But contributors to such works are often those selected for their experience and
standing in the field, and who have good sense about research evaluation (as
opposed to parroting nonsense just because it appears somewhere). Wiki
reaches the World Wide quickly, potentially, and I’ve seen things spread like
wildfires w/o any basis for even existing (the level of gullability often amazes
me!).
In terms of contributing to Wikipedia, it is possible this might prove a difficult policy
for people with very deep personal knowledge and experience with knots. That said, of
course you don't want someone who's never tied or used a knot to be writing the WP article on it.
Hmmm. I take that the "Irish Bowline" entry came from its discoverer; it wasn't much other
than personal opinion and rather biased, at that. I edited it into more reasonable form.
(But you have it listed as somehow related to bowlines--in name only, and THAT was
of a [i]marketing[/i] choice!)
The general reader, who is used to tying things together with more common knots,
might be quite surprised how tenacious the Constrictor can be. I suspect that is why it tends
to get mentioned so much in books.
Or by how tenacious the Strangle knot can grip; or by how hard to untie any number
of knots might set, upon usage. I think that your suspicions should rise a bit further
when reading [i]such[/i] sound-alike texts! Btw, I've remarked at several times when
some non-knotter learned that I knew/tied knots they would make some comment
as "you can tie knots that never come undone"--that THAT was the hallmark of
good knotting (whereas among knotters exactly the opposite quality might be
praised--though it's often unwanted or unneeded). --interesting perspective.
[quote="knudeNoggin"]
I do not know where you got this information about tying gunpowder cartridges, but I sure would like to.
[/quote]
As noted above by Fairlead, it is from Geoffrey Budworth. However my source (as referenced in the article's footnotes)
was [i]The Complete Book of Knots[/i] where he goes into a little more detail. This quote is from page 139:
Writing in [b]Knotting Matters[/b] in January 1993, Lester Copestake tells how he spotted an even earlier mention
of a gunner's knot, described but unfortunately not illustrated, in his 1890 edition of [b][i]The Book of Knots[/i][/b] by Tom Bowling.
This knot appears to be identical to the constrictor knot. If this is so, then it seems that the constrictor knot was used in the days
of muzzle-loaded big guns to seize the necks of flannel-bag cartidges containing a gunpowder charge.
The statement in the WP article is based on the phrase "This knot appears to be identical to the constrictor knot".
If I have overstated this, I'm glad to be told about it. To tell you the truth, I'm pretty excited to be chatting with folks who actually
have knowledge of and context for the sources I've been referring to...
The leap here is Budworth's speculation of use, which is nowhere explicity stated (or even
implied); it might indeed be the case, but the only attachment to it is the [i]name[/i] given the
knot by Bowling--hardly much to base anything on. In fact, the expression "[i]a gunner's knot[/i]" itself
is a reach--the reader will take this as a fact, but no such fact is established, only a name and
the connotation of that; another, more accurate wording is '... a "gunner's knot" ...'.
Not that the speculation should be supressed: but let's call it for what it is. In time, maybe,
we can cite definite practice; military practice I think is well documented. Let the search
commence! --to wit, a couple things from the Net, so far:
To prevent the shot from rolling on the tie of the cartridge and jamming it, the end of the cartridge-bag,
outside of the tie, should be shortened as much as security will permit, unless it has been specially prepared
for this use, by stitching back the end in the form of a cockade.
which indicates some sort of tying, and [url]http://site.voila.fr/bunkers/artillerie_campagne.htm[/url]
appears to show a tied cannon cartridge in the topmost/first B&W photo (center).
As quoted in A Letter to Lester, here is Tom Bowling’s verbal description:
The Gunner’s knot (of which we do not give a diagram) only differs from the builder’s knot,
by the ends of the cords being simply knotted before being brought from under the loop which
crosses them. [my bolding]
The Builder’s knot is the Clove H., and “simply knotted” for Bowling apparently means the
Overhand structure such as one begins tying shoes with. And “from under the loop…”
though arguably ambiguous vis-a-vis the Strangle knot certainly implies the same
positional orientation as in the Clove.
To further Gordon’s citations of absurd knot-book errors, the way in which Bowling’s
words got copied, paraphrased, and misinterpreted ridiculously (e.g., one author has
the simple knotting occurring atop the Clove H. !) is a testament to the lack of rigor and
good sense in knotting. One private knots work, which Gordon hopes to make less so
–a greatly worthwhile effort–, viz. Notes on Knots by Henry North Grant BUSHBY,
has those words interpreted graphically into the C. as we know it!
Incidentally, there is at least one other “gunner’s knot”: something also called a “check”
or “delay” knot, and which is presented as the Carrick bend in lattice form with same-side
ends; I’ve seen this given at various places, but never with even a speculation as to
function! (I don’t think that gunners were in the habit of simply decorating guns. 
)
–dl*