This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as Low-importance). Oregon Low‑importance 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 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).

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]

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]

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]

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. — 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Was the reviewer that "felt that this edit would not improve the article" ever cleared of conflict of interest too directly associated with the DNG? LeCanardQuoi (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222133454/http://www.nps.gov/nhl/Fall11Noms/DrakesBayES.pdf to http://www.nps.gov/nhl/Fall11Noms/DrakesBayES.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222133454/http://www.nps.gov/nhl/Fall11Noms/DrakesBayES.pdf to http://www.nps.gov/nhl/Fall11Noms/DrakesBayES.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222133455/http://www.nps.gov/nhl/Fall11Noms/RedactedDrakesBay.pdf to http://www.nps.gov/nhl/Fall11Noms/RedactedDrakesBay.pdf

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Flagged in October 2024, this "Fringe theories" labeling talking point was never responded to by the editors of the article, deemed in conflict of interest due to their close association with the DNG. The poorly chosen title unfairly lumped all alternative theories together and totally undermined the theories relying on much research that still have plenty of support. Most of the theories listed in the article often relies on old coins or anchors and are indeed very "fringe". They have for instance huge mismatch with the narratives: coastal and careening site surrounding description (including terrain), likely itinerary -vs- elapsed time available, experienced weather/temperature, first contacts ethno/language and proximity of a sealing/birding site prior to departure. As a result, these locations no longer have any support and should be described as such in a revised article with a revised set of editors no longer hindered by conflicts of interest. The few theories that still stand nowadays should be better featured in such a revised article. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 17:41, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The only other "Fringe theories" article in Wikipedia Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin does not have such a dubious and demeaning section for some of the ideas proposed herein. That certainly would take care of the quoted reference nonsense. I will soon take care of this wart unless someone else attends shortly. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is another talk topic never ever responded by the current editors of the article deemed in conflict of interest. It similarly raised the issue of how the article undermines the few theories backed up with plenty of research and support nowadays, but lumped with others with no valid ground. I did go ahead couple months later and simply removed the section paragraph using one granular revision the dubious paragraph in the absence of any feedback on this talk item and a related previous one. This straightforward revision was suppressed later on under a major rollback blunder never accounting for any rationale. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 17:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The early 2025 edits are almost all anonymous and by editor LeCanardQuoi who is anonymous.

Should the article be reverted to 28 December 2024 and a couple of the worthwhile edits be added back? MikeVdP (talk) 17:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, you suggestion is solid MikeVdP. Nonetheless, there have been worthwhile changes that LeCanardQuoi made that should be considered or built upon; namely, the idea of fringe theories. A fringe theory is not necessarily wrong, just outside of the mainstream thought. Consider the idea of germ theory or combustible fuel use in the vacuum of outer space, both once fringe, now established. The Fringe theory article likely has information that could be of assistance. Nonetheless, there are several edits that I see as problematic. Kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have got thousands of revisions and created several articles over the last 5-10 years. Countless Wikipedia users if not the majority of them operate under an alias for all kinds of good reasons. And this is an article deemed "fringe" btw. May I ask who is the fringest of them all? ;-) If there are revisions you have problems with, why not simply improve upon them instead of the easy off-putting reject? I believe steady article improvements are most consistent with the concept of the Wikipedia community encyclopedia. The fringe article did not age well imho and I have much improved it. Do you really want to get it back to late 2024? LeCanardQuoi (talk) 01:23, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peace, LeCanardQuoi. I hope you’ll see this as the collegial exchange it’s intended to be—a shared pursuit of knowledge. I express my sincere admiration for your extensive contributions to Wikipedia—thousands of revisions and the creation of several articles over the years truly reflect your commitment to this collaborative endeavor. It is indeed quite understandable that many contributors, yourself included, opt for pseudonyms, a practice supported by numerous valid scholarly and personal considerations. Regarding this article, one may easily see you have invested considerable effort to enhance its quality, and for that, I am most appreciative. Moreover, I empathize as I too have successfully pursued similar work and know the commensurate emotional investment. As I mentioned earlier, I had already noted the worthwhile changes you’ve introduced, and my intent has always been to see them thoughtfully built upon and encourage MikeVdP to do so. I have sought reviews and found them valuable. My concern was not to dismiss your revisions outright but rather to ensure alignment with Wikipedia’s established guidelines—a shared responsibility, I believe, one progressing incrementally as befits the ethos of this community encyclopedia. Automatically wholesale reversions to the late 2024 version seems unnecessary when we can instead elevate the article collaboratively, leveraging the foundation of previous edits.

An additional thought—while perusing Wikipedia’s record of your contributions—380 edits since 6 February 2019—I see you have much interest in the Pacific Northwest including Sam Bawlf and Whale Cove; it’s a fascinating subject, and I warmly encourage you to consider creating a dedicated article regarding this, should you feel inclined. I see you have created two start class articles, so you know the process. One of my first articles was about this beautiful area, the Bissinger Wool Pullery regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 02:55, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that the remarkable Drake's story on the west coast has gone stale for years, perhaps some of it due to yet an other cancellation of a European having been involved with slavery. I have noticed that the Drake extensive Wikipedia coverage (including the west coast expedition) has not helped much, going stale too. New contributions have been few and far in between, generally rejected under some Wikipedia holier-than-thou principles imho, basically disengaging the last few keeners such as Melissa D. I could name many others. The northern California landing theory once deep pocketed lobby has mainly subsided now and scholars no longer pursue the funding that so much sidetracked the story. Its advocates have thankfully moved on, retired and often passed away. The DNG has not been getting traction for years now. And yet we are stuck with this "official" landing theory relying on the thinnest evidence on Drake's whereabouts, still talking the language of "fringe theories" to describe alternative ones, still looking for scholars papers and applying Wikipedia principles tighter than elsewhere, even on a Fringe article!

With plenty of Wikipedia work under my belt, I have tried to do my bit under the Fringe article to start reviving the story, much undermined among others (e.g. Whale Cove, Pacific Northwest, Drake's expedition timeline) from earlier contributions from the relentless advocates of the northern California landing theory. I would argue that the Drake's story is a real continental west coast story, borderless btw in these crazy times. Drake's name should rate amongst other *early* major continental North America coastline explorers: Columbus, Vespucci, Verrazzano, Balboa, Cabrillo, Cabot, Cartier and Frobisher. It does not, because it was once made strictly a northern California story for mainly political reasons and we have not been able to move forward on our early History since. Reviving the remarkable Drake's story will be a tough slug. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Drake story in the Pacific is truly remarkable. To accomplish so much for England with so little damage to Spanish folks (no deaths, one injury), to work with native people where peaceful interactions could be possible, etc. is remarkable.

Getting the story "revived" is a tough one. It's much easier politically to dump Drake in the "George Floyd bin" and not talk about it.

It is necessary to be accurate in describing the various fringe theory elements. The single visit to Whale Cove, that Melissa Darby states that she does not know where Drake landed, etc. are important elements to the stories.

The generally accepted story is not a "California story," it is a west coast story. It does include the finding of land at Oregon, a bit of exploration there, then a sail south. MikeVdP (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why re-establish bogus fragment (among many others) "Financial journalist Alexander Davidson characterized fringe theories as "peddled by a small band of staunch supporters," but not necessarily without merit.[2]"??? A long series of serious scholars, researchers, independent historians and history bufs supportive of a more northern landing (and even more southern) have been simplistically lumped as "fringe" and a financial journalist knows better about fringe theories. Think of Zelia Nuttall, EG Taylor, Kelsey, Ward, Bawlf, Gitzen, Darby, etc. Who is next now: LeCanardQuoi? Why keeping undermining all the time and not ever originating own content that does not demean anyone supporting an alternate landing??? I can only think of {{{Coi}}} as the motivation.

Instead of simply rejecting a huge amount of work done in-good-faith strictly on the stated basis of LeCanardQuoi being "anonymous", MikeVDP could have individually challenged or, best, improved the numerous revisions carefully submitted throughout January 2025, with plenty of ignored head's up before. Is MikeVDP really better known other than being a staunch and relentless California landing theory gatekeeper of the fringe article gone stale? How did Mike VDP ever get such a block revert rollback privilege? How much content has he ever originated on this article that does not demean? The credential should be removed on the basis of his unjustified block reject, including not attending for months the Talk discussion and the long series of revisions.

RIP Fringe Theories??? LeCanardQuoi (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When you say that "Overall, you suggestion is solid MikeVdP", have you fully considered the coi at stake here??? Namely you authored the Wikipedia article on his father, once an officer of the DNG with presumably much support from him and from the DNG.

Shouldn't abstaining not have been indicated here after he did not even bother responding to my feedback on the Talk page? Did you not fully understand the restrictions imposed on article editors using the special Revert Rollback feature and losing that privilege??? If you saw a few revisions needing improvements, why did you not simply do them??? And finally, how many revisions have you originated over the years on this article that does not demean a proponent???

On the positive I am noting that you did issue your advice of *not* proceeding with the rollback: "Automatically wholesale reversions to the late 2024 version seems unnecessary when we can instead elevate the article collaboratively, leveraging the foundation of previous edits." It was unfortunately ignored and you did attempt to tediously recover a few fragments after MikeVdP's blunder. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, user MikeVdp is in conflict of interest as the son of long-time President of the Drake Navigators Guild, Ed Von der Porten, and now President of Guild. He has not disclosed the COI and should certainly *not" have any special editing right such as Rollback mainly intended for **quick reverts of vandalism, spam, or blatant disruption**. He has constantly and clearly undermined over the years the article since it represents such a threat to the northern California landing theory solely advocated by the Guild. He has abused this time the Rollback privilege on a huge amount of good faith work intended to improve a dubious article after much head's up notices ignored on the Talk page. **Misuse Consequences** of the privilege: "Abuse (e.g., unexplained reverts of good-faith edits) may lead to revocation of the right or a block."

LeCanardQuoi (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MikeVDP as the President of the Drake Navigators Guild is in conflict of interest when granted special editing rights to this article such as block reject of article revisions. He has consistently undermined over the years alternative Drake landing theories captured in the Fringe article. These rights should be removed along with his latest destructive intervention on the January 2025 edits before any further article revisions are attempted. Ggitzen first pointed out the undisclosed conflict of interest in 2015. Reminder on **Conflict of Interest (COI)**: "Editors must disclose paid or personal ties to subjects they edit." Has there not been failure to do so???

Same COI disclosure is applicable to article editor Hu Nhu.

So if the two of you will keep strictly acting as a gatekeeper duo on the disruptive alternate landing theories on the behalf of the DNG without ever originating new content intended to improve the article, disclosing your COI is absolutely imperative as well as initiating oversight reviews by other Wikipedia administrative authorities so that the article is no longer undermined. Enough is enough.

LeCanardQuoi (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LeCanardQuoi. The YouTube citation you use is not a wp:reliable source; consequently, you need to remove it. Hu Nhu (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must I reiterate the credentials Gitzen brought up in front of the SF Yacht Club as well as the numbers of books he has published over a 30 years long independent researcher local historian career? This request may also examplify the perduring DNG induced conflict of interest hindering this article over the last 10 years. Consequently you should simply remove your request to remove. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 05:56, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the recent removal of a Harry Kelsey citation fragment without explanation also an "unreliable source" matter which highlights once again this perduring conflict of interest hindering improvements to this article? Rf. "By 1998, Drake biographer Harry Kelsey warned about the integrity of the final Hakluyt narrative hindered by the well established fact that the "English authorities had determined to keep details of the voyage secret after Drake returned. To accomplish their goal, English authorities gave out a series of changing and conflicting accounts". So critical expedition information such as latitudes, time dates and coastal features sightings logs had to be taken with a grain of salt. The expedition narratives should therefore reflect a more probabilistic itinerary, including the careening and the sealing sites in the absence of hard facts such as archeological digs proofs." LeCanardQuoi (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Gitzen’s book, *Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay 1579*, has been cited in academic circles, including by Susan Jackson of the UK-based Drake Exploration Society, who called it a "scholarly piece of research" . The Bancroft Library at UC Berkeley also holds a copy, indicating its recognition in historical discourse ." Not enough credentials yet? 10 years later, time to reassess the rationale for such long lasting destructive bias against Gitzen as he is slowly retiring??? LeCanardQuoi (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gitzen is self published. The YouTube video is self published. That does not meet Wikipedia standards. Consequently, the material needs to be removed or seek wp:3o. Hu Nhu (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not that simple when there are conflicts of interest at stake: "Self-published material is generally discouraged on Wikipedia due to concerns about reliability and lack of independent editorial review. However, there are specific circumstances where it may be considered acceptable under Wikipedia's guidelines. Below are the key exceptions and conditions under which self-published sources might be used:

1. 1. 1. **1. When the Author is an Established Expert**

- Self-published work may be cited if the author is a recognized expert in the field **and** their expertise is backed by prior publications in reliable, third-party sources .

- Example: A renowned scientist’s personal blog analyzing peer-reviewed research in their field might be acceptable if they have a history of credible publications.

1. 1. 1. **2. When the Self-Published Source is Used for Non-Contentious Information**

- Self-published material may be acceptable for **undisputed facts**, such as an artist’s own statement about their work (e.g., birth date, medium used) .

- Avoid using it for controversial claims or where bias is likely.

1. 1. 1. **3. When the Self-Published Material Has Been Widely Cited by Reliable Sources**

- If independent, reputable publications (e.g., *The New York Times*, academic journals) reference the self-published work, it may gain credibility .

- Example: A personal website documenting historical data that is later cited by historians in peer-reviewed papers.

1. 1. 1. **4. For Primary Sources About the Author’s Own Views or Work**

- Self-published content (e.g., autobiographies, personal statements) can sometimes be used as a **primary source** when discussing the author’s own opinions or creations .

- Example: A musician’s self-released manifesto on their artistic philosophy.

1. 1. 1. **5. When No Better Sources Are Available (Rare Cases)**

- In niche subjects with no third-party coverage, Wikipedia may cautiously allow self-published material if it is well-referenced and verifiable .

- Example: A researcher’s self-archived paper on an obscure topic where no traditional publisher has covered it.

1. 1. 1. **Key Restrictions:**

- **No conflict of interest**: Avoid citing self-published material when the author has a direct stake in the topic (e.g., a CEO citing their own blog about their company) .

- **No promotional content**: Wikipedia prohibits using self-published sources for advertising or vanity purposes .

- **Verifiability**: The information must still be fact-checkable, even if self-published .

For further details, see Wikipedia’s guidelines on [self-published sources](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_and_using_self-published_works) and [reliable sources](https://themathergroupllc.com/what-makes-a-reliable-source-for-wikipedia/) ." LeCanardQuoi (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other than Whale Cove (Ward&co), Nehalem Bay (Gitzen&co) and, at the limit, the far streched Birch Bay theory sites (Laird), none of the cited sites have had any support for the last 25 years and have not withstood the test of time and of lesser interest for this colonial legacy history. North of 49, nobody has picked up anything from where Sam Bawlf left things at (including some BC or Alaskan sites) after his 2003 book and ensuing harsh criticism. So the only interest to keep these sites is for historiography reasons. The cited sites compilation is dated from 1997 and was never revised.

The article itself has been much abandonned itself. The article is currently confusing as currently prefaced (see earlier Talk topics) as it does not differentiate with the very few sites that have withstood the test of time. Perhaps the actual content for Whale Cove and Nehalem Bay would be better hosted on the article section covering the specific landing theory highlights (and a Wikipedia article link would suffice). The Birch Bay sites may be becoming too orphan sites with as little support as Bawlf's northernly sites. Or alternatively the fringe article needs to properly differentiate the sites that have withstood the test of time. This may be better done by article editors with no conflict of interest association with the DNG. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 17:58, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Gitzen presented a compelling case for Nehalem Bay as a more northern landing site in front of the San Francisco Yacht Club as recently as December 2024." This text was recently added.

Was the presentation a "compelling case"? The master of ceremonies talked about this being an interesting view from an amateur historian and there seemed to be lots of doubt in the audience.

Does this presentation go as a reference in this section, or does this presentation need a paragraph in the article the way it is now?MikeVdP (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reshuffling under the reference section would simply burry a recent revision to the article for one of the very few alternative theories still kicking alive. I simply removed the unnecessary "compelling" qualifier instead. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The yacht club video--with its egregiously wrongly dated title which places Drake at New Albion in the 17th century instead of the 16th--is self published material. We do not even no who posted it or produced it. It must be removed to maintain Wikipedia standards.Hu Nhu (talk) 16:19, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to maintain Wikipedia standards, stop the misleading comments as an article privileged editor: the video is *not* self-published and was posted by the very well established St. Francis Yacht Club catering to seamen most familiar with the SF Bay and coastline surroundings, as a part of a long series of videos (500+) posted since 2010 for 1500+ subscribers. So Geitzen credentials are well recognized in the SF Bay area with people presumably familiar with the Drake's Bay case.

"Founded in 1927, St. Francis Yacht Club is widely regarded as one of the top racing venues in the country. In addition to enjoying a worldwide reputation for on-water and in-club excellence, Platinum Clubs of the World named the St. Francis Yacht Club the Number One Yacht Club in the United States in 2012-2020; and Boardroom Magazine recognized it as the first yacht club to be a Distinguished Emerald Club of the World.

View videos from the Club's hosted regattas, including Rolex Big Boat Series, the West Coast's premier regatta. The Club's Wednesday Yachting Luncheon Speaker Series are also aired weekly."

Could the misleading comment result once again from far too many years simmering conflicts of interest editing this article still entirely unattended??? Instead of constantly demeaning other people's work, it would have been more useful (and in the Wikipedia high standards spirit) to flag to the Yacht Club YT Editor their video title mistake.

LeCanardQuoi (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why the Nehalem Bay section should be considered for large deletions

The Nehalem Bay section of the "Fringe Theories on the Location of New Albion" article presents a clear case for deletion based on multiple violations of Wikipedia's fundamental sourcing standards. When examined against the platform's guidelines for reliable sources, the section fails to meet even basic requirements for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

A Foundation Built on Unreliable Sources

At its core, this section violates Wikipedia's foundational principle that articles should be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. With only one non-self-published source among its citations, the section cannot meet basic verifiability standards that form the backbone of Wikipedia's credibility.

The sourcing problems extend beyond mere quantity. Multiple sources appear to be self-published, directly contradicting Wikipedia's explicit guidance that such sources are "largely not acceptable." The inclusion of a Lulu.com book is particularly problematic, as Lulu operates as a self-publishing platform where, as Wikipedia notes, "anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book and claim to be an expert in a certain field." This democratization of publishing, while valuable in many contexts, creates exactly the kind of sourcing issues that Wikipedia's guidelines are designed to prevent.

Adding to these problems is the presence of a 404 page among the citations - a dead link that cannot be verified and thus violates Wikipedia's accessibility requirement that "an accessible copy of the media must exist." Such broken citations render the supposed evidence unusable for verification purposes, leaving readers unable to assess the claims being made. the page should have been archived and it was not.

The Yacht Club Video: A Case Study in Mismatched Expertise

The most revealing aspect of this sourcing controversy emerges from the defending editor's own argument about the St. Francis Yacht Club video. In attempting to establish the source's credibility, the editor emphasizes that the club is "widely regarded as one of the top racing venues in the country" and hosts prestigious events including the "Rolex Big Boat Series." This description, intended as a defense, actually exposes the fundamental problem with using this source for historical claims.

The editor's emphasis on the club's reputation for "regattas" and yacht racing establishes expertise in sailing and maritime competition, not historical research or academic scholarship. Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines emphasize that reliability depends heavily on context - a source that might be perfectly reliable for information about sailing techniques or racing schedules does not automatically become reliable for claims about 16th-century exploration.

The defender's description of the club as "catering to seamen most familiar with the SF Bay and coastline surroundings" further illustrates this mismatch. While local maritime knowledge certainly has value, familiarity with modern San Francisco Bay navigation does not qualify someone to make authoritative claims about Drake's historical landing site. The specialized historical and archaeological expertise needed to evaluate 16th-century exploration theories requires entirely different credentials and methodologies.

When Factual Errors Reveal Deeper Problems

Perhaps most damaging to the video's credibility is the "glaring historical-reference mistake" that places Drake's visit in the 17th century instead of the 16th century. This isn't a minor detail or a matter of interpretation - it's a basic factual error about when the historical event occurred. Such an error demonstrates not just insufficient editorial oversight, but a fundamental lack of knowledge about the historical period in question. This raises the issue of how many other fundamental errors the video contains.

This factual mistake becomes particularly significant when viewed through Wikipedia's lens of source reliability. The guidelines stress the importance of "editorial control" and "reputation for fact-checking." A source that makes such a basic chronological error about the central historical event it's discussing clearly lacks the editorial oversight that Wikipedia requires for reliable sources.

Moreover, the error reveals how the yacht club's expertise in sailing events doesn't translate to editorial oversight for historical content. YouTube videos, even from established organizations, typically lack the rigorous fact-checking processes that Wikipedia's guidelines demand for historical claims.

The Special Challenge of Fringe Theories

The sourcing problems become even more pronounced when considered against Wikipedia's specific requirements for fringe theories. The guidelines explicitly state that the best sources for describing fringe theories are "reliable sources that are outside the sourcing ecosystem of the fringe theory itself." Such independent sources are necessary to determine the relationship between a fringe theory and mainstream scholarly discourse.

The current sources appear to originate primarily from within the fringe theory community rather than from independent scholarly or journalistic sources. This creates an echo chamber effect where claims are repeated and amplified without the external validation that Wikipedia requires.

Furthermore, Wikipedia's guidelines specify that "points that are not discussed in these mainstream sources should not be given any space in articles." There's no evidence that mainstream historical or archaeological sources have engaged with the Nehalem Bay theory, suggesting it lacks the scholarly recognition necessary for inclusion.

The Broader Implications

Beyond the specific sourcing failures, the section risks giving "undue weight to a fringe view" by presenting a theory that lacks recognition in mainstream academic discourse. Wikipedia's commitment to neutral point of view requires that article content reflect the relative prominence of different viewpoints as established by reliable sources.

The reliance on primary and questionable sources may also constitute original research, as editors might be synthesizing claims not explicitly made by reliable secondary sources. This violates Wikipedia's prohibition against editors conducting their own analysis or interpretation of source material.

A Clear Path Forward

While the Nehalem Bay section represents the most immediate concern requiring deletion, the sourcing problems identified here extend throughout the entire article and demand comprehensive review. The sections citing work by Viles, Nelson, Graham, and Stupack, among others, similarly fail to meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, particularly the heightened requirements for fringe theories. The article's fundamental approach appears compromised from its inception, as evidenced by the December 2012 edit discussion at the beginning of the talk page, which explicitly contemplated including self-published sources—a practice that Wikipedia guidelines clearly identify as problematic. What may have seemed acceptable in the article's early development now conflicts with established sourcing standards, creating a systemic issue that cannot be resolved through piecemeal edits. The entire article requires either substantial revision with properly sourced content from independent, reliable sources with appropriate historical expertise, or consideration for deletion if such sources cannot be found to support the various fringe theories presented.

The Wikipedia community has developed its sourcing guidelines through extensive experience with exactly these kinds of problems. The guidelines emphasize that "the reliability of a source depends on context," and in this context, a yacht club - however prestigious in sailing circles - simply doesn't possess the historical expertise needed to serve as a reliable source for claims about 16th-century exploration.

The defending editor's own description of the organization as focused on sailing and racing actually strengthens the case for deletion by demonstrating the mismatch between the source's expertise and the claims being made. The basic factual error in the video title provides additional evidence of inadequate editorial oversight for historical content.

Until reliable, independent sources with appropriate historical expertise can be found that discuss this theory, the Nehalem Bay section should not remain in the encyclopedia. The current sourcing violates too many fundamental principles of Wikipedia's approach to reliable sources, particularly the heightened standards required for fringe theories. Deletion would align the article with Wikipedia's commitment to accuracy, verifiability, and appropriate sourcing standards.

Why an independent article editorial review is overdue?

The assessment of Gitzen credentials and the one of the well renowned SF Yacht Club to welcome his conference clearly need to be independently assessed from the demeaning one of the two article special rights editors. They have been at this for nearly a decade now, including undermining contributions from other scholars/independent researchers like Darby. These two editors are tightly associated with the Drake Navigators Guild (DMG), an organization staunchly lobbying for the northern California Drake landing site against alternative sites for over 50 years now. Will Bob Ward's Whale Cove and Sam Bawlf be next to be censored as proposed for Gitzen???

An independent article editor governance control review -vs- DMG conflict of interest is absolutely needed along with corrective actions in order to repair years of damage on the article, only 4 years away from the 450th anniversary of Drake Landing. LeCanardQuoi — Preceding undated comment added 18:19, 10 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]