Rocna.jpg is a copyvio and I have tagged it for deletion at Commons. There is a bot that removes deleted Commons images from articles but I'm not sure if it can function since this article is protected. When it is deleted, I would appreciate an admin watching this discussion removing the link from the article. --Spike Wilbury 14:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I filed an unprotect request at WP:RPP. After the image is removed, we can discuss here whether to re-protect the article. EdJohnston 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
The request for unprotection was declined. Instead I was advised to use {{editprotected}} What needs doing is to remove Image:Genuine Rocna.jpg from the article. The image itself has already been deleted as a copyvio. EdJohnston 18:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Y Done. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well done, the article is now more neutral.

I will still request the removal of the following sentence: “The Rocna obtained the highest averaged holding power in SAIL magazine's comparison testing in 2006 “ as this assumption made by Rocna anchor, is wrong.

I will also ask the removal of the first link [2] going to a nautical forum in French and link [3].going to a nautical forum in Italian.

Alain POIRAUD 22:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if the page ever becomes unprotected I intend to do a big overhaul, which would include removal of all biased or POV info in the article. Russeasby 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind that, but why don't you finish spelling out your new criterion for what should be included in the article? (started above under 'Suggest unprotect'.) I believe we need a formal plan, and not just a bunch of individual edits. EdJohnston 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}The author of Image:Genuine Rocna.jpg has sent an acceptable permission to OTRS, the image has been restored and can be added to the article again. --Para 16:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The fact that Badmonkey uploaded that image at 14:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC) suggests that he has been following this discussion closely. — Athaenara ✉ 21:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anchoring section reads like how-to manual

The use of questions for headings and repeated "one should keep in mind..." in the anchoring section make it read like an instruction manual, which is contrary to WP:UNENC. nadav 12:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] World's oldest wooden anchor

Someone may like to incorporate Ancient wooden anchor discovered into this article.angela26 23:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] shank painter, cat head and cat stopper

Could these please be given a section in here, as soon as the protect comes off? Thanks. Neddyseagoon - talk 08:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that the article should be divided with a separate article if this is to be included. There is too much material if the article is to run to this scope. Doing it comprehensively would give enough to fill a book. These elements are to do with boats/ships and deck gear, not anchors specifically. The same applies to chain and other elements of anchoring systems. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CQR Taylor

The mathematician Geoffrey Ingram Taylor invented the CQR anchor but there is no mention of this. Billlion 13:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reference G. K. Batchelor, Geoffrey Ingram Taylor, 7 March 1886–27 June 1975 Journal of Fluid Mechanics Digital Archive (1986), 173: 1-14 doi:10.1017/S0022112086001040 Billlion 18:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Ok, will do. I've successfully downloaded the reference you mention and it also cites a paper by Taylor [21] on the invention; will cite both. —David Eppstein 01:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm not in the office so it is harder for me to get. Does it have a specific date for the invention? Billlion 15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes, page 10 of the Batchelor paper, the caption of an illustration: "The CQR anchor, which digs itself into the seabed like a ploughshare regardless of the way it falls, and which B. I. invented in 1933 on learning that the weight of anchors of traditional design with given holding strength presented a problem for seaplanes." —David Eppstein 16:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
The CQR US patent is #1974933, filed Feb 28 1934 (Great Britain March 21 1933). I have other references which relate to early military testing of the CQR, particularly entries in the UK Air Ministry archives. However, I suggest care is taken how far this route is followed, lest every other anchor designer wants their fair share of exposure. Are you going to enter the equivalent info for Danforth, Bruce, Delta, Spade, Rocna? - If there is genuine interest in specific anchors, it may be reasonable to consider separate articles for each type. bad·monkey talk to the {:() :: 12:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I see the change so far as one of building the web without adding too much cruft to the article (just one reference line). And if each of the paragraphs about different anchor styles had a line about who invented them, with appropriate citations, I don't see that as a bad thing. But adding multiple additional references and details (the patents and early testing, or the fact that CQR was invented for seaplane use, or additional references for later variations of the same design) could easily unbalance the article, and might be justification for a separate article on each anchor type in summary style. —David Eppstein 16:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I thought it was especially interesting that the CQR was invented by Taylor, who is famous for his contribution to mathematicsand incidentally invented one of the main types of anchor in common useage. Perhaps its not so interesting to know about say Mr Danforth or Miss Bruce if they didnt do anthing else remarkable? (Okay I am being facetious -- I don't know anthing about these inventors). On the other hand I personally find anchors quite interesting and if there is realy enough to say about each type of anchor, rather than their comparative strengths and weaknesses, and some one is able to write a good article, I would be happy to read it. Billlion 20:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I have just added to the Bruce section (sorry Mr peter Bruce) Well I have one now so I thought he was worth looking up!Billlion 20:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anchor's == External links ==

The Two External Links:

   * "Ultimate Holding Power" - Anchor Test from Yachting Monthly December 2006
   * "Holding Power" - 14 Anchors Tested from SAIL magazine October 2006

Are misleading. They are NOT the anchor test from Yachting Monthly OR the 14 Anchors tested from SAIL magazine, rather they are retouched .PDFs which include the tests, but then reinterpreted by Craig Smith from Rocna. They must be attributed better as such, in my opinion.

Thank you, Gopangaea 20:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)Erika Ginsberg-Klemmt, coauthor of The Complete Anchoring Handbook

[edit] Badmonkey at it again

Well User:Badmonkey has returned, I have avoided this article as I was entirely fed up with dealing with this. But now Badmonkey is back, and while he has made a useful edit, I think using his website as a reference is of course his subtle attempt as spam, the Tandem anchoring article of course touts his Rocna anchor and of course any link to his website is useful advertising for him. If a reference is needed for tandem anchoring then certainly a non COI reference can be used. Russeasby 15:23, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Take it directly to an admin. I've added a link to the COI report to his talk page, where there's also a link to the RFC. --Ronz 15:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I posted on his user conduct RFC about the deletion of his image and its talk page, where he'd been edit warring, removing other editors' posts. — Athaenara ✉ 09:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] More history please

This article seems to be really light on the history of anchors. Nautical archaeology has been telling us a lot more about this (ancient stone anchors, lead stock anchors, wooden anchors). In addition there are a bunch of references talking about the history and manufacture of anchors such as from these authors:

George Cotsell, Betty Nelson Curryer, Honor Frost, Jacques Gay, David Douglas Haldane http://nautarch.tamu.edu/pdf-files/Haldane-MA1984.pdf, Jim Jobling http://nautarch.tamu.edu/pdf-files/Jobling-MA1993.pdf, Gerhard Kapitan, James Moriarty, R.D. Ogg, Richard Pering, S. Picozzi, David Steel, N.E. Upham, J.W. van Nouhuys

also: John H. Harland (capstans and windlasses) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasa2 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Refs please

It would be nice to know the sources for the images in this article, especially anchor1.png. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasa2 (talk • contribs) 04:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness of anchor weights

Citation removed from the last two sentences in the section about anchor weights. Articles should be unbiased and neutral and the citation was asking for evidence that the changes made were not a biased personal opinion. I feel it is necessary to provide proof that this very old anchoring aid is ineffective in heavier conditions. --Rewih (talk) 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)