Talk:Drake in California

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Confusing[edit]

Someone flagged this as "confusing." If he could provide more info, we can try to update this. Thanks. MikeVdP (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification added, further references added. Confusing and original research dropped. If further references are needed, please identify where they are needed. Thanks. MikeVdP (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)MikeVdP (talk) 20:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal[edit]

This page appears to be completely made up of original research and improper synthesis of facts. The listing of evidentiary points appears to be arbitrary, and the expertise of the promulgators of these points cannot be established. I propose that the article be merged as a single sentence or paragraph into Francis Drake's circumnavigation#Nova Albion noting that the exact location of Drake's landing has never been clearly established. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While writing the New Albion article, I came across overwhelming and current scholarship that firmly points to Drakes Bay. An American National Historic Landmark process is one that requires much rigor. There are also a large number of fringe theories that continue to arise. This article is problematic and it may be dated, too. Perhaps the article might be considered for deletion.Hu Nhu (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, New Albion article points to the article about Fringe theories on the location of New Albion. And the reader of Francis Drake's circumnavigation#Nova Albion article is directed to New Albion. Francis Drake's circumnavigation is fine and such a sentence does not improve it. Fringe theories are adequately addressed elsewhere. I support an overhaul of this article or a deletion. Thank you for your attention of this article. Kind regardsHu Nhu (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hu Nhu: I considered deletion as well. The scholarship that disputes Drakes Bay as the location appears to be done at the amateur level and may not merit credence at all. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The National Park Service's National Historic Landmark, the California State Parks, the Oregon State Parks and the Oregon Historical Society all agree with the documentation in the NHL report. That puts Drake's northerly voyage well out to sea, a turn east, finding land at the Oregon Dunes, a couple of days hoping for a change in wind/weather, then a sail along the dangerous coast until Drake reached Drakes Bay. This article was about the evidence which has been used to identify the location. This is a set of details, but important details, in the Drake story. I don't think it fits well into any other article. See the article as it was around April 2021.MikeVdP (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiDan61. I am aware of Darby's book and watched a YouTube video with her. She is an archaeologist from Oregon. Looking at the edits by Sato Akari, I can see this Drake in California article devolving into a forum for fringe theorists. Look at the Strawberry Cove subsection in this section about San Francisco Bay HERE . Recently reverted, the edit was mostly a place to argue ideas. If the edits by Sato Akari are kept, we open up the Drake in California article to fringe theory editors to be another place for fringe theorists to argue ideas.

I believe that the edits of Sato Akari are properly included in the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion article--at least the edits that are cited as they should be cited. I really urge the circumnavigation article should be left alone. I also say this because I am putting the finishing touches on THIS in my sandbox and kindly ask you to peruse it. I hate to think that the list article I'm working on becomes another place for fringe theories to be offered. There are fringe theories and there is an article for them. A number of quality articles have emerged about Drake. Let's keep them so. Most kind regards.Hu Nhu (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MikeVdP: No offense, but the state of the article in April 2021 was a hot mess. Of the "Eleven keys" only two are cited. Even the fact that there are "eleven key elements of evidence" is uncited. Then there are "the three most important keys" according to Robert Allen, with no indication of who Robert Allen is or why we should accept his opinion on which keys are most important. Then there are two separate "additional keys" sections. The first "additional keys" sections consists merely of short phrases with no context; I consider that this section adds exactly zero knowledge to the subject. The second "additional keys" section consists of a number of facts that could pertain to just about any place along the Pacific coast, except, of course, the finding of Drake's Plate of Brass which turns out to have been a forgery.

I understand that people who are deeply into this history might well be interested in this material, but I don't find it sufficiently well sourced to be retained. Hu Nhu opposes the merge of the material to Francis Drake's circumnavigation or to New Albion because of the fringe nature of the dispute, and I understand that. I would then propose paring down the merge to note in either of the target articles the valid research performed by Edward Von der Porten, Raymond Aker and other members of the Drake Navigators Guild. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is is diffcult proposal- as the composer of the Francis Drake's circumnavigation I would

accept that a paragraph or sentence sufficient for a merger. However I come to the same conclusion that Hu Nhu points out; in that it would then open up the article to fringe theorists. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiDan61, MikeVdP, Eastfarthingan, and Sato Akari. I've an altered proposal for us to consider. Looking over matters, I believe that Sato Akari's edits are appropriate but that they are just inappropriately placed in this article. They belong in the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion.

I say this after reading this from the Fringe theory article (I pulled and italicized it without the refs): Fringe theories are ideas which depart significantly from a prevailing or mainstream theory. Fringe theories meet with varying levels of academic acceptance. Daniel N. Robinson described them as occupying "a limbo between the decisive dead end and the ultimately credible productive theory." Daniel N. Robinson described them as occupying "a limbo between the decisive dead end and the ultimately credible productive theory."

There are other fringe theory articles on Wikipedia; namely, those about the Shroud of Turin, Moon landing, and modern flat earth. Reasonable people accept these, and they are notable. Considering all this, there is a place for Sato Akari's edits–the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion and not here. If we are in agreement, I am glad to move Sato Akari's edits to that location. This does not, however, address the matter also brought up that Drake in California needs further editing due to the problems identified in earlier conversation.

So here is the altered proposal: May we addressSato Akari's edits by moving them to Fringe theories on the location of New Albion and continue the conversation regarding the other problems of the Drake in California article? Kind regards to all,Hu Nhu (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping to Sato Akari(me) as this user's name has been mistyped throughout much of this discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support taking any evidence of locations other than Drakes Bay to the Fringe theories... page. In doing so, we must take care to avoid redundancy; there are already a lot of locations noted there. If Akari's locations match those, then we can use any sources provided here to expand on the sourcing there. As for the rest of the article: I still claim that a lot of it is unsourced and appears to be WP:NOR. The article would be better organized by noting the notable researchers who have agreed on Drakes Bay as the proper location, with a brief listing of three or four key points to support the hypothesis. Readers more interested in the exhaustive list could refer to the researchers' original works for the full in-depth discussion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:28, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the subject in itself is vastly covered on various Wikipedia pages, I propose we can leave the page as it is.Sato Akari(me) (talk) 13:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sato Akari(me): That proposal doesn't make a lot of sense. If the material is already covered on various Wikipedia pages, that argues more for this page's deletion than for any other outcome. Also, for many reasons listed above, "leave it be" is simply not a viable option. (P.S. I've removed your "Leave it be" heading as this discussion should be contained within a single heading section.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies to all, especially Sato Akari(me) for the careless typing. WikiDan61--you are absolutely correct regarding the the "leave it be" option. I like your comments regarding the Fringe theories article--it definitely needs work and careful placement of any merged/moved material. Drake in California is an utterly inappropriate placement of the Oregon edits we're discussing. There is an article for those theories. Fringe theories on the location of New Albion is also an article which could use attention and perhaps Sato Akari(me) could add to the Wikipedia project by improving that article.Hu Nhu (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiDan61, MikeVdP, Eastfarthingan, and Sato Akari(me) I moved recently added material to Fringe theories on the location of New Albion article. I only moved cited material. I doubt, however, that it is properly cited as it only directs the reader to purchase the cited book on the Amazon website. It needs improved citing. I also organized the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion article. I also added material regarding the notion of Fringe theories in general.

I considered nominating the article for WP:AFIN but I believe it falls short of the suggested criteria. That is not so say that the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion article is well--it is manifestly not. It is in much need of improvement. But this move addresses the improperly placed WP:GF edits regarding Drake in Oregon.

This action, however, does not address the problems with this article, though. The continuation of this article has been questioned, too. I've not addressed that either. These both need addressing. Also, suggestions for Sato Akari(me): consider adding to the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion article. There is much to do on the matter, especially--but certainly not limited to--Drake in Oregon.Hu Nhu (talk) 02:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Will definitely look into it. Can do that for sure!Sato Akari(me) (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]