Talk:Square rig

Square rig
"Square rig was the main design in the age of sail, (1571—1863)." I removed this line because I cannot understand what it means. The largest vessels were all square-rigged during the period, but I'd be surprised to hear that even the majority of vessels of any time were square-rigged.Czrisher 15:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC) The square rig is atleast as good as the gaff rig even when sailing windward, but require more experienced crew for the same perfomance then other rigs. I'm however not experienced with sailing other rigs then these two...(not realy experienced with these either, only sailed a few months in square a riged sailing ship and only training sailing in gaff riged sailing ship) Anyways, I say this because I know that a ship from the sailing school I was on not to long ago fosen folkehøyskole have outsailed gaff riged ships on several ocations. The square rig don't have a mast infront of the sail that cause turbulence in the wind like the gaff sail. I don't want to edit the article without better proves then my own(rather limited) experiance. I hope atleast someone here is willing to consider either editing or atlest finding more information on the subject. If I'm wrong, me being only a student in sailing and stuff, I'd like to know, and I'd like more information about why you people belive I'm wrong. Luredreier 23:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. The square rig of traditional Norwegian boats, such as the Nordlandsboat and the Åfjordsboat, is superior windwards to gaff rigged boats and most bermuda rigged boats, when sailed by an experienced crew. They are however inferior when it comes to tacking on narrow waters. I don't know if this applies to deep-keeled square-rigged sailing ships, so I won't edit the article. Devanatha (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A single square sail can be set so as to be very efficient upwind. But a square rigger with multiple masts and yards will be markedly inferior in upwind performance. This is a result of the rigging, as much as sail shape, since the heavy gear requires a lot of support. The shrouds and backstays prevent the sail from being set at the optimum angle for upwind sailing.72.224.230.110 (talk) 00:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Question
As I could not manage on maybe someone can help me here: Facius updated "Square Rig" with the definition [ A ship at least partially so rigged is called a square rigger.] In the german wiki we have a discussion about this, maybe somebody has source. O has it just been the resume of the article? --CeGe (talk) 07:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the "at least partially so rigged" definition can be immediately falsified with the definition of a schooner, which includes the requirement that it be fore-and-aft rigged. A topsail schooner uses a square rigged topsail on the foremast, so a single square sail is not sufficient to make a ship square rigged.  Similarly, many "square rigged" ships used a fore-and-aft sail on the rearmost mast, often a lateen or "spanker" gaff rig.  Based on that, you'd look at the overall rig to determine which type is dominant, and classify based on that (ignoring staysails and headsails, which aren't usually considered "fore and aft").  A sail plan that's split roughly 50/50 is considered a "hermaphrodite" rig, such as the hermaphrodite brig which had a primarily fore-and-aft rig on the mainmast, and a square rig on the foremast.  scot (talk) 21:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think I see the source of confusion. According to this museum source, to be considered a "square rig", an entire mast must be rigged with square sails; any less than that it's fore-and-aft, any more and it's square rigged.  They do not list a "hermaphrodite" type, calling the brig with square foremast and fore-and-aft mainmast a brigantine.  scot (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * At least the last definition at least one mast full-rigged is, what the discussion is about. And you source sounds not too bad. Brigantine in the english Wiki is not clear defined, because I think it must not be brigantine is a vessel with two masts, at least one of which is square rigged, but in the german it is the same (according to my sources quite right). On the other hand there is this example, but this belongs more to the brigantine-topic --CeGe (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Sloop?
"Principally square rigged types A barque ... A brig ... A full rigged ship ... A sloop has only one mast."

Oh, really? A sloop is a "principally square rigged type"? No. A sloop is, by definition, fore-and-aft rigged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Easy there, bucko. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.  A sloop is indeed a single master, as is stated, and has a fore & aft rig, which is also stated in the article.  There are indeed variations that have a square rig, and it's possible that there was a period before the dominance of the Bermuda rig on small vessels that sloops were predominantly square-rigged.  Questionable, but certainly possible.


 * I don't have the information to prove or disprove that; if you do I'd be happy to see the issue settled with sources. Till then let's keep our tone civil, aye?  The Cap&#39;n (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Principally square rigged types
should the link to Single square sail ship be pointed to Cog_(ship) instead?

academic articles use cog as a blanket term for the single-masted square-rig.

Longpinkytoes (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks for the suggestion! HopsonRoad (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Austronesian content
The Austronesian content added in the edits starting with do not seem to be supported by the sources given. Even if they are, they describe an entirely different technology than the subject of the article.

The evolution of pacific canoe rigs (1986) Horridge. This paper is very tentative about the "spritsail" rigs of the region. The author uses the word "perhaps" with the first mention of the Indian Ocean Double Sprit Sail. Discussion by the author of rafts equipped with square sails is clearly speculative - at least that is how the author has written it. Horridge's dating of use of sail by Austronesians is stated more clearly in his later paper in The Austronesians: Historical and Comparative Perspectives states that they had sails "some time before 2000 BC". He makes no mention of "square" sails at all, apart from mention of "square rigged ships" and the sail on Kon-Tiki (and experiment that he discounts). Any editor using this reference to support the article text in question needs to explain exactly how it does so. Such explanation should not rely on the paper explaining theories that are not supported by the author.

The Lateen Sail in World History (1995) Campbell. Whilst this paper includes discussion of the triangular sail in question, it gives no firm opinion as to its date of origin. Nor does it attribute it to development by Austronesians.

Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500. I do not have a copy of this book. However, an online review states that: "the book contains many errors of fact, misleading simplifications of material, and references that are frequently inadequate, inappropriate or outdated." That suggests that it would not qualify as an RS.

The Seacraft of Prehistory (1980) Johnstone. This book from 42 years ago is a little dated. I cannot find anything in it that supports the article text. If there is anything, a page number would help.

And The Dispersal of Austronesian boat forms in the Indian Ocean is a dead link.

Even if a case can be made that there was a sail in early Austronesian sailing technology that operated as a downwind sail (and therefore can be labelled "square"), I suggest that it is largely off-topic, as this article is about the entirely different technology. Trying to fit Austronesian content into the History section - especially when a date of 3000 BC is mentioned that is entirely unsupported by the latest sources.

There seems little alternative but to revert these edits pending their discussion by any who see any merit in them. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The evolution of pacific canoe rigs (1986) Horridge: pp. 87-88, 90, 92.


 * ''"L" Indian Ocean Double-sprit sail. Square sail with two loose sprits. This is the Proto-Oceanic Spritsail (Bowen) of Ceylon, Arabia, and Madagascar, perhaps a primitive Austronesian rig, suitable for rafts and outrigger canoes.


 * The Lateen Sail in World History (1995) Campbell: starting page 11, illustration in p. 13. Specifically mentions the Austronesian people by name as the subject of the entire section dealing with "The Eastern Lateen" (as opposed to the Western Lateen, which is not Austronesian). It also discusses the evolution of the fore-and-aft crab claw sail from the v-shaped square sail in detail. It does not mention the date of invention of v-shaped square sails, and neither does the paragraph I added to this article. Campbell identified the V-shaped square sail as the earliest ancestral Austronesian rig based on having the widest distribution and its simplicity.


 * ''...The indigenous sailing tradition goes back loong before this, however, to the so-called Austronesian colonization of the region at least 4,000 years ago by people whose characteristic watercrafts were rafts and outrigger canoes. The outrigger canoe is unique to this culture..."


 * ''Such a sail is functionally a "square" sail, although mostly they were V-shaped... The evolution of a fore-and-aft sail from this primitive "square" sail is easily imagined...."


 * Maritime Southeast Asia to 1500, The Seacraft of Prehistory, and The Dispersal of Austronesian boat forms in the Indian Ocean are additional references for the spread of Austronesians and Austronesian boat technology, not on square sails in particular.


 * "Even if a case can be made that there was a sail in early Austronesian sailing technology that operated as a downwind sail (and therefore can be labelled "square"), I suggest that it is largely off-topic, as this article is about the entirely different technology."


 * This article is about square rigs in contrast to fore-and-aft rigs, i.e. sails that are perpendicular to the hull and only sail downwind, as defined by the lead sentence of the article. It doesn't say European square rigs. The V-shaped Austronesian sail is a square rig by definition (as stated in the references, and as you have admitted) and thus should be here. The fact that it has no bearing on everything else written in the article is itself the problem. Like most everything else about sailing ships on Wikipedia, it is heavily western-centric to the exclusion of all other sailing traditions (not only Austronesian, but also Ancient Egyptian, Phoenician, Arab, Indian, Chinese, etc. which all have square sails). That is what needs to be fixed. Not on whether this addition fits the rest of the unreferenced content of this article which discusses the subject as if it were a unique British technology. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  03:17, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (1) It would have been nice to have the WP:BRD process that was suggested applied here. (2) This article is about square rigs in contrast to fore-and-aft rigs. No, this article is about a particular rig, in the same way that, say, Gaff rig covers that subject. Where else in Wikipedia should this technology be discussed? It is a big subject in a (currently) highly deficient article. Consider the definition of the subject given in the lead. (3) The Lateen Sail in World History (1995) Campbell: starting page 11, illustration in p. 13. The only mention of square rig in this is: "Such a sail is functionally a "square" sail...". If does not say that it is a square sail, and the word square is in inverted commas. This seems a reference that is so tenuous that it does not meet the standards of an RS. It is certainly not the "by definition" mentioned above. (4) "L" Indian Ocean Double-sprit sail. Square sail with two loose sprits. This is the Proto-Oceanic Spritsail (Bowen) of Ceylon, Arabia, and Madagascar, perhaps a primitive Austronesian rig, suitable for rafts and outrigger canoes. I am sorry that I have to say this, but reliance on this is a serious misreading of the source. This is Horridge laying out all the previous theories on how various rigs arose. He gives his own opinions later in the paper. Of particular note are "In fact Bowen's theories have been downright misleading" (I apologise for using bold text here, but this is key to Horridge's paper); "The difficulty is that a particular definition of a rig can apply to similar rigs that may not be related at all" and "Square sails and the fixed mast, both of which imply a rudder, spread eastwards from the Indian Ocean and possibly about 2000B.P.". The only use by Horridge of the word "square" in the part of the paper in which he gives his own ideas is, it appears, to denote a particular four sided shape and is not used as "square rig". (5) It is wrong of the article to talk about "European" square rigs. Firstly it was invented in Africa, developed in Western Asia (Phoenician), went on to be used extensively around the world (think of all those American square rigged ships) and in its latest commercial usage involved Indian-built wooden square rigged ships that were present well into the 20th century. (6) Looking at the edit summary You're just worsening the WP:Systemic bias when it comes to our articles on sailing ships, which is ironic considering Austronesians developed it first The solution to the perceived systemic bias is in articles with a broader remit. The evidence of Austronesians being the first developers of square rig is not there. (No serious date is given in any of the work on Austronesian sailing technology for their downwind V shaped sail.) That does not mean that it is not the case - just that there is no evidence. There are works that suggest that the first humans to arrive in Australia, for instance, used sail – but these are (a) conjecture and (b) do not involve Austronesians. That debate has little to do with a specific maritime technology, namely square rig.
 * I invite other editors to express an opinion on this. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:15, 21 June 2022 (UTC)


 * And where, may I ask, should we discuss square rigs that are not from the European Age of Sail? If you can answer that, I'll happily move the other square rigs from here. The definition of a square rig is very clear - perpendicular to the keel, allowing it to sail only downwind, as opposed to a fore-and-aft rig. That's it. The square rig and the fore-and-aft rig are the TWO general types of sailing rigs to which all other sailing rigs belong to. Including the gaff rig (which is a type of fore-and-aft rig). What else could I classify this rig type as, aside from those two?


 * The Austronesian primitive V-shaped sail fits that definition. It is also triangular. Horridge doesn't call the fore-and-aft tanja rig (also Austronesian) a square sail (pp. 87-88). He only identifies three types of rigs (L, N, U) as "square sails" - the European loose-footed square sail, the V-shaped "Oceanic double-sprit sail" and the tripod-mounted square sail with spars on both the head and foot from India, Egypt, and the Middle East (which is also not discussed in this article).


 * You've admitted yourself that the earliest square rigs weren't European. And as I've pointed out above, they weren't designed like the medieval/early modern European square rigs. They didn't disappear. They continued to be used long into the European Age of Sail. So why is it that the entire article discusses the subject as if we are only talking about European ships?


 * You talk of "tenuous references", yet the entire article is completely unreferenced aside from the history section. WP:Globalize the article. If you want, you can subdivide the article into sections dealing with square rigs from different cultures, but it is emphatically not restricted to just a very specific type of European square rig like you are claiming.


 * As for Bowen, Horridge was referring to the fact that Bowen hypothesized that square sails were invented only once (in Ancient Egypt), and that Austronesians acquired their sailing technology from Egypt via India. When in reality, Austronesian sailing technology were independently invented. (p. 90). So what if he was listing "the previous theories." They are also WP:RS, are they not? If you want I can use all of them as references. And we can pore all over them for the word "square rig", as we are doing now. Or you could simply recognize that a sail that is configured perpendicular to the keel is a square rig.


 * I should also note that Horridge, like Doran, both think that the Austronesian V-shaped square rig developed after the crab claw sail. Which is why the main reference is to Campbell. Campbell concluded that the V-shaped square sail is older than the crab claw based on the the fact that it exists in Austronesian boat designs in both Oceania and the Indian Ocean (which did not interact after Austronesian expansion). His is the newer reference. It's not really relevant which came first, only the fact that it is functionally a square rig.


 * P.S. This is irrelevant, but regarding my edit comment, I meant sailing ships. Not square rigs. I've never once implied that Austronesians invented square rigs first. As I've pointed out, no one knows when the V-shaped square rig was invented, but it likely (per Campbell) preceded the crab claw sail, which was invented no later than 1500 BC (the period when Austronesian migration branches got cut off from each other when they colonized Remote Oceania, and they already had the crab claw technology when this happened). And no, the Indigenous Australians didn't have sail or boat technology. They followed the Sundaland land bridge then hopped (probably by rafting, or even by being washed away) the short distance between the islands of Wallacea to the much larger Sahul continent when the seas were shallower. Austronesians sailed from Taiwan to both ends of the Pacific and Indian Ocean thousands of years before any other culture. Austronesian crab claw and multihull technology form the basis for most modern sailing boats. So it's ironic that they're barely mentioned in our sailing articles before I started adding them. How is that not WP:Systemic bias? -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  10:37, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ..where… should we discuss [other] square rigs…? Looking at the various articles that are already on Wikipedia, I suggest that an article like Austronesian maritime technology is a good place to start. That would be somewhere for other articles to link into for fuller coverage. In the meantime, this article needs a complete revision to cover its own subject adequately.
 * the definition of square rig is very clear…. – strangely it is not. Different expert writers on the subject give different definitions. Perhaps part of the problem is that to anyone who works on or around a square rigged vessel, it is too commonplace a term to be worthy of definition. To pick some examples of the range: “square sail: four-sided sail, laced to a yard which generally lies square (at right angles) to the mast” (McGrail, Seán. Early Ships and Seafaring: Water Transport Beyond Europe (p. 249). (2015). Pen & Sword Books. ISBN: 978 1 47382 559 8.) This definition bears some consideration: what does “square to the mast” mean? What is intended is that when the mast is vertical, the yard is horizontal. Then we have: “A craft is said to be square rigged when she carries sails spread on yards whose position is athwartships when at rest” (Underhill, Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier (1946) – still quoted and cited by many as the definitive reference). Some refer to a “square rigged mast” – a sectional mast that has “tops”. (This makes sense when you compare with a topsail schooner’s foremast.) There is even a legal definition under the UK’s Merchant Shipping Acts. This determined the sort of certificate ship’s officers needed to be in command. (At a time when the UK merchant navy was easily the largest in the world, so influencing terminology.) Without droning on with lots more definitions, they all talk about sails suspended from yards. Your point allowing it to sail only downwind is very far from the mark. Yes, fore and aft rig, generally can sail closer to the wind, but when rigs of the same date are compared, the difference is not huge. Square rig is definitely not limited to downwind use.
 * The Austronesian primitive V-shaped sail fits that definition – no, because the definition is a moving target (as above). What Campbell is trying to say is that it is a “downwind” sail. Do you have any significant number of sources that also says this? Horridge does not describe this V-shaped sail as a “square sail”. Where a 4 sided sail is hung from a yard that is supported at its centre point, that is a fit for many definitions of square rig.
 * we are only talking about European ships – No, the article is about any square rigged vessels. Many experts include under this heading ancient Egyptian, Phoenician, Greek, Viking examples, right through to the Indian square rigged ships of a good chunk of the last century. Where does this “European” thing come from. Square rigged vessels have been built and used in many countries on many continents. I worry that by “European” you may mean “not Austronesian”.
 * tenuous references The Campbell reference seems pretty isolated to me. I cannot find anyone else who describes an inverted V sail with no mast as “square rigged”. If this description of the inverted V were a common concept, there would be multiple references. Without that, the concept should be regarded as a fringe idea.
 * I am mystified by your frequent assertion that Austronesians invented sailing ships. Have you read any of Vaka Moana, Voyages of the Ancestors? The big point that comes across is the high level of uncertainty over what was invented when. The word “conjecture” and the phrase “no evidence” are prominent in the discussion in chapter 3. How a Wikipedia editor can then confidently claim that Austronesians were the first to develop sailing ships is beyond me. If there are uncertainties, it is our job to say so. Just to be clear, there are also some uncertainties about the origins of seafaring under sail in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea, and that is even with a much greater body of evidence. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest that an article like Austronesian maritime technology But not on the general topics on sailing? Is it not a sail? Does it not fall into the two general categories of rigging? How does that help globalize the scope of this article (and others)? It's not like I'm hijacking the article. I'm simply saying they exist and they functionally fit the definition of a square rig. With sources. I could as easily argue that most of the content of this article could be moved to square-rigger. Since that is pretty much what it is actually discussing. Not square rigs in general, but square-rigged European ships.
 * Square rig is definitely not limited to downwind use., What Campbell is trying to say is that it is a “downwind” sail.
 * Sailing Ship Rigs, Maritime Museum of the Atlantic:
 * Sailing ship rigs can be divided into two broad categories: the "fore and aft rig" (left), in which the sails lie along the same plane as the ship's fore and aft line; and the "square rig" (right), in which the sails are rigged athwart (across) the ship. Each rig had certain advantages.
 * Unless you have a third or fourth category, do enlighten me on what rigs our seemingly alien ships fit into. There's no such category as a "downwind sail", is there? Else we'd have a general article on them. The crux of the problem is that a lot of references only discuss sailing terms in the context of the European Age of Sail (Masting and Rigging the Clipper Ship and Ocean Carrier and the definitions of the UK's Merchant Shipping Act doesn't sound very global in scope, does it?). Which again reflects WP:Systemic bias, which you are seemingly completely blind to. Some definitions specifically define it as being hung from a yard. Others don't. Others even erroneously attribute the word "square" to the shape. The common characteristic in the definitions is that they all define square rigs as being at right angles to the keel, and as sailing downwind (as in the wind always hits the same face). While they can sail upwind, that is not what they are designed for. Which takes us to your next argument:
 * Where does this “European” thing come from. Read the article. Cog, barque, brig, barquentine, brigantine, ketch, schooner, sloop, windjammers. Topgallant, yard, Royal Navy, the different terms for masts. All the sources you are using. None of these things date before the 10th century AD. All of them are European. Including all the illustrations. There is zero discussion on the square rigs that are not European, again, aside from the history section which simply says "they exist". No mention of tripod or bipod-masted square-rigged ships, or ships with spars on the foot of the sails. Ships where the terms you are using, like "yards" and "yardarms" do not fit.
 * The Campbell reference seems pretty isolated to me. But it is a reference. I could remove everything else in the article and still have better referencing than you. There's not a lot of literature specifically on Austronesian sails and rigging. His is the most recent. And how do you dismiss Horridge and the previous authors he was discussing? Because he didn't specifically say "square rig"? "Square sail" is a synonym for "square rig", with the caveat that sometimes "square sails" do simply refer to a sail that is square, not to a type of rigging. It is a redirect to this article.
 * I am mystified by your frequent assertion that Austronesians invented sailing ships. Is this the real reason you're refusing to include it? I am mystified by the sheer resistance I find when I tell westerners that a people that didn't build empires or invented writing, sailed the seas earlier than them, using independently-discovered sailing technology. The disbelief that is almost insulting in its colonial haughtiness. Even with the sheer evidence of an ethnolinguistic group that spans the planet from Rapa Nui to Madagascar, from Taiwan to New Zealand, all with shared unique sailing technologies that don't exist in other cultures. But go ahead. Explain to me how Austronesians swam 2,550 kilometers of open ocean to the Marianas Islands in 1500 BC, simply because none of their ancient ships survived in the archaeological record after thousands of years (let's ignore the indigenous pre-contact sakman, while we're at it). Sailing ships in rivers, lakes, and shallow coastal areas existed long before Austronesian sailing of course. But that's not exactly what I mean, is it? Thor Heyerdahl had to invent a mythical magical white race to explain Polynesia, because he simply couldn't believe the "primitive" Polynesian ships could cross oceans against prevailing winds and currents. Again, the irony being that most western sailing ships today use multihull and crab claw sail technologies and techniques that Austronesians first developed. That is exactly the kind of condescending shit that presupposes the absence of direct evidence as equivalent to the absence of evidence that drove me to expand our articles on them. You act as if there are no reliable sources discussing these topics. Austronesians (and other non-European cultures) had sailing technologies. It is our job to cover them too. Not hide them behind excuses of them not fitting European sailing terminologies. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  06:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Back to basics
Let’s try and get his back to basics. User:Obsidian Soul wants to include in the article the Austronesian sail that has been described (in the source given by Obsidian Soul) as the “Oceanic-southeast Asian Spritsail” (Oceanic spritsail). This was a primitive V shaped mastless sail that was used to travel downwind. The source in question is The Lateen Sail in World History by I.C. Campbell in Journal of World History Vol. 6, No. 1 (Spring, 1995), pp. 1-23 (23 pages) https://www.jstor.org/stable/20078617. This paper states :"Such a sail is functionally a 'square' sail, although mostly they were V-shaped" (pg 13) The inverted commas around the word square are in the original paper.

The questions for a Wikipedia editor are:

(1)	Was the intent of Campbell to convey that the Oceanic Spritsail is a square rig sail or to say it had a similar role? (Or anything else.)

(2)	What do we infer from Campbell putting the word square in inverted commas?

(3)	Do any other sources also characterise the Oceanic Spritsail as a square rig sail? This editor has looked for such sources, but found none.

(4)	Is this description of an early type of Austronesian sail a reference in passing (WP:CONTEXTMATTERS)? The main thrust of the article is, as per the title, about the Lateen sail.

(5)	What particular credentials does Campbell have in the comparative study of sailing rigs? He appears, (from ) to work on the political history of Pacific islands.

(6)	What are the characteristics of the Oceanic Spritsail that argue in favour of this being characterised as a type of square rig? (a) It is a sail for downwind use. Square rig is advantageous for downwind sailing, but it also has good reaching performance and some windward capability (depending on the hull shape). Do these features of the two sails make them the same type of sail? (b) There are a number of definitions of square rig – most talking about yards with sails suspended beneath them. The most favourable that I can find to the Oceanic Spritsail being a type of square rig is that square rig sails have a front and back surface and left (port) and right (starboard) edges, whilst fore and aft rig sails have left and right surfaces and front and back edges. (More simply, consider which surface the wind blows on – is it always the same one?) If you look for another sail that has a front and a back surface, you get the symmetrical spinnaker – as used on many modern yachts. This is another downwind sail. Does anyone call a spinnaker a square rig sail? A determined search has not found such usage. How does the existence of another downwind sail that fits a (minority) definition of square rig - but without being called “square rig” - affect the argument? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been flagged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships.    ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * 1-2. "Functionally a square sail', means it is a square sail. Despite being V-shaped and not what people imagine a square sail as being, which is where the inverted commas come in.
 * 3. Unless you can give me another reference that says it is NOT functionally a square sail, it is a reliable source. Horridge as well calls it a square sail. Which you keep trying to disregard. These are the only two authors I know that discuss this subject in detail. That the two of them characterize it as such more than satisfies sourcing.
 * 4. Campbell devotes an entire subsection of his paper on "lateen" sails on the evolution of the crab claw sail from the V-shaped square sail (called variously as "double sprit" or "PROTO-Oceanic spritsail" by sources, among other terms. The term you are using - "Oceanic spritsail" - is a fore-and-aft sail and is not the rig we are talking about). He emphasizes that Austronesian rigs were independently invented and are not synonymous with lateen sails (despite them being characterized as "Pacific lateens"). That is not a passing reference.
 * 5. What kind of argument is that? An ad hominem? It's a peer-reviewed article published in a respected journal. Period. Whatever other papers he wrote is irrelevant.
 * 6. This article is a GENERAL article of one of the only TWO sailing rig types, as repeatedly emphasized by sources, including our own articles on Rigging, Sail plan, and Sail. Differentiated mainly by how they are positioned in reference to the keel (and thus also the surface(s) with which they utilize the wind). All sailing rigs fit into these two categories. The V-shaped square sail fits that definition of the square sail. This is my main argument. And it's the reason why I think this entry should be here.
 * You, in contrast, claim that this article is specifically about square sails that are hung from a yard (and thus, presumably, loose-footed) across a single mast. Which only applies to European ships. Again, I question the complete absence of any other rigging types of the sailing traditions of other cultures in this article. Where are the bipod and tripod masts? Where are the rigs with bottom spars? Again, if the V-shaped square sail does not fit into our article on the square rig, where does it belong to? Your previous answer of putting it in a completely different article is unsatisfactory as it implies that there are MORE types of sailing rigs than just fore-and-aft and square rigs. A spinnaker is not a type of sailing rig. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  07:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (1),(2) This seems to be developing into a matter of English comprehension. If Campbell had meant that the (Proto-)Oceanic Spritsail could be classified as square rig, he would surely have said something like: "Such a sail is a type of square rig." That is a direct statement and has no inverted commas round the word square. Instead, we have a construction that is similar to saying "An umbrellas is functionally a "roof".....". This does not say it is a roof, just that it does the job of a roof. Historians, as an academic discipline, tend to be very precise with the way they use English. There is no reason to suppose Campbell is any different. The fact that he did not make a direct statement is significant.
 * (3) (a) WP:BURDEN (b) My reading of Horridge does not suggest him defining this sail as square rig. A precise cite (which paper, which page) would help.
 * (5) This point is very relevant. How much does Campbell actually know about square rig? We just don't know. It is the job of a Wikipedia editor to consider the credentials of the author of a source. This question would be avoided if WP:SCHOLARSHIP had been followed - i.e. use a secondary source that summarises the various papers written on a subject. I have already suggested Vaka Moana Voyages of the Ancestors as such an academic review.
 * (6) (a) It is a bold assertion to say that sails are divided into just two types. This seems to be analogous to the realisation that living things are divided into the Three-domain system. Oceanic sail types do not readily fit in with the sail classifications of other parts of the world. For instance, in the Micronesian practice of shunting, the sail always has the wind bearing on one side of the sail. So this is a sail doing the job of a fore and aft sail and yet is being used in the same way as a square rig sail. From this, I suggest that a Wikipedia editor is creating a huge problem by trying to insert sails from one type of maritime technology in the terminology of another. How does that mix of terminology make this a better encyclopaedia? (b) The "sails suspended from yards" comes from many of the definitions of square rig. (c) The existence of deficiencies in the article as it stands is no reason to add to those deficiencies. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

1) You're the one presuming a lot from just the use of quotation marks, as well as the one who was using the wrong term for it throughout ("Oceanic spritsail") even though you've claimed to have read the papers, and you're questioning my reading comprehension? The sentence reads that it is functionally a square sail. What other types of rigs are exclusively functionally square sails but are not square sails?

3) Your reading. I've literally given you the pages supporting their characterization of it as a square sail and direct quotes from their papers. Your excuses of them being "other authors' description" is nonsensical. If Horridge repeated them, it means he agreed with them. Nowhere in the paper does he say they are not square sails. The only thing you have that is even close is your presumptions on what the scare quotes mean. The burden of proof is on you.

5) Irrelevant. As I've said before, Campbell's paper is peer-reviewed (i.e. by people with far more credentials than us mere Wikipedia editors; second bullet point in WP:SCHOLARSHIP), and has been cited by other authors 54 times (fourth bullet point in WP:SCHOLARSHIP). Feel free to question the credentials of those other papers as well.

6) "A bold assertion" that is repeated in all sources I know and our own articles. I've asked you multiple times now what other general types of sailing rigs are there, and I will happily move it there. You have not responded with anything, even now.

Your analogy to taxonomy is nonsensical, sailing rigs are not classified by descent. If they were, the categories would have been based on which sails developed from which.

The fore-and-aft rig is defined primarily by its position in relation to the keel, all other characteristics are secondary and optional. So why do you insist on a very specific definition for square rigs when its primary definition is also its position relative to the keel? You know, the thing that actually differentiates it from fore-and-aft rigs? Not on whether it is hung from a yard, or how many masts support it, or even the shape of the sail itself. Those secondary characteristics vary by source. They are found in many definitions, 'but not all.' Which shows they're not the primary characteristic. Again, the position of the sail relative to the keel (perpendicular) is the one universal definition of the square rig that is found in all sources. And the V-shaped square sail fits that.

Austronesian (not just Oceanic) sail types are all fore-and-aft rigs, again with the exception of the V-shaped double sprit. Your assertion that Austronesian sails "do not readily fit in with the sail classifications of other parts of the world" is false.

The deficiencies of the article as it stands is exactly why I'm questioning your removal of rigs that are not European, while retaining the unsourced 90% specifically only discussing European ships in the Age of Sail. You have made zero indication of even understanding the WP:BIAS problem that the article possesses now in its coverage of what should have been a very general topic. My suggestion has been to separate it into subsections dealing with different shipbuilding traditions, if you don't want it confusing the readers. That way you can discuss specifically European terms for their version of the square rig without it implying that it was universal. But again, WP:GLOBALIZE it. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  09:19, 27 June 2022 (UTC)


 * This is an English-language article about a type of sail that is clearly understood in the English language.
 * Authors describing other sail types, using square sails as a point of reference, does not make them authorities on square sails, as generally understood, nor should those sail types be discussed in this article, per WP:SURPRISE. They are a clearly an important subject for an article on Austronesian sail plans, which currently appears not to exist. Such an article would be an appropriate "See also" for this article. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 00:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I've followed this debate between two able editors with great interest, and for a while I took the side of whoever had posted last. After digesting today's commentary at work (sometimes I think about other things when I do my thing), and now this comment by HopsonRoad on my second glass of wine, I have to agree with ThoughtIdRetired. Obsidian Soul has made a robust case for his view of the matter, and ThoughtIdRetired has valiantly defended his.
 * I have to agree with HopsonRoad that the material Obsidian Soul wants to add here belongs in its own article, because it seems to be a fairly vast subject deserving of full article treatment. This option would neatly solve the dilemma presented by the contretemps between the two able editors as well. Now, on to another important issue: I could have played Jack Aubrey better than Russell Crowe.;-) Regards, Carlstak (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * A comment on WP:SCHOLARSHIP, relative to the remarks of Obsidian Soul. The first words of the Scholarship section are: "Prefer secondary sources". Where Wikipedia mentions south-east Asian and Pacific maritime technology, there is too much reliance on primary sources (in the form of research papers). A read of the literature on the subject makes clear that opinions of authors are fluid and developing. Hence it is even more important to use secondary sources. A useful general secondary source is the review paper Changing perspectives upon Māori colonisation voyaging by Atholl Anderson . This review is 5 years old. Compare that with Horridge's main paper, The Evolution of Pacific Canoe Rigs, which was published in 1986 and is a primary source as he is presenting his theories. In the intervening period there has been significant research - just to pick one example: Pacific Colonisation and Canoe Performance: Experiments in the science of sailing.
 * Thinking further of the Wikipedia editor's problem on sources, it is clear that the authors of many/most of the works on this subject are anthropologists and archaeologists. So they tend not to have the background of a maritime historian. Their understanding of the whole spectrum of sailing rigs may be limited. Looking, for instance, at The Oxford Handbook of Prehistoric Oceania (2018 OUP), when the authors talk about "square" sails, it is reasonably clear that they are referring to the shape, and even if they meant anything else, the discussion is about a late arrival in the area (1st millennium AD) (pg 480). There is not much detailed, technical discussion of rigs, but what there is makes clear that Horridge's 1986 paper has limited evidence to support his ideas. Altogether, there are many potential pitfalls for a Wikipedia editor in this overall subject. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm out of my depth here, so I can't speak to all that; are you saying, ThoughtIdRetired, that there aren't enough suitable sources to support this hypothetical article? Carlstak (talk) 11:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * By "hypothetical article", I presume you mean one on Austronesian maritime technology. The point I am trying to make is that such an article should be very cautiously written. The development of the historiography would be easy, as there is an established trail of research and theories, most of which are now seen to contain problems. The difficult bit is giving an accurate up-to-date consensus on the thinking. As far as I can make out (because my reading on the subject is not complete, and may never be so) there are still competing theories out there. Some papers that have been extensively cited here on Wikipedia in several articles (e.g. Campbell on the origins of lateen rig) are now substantially criticised, particularly (in that case) in terms of Campbell's lack of knowledge of how well-known sailing rigs actually work. Horridge's work is described by many as speculation. In short, there is a story to tell, but the article should avoid any firm conclusions. What the reader would gain from this is an incomplete story, but with enough of an introduction to understand that story as it develops in real time. Alternatively the reader might just take away the idea "nobody knows", which is pretty much what is stated in Vaka Moana (the ref given below). Either would make the hypothetical article of value. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, ThoughtIdRetired. Yes, an article on Austronesian maritime technology is what I mean. Your advice sounds well-founded to me. I'd be interested to know what Obsidian Soul thinks about it. I'm sure he could write a splendid article, if he wanted—I imagine you would have some input like the above, and beyond that of course. I believe you could write a splendid article on the subject as well, ThoughtIdRetired. If you two collaborated on it, I bet you could make something really good.;-) Seriously. Carlstak (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)