Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island)

Has anyone else seen

This article? Dougweller (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Keynote speech at the Newport Historical Society's AGM, no less. As more detail becomes available, we may have to mention it, although the label "Stone Wind Mill" on De Barres' 1776 plan adds some confusion- is the 1750-built edifice supposed to be a second stone windmill on the site of Arnold's stone wind mill? David Trochos (talk) 16:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that link. I hope you don't mind that I've changed the link slightly so that it goes to the first page of the article. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd gone back to page 1 before copying it, but... Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

1992 carbon-14 dating

The following two sentences have had a "citation needed" tag since January: "In 1992, radiocarbon dating tests of the tower's mortar were undertaken by a team of researchers from Denmark and Finland. The results support a construction date between 1635 and 1698. However, the full range of dates from the samples taken is between 1410 and 1930." Does anyone know of a citation for this information? Firstly, I would rather source the information than remove it, and secondly, I would quite like to read the (presumably) published work. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 16:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll check tomorrow. Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

There's controversy about the C14 dating which I think is too technical for the article. The results of that survey support a time interval at a 95% confidence level between AD 1635-1698 calibrated. No dates are given in calendar years, but I presume what the reference about 1410-1930 is because there were a couple of samples dating 400 plus or minus 80 BP and an oxbone dated 35 plus or minus 60. But all that just confuses the issue unless we write an article just on the C14 dating. I've got a journal with a summary of this, and the details of the original publication are at [1]. See this also: [2]. The dates have been challenged, I also have an article on one challenge and a rebuttal, all in various copies of the Journal of the Newport History Society. Dougweller (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this. To avoid an inappropriately lengthy explanation of C14 dating, could we perhaps rewrite the sentence to something like, "The results suggest a probably date of construction between 1635 and 1698" and source it to the original article? (The Journal of the Newport Historical Society, Vol 68, Part 2, 1997: The History and Mystery of the Old Stone Mill). ClovisPt (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. ClovisPt (talk) 20:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry, I meant to reply but have been distracted by RL. Dougweller (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Construction

I did a little bit of rewording on the history of Benedict Arnold. He moved to Newport in 1651 according to his own words found in his family record.Sarnold17 (talk) 01:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Davis, Graeme. "Vikings In America"

Comparable Mediaeval buildings can be found in Europe; in particular the Orphir [[Round Church]] on [[Orkney]] built in [[Scotland]] around 1115 and the round churches on the Danish island of [[Bornholm]] such as [[Østerlars Church]] dating from around 1160. <ref> Davis, Graeme. "Vikings In America", Edinburgh, Birlinn (2011) pp169 </ref>

Does anyone have it? Can we confirm that he really says it? Because it is so astonishingly obviously false. They are not similar in anything except that they are round. (Google Books fail to find a mention of any of the above places in the book). --OpenFuture (talk) 22:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Flag

When I viewed the tower I saw many flags of the structure. I have not been able to find a flag online but was wondering if anyone in Newport could post the flag to this page. Jacsam2 (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Elizabethan Colonization attempt

If there was such an attempt it should probably have an article of it's own, I don't see why a big description should be in this article. It also needs a lot more references. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:13, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

It looks like spam for the views of this Egan person who has a "museum" "a few steps away". Itsmejudith (talk) 10:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I've removed it. When reliable sources discuss Egan's ideas, or Egan's ideas are published in reliable sources and another (not Egan) wants to include it, that would be the time to add it. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I completely missed that it was Jim Egan who added it. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:03, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

He's posted to my talk page and I've pointed him here. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

My recommendation to Jim Egan at this point would be for Jim to find as many reliable sources (according to the definition in WP:RS) about this expedition as possible, to see if there are enough reliable sources to create notability and make a well-sourced article about this colonialization attempt. If so, we can create an article about it. Then we can look into the sources for the idea that the tower was made by this expedition, and if there are reliable sources on that idea to, we add it to this article. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Historical Sources about the Dee River of 1583

Historical Sources about the Dee River of 1583

Dougweller, Open Future, and others,

I sincerely appreciate your guidance in helping me share my research with the world.

Two of the most noted authorities on Elizabethan exploration are David Beers Quinn (1909-2002), and Samuel Eliot Morison (1887-1976).

Here is David Beers Quinn's quote from p. 376 of his 1974 England and the Discovery of America 1481–1620 (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1974) : “Moreover, Dee was able to point out to them on the large map of North America he had drawn in 1580 the precise place he thought their settlement should lie. Verrazzano had stayed for some time on Narragansett Bay in modern Road Island, which he called his “Refugio,” and there it was decided that Peckham should lay out his seignory.”

Samuel Eliot Morison writes in his 1971 The European Discovery Of America, The Northern Voyages A.D. 500–1600 (New York, Oxford, 1971): “And in 1582–83 Sir Humfry deeded to Sir George Peckham and his son a modest patrimony of 1,500,000 acres. Guided by Verrazzano’s Letter (which Hakluyyt had printed), the grant begins at “Dee River” (Narragansett Bay) with its 5 islands, and it extends sixty English miles ‘along the sea coast westwarde towardes the ryver of Normbeague’.… Laid down on a modern map, the Peckham grant covers about half Rhode Island and half Connecticut…”

Scholars have known about the Dee River being Narragansett Bay since April 1934, when William B. Goodwin wrote about it in the Rhode Island Historical Society, Collections, pp. 38–50. He reports about a document he found in the British Records Office dated February, 1983 (generally referred to as the Elizabethan State Papers).

In the October, 1935 Rhode Island Historical Society, Collections, (Volume 27,No.4) Fulmer Mood agrees with Goodwin: “As the present writer reads Verrazano’s narrative, he is satisfied the bay with the five isles in it corresponds to Narragansett Bay, and that the river of Norumbega which lies to the west of it is the Hudson.”

J. Earl Clauson even wrote about it in the Evening Bulletin of Providence (early name for the Province Journal) in the column called These Plantations. In 1937, his “tales, sketches, and essays” were published as a book. J. Earl Clauson writes “This was from Sir Humphrey Gilbert to Sir Charles Peckham and son granting a tract of a million and a half acres west from Narragansett Bay, therein referred to as the Dee River.”

In Volume 2 of David Beers Quinn’s The Voyages and Colonising Enterprises of Sir Humphrey Gilbert (1940, Hakluyt Society, London) David Beers Quinn reproduces the full text of the land grant for the colony at the Dee River. And he draws a map to show the full extent of the grant. “... all that ryver or porte called by Master John Dee, Dee Ryver, which Ryver by the discripcion of John Verarzanus a Florentyne lyeth in Septontrionall latitude about fortye twoo degrees and hath his mouth lyinge open to the South halfe a league brode or there aboute and enteringe within the saide Baye betwene the Easte and the Northe encreaseth his breadith and contynueth twelve leagues or there aboutes and then maketh a gulf of twentie leagues compasse or thereabouts and conteyneth in it selfe five small Islandes newlie named the Cinque Isles.”

A perfect description of Narragansett Bay.

To drum up enthusiasm for the colonizing effort, Englishman Richard Hakluyt, his 1582 Divers voyages touching the Discovery of America made an English translation of Verrazzano’s 1524 report to the King of France. Here is the part about Narragansett Bay:

“...we discovered an island in the form of a triangle, distant from the mainland 3 leagues, and about the bigness of the Island of Rhodes, it was full of hills covered with trees, well peopled, for we saw many fires all along the coast. We gave the name of it, of your Majesty's mother, not staying ther by reason of the weather being contrarie. And we came to another land being 15 leagues distant from the Island, where we found a passing good haven, wherein being entered we found about 20 small boats of the people which with divers cries and wonderings came about our ship... This land is situated in the Parallel of Rome, in 41degrees and two thirds, but somewhat more cold by accidental cause and not of nature, (as I will declare to your highness elsewhere) describing at this present the situation of the foresaid countrie, which lyeth East and West, I say that the mouth of the haven lies open to the South, a half of a league broad, and being entered within it between the East and the North, it stretches 12 leagues; where it waxes broader and broader and makes a gulf about 20 leagues in compass, wherin are 5 small Islands, very fruitful and pleasant, full of high and broad trees, among which Islands, any great Navy may ride safe without any fear of Tempest or other danger...”

But here’s the most conclusive evidence: in the margin next to this description, Hakluyt adds: “The Country of Sir H. G. Voyage,” meaning this was Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s intended destination in 1583.

Sorry for this lengthy missive. If you want to see these quotes in context, download my Book 10 Clues in the historical record about the first Elizabethan Colony at the Dee River (Narragansett Bay).pdf. It is Book 10, at the bottom of the “2000-page dissertation” page on my website, NewportTowerMuseum.com.

http://www.newporttowermuseum.com/Newport_Tower_Museu_1./2000-page_dissertation.html

This is a great American story, lost in the sands of time, and I appreciate you helping me bring it to light the proper way. But I must add, this part of my “road less traveled” is only the firm starting point of more wondrous discoveries. PS I can send an image of the Newport Tower flag that another person on the site inquired about if you have an easy way for me to send a jpg.

````JimEgan252

Hi Jim, thanks for this list of sources. There is one major problem with these sources. Although several of them support the localization of the grant that was given, none of them support the claim that there was an actual expedition, and none of them even mentions the Newport Tower. It is clear from this that your claims of the Newport tower being built by this expedition has no reliable sources, and as such it can not be added to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia can not and will not help you share your research with the world. This is not it's goal. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is here to share knowledge and ideas, but there are many ideas in the world, some being correct, some being utter crackpots, and the only way we can distinguish the crackpots from the geniuses is through the core policies about neutrality, verifiability and no original research.

This means that to share your research you need to get published in a respected peer-reviewed journal. Once this has happened your research has appeared in a WP:Reliable source and then it can be added to Wikipedia.

Good luck. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Midwestern Epigraphic Journal

The Midwestern Epigraphic Journal is published by the Midwestern Epigraphic Society, which is a society for so called "amateur epigraphics". What that means in effect is that people who knows nothing about history sit and make up wild theories, and publish them in the journal so that other people who know nothing about history can read them.

In short: The Midwestern Epigraphic Journal is not peer-reviewed and is not a reliable source.

The article that has been used as a source here to criticize the radio-carbon dating is written by somebody who himself admits that he knows nothing about radio-carbon dating, in a journal who is not peer-reviewed by anybody that knows anything about it. It is not acceptable as a source on Wikipedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:21, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In any case, there was a (bad) critical article in the Newport History Journal which could be used. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a link? Although not peer-reviewed, it's definitely more RS, and in pseudo-history, that's as good as it gets I guess. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

No link, just the journals. Dougweller (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that leaves me unable to criticize them so it's all up to you. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 16:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources for Jim Egan's Theory of the 1583 Elizabethan colonization attempt

Dear OpenFuture, Dougweller, and others, Thanks again for your help and guidance. Your first recommendation was to have me accumulate reliable sources about the expedition. […”see if there are enough reliable sources to create notability and make a well-sourced article about this colonization attempt…”] Knowing this forum is not the place for lengthy explanations, I abridged my 1 primary and 4 secondary source quotations to about a sentence each. Your response was that none of my sources support the claim that there was an actual expedition.” (“…though several of them support the localization of the grant that was given, none of them support the claim that there was an actual expedition…”)

I apologize for not elaborating on the entire context. The expedition did indeed take place. In 1577, Sir Humphrey Gilbert had been dated granted letters patent by Queen Elizabeth to “discover and settle all of North America. John Dee was the legal, cartographical, and navigational mastermind behind this whole project. In 1578 Sir Humphrey Gilbert and his half-brother Sir Walter Raleigh, and a fleet of 7 ships sent out to colonize North America. They made it halfway across the Atlantic but due to bad weather they had to sail back to England.

Over the next few years, Gilbert was called back to the ongoing battles in Ireland and was beset by money problems. So Secretary of State Sir Francis Walsingham got the wealthy Catholic sympathizer Sir George Peckham to finance Gilbert on the promise that the then-persecuted English Catholics could have complete freedom of religion in this first colony.

In 1583, five more ships under the leadership of Sir Humphrey Gilbert set sail from Plymouth England. Four of the ships made it to St. John's Harbour, Newfoundland, where there is now a plaque declaring this is where Gilbert “founded the British Empire in the New World.”

But St. John’s was not his final destination. He only stayed there for 2 weeks before heading south to the Dee River. Off the coast of Nova Scotia they hit a tempest and lost their supply ship. The remaining 2 small ships decided to head back to England to gather more men and supplies. But they hit another tempest off the coast of the Azores. Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s boat capsized and he drowned. This whole voyage is very well documented by Edward Hayes, the captain of the only surviving ship.

http://www.fullbooks.com/Sir-Humphrey-Gilbert-s-Voyage-to-Newfoundland.html

True, Gilbert never made it to the Dee River. But it’s very clear based on my sources (one very primary: the Elizabethan state papers, and 4 by expert historians) that Narragansett Bay was his final destination. ( Incidentally, a year later, in 1584, the Queen granted letters patent to Sir Humphrey Gilbert’s younger half-brother, Sir Walter Raleigh. He sent 3 expeditions in 1585, 86, and 87 to Roanoke Island, N.C. and is quite well-known by most Americans. But because Gilbert only made it to Canada, and US history minds stop at the Maine border, few Americans have ever heard of him.)

David Beers Quinn was a great researcher. After finding all he could in the archives of London, he went to Madrid. He found that the Spanish Ambassador to London, the sneaky Don Bernardino de Mendoza, had written letters back to King Philip II of Spain reporting that there was a preliminary voyage in 1582, a year before Sir Humphrey left in 1583.

On July 25, 1582, Mendoza writes to the King: “As to the ships which I previously wrote to your Majesty the Catholics were getting ready here, it turns out that not more than 2 are going this year with Hongigberto [Humphrey Gilbert] to reconnoiter the place where they can land next year. The ships are already riding in Sotampton [Southampton] harbor and are only waiting for the weather to set sail, and with them a pinnace.”

This 1582 voyage by Anthony Brigham is also mentioned in Richard Hakluyt’s 1582 book Diverse Voyages touching the Discovery of America.

David Beers Quinn, writing 70 years ago, in 1940, was uncertain where Anthony Brigham went or even who he was. But my modern genealogical research reveals that the Peckham and Brigham families were quite close. Under Henry VIII and under Queen Elizabeth I, Sir George Peckham's father had been the Master of the Mint (in charge of the King’s money and who received monopolies). And Anthony Brigham's father was Sir George Peckham’s father’s clerk, or assistant. The Peckhams owned a large manor in Buckinghamshire and the Brighams owned a large manor in Oxfordshire, only 15 miles away (both north-northwest of London). The 2 families were so close, (the elder) George Peckham was a trustee of Anthony Brigham's estate.

In March of 1583, Mendoza wrote again to King Philip II of Spain saying the 2 ships “which they sent to reconnoiter last summer are delaying too long.”

David Beers Quinn writes “If Brigham was their commander he returned safely, for he was doing propaganda for Peckham sometime after March 25 [1583]. (David Beers Quinn, Voyages of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, page 62)

Quinn cites a “circular letter” (meaning it demanded a response) sent by Sir Francis Walsingham to potential Adventurers (or investors) in which she says he has spoken with Anthony Brigham and is looking for further support for the project. The Queen’s Secretary of State calls it “… a Letter touching the discovery of in America, 1583.”

I should also note that Sir Humphrey Gilbert actually had sent an earlier scouting mission in 1580. The expert Portuguese navigator Simon Fernandez had sailed Sir Humphrey Gilbert's nimble 8-ton Squirrel across the Atlantic and back in less than 3 months (March 28, 1580–June 30, 1580). A few months later, on November 20, 1580, Simon Fernandez brought a map of his voyage to John Dee at his house in Mortlake (as per Dee’s Diary).

All this historical is explained much more thoroughly in my synthesis Book “Elizabethan America” (pp. 53–70) and more elaborately in book 1 of my 8 book series “The John Dee Tower of 1583” (pp. 173–270). (Both free on my website.)

My assertion is that Anthony Brigham and the crew of about 80 stonemasons and carpenters built the Newport Tower between August 1582 and March 1583 to be the city center of the first Elizabethan colony in the New World. The men were anticipating that Sir Humphrey Gilbert would shortly arrive with another 280 men, and the following year, or 10,000 men would be in this colony (again, as per a Mendoza report to the King).

Is it actually written anywhere that Anthony Brigham actually made it to the Narragansett Bay and built this tower? No. And here most historians would close the book. But not me. Since John Dee was the mastermind behind this whole operation, I translated his four main mathematical masterpieces from Latin or Elizabethan English (in book 2 of my series of 8 books).

Some of his books are written as riddles, which need to be solved. By solving his puzzles and understanding what he had discovered about the interrelationships between geometry, number, and optics, it became very clear to me how the tower functioned and what it originally looked like. Dee’s works and clues he actually had embedded stone and mortar of the Tower confirm this was designed by John Dee. One of his books, the Monas Hieroglyphica, has a hidden “blueprint” for the Tower.

This is all explained in books 3 through 8 of my 8-book series and synthesized in my 360 page “Elizabethan America” (I have also put on my website for free.) (And also in the 25 videos I have produced.)

Dee’s most important puzzle is a “rebus” or picture-word puzzle on the title page of “General and Rare Memorials,” the work that persuaded Queen Elizabeth she had a legal right to North America. It is an illustration of ships arriving at the Dee River.

Again I am trying to be brief here, and I don't expect you to read all of my works in order to properly vet me to determine if my ideas stand on firm ground, so here are a few testimonials from peers:

“Jim Egan runs the Newport Tower Museum, is an expert on the Newport Tower and Rhode Island history, and lectures to my classes at Roger Williams University. His knowledge and analysis of the Newport Tower is extremely important for architectural history, Rhode Island history, and American history, because it establishes a previously overlooked connection between Europe and colonial America. His teachings establish a larger role for the state of Rhode Island in American history, and broaden the understanding of the history of architecture, in particular Renaissance architecture and philosophy.” December 23, 2011 John Shannon Hendrix, Adjunct Professor, Roger Williams University

“The amount of work and detailed study that Jim has put into his quest to find indisputable evidence regarding the creators of the historic Newport tower is incredible. Jim's research skills are exceptional to say the least.” December 20, 2011 Bob Mariani, owner, The Creative Dept. worked with Jim at Newport Tower Museum

And here's an editorial written by the chief architectural editor of the Rhode Island Providence Journal: David Brussat: Who really built Newport’s old tower? Providence Journal, Thursday, June 2, 2011 By David Brussat

Was the old stone tower in Newport’s Touro Park once a windmill, built in the 17th Century by the first colonial governor of Rhode Island, Benedict Arnold, great-grandfather of the traitor? This theory strokes the Ocean State’s ego and protects us from the unsettling notion that early English residents of the colony founded in 1636 by Roger Williams were unequal to building such a tower. But just because a theory comforts us doesn’t mean that it’s true.

A newer theory, not widely known as of yet, is that the tower was built in 1582-83 to stake the claim of England, under Queen Elizabeth I, to much of America. This theory, developed by researcher and historian Jim Egan, holds that the tower was the newly born British Empire’s first work of colonial architecture, designed by the queen’s court philosopher, who lobbied for the expeditionary force that built it.

Egan explained his theory to me last Saturday at his Newport Tower Museum, just across Mill Street from Touro Park and the tower itself. Egan founded the museum last year to explain his theory that the Englishman John Dee led an early but unsuccessful Elizabethan effort to colonize New England 38 years before the Pilgrims landed in Plymouth and 54 years before Williams planted Providence.

Egan’s theory, if true, has a much bigger historical footprint than other romantic theories that the tower was built by the Vikings in 1120 A.D., the Knights Templar in 1398, the Chinese in 1421, or the Portuguese in 1501.

My purpose is neither to promote nor to debunk Egan’s theory, but merely to describe it, at least those parts that I understand.

Why, Egan wonders, would colonists build a windmill of stone, not the usual wood, and why give it such odd windows? And why, after the colonial charter of 1663, did King Charles II appoint Benedict Arnold, not Roger Williams, as Rhode Island’s first governor?

I pass over the windmill debate to matters relating to Governor Arnold, whose tower story dominates because in his will he referred to it as “my Stone-built Wind-Mill.”

With most theorists, except for the “Arnold-ists,” Egan believes that Arnold was being sly about the tower, which he owned but did not claim to have built. In fact, no record of its construction seems to exist in his or anyone else’s papers. Egan believes that it was already there. In addition, he also believes that Arnold plays second fiddle to Williams in colonial history because of qualms relating to the treason of his great-grandson in the Revolution.

To proceed with Egan’s theory requires a step back to the 1580s. Court philosopher John Dee was urging Queen Elizabeth to claim and settle much of North America before the Spaniards could shut England out. Dee and fellow court intriguer Sir Humphrey Gilbert had persuaded the queen to back a voyage to New England in 1583; but Egan thinks that in 1582 they had already sent an expedition under Anthony Brigham to build a tower, designed by Dee, to mark the land and England’s claim to it.

Brigham’s prospective voyage was reported to Spain’s King Philip II by his ambassador to Britain. Though weakly sourced, Egan’s speculation holds that Brigham sailed in 1582 with two ships and 80 men, built the tower, and returned after nine months. The following year’s expedition of five ships, directed by Dee and captained by Gilbert, ran into big trouble. Two ships turned back and three, including the one carrying Gilbert, were lost at sea.

Egan believes that Dee designed the tower as a sort of “Statue of Liberty” icon to mark the Narragansett Bay (he called it the Dee River) as English, but that it also contained astronomical and astrological features identified early in this century by William Penhallow, an astronomer at the University of Rhode Island.

The tower catches the sun through window pairs on days of astronomical significance. Its first floor was a “camera obscura” used to confirm the accuracy of the calendar, a vital matter in that era. Egan believes that symbols in the tower and on Arnold’s gubernatorial chair prove that he knew of John Dee’s plan of empire — hence, the logic of Charles II appointing the plugged-in Benedict Arnold as governor instead of the rabble-rousing Roger Williams.

The Dee colonization of Rhode Island failed, but it led to Sir Walter Raleigh’s colonization of Virginia. He also failed at first, in Roanoke, but Jim Egan’s theory has planted the flag of curiosity on my crown, and I therefore attest and believe that the 16th Century Elizabethan voyages to Narragansett Bay, and the murky genesis of the Newport Tower, warrant further exploration by today’s court historians.

David Brussat (dbrussat@projo.com) is a member of The Journal’s editorial board. His blog at projo.com is called Architecture Here and There.

Here is a short book review from the NEARA Transit, Autumn 2011, (published by the New England Antiquities Research Association), by Anne Wirrkala, vice president NEARA,

Elizabethan America, the John Dee Tower of 1583. By James Alan Egan. NEARA member Jim Egan has developed a fascination, some say preoccupation with the possibility that the Newport Tower is an Elizabethan construction. He has gleaned clues from the historical records of the first English colony in North America and presented them in a chatty, personal manner. A worthy read with plausibility.

Hopefully you can see by all this that I am a serious researcher who has done his homework. In my mind the “John Dee tower 1583 Theory” thesis should be should replace the “Benedict Arnold Theory” in this Wikipedia article. But I am not requesting that, nor do I expect that. Underneath that first section is another called “Additional Theories.” They include the Vikings, the Templars, the Chinese, and the Portuguese. I daresay my theory stands on much firmer ground than any of those theories. None of them even names an architect for the Tower, (never mind one who named Narragansett Bay after himself). In other words, this Wikipedia article seems slightly this different than most others because it provides an area for “theories.” I hope you understand that mine is well-documented and profoundly important enough to be listed as a “Additional Theory.”

Since opening my Museum 2 years ago, I have given tours of the Tower to over 800 visitors from all around the world. During that time the authors of the Viking theory, the Chinese theory, and the Portuguese theory have not even visited the Tower. The authors of the Templar theory have been here twice, each time for about 2 hours. After hearing dozens of people say to me “Your theory sounds so much more plausible? Why isn't it even listed on Wikipedia?” I decided do something about it and I hope you will guide me in making this happen.

I also now understand that Wikipedia input needs to come from a third-party. Should I get one of my testimonializers to write something, or can you help me piece something together?

Finally, thanks for helping me understand the process. It’s reassuring to know that caring volunteers like you are monitoring Wikipedia to maintain its integrity. I appreciate and admire it. ````Jim Egan252

Here is a testimonial from Retired Professor of Astronomy from University of Rhode Island, William Penhallow:

A Short Newport Tower Summary January 18, 2012

In 1990 Dr. Michael Brennan, a former dentist from Newport was studying for an M.S. degree in science teaching at URI (University of Rhode Island). He had successfully changed careers and was teaching science at a local Middle School. We were working on ways to introduce astronomy into a general science course. One day he asked me what I thought about the Newport Tower. I told him that I often wondered whether it had astronomical alignments in its design. The next time we met he brought in a copy of the book “Newport Tower” by (Philip Ainsworth Means 1942). In Chapter III there are drawings from the work of (Rowe 1938) who was hired as an undergraduate from Brown University by the Newport Park Commission to prepare a report on the Tower.

The Tower as depicted was essentially a cylinder resting on 8 pillars forming an octagon. 2 pillars lining up north-south and 2 east-west. The cylinder has windows, niches, beam holes and a fireplace. Possible astronomical alignments were first reported as part of the Vinland Revisited – 1000 Years of Discovery program that brought three Viking replica ships to Newport in September, 1991. Some of the results of this preliminary study were reported at the ABC (Across Before Columbus?) Conference sponsored by NEARA (New England Antiquities Research Association) held at Brown University in 1992 (Penhallow et al. 1992a) and at the 23rd Meeting of the Division of Dynamical Astronomy of the American Astronomical Society held in Chicago (Penhallow et al. 1992b) The possible alignments noted in these papers were based on Figures 6, 7, 8, and 16 in Chapter III (Means 1942) and were suspected to be of limited accuracy. On September 22, 1993 Mr. Jorgen Siemonsen of Denmark, Chairman of the Committee for Research on Norse Activities in North America AD 1000-1500 presented to the Newport City Council a copy of “The Newport Tower Photogrammetric Measurement “ ( NTPM 1992) for the benefit of future researchers. This study was done under the auspices of his committee by the Technical University of Denmark and the Danish National Museum to provide very accurate measurements of the Tower. According to Rowe, 2 pillars line up true north – south and 2 line up true east – west. The Danish study shows that the octagon pattern of the pillars is rotated 3 degrees counter clock – wise when viewed from above. With this data I was able to obtain much better astronomical alignments. (Penhallow 1998) When I sent a copy of my work to Gerald Hawkins he replied “I can appreciate the uphill battle, but you won in the end. Congratlations.” (Hawkins 1995)

In the mid 1990’s Jim Egan, a commercial photographer with 30 years experience and a very active member of NEARA became interested in the Tower. With the urging of fellow member Doug Schwartz, he took a picture of the Lunar Minor Standstill on December 25, 1996 with the moon shining thru two of the windows (Northeast and West) of the Tower as I had predicted. He also photographed the sun shining thru two windows (South and West) at the Winter Solstice (8:02 A.M.) as predicted. See (Egan 2006 p51). At one of his Winter Solstice sessions he discovered that the sun shining thru the South window strikes a white stone in the arch between pillars 7 and 8 at about 9:00 A.M. Could this represent the moon? Thru the wall on the outside there is round stone with an orange tinge to it. Could this represent the sun?

In this paper Jim also discusses the results of a Ground-Penetrating Radar Survey and a photographic survey of Templar Round Churches in England and in Wales. Are the Templar Churches the prototype of the Tower? The lack of evidence of an ambulatory and an altar are a problem. Sue Carlson (1996), a restoration architect, searched the New and the Old World for prototypes and found lavabos or wash houses associated with monasteries the most interesting. The Committee for Research on Norse Activities in North America thinks it is a windmill (Hertz 1995). Trying to establish that the Tower is the remnant of a church is not very convincing. Clearly some new thinking was needed. Jim introduced me to the concept of a meridiana, the north – south line found on the floors in some of the great cathedrals of Europe. A small hole (3/4 “) in the roof or in the wall of a church when properly located will produce an image of the sun on the floor. Each day at local noon the image of the sun crosses a specific location on the line which can be hundreds of feet long in some cases. At the Winter Solstice the image of the sun is at the extreme north end of the meridiana and at the southern extreme at the Summer Solstice. This immediately caught my interest since the meridian plays such an important role in determining time, the position of the stars in the sky, and the longitudes of locations on the surface of the earth. We both realized that the meridiana was an application of the camera obscura, a subject dear to the hearts of some artists, photographers and astronomers.

The enormous size of the device leads to an accurate determination of the time of Winter Solstice and to the length of the Tropical year (the year of the seasons) needed to construct a calendar. The Church encouraged the use of the meridianae to help in solving the problem of calendar reform. Jim’s knowledge of the camera obscura and its history have been a driving force in the study of the Tower. He was vindicated with the publication of The Sun in the Church – Cathedrals as Solar Observatories by (J.L.Heilbron 1999), world renown historian of the History of Science at Oxford.

In the East the Chinese also realized that the length of the Tropical year was essential in establishing a calendar in tune with the seasons. Kuo Shou-ching recommended to the Great Khan, Khubilai, that an instrument called “The Tall Gnomon” be built to obtain as accurate a value as possible and a new method of determining the calendar established. Only in this manner could the reign of the great Mongol leader be considered legitimate by the learned Chinese. The new reformed system was called “Granting the Seasons” and was adopted in 1280 A.D. “The Tall Gnomon” was reconstructed in modern times at Gaocheng, China (Sivin 2009 pp 183-190 and pp 570,571). It measures the shadow length of a horizontal bar set 30 meters above a water leveled merideana. A device called the Shadow Aligner makes use of a small camera obscura to produce an image of the crossbar and the sun on the meridiana for accurate measure.

In the West in 1580’s John Dee was an outstanding English polymath with a library of 4,000 volumes and an influential adviser to Queen Elizabeth I. He promoted a reformed ecclesiastic calendar which dropped 11 days from the Julian Calendar and got it in sync with the time of Christ rather than dropping 10 days which would get it in sync with the time of the Council of Nicaea. The latter was adopted by the Vatican in 1583. The archbishop of Canterbury wanted no change at all smacking of Popish influence. He prevailed. England did not adopt the Gregorian calendar until 169 years later in 1752. Jim has produced a thesis that the Newport Tower is a horologium or timepiece that uses the sun and the moon to keep an ecclesiastic calendar in tune with the Heavens. As far as I can see the astronomy incorporated in the Newport Tower is consistent with this idea and I therefore fully support him in its defense. Mention of the Tower first appears in governor Benedict Arnold’s will of December 24, 1677, as his “ Stone Built Mill”? In a preliminary work (Egan 2009) Jim lays out his argument that the Tower was built by the British under the direction of John Dee. It was to be the central building of a colonizing effort to establish the British Empire (Egan 2010). We found that the rotation of 3 degrees of the octagon pattern of the pillars, the placement of the south window, the layout of the beams supporting the first floor and the location of a hatch-way in it, a small hole in the south window directly over a drill hole on the sill of that window, all would allow a beam of sunlight to travel thru the South Window, thru the open hatch in the floor, past Pillar 1 and strike the sidewalk in front of a park bench at the Winter Solstice. Non evasive experiments should be conducted at the Tower at this location to demonstrate the use of a Shadow Aligner. The drill hole in the sill of the South Window lines up with Window W4 which defines the north – south line and allows you to see Miantonomi Hill due north. A small hole in the east window would produce a camera obscura image of the eastern horizon on the west wall. A small hole in the west window would produce an image of the western horizon on the east wall. Observations of the sun at the equinoxes would then be possible.

Jim postulates that the Tower had a hemispheric dome with a small hole in it to allow the sun to strike the second floor to produce a meridiana, an annalemma and a sundial. The origins of the design of the Tower lie not in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem but in the Tower of the Winds in Athens (Vitruvius Book I, vi. 12 ), the Greek round temples and the round towers of Persia, present day Iran (Jamejamshid 2012)

Jim Egan, a modern polymath, with his keen eye for beauty, symmetry and design, a creative mathematical mind, his love of the Renaissance (both Italian and English), his ability to handle Greek and Latin, his curiosity about Rhode Island History, has formulated a fascinating theory that deserves our very best constructive criticism. Its implications for Rhode Island, United States, British and World history are astronomical!

Bibliography Carlson, Suzanne 2006 ”Loose Threads in a Tapestry of Stone – The Architecture of the Newport Tower”. pp 5-31 of the NEARA Monograph The Newport Tower A(rnold) to Z(eno). Compiled by Susanne Carlson and edited by John Dranchak. 2006 Egan, James. 1977. “Newport Tower Moon Struck Christmas Night 1996.” NEARA Journal Vol. 31, No 2. Egan, James 2006 “Highlights of Research on the Newport Tower”. pp 50-57 of the NEARA Monograph The Newport Tower A(rnold) to Z(eno). Compiled by Susanne Carlson and edited by John Dranchak. 2006 Egan, James Alan 2009 “Clues in the Historical Record about the First Elizabethan Colony at the Dee River (Narragansett Bay)” Private work of the author Egan, Jim 2010 “John Dee, Governor Benedict Arnold, and the Anchor of Hope Book 8” Cosmopolite Press, 153 Mill Street, Newport, Rhode Island 02840 Granger, Frank 1998 “Vitruvius On Architecture Books I – X” in two volumes. Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press Hawkins, Gerald S. 1995. Private communication. Heilbron, J.L. !999. The Sun in the Church. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press Hertz, Johannes. 1995. “Round Church or Windmill? New Light on the Newport Tower,” Newport History, Journal of the Newport Historical Society, Vol.68, Part2, 1997. No. 235 JameJamshid 2012. Towers of Maragheh Observatory. www.jamejamshid.com Means, P.A. 1942 The Newport Tower. New York: H. Holt & Co. Newport Tower Photogrammetric Measurement. 1992. Copenhagen: Technical University of Denmark, Danish National Museum. Olmstead, A.T., 1948 History of the Persian Empire. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press Penhallow, William S., Michael J. Brennan, and Cynthia J. Ray. 1992a. “The Archaeoastronomy of the Old Stone Tower, Newport, Rhode Island. A paper prepared for distribution at the NEARA ABC Conference at Brown University, June18-21, 1992. Penhallow, William S., Michael J. Brennan, Cynthia J. Ray, A. Upgren, and J. Stock 1992b. “The Archaeoastronomy of the Old Stone Tower,Newport, Rhode Island “ (abstract). A paper presented at the 23rd Meeting of the Division of Dynamical Astronomy of the American Astronomical Society, Chicago IL, December,1992. Penhallow, W. “Archaeoastronomy: The Newport Tower”(abstract). 1997. A paper presented at Wesleyan University in April, 1996, as part of 30 years of Astronomy at the Van Vleck Observatory a Meeting in Honor of Arthur R. Upgren. Baltic Astronomy, Vol. 6 No. 1, 1997. Penhallow, William 1998 “Astronomical Alignments in the Newport Tower” pp 85-96 of the Across Before Columbus? Ed. by Gilmore, D. Y. and McElroy L.S. A collection of papers presented at the ABC Conference held at Brown University in June 1992. NEARA Publications 1998. Edgecomb, Maine. Penhallow, William S. 2006 “Astronomical Alignments in the Newport Tower”. pp 32-45 of the NEARA Monograph The Newport Tower A(rnold) to Z(eno) compiled by Susanne Carlson and edited by John Dranchak. 2006. Rowe, J. H. 1938 a long technical report to the Newport Park Commission, referenced in Means p5. Sivin, Nathan 2009 “Granting the Seasons: The Chinese Astronomical Reform of 1280, With a Study of its Many Dimensions and a Translation of its Records” New York: Springer

Thank you for your attention, Shine on, Jim Egan JimEgan252 (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Please note that NEARA publications are excellent examples of patently unreliable sources, and can not be used as sources for Wikipedia. I stand by my earlier recommendation that if you can find reliable sources on this expedition, make an article about it. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Agree with OpenFuture on this. You have yet to provide a reliable source. OhNoitsJamie <sup>Talk</sup> 18:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I declined your new request for a 3O; there has been no new discussion on your part since the last 3O was provided below. Please try to discuss things here. Thanks! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

@JimEgan253: Can you explain to me what it is you have trouble understanding in my answer and recommendations to you? I'll do my best to clarify. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary and secondary sources about Anthony Brigham's 1582 expedition to the Dee River

Dear Open Future and all interested,

Point 1: You keep asking for reliable sources. In my December 2011 comments (see above), I provided 4 primary documents written in the 1500’s and 4 secondary sources written in the 1900’s, including Quinn and Morison, two of the most knowledgeable scholars on early English exploration of the New World.

To reiterate: That this expedition took place, this is what I wrote:

“David Beers Quinn was a great researcher. After finding all he could in the archives of London, he went to Madrid. He found that the Spanish Ambassador to London, the sneaky Don Bernardino de Mendoza, had written letters back to King Philip II of Spain reporting that there was a preliminary voyage in 1582, a year before Sir Humphrey left in 1583.

On July 25, 1582, Mendoza writes to the King: “As to the ships which I previously wrote to your Majesty the Catholics were getting ready here, it turns out that not more than 2 are going this year with Hongigberto [Humphrey Gilbert] to reconnoiter the place where they can land next year. The ships are already riding in Sotampton [Southampton] harbor and are only waiting for the weather to set sail, and with them a pinnace.” This 1582 voyage by Anthony Brigham is also mentioned in Richard Hakluyt’s 1582 book Diverse Voyages touching the Discovery of America

In March of 1583, Mendoza wrote again to King Philip II of Spain saying the 2 ships “which they sent to reconnoiter last summer are delaying too long.” David Beers Quinn writes “If Brigham was their commander he returned safely, for he was doing propaganda for Peckham sometime after March 25 [1583]. (David Beers Quinn, Voyages of Sir Humphrey Gilbert, page 62)

Quinn cites a “circular letter” (meaning it demanded a response) sent by Sir Francis Walsingham to potential Adventurers (or investors) in which she says he has spoken with Anthony Brigham and is looking for further support for the project. The Queen’s Secretary of State calls it “… a Letter touching the discovery of in America, 1583.”

Point 2: I have provided primary sources that indicate Narragansett Bay was named the “Dee River” by Gilbert’s partner, John Dee.

That’s an expedition, a place name, and primary documents.

That’s much more than any of the other theories:

Viking Theory: This was proposed by Charles Christian Rafn in the mid-1800’s. He never saw the Tower. Only really inaccurate rough drawings of it.

Chinese Theory: Gavin Menzies published his book "1421: The Year the Chinese Discovered America," without ever having visited the Tower. I know because I was filmed with him and Professor Penhallow at the Tower when they did a British documentary refuting Gavin’s idea. Gavin told me personally that was the first time he had seen the Tower.

Portuguese Theory: Gaspar Corte-Real left Lisbon to chart the coast of Labrador. He sent his brother Miguel home with 57 captured natives, but Gaspar was never seen again.

Medieval Templars: It is alleged that Henry Sinclair voyaged to New England. No primary sources nor artifacts.

Arnold Windmill: The two greatest Tower researchers Philip Ainsworth Means and archeologist William Godfrey both debunk the idea that this structure is a windmill.

Perhaps these Theories should be stripped from this Wikipedia page as well.

Point 3: You write,

“Please note that NEARA publications are excellent examples of patently unreliable sources, and can not be used as sources for Wikipedia.” I won’t argue that the NEARA Journal is not as critically edited as other scholarly journals, but NEARA articles are already cited twice in the footnotes of this very Newport Tower Wikipedia article.

Point 4: This existing Wikipedia article has a clearly marked section called: Alternative Hypotheses.

In terms of primary and secondary source evidence well-researched hypothesis stands head and shoulders above all these other. I still don’t understand why you don’t think it justifies being included.

By the way, what I consider to be my “proof” that this Elizabethan colonization effort of 1582 built the Tower does not rest heavily on the aforementioned primary documents about the Brigham expedition. It rests on the connection between the architectural details still visible in the Tower, and the writings of John Dee on architecture, cosmology, cartography, and his vision for the British Empire (a term he which coined in his 8 books convincing the Queen she has a legal right to North America, except for Florida).

Dee’s maps of 1580 and 1582 clearly show Narragansett Bay (The Dee River) and the triangular island off the coast (now Block Island).

This "proof" is what my 9 books and 20 videos are about, but there is no way to summarize it in a Wikipedia article in which I’m hoping to someday get a few sentences. Thanks for your attentiveness,--JimEgan252 (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2012

I can't force you to listen to others, but when you don't listen to anybody else, sooner or later everyone else will grow tired and stop listening to you. For me, this point is very close, although I don't know about others. I am, admittedly, not a very patent man. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey, guys, I'm here from the 3O board. I'm going to take some time to read your arguments, so please bear with me; if I take longer than 24 hours or so to post again, you can feel free to drop me a line on my talk page or repost this on 3O, although really, I think this dispute is complex enough (or at least long enough...) to warrant a more structured forum of dispute resolution, such as perhaps the dispute resolution noticeboard. Jsut some useful links while I research, especially for JimEgan: 10 simple rules for editing Wikipedia, advice for avoiding overly long posts, policy on original research, especially policy on synthesis of published sources. At the briefest of first glances, these *might* be applicable (I absolutely do not *assert* that they are), but I'll be able to give a more definite answer soon(tm). In the meantime, thanks, everyone, for trying to improve Wikipedia! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

It isn't much of a conflict really. JimEgan252 seem to want to add a lot of information about a British expedition to this article. It is highly unclear why, to be honest. I've repeatedly asked him to start with making an article about the expedition itself, as it seems notable to me. Should something from that article come to light that is relevant for the Newport Tower article, we can of course add it, but so far there has been no proposal of what to add here that actually has anything to do with the Newport Tower.

So the "conflict" (if you can call it that) is quite simple. JimEgan252's posts are long and complex and interesting, but has little or nothing to do with the Newport Tower. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, after reading your posts and looking up some more information about your credentials, I'm afraid I have to agree with OpenFuture. The thing about Wikipedia is that our minimum standard for inclusion of information is verifiability. While we want our information to be true and accurate, truth and accuracy, on its own, is *not sufficient* to include information in Wikipedia; our information *must also* be verifiable by coverage in reliable sources. It seems that, while you have many good sources about the Elizabethan expedition, the only one you have that *explicitly* states that the tower was built by them is your own original research, which, as the linked article will tell you, does not make it reliable. I'm sorry to tell you this, because it's clear that you're passionate about this subject. And please don't think that we're saying your theory is implausible or wrong; we really aren't making a judgement on the theory itself. We just can't accept it without a reliable source to back it up. If you have any general questions about the policies and guidelines I've linked, feel free to ask me a question about it here, on my talk page; I'd be happy to explain in more detail. Of course, you should also feel free to continue the discussion here, as well. And whatever happens, thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia; we really do sincerely appreciate the effort! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your guidance

Thank you for your courteous response. I appreciate your high standards. Would a positive book review of my book, "Elizabethan America," in a scholarly journal, by a well-published scholar on Renaissance Architecture and Philosophy or the History of Astronomy suffice for you to list my thesis as a theory about who built the Newport Tower?--JimEgan252 (talk) 14:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, it couldn't do any harm- unless of course it turns out, on close reading, to be positive (as others have been in the discussion above) about every aspect of your research except the arcane links to the tower itself. David Trochos (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Geologist Scott Wolter & the History Channel

So per WP:BRD I'd like to discuss the challenge to Wolter's reliability as a reference. User:Dougweller states in an edit summary "Wolter's written work is self-published, being on the History Channel doesn't turn someone into a reliable source". While being on the show does not make Wolter suddenly reliable, the fact that the History Channel (as most of the news media) uses fact checkers does add a layer or level of scrutiny. The History Channel's reliabilty is a subject that's been debated/discussed previously

My edits were added to the "Alternative hypothesis" section. If this is not an appropriate section for Wolters claims, then what is?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:16, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

It would be the appropriate place for them, if they added anything new to the alternative hypotheses. But the edit:

"On the History channel series America Unearthed it was speculated that a Mercator map contained a reference to the a tower in the approximate location of the Newport Tower. This map dates to 1569 suggesting that the tower is was built prior to that."

firstly contains the word "speculated", which undermines its reliability as anything more than one unsupported opinion, besides which that particular speculation has been comprehensively demolished by a look at the map itself http://www.trochos.freeserve.co.uk/newport1.htm

The discussion on the reliability of The History Channel (and others) doesn't reach an all-embracing view, but wisely seems to conclude that reliability is variable, depending on the context of the particular claim and the particular program. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The other recently added and deleted edits fall into the same category. Many types of stone are magnetic, but does the History Channel make a specific claim that this is noteworthy in the context of the Newport Tower (and if so, what)? The second is a couple of assertions about the Templars attaching significance to the solstice and the planet Venus, but again these appear to be bald assertions made in the program without any evidence to back them up. Ghughesarch (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Using your logic and argument of "X has been stated and if so, what?" then why include the "Alternative hypothesis" section in the article at all? The whole section is speculative, hence its title. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'd love that to happen, but the alternative hypotheses would creep back in, given they are a large part of the tower's notability, even if they are all unsupported by anything resembling a fact. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm willing to help clean up the article. How about we separate it from the main article? If the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting article can have this Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting conspiracy theories associated with it, another article about Newport tower alternative construction theories should be able to exist. What do you think?--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an idea that was kicked around a couple of years ago[[3]], and (I think) not a bad one, though the discussion at the time was inconclusive and should probably get much more support here before being acted on Ghughesarch (talk) 21:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say the main reason that the Newport Tower is as well known as it is is the controversy, so this would by a pov fork. I can't see how it would work - an article using sources that wouldn't qualify as sources here? Dougweller (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's fair enough, Doug. In which case Transporterman's response to the 3rd Opinion request deserves more careful consideration than it had at the time. The problem with following that suggestion and reducing the space and credibility (for want of a better word) accorded to fringe theories, in order to avoid WP:UNDUE, is that experience with this article has shown that all the excised material creeps back in again.Ghughesarch (talk) 21:59, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That discussion at RSN was some time ago and I'd say was inconclusive. I certainly do not think that anyone checked Wolter's 'facts' or perhaps speculations to check that they were correct. They may do that on shows that are meant to be historically accurate. Wolter is as yet self-published which doesn't speak to him being a reliable source, nor does him being on the History Channel. He could be used as a reliable source for his opinions in his own article, but that was deleted by AfD - both for lack of notabiity and at his request (which is why I removed a redlink to him, we should only redlink articles that we think should be created.

It would be nice to find what academic sources say about this 'tower.' I did find this[4] which shows a picture of the map and says "Here's the relevant section of the map (north at the top this time), larger than life-size unless you're viewing this on a really small screen. First problem- as discussed above, "today's Narragansett Bay" is almost certainly to the east of the big estuary- perhaps that smaller narrow-mouthed estuary just below the pink inset on the picture (indeed, to confuse things yet further, Mercator has placed the island named by Verrazzano after King Francis's mother even further east, and nowhere near any big estuaries- bottom right in the picture here- and accidentally named it 'Claudia', after Francis' wife Queen Claude). Furthermore, Mercator has altered the shape of the huge estuary from its earlier triangular shape to something looking more like a very large version of Narragansett Bay- so what the heck, let's assume that that is what we're supposed to be discussing. There's no obvious "tiny tower", but he shows an island at the mouth of the Bay, and an elegant real-estate development some distance upriver (on the opposite bank to the 1543 French map; note also, for amusement's sake, the word 'arrecifes' next to it- a slightly mobile relic of Gomez' report of reefs in the estuary!). Mercator has indicated the native town with the sort of symbol he would use for a significant settlement in Europe, complete with church steeple. Incidentally, it also looks suspiciously as if cartographers by this time had some vague information about the Hudson river (which of course is the only genuine major river along that stretch of coast) hence the fork north of the town. I've included a second version of the estuary as an inset, just to make it absolutely clear that if you think you're seeing a little tower standing near its mouth, either it's pretending to be an island or your eyes are playing tricks on you." Dougweller (talk) 18:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed that same page and admittedly since it cited no references it left me wanting for information from a verifiable (and better written) source. I did run across this site, The Newport Tower that includes a list of sources. It would seem that there is the potential for improvement in the article. Maybe not based on Wolters work, but other material.

As for the existence of "fact checkers" or their efficacy, they are used in the media and entertainment industry to prevent lawsuits. Their importance is so critical that they are even used in animation studios. I know this firsthand having worked for Hanna Barbera and Warner Bros. in the 90's. As much as producers and directors want to be entertaining, they also do not wish to be blatantly incorrect about a simple piece of information regardless of how its used. It has a tendency to disrupt the "Suspension of disbelief" which the industry relies on so heavily. The use of factual material in these instances doesn't make their accuracy suspect.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

So the fact checkers employed by the History Channel have nothing to do with historical accuracy (given it's unlikely Governor Arnold is in a position to sue), making the program having been "fact checked" completely irrelevant in relation to its reliability as a historical source. And the sources cited in the website you linked to are all pushing the non-Colonial hypotheses, and include Wolters self-published, and therefore not WP:RS, work, and is self-published in itself and therefore not RS. The Trochos site also fails that test, but it does at least provide an image of the map, showing that Mercator doesn't show what some claim he does.Ghughesarch (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not using the show as a reference for historical accuracy, just pointing out observations made which are verifiable statements. I made edits to the "Alternative hypothesis" section of other assertions made and cited my source. Aside from the fact that you don't seem to like Wolter, what's the issue? I didn't weasel out and try to hide the source of the edits I made, I clearly stated that the source was a History Channel show. Let the reader decide for themselves what is or is not of interest.--Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

The issues are essentially WP:UNDUE and WP:RS. As it is, the article devotes much more space to a variety of fringe theories (because the generally-agreed explanation is so simple as not to require a lengthy exposition), the essence of which have a history going back to the 19th century and a supporting literature to say that the theories do exist (even if not to provide support for their content) and some of which are much later ideas (Chinese, Templars, Portuguese), in some cases having only extremely minority support and limited sources. What Wolter has to say, in the context of a TV program which is (at best) in itself only very debateably RS, adds little if anything that is new to these theories Ghughesarch (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Here is a nice article about the Newport Tower and Scott Wolter claims about it on his show America Unearthed by writer Jason Colavito on his blog. [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.234.80 (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw that too including this article where Wolter (seemingly) himself comments,Colavito blog --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:17, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Fascinating. It appears that we should never have called him a forensic geologist or probably even a geologist if all he has is a bachelor's degree and that his firm specialises in the study of concrete. Dougweller (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Is a simple solution possible

So can Occam's razor be applied here? The alternate, albeit fringe, theories have seemingly turned this article into a text version of an episode of In Search Of. What can we do to rectify the situation? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 07:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are many, many GScholar hits on "Newport Tower", mostly from what I gather along the "Vinland? probably not" school, with some frustrated analyses of pseudo-archaeological claims along the way. I might be able to take a whack at these after Easter. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Built by Masons in 1750?

See [6] - hm, this contradicts what he said in 2010[7]. Dougweller (talk) 11:06, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Typical... Science disproves the idea that the tower was built by mysterious pre-Columbian Vikings? ... No problem... just switch to the idea that it was built by mysterious post-Columbian Freemasons. That way the tower remains mysterious - and everyone can continue to make money selling books and videos about how mysterious the tower is (and let's not forget the potential for Masonic tourism dollars... modern Freemasons love organizing bus trips to visit places tied to early Freemasonry. Hey... it worked for Roslyn Chapel). Blueboar (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Giovanni da Verrazzano

Our article on him says: "Continuing to explore the coast further northwards, Verrazzano and his crew came into contact with Native Americans living on the coast. However, he did not notice the entrances to Chesapeake Bay or the mouth of the Delaware River. In New York Bay, he encountered the Lenape and observed what he deemed to be a large lake, which was in fact the entrance to the Hudson River. He then sailed along Long Island and entered Narragansett Bay, where he received a delegation of Wampanoag. The words "Norman villa" are found on the 1527 map by Visconte Maggiolo identifying the site. The historian Samuel Eliot Morison wrote "this occurs at Angouleme (New York) rather than Refugio (Newport). It was probably intended to compliment one of Verrazzano's noble friends. There are several places called "Normanville" in Normandy, France. The main one is located near Fécamp and another important one near Evreux, which would naturally be it. West of it, conjecturally on the Delaware or New Jersey coast, is a Longa Villa, which Verrazzano certainly named after Francois d’Orleans, duc de Longueville". He stayed there for two weeks, and then moved northwards, following the coast up to modern Maine, southeastern Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, after which he returned to France by 8 July 1524."

I don't see how this can be used as evidence for the Newport Tower, certainly not without reliable sources discussing the issues. Dougweller (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

References

A Windmill?

Seriously? This does not look like a windwmill to me. It looks like an observatory to me. --76.100.170.62 (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.100.170.62 (talk) 13:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this isn't a forum for such a discussion. It's a page to discuss the contents of the article, not debate the subject of the article. 16:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

I would like to point out that in reference 4 (|accessible here) it is referred to as a 'stone mill'.

--OdysseusTroy (talk) 14:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Never mind, I see now where I have erred. It is a stone wind mill. Ok, that makes so much more sense.

--OdysseusTroy (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Observatory hypothesis

I was quite surprised to learn/observe on my recent visit to the Tower the number and significance of the Astronomical Alignments that can easily be observed in the tower. External alignments to the stars and planets at significant points in time. Luni-Solar Alignments that allow for the calculation of the occurrences of Eclipses, the times and dates of the seasons. The sheer number of these alignments, all of which can be traced to the purpose of demonstrating this information for use by the builders. This by the way was a common practice before the advent of the Printing press, and faded into disuse with the advent of Printed Almanacs after 1600. This suggests that the design of the tower predates 1600. The probability that a random placement of the windows could result in number of accurate and precise Astronomical Alignments is nonsense. "Occams Razor" would suggest that the most likely explanation requires the fewest assumptions. The best explanation is that this tower was built with these alignments in mind from a plan, by a designer with advanced astronomical knowledge and training, that is unknown to history at this time.

The most shocking alignments are the ones that can with absolute certainty date the construction of the tower to pre-colonial times, As these alignments would have occurred before this time. Specifically I am talking about the alignment as denoted by W2->W5 in (Astronomical Alignments in the Newport Tower by William Penhallow (NEARA 2006) This is the window where α UMaj (Dubhe) is said to appear after sunset late in the year between the years of 1200-1600 AD when Polaris stands at true North. Precession of the Equinoxes can be absolutely used to prove a reasonable date for construction. Its easy to see that the last time that this star would have appeared at all in this window when Polaris pointed to true north was well before the time of the first Benedict Arnold. My own calculation put the midpoint for this alignment to be around 1550 AD after 1550 Dubhe drifts to the right side of the window, disappearing altogether sometime after 1700!

The fact that this whole topic is seemingly dismissed in this Wikipedia Article as unimportant is unfortunate in my mind and I am prepared to work on text that will give it more consideration.

Roger Nelson, an Amateur Astronomer from up north somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueGrid (talk • contribs) 10:47, August 10, 2016 (UTC)

Please make sure you use only reliable sources and not your own observations. Penhallow of course is already included. I see he is Professor Emeritus in the Department of Physics, not astronomy.[8] and he doesn't seem to have a PhD.[9] He evidently was a specialist in reading images taken of distant stars and star systems for purposes of determining their composition, and not necessarily ones taken in the visible spectrum. Doug Weller talk 18:34, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

About Reliable sources and not my own observations, ...... unless I make the effort to check the information published in the Penhallow article myself, and along with my own observations, publish the results in a reputable peer reviewed Astronomical Journal. I suppose that would then have to count for something. The study of the data related to the astronomical alignments of the window positions in the tower is not something that requires a PhD in Astronomy to validate, its something that can be done by Astronomers such as myself, armed with astronomical software that is freely provided by others for this purpose. Having done this we like to present it for discussion and peer review at Astronomical Conferences. Its my expectation that having completed this process, and vetting the information with the Astronomical Community interested in this topic, assuming the data survives this examination, a section on this topic should be added to this page. I have added this to the talk page to open the discussion on this matter, I will be working with the data that I have so far with my peers (Professional and Amateur) to develop with the intent to publish an article on the tower concerning this matter in the future.

As for Prof. Penhallow, I have met many astronomy academics and not all their degrees are in Astronomy, some are in Physics, some in Astrophysics. Astronomy is often found as part of the department of Physics at many Universities and Colleges. Sometimes its associated with Mathematics. Detailed knowledge of these Sciences are essential to understanding Astronomy, so information you provide proves to me that he is eminently qualified to speak on this topic. The science presented in this article is taught at the undergraduate level of Astronomy and Celestial Mechanics. Most Serious Amateur Astronomers also study this as part of their personal projects. Roger NelsonTheBlueGrid (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussing it is not appropriate here, this isn't a forum to discuss the article. If it's published reliably (WP:RS and discussed in other reliable sources to show that it's significant (see WP:UNDUE, we might. But it's already in the article so I don't see why we would need more. Doug Weller talk 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree with regard to discussing the information here is not appropriate, what is appropriate is raising an issue with the current weakness of the current article in exposing the astronomical significance of the tower, the establishing of this significance will only be accomplished as a result much discussion in the appropriate astronomical circles. Roger Nelson2001:56A:715C:1D00:61FC:D3D1:F53C:98E4 (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Sorry I was not logged in: TheBlueGrid (talk) 21:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Newport Tower (Rhode Island). 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/20110513170008/http://www.bigbertis.com/mill/wilofgov.htm to http://www.bigbertis.com/mill/wilofgov.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081122042333/http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/B4E46C93E89E769F802571020053A992 to http://www.warwickshire.gov.uk/Web/corporate/pages.nsf/Links/B4E46C93E89E769F802571020053A992

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) 06:16, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Newport Tower (Rhode Island). 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/20031209132121/http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/newporttower.htm to http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/newporttower.htm

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) 00:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

2016 report on the excavations done by the Chronognostic Research Foundation in 2006-2007

This isn't the report itself,[10] but says that a Heritage Management Firm submitted the artifacts, a 137-page report and a separate 121-page artifact inventory on behalf of the foundation to the city council.

"The study and artifacts “to a striking degree ... conform to the results of research conducted by Harvard University’s William Godfrey in 1948 and 1949,” the Gray & Pape study states.

“When taken into consideration with the documentary history of the site and surrounding area, it is likely that the Newport Tower was built between A.D. 1650 and 1677 by local stonemasons who had mastered the skill of large scale stone construction,” the firm concluded. “The prevalence of chimneys and fireplaces fashioned from similar materials indicates that contemporary stonemasons had mastered the medium and technology to construct such a structure.” Doug Weller talk 19:17, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Should the windmill hypothesis be presented as a fact?

The article currently opens with:

The Newport Tower, also known as the Old Stone Mill, is a round stone tower located in Touro Park in Newport, Rhode Island, the remains of a windmill built in the mid-17th century.

I was surprised to see the windmill hypothesis presented so matter-of-factly, because as far as I was aware, there is still some scholarly debate over the tower's original purpose (although the date seems to be narrowed down by carbon dating). Another alternative would be:

The Newport Tower, also known as the Old Stone Mill, is a round stone tower located in Touro Park in Newport, Rhode Island, hypothesized to be the remains of a windmill built in the mid-17th century.

I guess it depends on how widely accepted the windmill theory is. Thoughts? 70.175.192.217 (talk) 03:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Good video on the tower

[11]. There may be a new plaque put up calling it a windmill. Doug Weller talk 11:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)