Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Badmonkey (talk | contribs) at 02:30, 31 March 2007 (→Response to third party comments). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

BruceRD 22:06, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Seems a bit out of date now. What the Royal Navy stamps on its anchors may have been interesting in 1911, but probably isn't that interesting to us all now (assuming its even still true). By contrast there are no details of the many different types of anchors now in use, and their relative effectiveness. Most (though probably not all, haven't got the right book to hand) of these have been developed post 1911.

Will try to knock up a rough draft soon.

BruceRD 17:52, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I've had a first attempt at introducing a short section with more information on actually anchoring, which is probably what people are really looking for. Not sure what to do about the Brittanica text. It seems overly long. The history should probably be kept (and could always be moved to a separate article if this article grows too long), but what about the last couple of "current" paragraphs, that are no longer accurate?

rewrite

I am in the process of preparing a rewrite for this article at Anchor, and soliciting suggestions/comments. - Amgine 07:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I reckon noah hingely & sons produced the biggest anchors, they built the anchors and chain for the white star line, they were built in netherton near dudley in the black country region of england, dya reckon thats worth talking about?

    paul

Image request

I've removed the image request tag that was here since the article now has the requested images. - dcljr (talk) 02:11, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Someone left this

Don't know who, but it was in the article! Nicholas 10:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I have been using a Danforth for the past several weeks. i find that on a rocky bottom I am always bending the shaft when it gets snagged. I think the Bruce is a better anchor for rocky conditions.

It would be nice if someone writes something about "noah hingley & sons" of netherton near dudley england, they built the anchor for the titanic and others, They were once the worlds makers of the biggest anchors, Netherton is widley regarded as the capital of chain making. In the black country, whole familys would be out in the garden making chain to to earn a living, even their nan would be having a go, its the way life was.

titanic task that put the town on the map

titanics anchor

noah hingleys history

history of netherton

Ya know the HMAS Canberra was built in scotland, and ya can be pretty sure that the anchor was made by noah hingley in netherton, the same bloke who did titanics anchor

Excellent article

Excellent article! Thanks, all! -Rolypolyman 03:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Difference in Holding Ground

Will someone pls explain which is the best holding ground in ranking order? Pls also provide me with reasons and why. I am trying to understand the distinct difference in sand and mud as holding ground. Thank you. Theist 11:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that's a subject which isn't easily broken down into "good", "better", "best". It is generally agreed that heavy clay or compacted sand are very good for anchoring; these bottoms are relatively easily penetrated by anchors, and anchors can develop great resistance forces in them. Either of these bottoms covered by grass can be very good if the anchor can penetrate. Rocky, coral, and shale bottoms are difficult to get a hook into; once hooked, however, you may have difficulty retrieving the anchor ever again. Use a trip line if possible in such bottoms. Gravel, sand and shell, and coarse sand, hard sand, and weedy/kelp bottoms may be very difficult to penetrate, and most of these do not develop really good resistance. Soft mud is the worst bottom to anchor in. Mixed bottoms, such as mud and sand, will generally be not as good as either alone, and will have a combination of their traits.

One other item to be aware of: bays and estuaries on which there are large population centers often have a layer of plastic grocery bags lining the bottom. Penetrating points will often foul on these, and will be completely unable to hook into the bottom. Plastic grocery bags are like teflon for a bottom: always ask for paper bags and make sure any plastic you see gets picked up and properly disposed and not blown into the water. - Amgine 20:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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 Misplaced Pages's intrinsic right to anonymity and is an effective personal attack. Badmonkey 07:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion requested

I have requested a Misplaced Pages: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:, . 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages or Misplaced Pages's policies that I can answer, please just let me know. Happy editing! Shell 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. Misplaced Pages 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: Misplaced Pages truly is not a buyers' guide. — Athænara ✉ 00:27, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Claim for several personal attacks

First I have to apologize , as I’m not a frequent contributor to Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard in light of this. I am absolutely astonished by all of this. Russeasby