Talk:Fringe theories on the location of New Albion

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	San Francisco Bay Area portal This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Oregon Low‑importance

	Oregon portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Oregon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Oregon on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OregonWikipedia:WikiProject OregonTemplate:WikiProject OregonOregon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The current collaborations of the month are Women's History Month: Create or improve articles for women listed at Oregon Women of Achievement (modern) or Women of the West, Oregon chapter (historical).

Creation of page

This page is created for an article on the ideas of where Drake's New Albion could be located. This will include the ideas up to the current time.

The main New Albion page will refer to this page as the main page on the Other ideas.

Since this Other ideas page will include the full scope of Other ideas, I recommend that self-published and short-lived ideas be allowed to be included on this page.MikeVdP (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideas to include / exclude

Hello again. I just glanced at your article Other New Albion ideas. Here's the thing, the points that made some of those ideas inappropriate for the New Albion article make them inappropriate for this article (and all of Wikipedia). We always require independent, objective, reliable sources for all claims in all articles regardless of the subject matter. So, for example, if the Gitzen theory is not appropriate for the New Albion article because it's a self-published source then it should not be included here as well. Given that, if you have another reliable source that discusses all these fringe theories in some kind of significant detail then you can include them here with some explanatory text. I hope this makes sense. SQGibbon (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Two books examine the range of ideas of where Drake landed in some detail: Aker in 1970 and Kelleher in 1997.

The idea of this article is to explain that range and answer the question asked up and down the coast: "did anyone ever think Drake landed here?"

By definition, many of these "ideas" are fringe theories, self-published and/or personal website ideas.

Since there isn't a newer book including newer (last 15 years) "ideas," shouldn't they be included here?

Maybe my idea that Wikipedia should have an article on all the "ideas" doesn't fit what Wikipedia is about.

Comments welcome!MikeVdP (talk) 16:23, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article for fringe theories is perfectly fine (in fact that should probably be the name of the article so there isn't any confusion for readers and editors who come along). But the point remains that we as editors do not get to decide what is significant only published reliable sources determine significance. All we do is summarize and organize the information that reliable sources have published. Which means that if a particular fringe theory is only mentioned in a non-reliable source (self-published book, website, etc,) then it does not belong. I understand that this will eliminate some of the theories from the last 15 years but that's just how Wikipedia operates. It might be helpful to read up on reliable sources, fringe theories, and notability. I know that's a lot of reading but it basically gets at what I'm saying here. SQGibbon (talk) 18:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Nehalem Bay theory is relatively new and has been gathering interest for the past couple of years in Oregon. From what I've seen, it is original research by Garry Gitzen and proposed in a self-published book. Due to this, he has had some press interest such as local newspapers and local radio. A local archaeological group has also endorsed his work. So, does this merit inclusion in the fringe theory section or should it be deleted? I did read up about fringe theories and from what I understand, Wikipedia guidelines would seem to exclude Nehalem Bay. From what I know about Nova Albion and the research, other of these theories also seem to fall under this category. I am uncertain enough that I am reluctant to edit. Your thoughts are welcome. Horst59 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates

I believe a valuable part of this article is the inclusion of coordinates. Many of these specific sites are hard to identify even with original documents in hand. Any updates and improvements to the specific site coordinates are welcome. I'll add more as I can.MikeVdP (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into New Albion?

Salvidrim has suggested that this get merged into New Albion.

I think this needs to stay separated.

New Albion is an article on Drake's visit to the west coast of North America in 1579. Only major, well-supported theories should be on that article.

This article is on the 200+ years of more than 20 ideas of where Drake landed.

In prior talk on the New Albion page, many of the 20 ideas have been found to not warrant listing as part of the New Albion article.

But, the full 20-plus make sense as part of ideas / theories / fringe theories article.

One editor suggested the article be changed from "ideas" to "fringe theories." The recent edit took it from "ideas" to "theories." I think "theories" is too strong and too supportive. I'd suggest going back to "ideas" or to "fringe theories." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeVdP (talk • contribs) 17:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I am new to this aspect of Wikipedia, and as such do not edit. I am not new to the study of history, and have delved into the subject of Sir Francis Drake. I fully concur and agree that the article be kept separate and titled "fringe theories." Looking over the page about pre-Columbian contact, I see there are those established and accepted contacts and then a section about "fringe theories." These fringe theories are often tantalizing and even have a certain amount of scholarly interest. Nova Albion has similar fringe theories; additionally, Nova Albion has theories with even less support as they are simply self-published books or little more than a self-published web site. As such, I encourage the title change and suggest keeping it separate from the Nova Albion. page.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Theories_on_the_location_of_New_Albion&action=edit# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Horst59 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no objections, I changed the title. I think we should look at the New Albion site and move fringe theory information to this page. You comments, please.Horst59 (talk) 00:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The updated title "Fringe theories" would be right. The three "other ideas" which have received some "legitimate press" are included on the New Albion page. This article is a much more comprehensive list of all the fringe theories. It's a fair article on the wide variety of ideas over the centuries, but "fringe theories" is right. GiantSnowman, do you agree?MikeVdP (talk) 20:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments MikeVdP. Considering the idea for fringe theories has been posted for some months with no input at all from GiantSnowman before he alters a legitimate change, I appreciate your remarks. I did invite comments, yet for some reason, he never responded. It may be he has some Drake knowledge and could be a valuable contributor. I do look forward to hearing from him.67.124.10.100 (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable Source

Footnote 54 is unreliable. It is a link to the California State History Museum which one would normally consider an authoritative source. However, when looking the article, I find it is anonymous. Furthermore, I perused the museum website searching for Drake references. It has posted conflicting information citing three different sites as where Drake was in California. It designates Goleta, Olompali, and the area around San Francisco Bay. These are not identified as possible sites, but each as the actual spot Drake was located. It seems the museum does not know what they have on their website as they can't all be where Drake spent several weeks in California in 1579. So, what do we do? I look forward to your comments.Horst59 (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I pulled a copy of Drake in Central California - 1579 by Justin M. Ruhge, copyright August 1990 from the library: ISBN 0-9614807-7-7. This is self-published, so fits "fringe theories." The soft-cover, 90-page book is an examination of the Drake issue prompted by the finding of cannon at Goleta, CA. In the summary, Ruhge writes, "The author asks the reader to think about the prospect and to be the judge. The good Baye may have been the present-day location of Goleta in Central California." This reference could be in addition to or replace the current reference. The advantage of the current reference is that it is available online for other readers.MikeVdP (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other Ideas

I would like to see the word, surprisingly, either removed or altered where it reflects Michael Turner's findings regarding Drake's navigational skills. That Drake accurately recorded his location is not so surprising. Perhaps had he been an inexperienced mariner this might be true. The phrase as written implies one should assume an inherent deficiency in his ability. I suggest the sentence be changed to something such as, Michael Turner confirmed Drake's accuracy using modern navigation instruments. Your thoughts?Horst59 (talk) 21:23, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that removing "surprisingly" is appropriate. Perhaps "very" or "quite" are better adjectives. Turner's work is really about visiting the sites, seeing the conditions, what Drake would have drawn, etc. Turner's work is less about "navigation" and "instruments."MikeVdP (talk) 21:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, Mike. I have read one of Turner's books, so I agree with your description of his work. I followed your suggestion and made the change.Horst59 (talk) 00:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning Up This Article

Now that the article is titled and identified as an article about fringe theories, it needs some review. I propose moving the bulk of the fringe theory information from the New Albion article - in which fringe theories are given more space than they should have in that article - to this one. Each of these fringe theories also need review to determine their appropriateness and qualifications as a fringe theory as defined by Wikipedia. For example, I see the Larkspur theory seems to be strictly original research - a website by the person who promotes this theory. Additionally, when his website mentions scholars (Peter Hannf and Ed Von der Porten), it mentions them in the context of them rejecting the Larkspur theory. Is there a reason this section should remain? I await your comments.Horst59 (talk) 22:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 18:43, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Theories on the location of New Albion → Fringe theories on the location of New Albion – This article meets the Wikipedia definition and standards for fringe theories as these theories are well outside the prevailing research and determination of New Albion's location. Several talk items have suggested changing this name so here goes. Horst59 (talk) 05:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe theories" is the most appropriate title for this article. The article is of interest to the public since so many ideas have been promoted over such a long period of time. Wikipedia really can provide a service to users with such a page because Wikipedia contains the only comprehensive article on these ideas. (The next-best source would be Brian T. Kelleher's "Drake's Bay" from 1997, but that's hard to find and is not up-to-date.) This article also includes latitude / longitude locations, so people can see these sites. The article should be retained, and it should be called "fringe theories."MikeVdP (talk) 23:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Why was I singled out?

Ggitzen (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)My information about Drake has been deleted from the Francis Drake and Nova Albion pages? I have done more research into the subject than anyone alive. Just because I am self published. I am the curator of the M. Wayne Jensen (1930-2005) Library. Mr. Jensen's private library was collected over a lifetime of interest of Pacific Northwest history. Mr. Jensen was the Director of the Tillamook County Pioneer for more than 25 years. As a trained anthropologist, it was he and an associate who first developed the theory that the incised rocks and cairns on Neahkahnie Mountain Oregon, known since the late 1800's as Treasure Rocks, was a survey by Francis Drake. My book "Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay 1579, Setting the Historical Record Straight" published in 2008/2011 contains more research, endnotes and bibliographical references than any main stream or self published publication. Additionally, my article titled "Edward Wright's World Chart of 1599" published in the "Terrae Incognitae", Volume 46.1, April 2014, the blind peer review journal of the Society for the History of Discovery eliminates all California theorized sites. My research is not "Fringe" as Michael Von der Porten, son of Edward Von der Porten, President of the Drake Navigators Guild has had it placed in with other "Fringe theories". I have been endorsed by numerous academics and historians. Additionally, I have 2 draft manuscripts documenting the mistakes and false theoris developed over the past 160 years by California theorists. Drake never set foot in California and that is why I have been singled out. I believe it is time for an international conference to settle this once and for all.Ggitzen (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. A reviewer felt that this edit would not improve the article.

Ggitzen (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)My information about Drake has been deleted from the Francis Drake and Nova Albion pages? I have done more research into the subject than anyone alive. Just because I am self published. I am the curator of the M. Wayne Jensen (1930-2005) Library. Mr. Jensen's private library was collected over a lifetime of interest of Pacific Northwest history. Mr. Jensen was the Director of the Tillamook County Pioneer for more than 25 years. As a trained anthropologist, it was he and an associate who first developed the theory that the incised rocks and cairns on Neahkahnie Mountain Oregon, known since the late 1800's as Treasure Rocks, was a survey by Francis Drake. My book "Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay 1579, Setting the Historical Record Straight" published in 2008/2011 contains more research, endnotes and bibliographical references than any main stream or self published publication. Additionally, my article titled "Edward Wright's World Chart of 1599" published in the "Terrae Incognitae", Volume 46.1, April 2014, the blind peer review journal of the Society for the History of Discovery eliminates all California theorized sites. My research is not "Fringe" as Michael Von der Porten, son of Edward Von der Porten, President of the Drake Navigators Guild has had it placed in with other "Fringe theories". I have been endorsed by numerous academics and historians. Additionally, I have 2 draft manuscripts documenting the mistakes and false theories developed over the past 160 years by California theorists. Drake never set foot in California and that is why I have been singled out. I believe it is time for an international conference to settle this once and for all.Ggitzen (talk) 16:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a request to change content on Fringe theories on the location of New Albion. This is about a dispute on various other pages, and should be tackled through one of the various dispute resolution processes, if discussion is not working. It is not a requested edit. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Birch Bay Theory

There was information included in the article that did not belong there. While valuable, it properly belongs on the talk page. I am uncertain exactly who posted the material, so if you are the one who did so, please take credit for it. The following text was formerly on the article.Horst59 (talk) 02:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Laird does not explain how Drake could have covered 5,350 miles west and north when The World Encompassed establishes the distance traveled as 1,400 English 16th-Century leagues which is only 4,000 miles. (Laird's distance of 4,800 miles for the west and first portion north is equivalent to 1,400 modern leagues.)^[1] Laird's proposal has Drake traveling the entire distance and dangerous Inside Passage at surprising speed, covering the 6,600 miles in 62 days.

Answer – Wikipedia Review

Drake’s route in the Pacific, Port of the Dragon, Laird Nelson Problem: He used the wrong measurement. The old English league is one-half of a mile less than the modern league, so all of Drake’s northern route is wrong.

Reply: The statement “1400 leagues in all” is an oversight and should read “1600 leagues in all“. But all the day’s and the total miles are within limits. Who ever in the English Government that altered the N 58° to N 48° and then to N 38°, also changed Drake’s Northern most point at N 58° by 200 leagues or 600 miles. To prove my total miles north are correct, divide the 4800 miles by 3 (not 3.5), which equals 1600 leagues. (Revised September 2015) Furthermore, with the help of a global computer program that shows latitude, longitude and miles, using the old English league of 3 miles, Drake sailed west from lower Mexico for 600 leagues or 1800 miles. But he was still at N 14° before he turned North. So, on his Northern voyage he covered 44° to get to 58°. 44° times 690 is 3000 miles or 1000 old English leagues. Add the 1000 leagues and his 600 leagues to the West and you get the same 1600 leagues as above. The massive ten year research for this book was done by backtracking, from Drake’s monument, to N 58°. As your review states, Drake was in Prince William Sound at 60° is not correct. And all the numbers you added to my totals are deplorable. All the ducks line up this time. There will soon be a web site with a photo gallery that will show pictures not seen in Port of the Dragon. Have a good day.

plots of suggested Drake course

The course suggested by Laird Nelson in Port of the Dragon are now available at http://www.winepi.com/Laird_Tracks.html. If any adjustments are needed to these, please suggest them in this Talk page.MikeVdP (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nelson's distances

Nelson's distances need discussion. The tracks (developed from the book) have been identified. If there are errors in taking from the book to the tracks, please note them here. The "leagues" reported in the contemporary sources were 15,000 ft. (3 old English nautical miles), compared to a modern league of 18,240 ft. (3 modern nautical miles). So, an old English league is 2.84 miles and a new league is 3.45 miles. The tracks can be checked using Google Earth and conversions done. The distances to and from Prince William Sound do need to be included.MikeVdP (talk) 03:36, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016 changes

The lack of explaining the distances claimed by Laird may be significant. In order to better address it, perhaps a reputable source could be cited which disagrees with Laird's assertions. Is the lower passage indeed dangerous? If so, that too may be significant and again a citing a source which asserts this would be appropriate for the assertion that the passage is dangerous sailing.Horst59 (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Put back calculated distances

After many months for people to review the tracks as determined from the book, nobody came up with different measurements or suggestions. Therefore, I have put that summary back in this section. MikeVdP (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Aker, Raymond (1970). Report of Findings Relating to the Identification of Sir Francis Drake’s Encampment at Point Reyes National Seashore. Drake Navigators Guild. p. 241.

Missing Sites

A key part of this article is to include all the sites that have been proposed as Drake landing sites. The omission of Lummi Bay and Sandy Point, Washington should be corrected. These were removed by an editor. Should these not be restored? MikeVdP (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back on the history, I see this happened near the time I was editing. I hope it was not me who deleted these because that was never my intention. I do agree that they should be restored as they fit the nature of content on this page.Horst59 (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

restored Lummi Bay, Sandy Point

The two entries for Lummi Bay and Sandy Point have been restored.MikeVdP (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lummi Bay anchorage?

Nelson's book says Drake spent 5 days at Lummi Bay. A recent edit puts Sandy Point as the second anchorage. Does Lummi Bay not count as an anchorage? I do not have Nelson's book at hand today, so can someone check?MikeVdP (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Nelson's book, he speaks of three bays which were anchorages: Birch, Lummi, and Harris - a smaller bay off of Bellingham Bay. The first is Birch Bay where he believes Drake's ship, Pelican, sank and he made first contact with the native inhabitants (pages 56 and 57). On page 57, he writes of Sandy Point being the northern peninsula of Lummi Bay. On page 59, he calls this the 2nd port stop in Nova Albion, one that lasted 2 weeks. On page 60 the gives his reasons for Bellingham Bay being the Drake's bay of the Hondius Map. Within that bay is a smaller bay, Harris Bay, which Nelson maintains is not depicted on Hondius map. He believes this is where Drake anchored for 3 weeks to prepare for the Pacific crossing. This was his third port stop. This is all detailed on page 61. The ship he identifies is the Los Reyes, stolen from the Spanish earlier in the journey, as the ship Drake transferred to after the Pelican sunk. And, as most of the ideas on this page, it is all very interesting to follow his thinking. He's put a lot of work into it. He lumps them in as all in Nova Albion. Does this help?Horst59 (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Prince William Sound

The article was revised 17 October 2015 to say this idea had Drake "within view of Prince William Sound, Alaska." An earlier edit stated that the Port of the Dragon states that Drake made it as far north as 58 deg. north latitude. Visibility from the top of a mast is about 10 miles, so Drake must have been at about 60 deg. 10 minutes north latitude to be "within view of Prince William Sound." 58 deg. north latitude is another 140 miles south of 60 deg. north latitude, so these ideas ("within view" and at 58 deg.) are inconsistent. Of course, a mountain could be seen a number of miles further away, but the statement is about seeing the Sound.

For a calculation on visibility at sea see http://researchmaniacs.com/QuestionsAnswers/HowFarCanTheHumanEyeSeeOnTheOcean.html MikeVdP (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overall content of this page

Wikipedia reports what has been published elsewhere. This is not the place for new or updated ideas. If a new version of a book is published, then the old and new ideas can be included in the Wikipedia article. Of course, references to those books and page numbers need to be included. Of course, edits to the article and talk should be signed and dated. MikeVdP (talk) 06:56, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Point, WA

A recent edit has Nelson's idea that Drake was at Sandy Point "for the second week of his New Albion visit." How does this match up with five weeks at New Albion?MikeVdP (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Fringe theories on the location of New Albion. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.drakesbay.com/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://drakestreasure.com/
Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.drakestreasure.com/gpage8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:55, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fringe theories on the location of New Albion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fringe theories on the location of New Albion. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100307052956/http://www.drakestreasure.com/gpage8.html to http://www.drakestreasure.com/gpage8.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

title should be "Nova Albion" which is what Drake called it and how it's known in British imperial history.

This spin-off article from the New Albion article should not be using the "New Albion" version of the name. As per name discussions on that article's talkpage, the 'New Albion' term was chosen by the US Nat'l Park service of the Department of the Interior and is not a suitable title for a story/location that is part of British imperial history where it is known as "Nova Albion", which is also the term used by Drake.... hundreds of years before the United States Department of the Interior came into existence. In the accounts north of Point Reyes' National Historic Site, local stories use the correct non-US Parks-designation proper Latin name, Nova Albion. It's also the term used by British Columbia authors and by the 30s era BC government official who advanced the idea, and who is why there are so many Elizabethan names in the Coast Mountains.

Also, shouldn't this page have the Canada/BC and UK/British Empire and other WikiProject templates on it, not just WP:Oregon's and WP:California's?. I don't know them to add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.69.14 (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

also "fringe" is a POV term given the amount of supportive writings and evidence for these other locations; shouldn't the title simply be "other" as apparently it was when it was first launched? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.55.69.14 (talk) 02:34, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much agree on the most inappropriate title. Would propose changing title to "Alternative theories on the location of Nova Albion" LeCanardQuoi (talk) 04:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Wright's World Chart 1599

On 27 July 2015, a section about Wright's Chart was added. There is nothing that indicates this supports any location. Therefore, I think this paragraph should be removed.MikeVdP (talk) 06:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping San Francisco Bay Secret

"There is an argument to be made, however, that Queen Elizabeth I wanted to keep the discovery of "San Francisco Bay" a secret from the Spanish. The area had been claimed for England as "Nova Albion" (New Britain) and both Drake an his men were forbidden (by the Queen) to discuss or publish any details of their voyage under "pain of death"." The above was included in a 28 Jan 2021 edit. The question of "secrecy" goes to just about all of the fringe theories: if there was something secret, then just about anything could have been true. The evidence is that post the Spanish Armada, the need for secrecy had passed. Tests of the published sources show very high accuracy. Michael Turner's world explorations show that.MikeVdP (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The need for secrecy *did not decrease* after the defeat of the Spanish Armada. The quest for the strategic Northwest Passage and mapping knowledge of safe harbours required to push out further was more important than ever long after. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 03:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oregon generally section citations

Hello Sato Akari(me). I am bringing to your attention edits that will need your attention should you desire to carry through with working on this page. I was not particularly comfortable with merging all the information I did, but I did so that you could work further with the material. Specifically, there are two citations that are inadequate. You can read about the matter HERE. Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 15:50, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Sato Akari(me). I've removed the section as per this conversation. If you can get a copy of the books you used, re-write and cite the material with page numbers included. If you are not sure how to do that, you can look at THIS. I know this page can be overwhelming but peruse it. If you need some specific help on how to write the source code, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll do what I can to assist you. Many kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Half Moon Bay, San Mateo County, California - content removed

I attempted to correct the CS1 error : magazine= but have been unable to locate any instance or mention of the cited source. I felt it best to remove the statement from the article as unsourced and place it here. -

Frank M. Stanger proposed that Drake landed at Pillar Point.<ref>{{cite magazine |title=Drake's Visit |first=Frank M. |last=Stanger |date=1960 | publisher=San Mateo County Historical Society}}</ref>

I can not locate anything published by Dr. Stanger in 1960, much less titled "Drakes Visit". The only mention of Drake's landing I can find in his writings, and he does say "supposedly" , as in doubt of its truthfulness but no where does he make reference to an alternate landing site is here:

https://archive.org/details/southfromsanfran0000stan/page/n5/mode/2up?q=drake

I do not have access to the following document to verify if the information is within it.

https://academic.oup.com/foreconshist/article-abstract/13/4/34/578801

If a future editor can locate the source to support the statement, please restore it to the article.
---> Darryl.P.Pike (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to dig to find the 1960 article. I do note that Raymond Aker in "Francis Drake's California Landing Site, An Analysis of Site Claims (1998), states, "Half Moon Bay, California 37 deg 30 min N, Frank M. Stanger and Alan K. Brown." The Stanger claim looks confirmed. I'll restore it.MikeVdP (talk) 07:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

97.120.93.30. edits

Hello again 97.120.93.30 I've altered edits you've made on "Fringe theories on the location of New Albion." Despite your continued silence, you are invited to chat on the talk page of your wholesale edits to several articles as this is a collaborative process. In addition to posting here, you should also engage in conversation with other editors on this page, this page and probably this page. A number of editors are looking forward to hearing from you. Most kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 23:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The anonymous edits of February 2022 have been reverted. Ideas for editing these sections should be discussed here.MikeVdP (talk) 07:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe theories" labeling questionable

Alternative theories for the landing site are better handled without labeling them on the outset as "fringe", even with the "some merits" descript. Dealing with much uncertainty in regards to the records would much improve the article. Many have indeed suggested that the location of the site will never be known with a reasonable level of confidence. Mainstream thinking nowadays? Suggesting that the need for secrecy lessened when the Spanish Armada was beaten and Drake record can therefore be relied upon looks increasingly more fringe, if not an alternative theory. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 03:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Fringe Theory in General" section

The quoted reference makes absolutely no sense:

Rundlett, Ellsworth T. III (2013) [1991]. Maximizing Damages in Small Personal Injury Cases (Revision ed.). James Publishing. pp. 5–88. ISBN 978-0-938065-55-5.

Suggesting to simply remove subsection when article title gets revised (see other talk page item) LeCanardQuoi (talk) 05:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Aker, Raymond (1970). Report of Findings Relating to the Identification of Sir Francis Drake’s Encampment at Point Reyes National Seashore. Drake Navigators Guild. p. 241.

[1]