Talk:New Albion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Another few days and I'll have a write up on Plowden's attempt to established a colony named New Albion. Too much to do this morning. --ExplorerCDT 12:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your edits are quite welcome on this page. Please, however, do not suggest that the debate on this issue has been settled. There is nothing close to agreement among scholars on this. The Whale Cove theory, while interesting, is certainly not the standard opinion among scholars. The article must reflect that. I know you probably feel strongly about this, which I respect, but the article has to be balanced, and be acceptable to someone who thinks Whale Cove is bunk and Drake landed in Marin, for example. Also I've moved the other material to separate article on the East Coast colony. -- Decumanus 18:06, 2004 Nov 10 (UTC)

Bronze (copper?) plaques[edit]

Part of the Drake legend when I was growing up here in BC was a supposed bronze plaque - taking possession or whatever, and naming the place Nova Albion - or more than one of same, that were part of Drake's actions on his landing(s). I note this isn't in the article, so I guess it isn't in Sam Bawlf's book (which I haven't read, although I'm from BC). Supposedly hammered into an "oake" but I've never seen the text, or even know if it's in the text. I do remember claims that one had been found, heavily corrodoed and barely readable, near Sooke, British Columbia, and also I think on the southern Queen Charlottes, also near Coos Bay, Oregon and also in Marin County, or whatever county Bodega Bay/Fort Bragg is in. Anyone else heard of this? Think it should be mentioned, even if it's not in Drake's logs; don't have any refs at present but I know they're out there...I'd imagine it was copper rather than bronze, which is harder to work after it's cast (although a ship's armourer in those days probably could make anything).Skookum1 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Albion, BC[edit]

Also, this locality in Maple Ridge, British Columbia, across the Fraser River from Fort Langley, was named in salute/tribute to the Drake claim/discovery, partly to underscore British sovereignty at the location; Fort Langley had been created as a redoubt in the event of American seizure of the southern Columbia District/Oregon Territory, where the HBC "capital" at Fort Vancouver would be (and was) lost to American hands. Too fuzzy brained at the moment (c-o-f-f-e-e, more c-o-f-f-e-e) to try writing anything simple right now, and may forget to come back; just suggesting a mention of Albion BC should be made.Skookum1 16:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is also "Port Albion", the name of a "community" across a narrow stait from Ucluelet on Vancouver Island, Barklay Sound. Likely named for reasons similar to the Maple Ridge area, I have no firm authority for citation regarding the founding or naming of Port Albion at hand, so don't intend to alter the article as yet.Corlyon (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Frank Ney's theories and others[edit]

Currently there is no mention in this article of the admittedly "out there" theory by former mayor Frank Ney of Nanaimo, an amateur historian with the cred to get published (in nice hardcover, too), about Nova Albion having been in the Georgia Strait area, specifically the Comox Valley area. I'm not saying he's right, only that his theory is in print of late and should be accounted for here. There were also claims I remember over the years about copper plsques being found at Sooke and also on the southern Queen Charlotte Islands, which may have been Drake's, or are claimed or hoped/speculated to be. Those I can't cite, I just know they're out there somewhere, and may be given in detail in Ney's book, which I don't haev on hand and haev never read (only its reviews and a synopsis in The Vancouver Sun, by Stephen Hume I think); James Delgado, former curator of the Vancouver Maritime Museum and now relocated to another maritime museum in, I think, Florida, may ahve also written about htem in his various historiecal writings on the BC Coast.Skookum1 (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I just finished reading Sam Bawlf's book The Secret Voyage of Francis Drakeand may try to add to this article a bit. (Skookum did you mean Bawlf rather than Ney??) A very interesting read, even if it does turn out to be purely wishful thinking on the part of a British Columbian. Still, I always thought it was odd that the English of the Elizabethan period (who would have benefited so greatly from discovery of a Northwest Passage), sent out one of their greatest mariners on a great voyage who, after travelling all the way up the coast of the Americas from the Straits of Magellan, got as far as Marin County California and decided to stop and turn west into the Pacific. Why wouldn't Drake have followed the coast north for a few hundred miles more just to see?Corlyon (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
The short answer, I think, is "prevailing winds". The longer answer: Somewhere between the 35th and 44th parallels along the west coast of North America ships inevitably encountered strong and steady winds from the northwest--and usually closer to the 35th to 40th parallel. These winds, in addition to the south-flowing current, made it extremely difficult to sail north along the coast, even in California, let alone the Pacific Northwest. In order to sail far north one had to first sail northwest or even due west far into the open Pacific and then slowly tack in a northeastern direction until forced more directly east or even southeast before making landfall. In order to sail from the vicinity of Acapulco, Mexico, like Drake and most Spanish voyages, with the hope of reaching what is now Oregon, Washington, and southern British Columbia, one would have to take a route that curved far far to the west , then north, northeast, and east. Such a route requires more time and provisions--there being no islands where food and water can be restocked. Drake left the Acapulco region with water for about 50 days. Even centuries later, when the wind patterns were better understood, it still took Spanish explorers like Malaspina longer than 50 days to get from Acapulco to the Pacific Northwest (though he was aiming for Alaska)--the whole time spent far west sailing through the open Pacific, nowhere near the coast (this map, File:MalaspinaRouteMap.png, gives a general sense of how one had to sail the coast north and south--halfway to Hawaii for the voyage north, close to the coast heading south). If Drake made landfall near Marin County, California, he would found it exceedingly difficult to sail farther north. To do so would have required sailing west or even southwest far out into the Pacific, then slowly tacking back northeast and east. The northwestern prevailing winds of the Pacific Northwest were a major obstacle until the steamship technology. There are numerous accounts of Spanish ships trying to sail from the Strait of Juan de Fuca to Nootka Sound--not far at all--and not being able to do it, giving up and instead sailing south to California in a few days of easy sailing. I'm no expert on Drake, but the idea that he sailed form Acapulco to British Columbia, or even Oregon, with limited provisions and limited knowledge of the geography and wind patterns, seems dubious. Pfly (talk) 10:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The "really short answer" to "Why wouldn't Drake have followed the coast north for a few hundred miles more just to see?" is that Drake DID go further north -- then, sailed east to arrive at the Pacific coast at Coos Bay, Oregon. He then spent two weeks working his way south looking for a harbor. The rocky coastline of Oregon and Northern California didn't provide any good harbors. Only when he reached Point Reyes, where the geology changes dramatically, thanks to the San Andreas fault and the Pacific Plate being driven north over the last 100 million years, did he find the white cliffs and "fit and convenient harbor."MikeVdP (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You have no idea what you're talking about. There is no evidence in the written record which says he was in Coos Bay. The only "evidence" is a plaque at the Coos Bay visitor center instigated by the Drake Navigators Guild and another plaque instigated by the Guild, which you Mike von Der Porten are now the President which your father Edward was a long-time president, at Cape Arago, Oregon. Throw up enough plaques and maybe something will stick has been the Guild's modus operandi for 50 years. This is how false history continues to dominate the Drake in California theory. I have requested for you and your administrator Horst59 to mediation but you both declined because you both know you can't argue against the truth. You had Nehalem Bay removed from the Nova Albion page without notification and you refuse mediation when it was discovered what you did. Shame could be a word applied to historians for denying the truth.Ggitzen (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
So very much of your comments about me on this talk page are simply false.Horst59 (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

plagiarism accusation[edit]

Without a citation the accusation is possibly libelous, and should not be shown. I removed the stricken out text from the following paragraph

In 2000 Canadian R. Samuel Bawlf extensively plagiarised Bob Ward's work[citation needed], and then suggested that New Albion was located at what is today Comox, British Columbia, located on Vancouver Island in the Strait of Georgia. This suggestion is completely unfounded, according to Ward.

MrWeeble Talk Brit tv 12:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I tracked down the accusation on an email exchange posted on the Internet on a site called "Maphist" (Map History?). There is an email purporting to be from Mr. Ward himself lamenting the plagiarism. However, The Secret Voyage of Sir Francis Drake contains a clear acknowledgement of the author's debt to Mr. Ward's assistance in drawing certain matters to Mr. Bawlf's attention. Perhaps the article is better to steer clear of this issue until there is a verifiable third party assessment.Corlyon (talk) 17:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bawlf and Ward[edit]

I have rewritten the discussion of Bawlf's theory as contained in his 2003 book (and apparently in an earlier unpublished monograph of his from 2000) and rewrote the criticism of Bawlf's conclusions coming from Bob Ward. However, the only citation I can find online for Bob Ward's position is a somewhat terse exchange of emails on MapHist an internet site seemingly dedicated (surprise surprise) to cartographic history. Mr. Ward's own publications cited in Mr. Bawlf's book of course predate Bawlf's publication (and I don't have them). If there's anyone who knows of any verifiable source for Bob Ward's own position or response, perhaps that person could kindly add the reference. I don't like the idea of eliminating reference to Bob Ward's criticism altogether, as that could leave the article unbalanced in favour of the Bawlf theory (which does not have widespread acceptance and at this point is only defensible conjecture), but we can't leave unverified assertions either.Corlyon (talk) 20:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Ward has gone away from Whale Cove as a drake landing site when he went to the Lincoln City Chamber of Commerce and told them Drake anchored under Cascade Head (about 20 miles to the North) and that he was going to locate a "small galleon" which has been reported in the mount of the Salmon River bordering Cascade Head on the south. It was reported in the paper him having received $20,000 for archaeological work. Mitch Marken, PH.D. of Enviro Pro Consulting, Dana Point, Ca. did the underwater work for Ward and found nothing to indicate Drake have been there. Additionally, Melissa Darby MA, Senior Archaeologist/Historian Lower Columbia Research & Archaeology LLC did a dig at Whale Cove in the summer of 2013 and found nothing indicating Drake having landed there.Ggitzen (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

New Albion?[edit]

I've never heard Sir Francis Drake's discovery, wherever it may have been, on the Pacific coast called anything other than Nova Albion. That's what he called it, and that's what was placed on contemporary maps. Calling it "New Albion" is not only wrong, it makes about as much sense as calling the north Atlantic region of the United States as "Nova England." Jsc1973 (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done a bit of sleuthing to see whether it is completely wrong to be calling the article 'New Albion' and referring to the area as New Albion. There do seem to be sources for 'New Albion' as opposed to 'Nova Albion' out there. The 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica article on James Cook refers to his search for 'New Albion'. The following quote is from the book "Men of Inventions and Industry" Samuel Smiles, from chapter 1:[1]"After trying in vain to discover a passage home by the North-eastern ocean, though what is now known as Behring Straits, he took shelter in Port San Francisco, which he took possession of in the name of the Queen of England, and called New Albion." From the Atlas of British Overseas Expansion, edited by A.N. Porter on Google Books[2]: "The voyage of reconnaissance now became a voyage of circumnavigation because Drake could not return by the same route. Running northwards in search of signs of the North-West Passage, he reached California (which he named New Albion) and then struck out across the Pacific." I imagine there may be other examples. This isn't to say that using 'New Albion' in this article is the better choice; only that there seems to be some support for this. Since 'Albion' is an English as well as a Latin term (so far as I know, as in 'perfidious Albion') I don't see why it's 'wrong' for anyone to use 'New Albion'. It may not be what Drake called his harbour, but I think Cabot called the land he discovered 'Terra Nova' and we seem content to call it 'Newfoundland' today. Terminology does evolve over time. Bawlf uses 'Nova Albion'. I will dig a little more and see if there is a clear preference for one over the other in current use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corlyon (talkcontribs) 05:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

What settlement?[edit]

The intro to this article says, with no reference citation, "The name (Nova Albion) is also applied to the settlement Drake founded on the coast."

The next paragraph says, WITH a reference citation, "Assertions that he left some of his men behind as an embryo "colony" are founded merely on the reduced number who were with him in the Moluccas."

Would I be justified in deleting the reference in the introduction to a "settlement Drake founded"?

--MelanieN (talk) 23:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

I took it out. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Archaeological Evidence[edit]

The article now says, "No firm archaeological evidence has yet been found anywhere on the coast that would establish the location of Drake's landing."

Is the author of this statement not familiar with "THE DRAKE AND CERMEÑO EXPEDITIONS' CHINESE PORCELAINS AT DRAKES BAY, CALIFORNIA 1579 AND 1595" by Clarence Shangraw and Edward P. Von der Porten, 1981?

For nearly 30 years, this study has been accepted as having identified physical archaeological evidence of Drake and Cermeño having been at Drakes Bay.

I don't know of anyone who believes Drake gave his porcelains to the Native Americans at Drakes Bay and then left to find another harbor for his 5-1/2 week stay.

Shouldn't this physical archaeological evidence be included in the article?

MikeVdP (talk) 20:55, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Can't find the Shangraw and Porten book, but its findings are briefly summarized in this book, pp 25-26 (and on related issues for many pages more), which says Shangraw and Porten make a strong but not proven case, and that although it is likely that Drake landed at Drakes Bay, we are still "lacking firm documentary and artifactual evidence". Pfly (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Interesting that the "artifactual evidence" IS the porcelains! This author seems to want OTHER "artifactual evidence!" The "documentary evidence" consists of around twenty (20) separate aspects from numerous sources.MikeVdP (talk) 06:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought they meant that studies of the porcelains has indicated a strong but not proven case that they came from Drake's ship. That the porcelains found correlate well with the types Drake was carrying, which suggests they did in fact come from Drake. But it is not impossible that they came from some other, perhaps unknown ship. To really prove it one would need to find something definitive--an artifact that could only have come from Drake's ship and no other. I think the point being made in that book was that nothing definitive in that sense has been found--what has been found strongly suggests but does not definitively prove they came from Drake. At least that's how I read it. An example of definitive proof would be something like the wreck of the Spanish ship Nuestra Señora de Atocha (1620), where they found ingots stamped with minting marks known to have been used only for the ingots on that ship. Or the Whydah Gally wreck, where they found the ship's bell inscribed with the ship's name. Pfly (talk) 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This publication has been made available at Enjoy! MikeVdP (talk) 05:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I found that and downloaded it earlier--but it seemed to be only the title page.. ? Pfly (talk) 07:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
There are two downloads there -- one is the text and one is the covers. Give it a shot.MikeVdP (talk) 16:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Someone made the statement that all the porcelain shards found at the site are from the Cermeno wreck. Not only is this not cited, it it is indisputably, factually, demonstrably wrong. So, I've removed it.Horst59 (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I see that this article states that the only confirmed archaeological evidence are the porcelain shards. This is a little vague and perhaps misleading. Yes, the only confirmed artifacts from the site are porcelain shards, but there is other archaeological evidence not from the site. I suggest the Hondius map and the book The World Encompassed fit under a broad - and accurate - definition of archeological evidence. Perhaps this should be tightened up a little to encourage precision. I believe it would be better to describe this as evidence of 16th century artifacts found at the site. The site these were found is also described as Drakes Bay. Strictly speaking, they were found on land. Yes, some were found on shore at the bay, but it may also be that they were found on shore at Drakes Estero or at Drakes Cove. I will check into this and make appropriate changes.Horst59 (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
In archaeology, they are spelled 'sherds' with an 'e' not shards with an 'a'. Thank you. And they are all from Cermeno's shipwreck of 1595. That someone who you removed Horst59 was me. Von Der Porten made two piles of the same types of porcelain. One had larger pieces of less wear and the other pile had smaller pieces with more wear. He called the larger pieces form Cermeno and the smaller pieces from Drake because he supposedly was there 16 years earlier. Cermeno did not see any proof of any other European having been at Drakes Bay. If Drake had left his valuable cargo of porcelain at Drakes Bay, surely Cermeno's 80 men would have seen some sort of Europeans having been there. Drake also had a cargo of brightly colored Peruvian dress which he surely would have given to the "naked Indians" described by Cermeno. All of this new research has surfaced after the 1970's. The Guild's theories are out of date. If you want to read about the Indians Drake met in Nehalem Bay read: Ggitzen (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


The entry on 31 October 2007 identified the Conie as a muskrat. Is this original research? It looks like that with the reference to "'National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals' 649-652. 2nd ed. Knopf publishing 1980"

The thoroughly-researched, Allen, Robert W. and Robert W. Parkinson, self-published work of the Drake Navigators Guild identifies the Conie as the Botta Pocket Gopher, Thomomys bottae bottae: Identification of the Nova Albion Conie, Drake Navigators Guild, 1971. Isn't that a better source? MikeVdP (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

'Coney' was the original Old English name for the rabbit and so any animal Drake was describing as-such would have appeared similar. BTW, that's where Coney Island gets its name, as it originally had a profusion of rabbits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Conie is a Muskrat. As it is described in the "World Encompassed", the journal of the Drake voyage it is an animal like a conie (rabbit) but it has a tail like a "rat". A ground squirrel has a fluffy tail nothing like that of a rat. The journal says it has webbed feet; like the muskrat.[1] A ground squirrel doesn't have webbed feet. The self-published Drake Navigators Guild picks and chooses what they want to have the unknowing to hear and see. The California theorists don't want the Muskrat identified because there have never been any Muskrats in the Pt Reyes, Drakes Bay, Drake's Cove or Drakes Estero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


This is another example of the Guild President MikeVdp not knowing what he's talking about. New research since 1971 by people in search of the truth have identified the "Coney like" description in Francis Fletcher's journal "The World Encompassed" as a Muskrat. The Guild's self-published theories are just plain out of date when looking for the truth.Ggitzen (talk) 17:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Clean Up Needed[edit]

Shouldn't gratuitous endorsements such as "The Oregon Archeological Society Newsletter December 2008 describes the book as: 'magnificent and without parallel,'" opinions such as "very strong case," and uncompleted studies such as "Preliminary magnetometer sweeps of the site by the University of California in 1999 yielded positive results. The site has yet to be examined in detail by State of California archaeologists." be eliminated?

The hundreds of various endorsements that could be provided for the various theories would overrun the article. They should all be removed.

The subjective notes should be removed.

Millions of sites along the Pacific coast can have a "positive result" from a "preliminary magnetometer sweep." An 11-year-old "sweep" that hasn't produced anything should not be included.

Should captions to illustrations include long discussions of secondary data such as "incised rocks and cairns," or should captions be tight titles to the illustrations?


MikeVdP (talk) 05:28, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, the section "Nehalem Bay, Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada" is confused. There is no Nehalem Bay on Vancouver Island. The Gitzen source cited is about Nehalem Bay, Oregon. But the Bawlf source is about Vancouver Island. Looks like two distinct theories have been mistakenly combined or something. Pfly (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
The Vancouver Island is a theory and the Nehalem Bay is a theory and Drakes Bay is a theory. What is so confusing?17:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ggitzen (talkcontribs)

England's first territories in the New World[edit]

I've added a "dubious" tag to this claim. These territories were never settled, and I have never seen them listed as part of the overseas empire, nor claimed to be "English". Would the editor who added this sentence please paste in the exact text that the cited reference contains? If nothing is forthcoming, I will remove it. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 10:14, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's true the English forfeited their claim by not maintaining a settlement, but Drake did indeed claim these lands in the name of Elizabeth I: "Our General called this country Nova Albion.... At our departure hence our General set up a monument of our being there, as also of her Majesty's right and title to the same..." (Modern History Sourcebook: Francis Pretty: Sir Francis Drake's Famous Voyage Round the World, 1580). See also Ken MacMillan (2006). Sovereignty and possession in the English new world: the legal foundations of empire, 1576-1640. Goustien (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Regarding Elizabeth Island: "our Generall with his gentlemen and certaine of his mariners then landed, taking possession thereof in her Maiesties name, and to her use, and called the same Elizabeth Iland." (The World encompassed by Sir Francis Drake). Note this refers to an island encountered August 24, 1578, within the Strait of Magellan, not the one encountered in September near Cape Horn. Goustien (talk) 05:20, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm not doubting the veracity of the statement that territorial claims were made. I'm saying that it's wrong to extrapolate to a statement along the lines that these were "England's first overseas territories". That conclusion is original research, unless the source you are using explicitly reaches that conclusion. (By way of analogy, Spain and Portugal divided the undiscovered world between themselves, but that does not mean these were all Portuguese and Spanish territories.) The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 17:13, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
My source (Sugden, 1990) lists Elizabeth Island, New Albion, and Newfoundland as the first English claims in that order, but Sugden ignores the earlier claims by Frobisher. So I've changed the wording to "one of the earliest English territorial claims," which I hope is more accurate. Goustien (talk) 01:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty's Account from Richard Hakluyt's Voyages, 1589[edit]

The brief section at the bottom of the article was inserted when the New Albion article was first created. It's the last few paragraphs of three pages in the original book related to New Albion. See, et. seq. at the Library of Congress website.

Should this be expanded? (The whole section could be included.) Should it be revised to include only the most useful information related to identifying the New Albion site? Should other original source material be included in the article? (Why only this one?)

MikeVdP (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty vs. Hakluyt[edit]

The existing reference The Famous Voyage (to April 2011) refers to Francis Pretty: Modern History Sourcebook: Francis Pretty: Sir Francis Drake's Famous Voyage Round the World, 1580

Pretty seems to appear first in the French edition of The Famous Voyage: see Then, the the Harvard Classics series, volume XXXIII from 1910 seems to have picked up this version. Many references including those online seem to have followed from the Harvard Classics text.

The original sources point to Hakluyt:

Shouldn't the reference be adjusted to point to Hakluyt? MikeVdP (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I made the adjustments to reference Hakluyt, but also retained the reference link to the online copy of the text.MikeVdP (talk) 17:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Grizzly Island[edit]

As I could find no discussion of Schuh's ideas, and they are based on something he seems to have published on what calls itself a 'clearinghouse' site, I've removed this section. Thanks for your work here, but this was inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


Should a section on Olompali inside San Francisco Bay be included? There's Robert C. Thomas' book "Drake at Olomp-ali" ISBN 9-9602546-0-9 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN. and it's included in the Olompali article in Wikipedia and is mentioned by the State of California in its website on the park. The book was published (as described in the book) to promote this idea ahead of the 1979 400th anniversary of Drake's visit to California. This is clearly another "minority fringe idea." Add it in or leave it out? MikeVdP (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

A section on this theory has been added since this theory has been published and is referenced (but not endorsed) by another Wikipedia article and the State of California. MikeVdP (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Didn't see this before. I've removed it here and elsewhere as it is clearly self-published. I don't think that a state site is enough to use it, anymore than the existence of a Heavener State Park housing a bogus runestone is evidence it's real. Maybe if I'd found loads of references to it elsewhere, but I didn't. Dougweller (talk) 09:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course, most of the other theories are only self-published. If those are pulled, too, this article will leave the most prevalent theory standing just about alone.
Which might be appropriate, I haven't looked. Dougweller (talk) 06:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Whale Cove, Oregon[edit]

The Whale Cove section seems to be an independent work, not a summary of other published work. The only published material I can find is the Geographical Magazine July 1981 article and Ward's follow-up in June 1982. [I purchased a copy from Julie Carrington at Royal Geographical Society at for £5.00] The article identifies that "there are three major elements (in locating the landing site): the animals, the Indians, and the Hondius inset." The other points which help establish the landing site (nearly 20) aren't included. There's no discussion in the article about an "exhaustive study of the geography of the Pacific coast of the U.S. and Canada." Should this be re-written? MikeVdP (talk) 01:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

While the article says, "Whale Cove remains an unnavigable bay in a dangerous part of the Oregon coast: mariners are advised to stay at least 600 yards offshore for the distance one mile north of Whale Cove to one mile south of Whale Cove. Whale Cove is not considered a usable bay by any size of vessel.[25]" , this is clearly untrue. Fishing and sightseeing vessels sail into Whale Cove, from Depoe Bay, in the summer on a regular basis. Clearly this information is included in order to refute the likelyhood that Whale Cove was the site claimed by Drake in 1579. Inclusion of this paragraph serves to make a case against Whale Cove that is simply invalid. I suggest removal.Steven Kutsch — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenKutsch (talkcontribs) 20:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problematic issues regarding Whale Cove navigation was cited and it is a reputable source and seems salient information. Inclusion of the vessels sailing into the cove may also be valid, and according to Wikipedia standards, the citation of a reputable source is important. And with that citation, it does not necessarily preclude the information you suggest be eliminated. A greater question is: Should this be Whale Cove, as a fringe theory, rate this much information on this page? I think not, especially when there is a page for alternative theories. I welcome comments.Horst59 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Horst59 for your interest in my comment. Inclusion of information from a seemingly reliable source when the information is clearly inaccurate, and therefore misleading, seems wrong to me. The navigable nature of Whale Cove for a vessel the size of the Golden Hind should not be in dispute. I will attempt to find and cite sources. Last summer I hiked to the inlet of Drakes Bay to see for myself if Francis Drake would have considered entering such a sandy entrance with a ship or ships laden with many tons of silver. IMO the navigability of that entrance is much more in question than Whale Cove.

Calling Whale Cove a fringe theory may be pushing the issue of what is known about the location of Nova Albion. Melissa Darby, and Oregon Archaelogist, [DEAD LINK], has and is studying the issue using the scientific method. Bob Ward, , has published extensive materials on his investigations into the location of Nova Albion.StevenKutsch (talk) 01:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is a reputable source that contradicts what had been stated in this article regarding the navigation around Whale Cove, then it should be included and cited in the article. Sometimes respected sources can contradict each other and including both is fine. Removing a properly cited and referenced statement based with no explanation is not really proper Wikipedia protocol. Such an editing practice lacks. Additionally, any contributor's personal observation or opinion here is essentially irrelevant. Statements and assertions must be referenced and not subject to original research according to the standards of Wikipedia. For example, when I look at the Wikipedia standard for fringe theories, Whale Cove seems a reasonable candidate. Your interest, and perhaps passion, regarding the Whale Cove site is something I respect. To further it on Wikipedia, you must do much more than regard a source as seemingly reliable or gaze at a site to see for yourself. Additionally, Drakes Bay does not really have an inlet - it opens wide to the Pacific. And, the area near the bay is not the only site other than Whale Cove that has been suggested as Drake's stop in 1579. There are many alternatives. Considering that the prevailing and officially accepted and designated site is Drake's Cove, researchers of any of these other sites have years, probably decades of work, to meet the research criteria and standards which resulted in the prevailing acceptance of the cove as Drake's Nova Albion. I am aware of and have looked at the work of - not only whom you mention - but several others. There is a reason these sites have attracted limited and little attention; they fall short. That does not preclude them from one day aspiring past limited appeal- it means the researchers have an incredibly tremendous amount of work to do to achieve a National Landmarks Designation as Nova Albion.Horst59 (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, again, Horst59 for your comments. Yes there is a tremendous amount of work to be done on this topic. Check out Google Earth lat. 38.030029, lon. -122.930316. Drakes Estero is not open to the ocean, rather, it is a narrow, shallow, sandy and many times has breaking waves across the entrance. The exact location of Drakes Cove is not as apparent on Google Earth because it only rarely exists and even then it is oriented 180 degrees from the Hondius map.StevenKutsch (talk) 18:24, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Drake's Cove is not really apparent on satellite imagery not because it only rarely exists. Decades ago, a rancher who ran cattle on the land bulldozed a dam across the cove to create a stock pond and altered the landscape tremendously from what it had been.Horst59 (talk) 23:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Farallon Islands[edit]

Contributor Ggitzen added a section about Cermeño bypassing the Farallon Islands

His contribution reads, "In 1595 Sebastian Rodriguez Cermeno, captain of the 200 ton galleon San Augustin was shipwrecked at Drakes Bay, He chose to bypassed the Farallones, on his return to Acapulco in an open boat, with 65 hungry men."

Since Cermeño had obtained provisions prior to leaving Drakes Bay and was only facing a trip to Mexico, instead of crossing the Pacific, there was no need to stop at the Farallons.

I'll remove this extended sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikeVdP (talkcontribs) 21:38, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Tomales Bay, California[edit]

There are two proposals for Drake in Tomales Bay. Neither make any navigational sense and neither has any active proponents, nor any strong historical proponents. The one reference is a general book on the area.

I suggest we remove that section.MikeVdP (talk) 21:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I removed this section based on the reasons above. A new "Other New Albion ideas" article has been created to report on all the various ideas over the past centuries. Only those ideas which have received some wide-spread, non-self-published acceptance should remain on this "New Albion" article.MikeVdP (talk) 05:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Nehalem Bay, Oregon & Neahkahnie Mountain[edit]

The Nehalem Bay idea comes from Ggitzen who has been a contributor to wikipedia.

This is a self-published theory which does not present the accepted Drake course which includes Drakes Bay and the Farallon Islands.

Fort Nehalem Publishing is the author’s press. lists with Garry Gitzen as Registrant, Administrative Contact and Technical Contact at

Should this section be removed? MikeVdP (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

  • Interesting that Von der Porten mentions a bay and islands because Nehalem Bay has both and should be at the very least a legitimates scientific theory instead of bad mouthing new science.
  • And ALL of the Drake Navigators Guild publications are self-published whereas Gitzen's are available on Amazon and Barnes & Nobel. If you want to buy one of the Guild's you have to send them a check. Should they be removed also from the Nova Albion page and placed under Fringe theories?Ggitzen (talk) 16:15, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

This Guild seems to be an organization, not a theory, fringe or otherwise. Looking at Gitzen's book about Drake, I do see it is available on Amazon. It is published by which claims to be the fastest way to create and self-publish your book. Hmmmm . . . He has done a great deal of work, yet it seems quite appropriate in its current place.21:26, 17 May 2015 (UTC)Horst59 (talk)
Quite possibly. I know nothing about this subject or the author, Gitzen, and whether he is considered a reliable source. If he is a recognized historian and scholar/academic then inclusion here is fine. However, his theory does appear to be a fringe theory in that it does not receive mainstream scholarly support. At this point we should look to the Wikipedia guidelines on how to deal with fringe theories here. What it basically boils down to is that too much article space is being given to his theory. If there were other sources who support that theory then they could be added and the section expanded but if Gitzen is the only one who writes on this theory then at most there should be a sentence or two about his ideas (assuming he is a reliable source). There's also a conflict of interest issue here with an editor who appears to Gitzen editing this section of the article. Finally being a self-published book does lead one to question whether Mr. Gitzen is a reliable source. At this point we need people who are familiar with the scholarship surrounding this issue to weigh in on Mr. Gitzen's standing as a reliable source. Being an outsider with regard to this subject the fact that Mr. Gitzen's book is self-published says to me that he is not a reliable source and his ideas should not be included. If other people have good reasons for thinking that he is a reliable source then they should make that argument here. SQGibbon (talk) 19:33, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
OK, it's been nearly a month. This section is a fringe theory from a self-published book with possible conflict of interest issues so I've deleted it. SQGibbon (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand the untimely nature of my comment regarding your thoughts on the Nehalem Bay inclusion. This is because I am new to the contributing aspect of the Wikipedia experience. However, I am quite familiar with Drake and Nova Albion. Gitzen has extended a great deal of effort and passion to produce a large book - it is self published. I've found it for sale on line and it is even essentially self reviewed. His work has only gained limited local interest. As such, I fully concur with your deletion. I believe we must consider if it meets the criteria that would render it appropriate for the page regarding fringe theories.Horst59 (talk) 05:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: The removed section is pretty clearly citing WP:SELFPUBLISH and WP:OR. I agree it should be removed until Mr. Gitzen has his work published through an established and reputable publisher. 217IP (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Removed section: "Related links"[edit]

I've removed this section in its entirety. No such section appears in the standard format for Wikipedia articles (see WP:GTL).

The contents of this section were:

The second of these appears to be a self-published book, and so probably is not a reliable source. The topic mentioned in the first, Drake's Plate of Brass, might be added a subsection in what is now titled "Ancillary finds" (I don't like that section heading, but I'll leave it for others to change, if they agree); if so, the topic should be removed from the "See also" section. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:41, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Merge "ideas" or "theories" or "fringe theories" to New Albion page?[edit]

One editor suggested that the "ideas" or "theories" or "fringe theories" of New Albion's location be merged into this article.

Please see the Talk page for "Theories on the location of New Albion" (what it's called today). MikeVdP (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I am new to the Wikipedia experience, so I do not edit. Knowing a little about Drake and Nova Albion, I urge a separation of the two pages. The fringe theories, are just that, some so far on the edge of credibility, they stretch even the fringe. However, in the interest of open discussion, there should be a place for people to suggest their ideas. Keeping those ideas in context as fringe theories preserves the integrity of both articles. So, I encourage that the article on Nova Albion be kept separate from the article about fringe theories - especially considering Drake's Cove's acceptance by the Department Of Interior as landmark status. Horst59 (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, the articles are still separated; this is good. So, having sniffed around Wikipedia a little since this previous post, I've learned a little. Thus, I wonder why almost half of this article is taken up with fringe theories, especially when there is an entirely appropriate article for these. Do we have editors who do not know where - or simply decline - to appropriately post? Considering the overwhelming evidence, support, acceptance, and recognition of Drakes Cove at Point Reyes National Sea Shore as New Albion, these fringe ideas do not rate the space here. That there are fringe theories, might should be recognized (there is interesting discussion and disagreement as to this point on the Other Ideas page), and we can make note of that in a sentence or two. Or should we simply let the link to the Other Ideas page suffice. I look forward to hearing from you who are interested.Horst59 (talk) 01:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

August 2013 Edits[edit]

I made several edits altering what seem to have been done by Bobwinoregon. Some of these fell short of Wikipedia standards, especially regarding citations. Additionally, some of his edits removed salient, significant, and properly cited and referenced material. There were also no edit summaries for the changes which probably should be done considering the magnitude of what was altered. Horst59 (talk) 05:39, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I've reverted entirely. I'm not sure why we are giving Ward so much coverage anyway and will be looking at that next. We certainly aren't having accusations of plagiarism in the article without extremely reliable sources, that's a WP:BLP violation and I'll warn the editor. Claims for handwritten manuscripts, etc need good mainstream sources as well. I'm also wondering about a couple of other accounts whose only edits are here and push Bob Ward's website. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Ironically, Bawlf thanked Ward in his book and notes that he used a lot of Ward's material.[3]. It looks as though Bawlf/Ward are a minority viewpoint, so maybe WP:UNDUE comes into play here as they get most of the article! Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
I concur with your edits. Warning the editor, as you have, was a good move. Bawlf and Ward are indeed minority viewpoints and seem to fit the Wikipedia standard for fringe theory. There is another article dealing with other theories on the location of New Albion, and that page seems the perfect fit for these viewpoints. Please peruse it. I too have seen the edits you reference as promoting Bob Wards website, and I think you are correct in that characterization.Horst59 (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

April 2, 2014 edit[edit]

The edit made on this date gave note in the introduction to a landing by Drake that is not properly placed. Any specific location other than Drake's Cove in California should not be listed in the introduction. This is a fringe theory that fits the Wikipedia standard for fringe theory. It seems a recent publication about a coin found in the area of British Columbia has created sensation. A little media sensation is not adequate to establish any point as Nova Albion. The citation mentions proof. It is not proof any more than the cup found at Point Reyes is proof of a Drake landing there, cannons found at Goleta make it Nova Albion, or the coin found at Olompali is proof of Drakes presence there. There is a prevailing judgment based on extraordinary evidence that has been considered proof adequate by an international group of numerous scholars and experts that has resulted in a designation of Nova Albion at Point Reyes National Seashore. Until any other site measures up to that same scrutiny - or close to it - that site remains a fringe theory, and efforts to promote these sites via Wikipedia is not acceptable. The finding of a coin at B.C. should be placed in the fringe theory article supporting whatever fringe theory site it applies to.Horst59 (talk) 01:26, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

A "prevailing judgement" entirely made by Californians is entirely POV; I heard the Nova Albion story about Vancouver Island back in the 1960s, long before Bawlf published his book in the '90s. It's not just that coin, it's the observation that Drake fudged his logs by so many degrees of latitude on purpose; the defensiveness of the "California faction" in this matter is very tiresome to hear repeated and repeated as if it were the truth; it's one truth, there's more; open your mind, good things might get put into it. Skookum1 (talk) 01:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
The Drakes Cove site in Marin County is not a "'prevailing judgment' entirely by Californians." The Marin County site has been reviewed by experts across North America and Europe. The National Park committee members and the Secretary of the Interior are not representatives of California. The British Columbia sites have not been shown to be plausible -- for many reasons -- and continue to belong in the "fringe theories" article. Wikipedia seeks to provide the best information possible. The public (including students) are not served well by trying to include British Columbia sites as possible landing sites.MikeVdP (talk) 05:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I reverted your deletion of cited material about another theory. Removing cited material is not correct; and your allegation "The British Columbia sites have not been shown to be plausible -- for many reasons -- and continue to belong in the "fringe theories" article." is purely POV. A theory is a theory, a published theory is a published theory and a reliable source. The touting of it as a "fringe theory" is also POV; fringe to you, maybe, but it's a theory I heard myself long before Bawlf published his books; bronze plaques were found at Sooke Basin and also on one of the islands of Haida Gwaii, there's another story of one found on Prince of Wales Island in Alaska, I think also on Whidbey Island in Puget Sound. The coin finds are evidence....maybe you have a "fringe theory' that says Martians planted them there??Skookum1 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

If they're "plausible" enough for reliable sources as given, they belong in Wikipedia, whether or not YOU want to maintain they're not plausible....but you have no plausible answer about the coins either, or the bit about Drake fudging his logs on purpose, which there is also historical evidence about.Skookum1 (talk) 15:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Wiki editor Horst59 seems to have a predisposed conclusion to everything the Drake Navigators Guild's Mike Von der Porten, son of the Edward Von der Porten, President of the Drake Navigators Guild writes or says without documentation. I think Horst59 knows more than any person outside of Edward Von der Porten or relative. With all due respect to Mr. or Ms. Horst59, how does a school teacher who has never published or written anything concerning Francis Drake's Pacific sojourn set themselves up as an expert. While I have spent more the 30 years on the subject. Horst59 says the National Parks have designated the Nova Albion/Drake site. How does he/she know that? Has she/he ever read the nomination committee's minutes? I have and it does not mention one word about Francis Drake or Nova Albion. The designation was approved through a cultural cooperation program with South America. It can be viewed @ Ggitzen (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

then where DOES it belong?[edit]

I'm not gonna get a 3RR for reverting this again. I see no reason at all why the lede should only talk about one theory as if it were the only conclusion.......this is all POVizing this article in favour of the one account/ I dispute that it's not "plausible" as the previous reverter claimed.....if major newspapers say "convincing" and so on, that's notable and not inconsequential.....Wikipedia is about RS and NPOV; right now what's going on here in terms of keeping this out or portraying it as a 'fringe' theory is highly POV.....Skookum1 (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Daily Mail, Macleans and the Canadian Encyclopedia are not "fringe" cites, nor is this any longer a "fringe theory". Restore the cited content, which does belong in the lede. Deleting cited content is un-wikipedian....I dislike discussion boards or would take this to the POV discussion board....Skookum1 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The generally-accepted "most likely" and "most probable" site gets the lead. Other sites which have had fairly widespread distribution and fairly serious publication (Point San Quentin, Whale Cove, Vancouver Island) are covered in the Other Theories on the New Albion page. The numerous other (often very short-lived) ideas are on the Fringe Theories article. 21 different pieces of evidence (clues) have been identified as leading to the accepted site in Marin County. More than 60 years of serious work have looked at each "piece of the puzzle." "The pieces fit" for Marin County. The technologies of the 16th Century don't allow, for example, for the fantastic Canadian exploration proposed in the Bawlf book. If careful, multi-year, all-evidence studies find another good site, it could rise on the list, but that's tens of thousands of hours of work away.MikeVdP (talk) 22:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
" The technologies of the 16th Century don't allow, for example, for the fantastic Canadian exploration proposed in the Bawlf book." That's quite the assertion, and get your terminology right; BC was not part of Canada until 1871. Fudging latitudes by 10 degrees isn't exactly rocket science or nuclear physics. Another point to understand, as *I* do about the rituals of taking-claim that were already established in the 16th Century, and continued to function into the late 18th and early 19th Centuries, is that "claimers" didn't do it at just one location, they were claiming whole regions = Nova Albion was not a single place, but a region, and there is some evidence around now (before and after Bawlf's book) that indicates other "acts of possession" were made farther north. What's Drake gonna have done? Plopped down only one plaque on one bay and then split the coast entirely, or explore northwards if he could? It's not like anyone's saying that Anian existed (though it was for that reason that Juan de Fuca went looking where he went looking...and lately there's been corroboration for his story, too), or that what are probably still known to the outside world as the Queen Charlotte Islands (Haida Gwaii officially now) were Brobdingnag because they're at the latitude that Swift described it as being. I'm hearing a lot of assumptions and extrapolations from the lot of you, which don't make sense, and are really only assertions. You toss around "fringe theory" as if this were UFO sightings or sasquatch stories or lizard-people-inside-politicians-heads, instead of a historical account/theory for which there is mounting evidence, and reliable sources are treating as plausible, even "conclusive".
Yes, it would have helped if the coin in question, or any other such beastie, had been dug up archaeologically and the sediment analyzed, and not just the coin itself. But a carbon-dating has shown that it is authentic and of the vintage required, and there were no other English sailings to the area until the time of Cook. So who put it there? It's not a hoax, which is the other thing you're implying/asserting subtextually......there's no doubt that Drake did land in California, but there is no evidence whatsoever that that's the only place he landed, and there are bits and pieces of evidence, now newsworthy enough to give weight to the theory that Bawfl wrote about but which has been current in the British North Pacific since the days of Vancouver...(the captain I mean, not the city).
The Spaniards and Russians in later times did exactly the same kind of thing; not one "touchdown" only, but landing and erecting crosses (in the Spanish case) or other things (in the Russian and then later English cases) over whole wide areas. The idea that Drake went "OK, let's plant the flag and nail up this only one plaque, then splitsville for somewhere across the ocean to the west" just doesn't wash. There are a lot of mysteries about the Pacific Northwest Coast and its history; this is one that's been current long before Bawlf came along and wrote a book about it. Now there's evidence, but y'all are still pontificating about "fringe theories" and also making up rules that don't exist about what can or cannot be in a lede, based on your own prejudices and narrow minds that Nova Albion could only have been California.Skookum1 (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The other theories you mention do not have material evidence. There's a big difference. You have heard of science, right? You know, hypothesis+evidence=theory?Skookum1 (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
MikeVdP is right - other sites can possibly rise to the status of the site at Point Reyes National Seashore. And that type of status will take those tens of thousands of hours of research. With a designation equivalent to a Department Of Interior level for another site as Nova Albion, than that site should be accorded the same mention as the site at Point Reyes. Other groups are working toward that level of respected designation, and they very well may achieve it. But that has not happened yet. Additionally, MikeVdP is measured and reasoned - there are no untoward implications. He suggests how to make a quality article and why. And it is a good time to remember, "Be nice," when contributing on the talk pages.Horst59 (talk) 05:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Being dismissed for challenging the nostrum here about Point Reyes being the only viable place that could be Nova Albion, and hearing it being called a "fringe theory" as if it were whacko, is not "playing nice". Status as a National Seashore has nothing to do with notability and nothing to do with reliable sources or the viability or inviability of any theory; and US national designations have nothing to do with British/British Columbian history and/or notability. Deleting cited material is not supposed to be how Wikipedia works, nor is making value judgements on reliable sources on teh basis of opinion and extrapolations from guidelines that are invalid and really just POV. Deleting cited material and dumping on same is what is "not nice".Skookum1 (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Pointing to the "status" of a US location as justification for deleting cited material about another theory and other evidence is a non sequitur - nothing follows. Status as a National Seashore is not proof of anything to do with historical reality/possibilities. What I'm hearing here is only USPOV and am reminded of various problems in dealing with shared-history topics like the Oregon Country and others; in fact I remember this as a "battlefield article" from long ago, and walked away from it as hopeless because of the intransigence of the USPOVian hostility-to-all-other-ideas that evidently is still current in its "watchers".Skookum1 (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

BPOV vs USPOV: Nova Albion re BC[edit]

I've pondered fielding this at WP:History or WP:History of Canada, or even taking it to the fringe theories noticeboard, as reading around it's very clear that there is much more support for the theory presented here as if were all Sam Bawlf's, or that his ideas are "rubbish", as one editor opined above. Seems that others do not agree with that assessment (see below); and there are older writings on the same idea before Bawlf came along with new research; research that is not considered illegitimate by others much more qualified than the group of Wikipedians on this page who purge any so-called UNDUE weight implied by putting anything other than the Point Reyes thing in the lede, relegating the main competing theory to a "tainted" (in tone) lower section; even the name of this article is USPOV; the usage in Canada and elsewhere is "Nova Albion"; the premise of that is that because Point Reyes is the site mandated by the US, then the title used in the US should be used; fine, but hearing endless dismissals of the "Bawlf theory" as "fringe" and "rubbish" is nothing more than POVism; deleting a more tangible reference to the BC theory in the lede amounted to censorship. The drastic differences in perspective and terminology and more between "BPOV" (British POV) and USPOV I've seen before in other shared-history/cross-border articles. Refusing to acknowledge the Canadian position as legitimate, when academics and reliable sources have, is not cooperation; nor is it going by "what the sources say".

To whit:

  • Compelling' discovery rewrites B.C. history: Elizabethan conspiracy hid Francis Drake's true discovery for 400 years, Stephen Hume, Vancouver Sun [date of publ uncertain, blog with ASCII copy is dated Aug 12, 2000]
  • The late Arthur Mayse, the Vancouver Sun's legislature bureau chief more than 50 years ago, said Nanaimo Indian elders told him in the mid-1920s of white visitors who pre-dated the arrival of Spanish and British explorers by many generations.
  • In 1939, after studying the seasonal currents and carefully weighing the errors in dead reckoning an Elizabethan sailor might reasonably make, Captain R.P. Bishop concluded that Drake might have made landfall somewhere on Vancouver Island.
    • See the BC Names cite on Mount Sir Francis Drake for more on RP Bishop and his publications on this subject (1930s and '40s, including the British Columbia Historical Quarterly), and the Bishop River for more on RP Bishop (I've found online a copy of the particular volume of the BCHQ but it is only part one of that volume, part three where the Drake article is)
  • "I thought, 'My God, this is a completely new approach which nobody has put forth.' I was fascinated by it.....I think it's a remarkable piece of work......Richard Ruggles, a leading scholar in the study of early mapmaking and exploration and the now-retired founder of the geography department at Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.
    • Ruggles said Bawlf's approach -- "going at it through the maps of the time" and linking them to contemporary texts -- is something that hasn't been fully explored before.
  • Francis Herbert, curator of maps for the Royal Geographical Society in London and former president of the Society for the History of Discoveries, described Bawlf's investigation as both wide and deep. "A lot of the material is groundbreaking," said Herbert. "In that others agree that Drake could well have had good reason to voyage farther north to B.C. and Alaska, I am sufficiently convinced of his arguments."
  • Dr. Marcel van den Broecke, an expert on the maps of Ortelius....[said] that Bawlf's findings have already caused him to reappraise the extent of Drake's voyages in the Pacific...[he]said that by combining a study of political documents with the cartographic evidence, Bawlf has produced important new insights. "This is quality research," van den Broecke said. "I read the entire manuscript and became convinced of its significance."
  • "American scholars have long insisted that Drake never got farther north than the coast of Oregon and that he landed to careen his ship near Point Reyes, just north of San Francisco Bay. Bawlf says he hopes nationalism won't intrude into the discussion.
    • it clearly has here in this talkpage, with people asserting that the US Parks Service designation of Point Reyes is somehow "proof" and final proof, and that anything else is treated with hostility and derision.
  • "...some leading scholars say Bawlf's research already poses a major challenge to the conventional wisdom about Drake -- although all agree that more work now needs to be done. "His work is very good," said Robin Winks, the Townsend Professor of History at Yale University and a former chair of the U.S. national parks historic sites advisory board. "It's a considerable manuscript," he said from Oxford University where he has

been teaching. "I read it with a critical eye. I think it's a very convincing study and a very significant work."

  • "We think his research is top notch," said James Thomson, historical archaeologist for the U.S. national parks service... "He certainly has the backing of some very heavy artillery on the scholarly front. When Professor Winks calls, we usually listen."
  • and, last but not least, from James Delgado: ""I think it's significant,"..."What's compelling for me is the methodical research. The book has some compelling arguments that Drake was in these latitudes. If Sam is correct, we would have something that would rival the discoveries of the [presence of] Vikings and Frobisher on the east coast."

So, we have two US Nat'l Parks Service types, and a coterie is respected academics in relevant fields, acknowledging Bawlf's work, and the "BC theory" as legitimate, bu have a bunch of Wikipedians eaping scorn on it. Who's to believe huh?

There's also a few other news items around about this, this one from 2012, about a globe presented to Elizabeth I in 1597 made by English mathematician Emery Molyneux showing a coastline that resembles British Columbia's. Also Stephen Hume, who is a highly reputable historical writer and journalist in his own right. Politics, and it seems some pressure to thwart the project to make the globe viewable online to do with repressing the "BC theory", is out there.

Why? Because if the theory gains weight, it can, as explained in one of those articles, have repercussions on native land claims in BC (big issue) and in another article it ws alluded to that the border treaties, though fixed in stone, may have been based in false premises about what the status of British claims in the PacNW were and weren't. If, for example, Drake did make it almost to the mouth of the Taku (which is just north of 58 N) then the BC position in the Alaska Boundary Dispute, where the southeastern corner of the "Panhandle" was already part of the BC economy (since 1839 in fact) until overrun by Americans who didn't care where the boundary was or what Russo-British treaties about it had to say.

These are not insignificant matters, and the rationale is not spurious in the slighest....nor is the credence given the BC theory aka the Bawlf theory by academics of far more note than anyone holding forth that the BC theory is "rubbish" and a "fringe theory" and who persistently work to downplay any claim other than Point Reyes....the USian title, and the dominance of Point Reyes advocates controlling this page, in face of the body of comments from reputable historians, and the various component-tidbits of the theory (e.g. freezing rain at 48 N in June is just not likely; at 58 N it's fairly normal)....suggests that another article presenting the BC theory, with the correct historical title "Nova Albion" be created to cover the material that is not welcome here. A POV fork? Perhaps, but this page if this material is not given fair treatment instead of UNDUE opprobrium suggests that another page to fairly address the material unwelcome here is neded Nova Albion (British Columbia) or Nova Albion theories or ?? are possible; what should be done here is for the anti-Bawlf high-horse here be gotten down from and the academic opinions on him be given DUE weight; likewise earlier non-USian writings on the idea, there's more than RP Bishop out there.

I had a few more links of the same kind, though that one Hume article with the bits from Ruggles, Delgado, Herbert etc is damn compelling. Not that anyone's hard head against any theory but Point Reyes is going to be listened to by those already here.Skookum1 (talk) 16:48, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Noticed this just before closing the tab that article was on:
"Herbert said Bawlf's work lays the groundwork for more ethnographical andarchaeological research that might help corroborate the documentary evidence. Keddie said a metallurgist will begin next week an attempt to determine the provenance of iron found in archaeological sites on the Northwest Coast but previously assumed to have originated with the Hudson Bay Company."
Where to look for that research and what its outcome was is hard to say; heritage and archaeological funding in BC has been cut immensely in the 14 years since the article was published, it may never have been completed.Skookum1 (talk) 16:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Drake Navigators Guild NPOV?[edit]

The Nova Albion and Francis Drake Wikipedia pages are almost entirely dominated by the biased inclusion of the Drake Navigators Guild (self-published) materials dominating the pages. I choose not to waste anymore of my time with these Wikipedia locked pages. Highlighting the Drake Navigators Guild in California faux history in effect shows that NPOV doesn't exist for them. If you write about Nehalem Bay, as I do, I must have a NPOV and not permitted to post the legitimate research materials of Drake's anchorage because someone on Wikipedia sets themselves up as more of a scholar than I.Ggitzen (talk) 15:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Looking through the citations in the New Albion article, it is difficult to find self-published work by this guild as referenced by Gitzen. However, a number of people mentioned in the article Drake Navigators Guild are definitely noted in the citations for the New Albion article. And their work is consistently cited from reputable publications just as are the works of Powers, Bawlf, and Ward. I do not see a domination of self-published pages nor a highlighting of this guild in the article as claimed by Gitzen in his NPOV complaint. What he claims as unworthy faux history proved itself adequate to meet the intense rigor necessary to result in a national landmarks designation by the U.S. Department of the Interior. Rather it seems this guild had or has scholars (do we scoff at Admiral Nimitz?) whom researched so well their findings gained widespread and prevailing acceptance across much of the salient academic world. Additionally, I do see on the Nehalem Bay, Oregon & Neahkahnie Mountain section of this talk page where Gitzen has implied his research is not self-published work because his book about Drake is available on Amazon. What he fails to mention is it is printed by, a website for those who wish to self-publish. You will also note citation number 38 in this article takes you to, a website to self-publish and share original research. And who is the cited author? Gitzen. Perhaps it is his reference published on that should be deleted. So, as I see it, the one guilty of self-publishing is Gitzen. The article considers other sites as Drake's 1579 landing and appropriately lists them as fringe theories. There is a link to comprehensive article about other fringe theories making it easy to access and evaluate them. Consequently, I urge the tag questioning neutrality be removed.Horst59 (talk) 00:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.png 3O Response: I have read this entire section and looked at the article and sources myself and agree with everything here said by User:Horst59. I would also remind Ggitzen about WP:GOODFAITH and a desire to have a well sourced, reliable article is not a personal attack on you or the work you've done. 217IP (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the third opinion. Perhaps someone should consider removing the NPOV. It seems odd the NPOV is still here. Why is that?Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

So you are saying anything self-published is trash? ALL of the Drake Navigator Guild papers are self-published! They are accessed @ Where is your NPOV?

The previous post is unsigned. Who are you?Horst59 (talk) 18:45, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking back at my notes, I find no trash references. I see the comment "inclusion of the Drake Navigators Guild (self-published) materials dominating the pages" yet am unable to find that domination when I look though the references. Perhaps specifically pointing out these references of self-published materials could help clarify the assertion that they dominate this page. I'm not seeing this domination, and that domination seems critical to the NPOV complaint. Additionally, I definitely do not see any editor except Gitzen using, and it does not seem that he is a member of this guild. Again, I urge the tag be removed. Horst59 (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A response from you, Mr. Al Nonymous, would foster understanding, and I look forward to it. Additionally, I look at the ideas about pre-Columbian contacts, and it appears they are treated much the same way theories regarding New Albion are treated. The implication is that so is the manner in which the New Albion page has been constructed should be deemed very acceptable. Perhaps Nehalem Bay could be forwarded as a National Historic Landmark, or if that is too daunting, it could be recognized as an Oregon State Historic site as New Albion. As such, I find it difficult to find an unwarranted bias or unworthy references and scholarship in this article. I do most respectfully urge the removal of the tag.Horst59 (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Even though you, stated that you considered Wikipedia a waste of your time and would no longer be involved with it, Mr. Gitzen (are you possibly the above unsigned talk contributor?), I hope this is not the case and look forward to further discussion from you (both?). This page seems to weigh heavily that the conclusions and resulting designation of landmark status by the U.S. Department Of The Interior are properly devired and correct. Considering what must be and intense and exhaustive journey to such status, that seems to be a reasonable approach to this page. And as such, so does the tolerance of other ideas also seem to be reasonably represented here as three other sites that have garnered important interest are mentioned and detailed somewhat significantly. This is not the page for other theories to be discussed at length, and there is a link to where those are posted. This all seems to be within Wikipedia standards. And again, I am not seeing the domination of self-published materials - by the group you are irritated at - being referenced on this page. So, I still look forward to the dispute being removed. Horst59 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
You seem fixated on someone (me) unsigning the bio of the DNG's self-published materiasls on The reason for the unsigned message was the link had may name on it and I thought it was implied that I wrote the 'unsigned' post. It still doesn't resolve the fact that the Guild's opinions are theirs alone and you to downgrade my work for the reason mine is self-published as is theirs. Where is the NPOV on your part? I have new research where their's is 40 plus year older and has been shown by my work to be totally bogus. You refuse to read my book, you refuse to read my posts on, with over 100 professors, graduate students and other historians volunteerly following my work. I've had my work published in a blind peer-review journal of the scholarly Society for the History of Discoveries; something the Guild had never been able to show for their unproven theories. And you, Horst59, trying to say you are netural? I am being discounted by you because I am one man and not a group of many who only follow as members and are not researchers. I'm sorry but just being a member of a society does not make them scholars. There are only a handful of men/women in this world who could discuss this topic intellegenty with me. Neither Mike von Der Porten nor Horst59 is a scholar for how could one be who refuses my offer to read the latest research in my book or any of my other writings, let alone with a netural point of view. Please excuse any typing errors today, mine is out of action for now and I'm using my wife's computer which is very much different than mine.Ggitzen (talk) 18:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit reversion on June 25, 2015[edit]

I reverted the June 21, 2015 edits of user - as they were inappropriate - back to the May 10, 2015 edits. Doug Weller had made a similar reversion on May 10 and added a NPOV tag, and he was right. As such, it is not appropriate to try to reinstate them as was done on June 21. Additionally, I restored the citation that was also deleted. There is nothing wrong with it. Considering the recent rejection for mediation of the NPOV, none of these changes made by are appropriate at this time.--Horst59 (talk) 22:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any connection with the Drake Navigators Guild? Either as a member, friend, attended meetings, or connection in any other manner other than being a Californian?Ggitzen (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Wighson Edit / Extent of Drake's Explorations from New Albion[edit]

I reverted the comment related to "Drake explored the immediate neighborhood of his port both by sea and on land for weeks." Actually, The World Encompassed describes no sea or land explorations until late in the stay -- and then only a one day (not overnight) foot trip up into the land. Finding San Francisco Bay from an anchorage on the Marin coast is a much more extensive exploration, not suggested in any of the documentation. Drake's goal at New Albion was the repair of his ship and successfully returning home. Once he had found a safe haven, there is nothing to suggest that efforts and risks of extensive exploration would be considered.MikeVdP (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As a northern California native making frequent trips to the San Francisco bay area, this bay is unexpectedly and extremely foggy especially during the summer months. It makes complete sense that Drake would not have been able to navigate through the dense fog to find San Francisco Bay during this time of the year. Furthermore, if Drake was navigating south from what is now Coos Bay, Oregon, he would have hit Point Reyes, California (as this point juts out geographically), before traveling further south to reach the San Francisco bay area.

On a side note: What is the footnoted link in this section supposed to mean? Pcvjamaica (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The reference is from the Conie discussion. I added in a Reference section to make it clear the reference does not apply to the latest entry. It was confusing for me, too! MikeVdP (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Once the plate was reveled as a fake, none of the 40 years of theories based on its authenticity were revisited or retracted.[edit]

This statement was added in mid-year 2015 edits. If it is to remain, the "theories based on its (the Plate of Brass') authenticity" need to be identified.

The Drakes Bay site is not based on the hoax Plate of Brass. The Drake Navigators Guild's analysis has stated since at least 1970 that, "it is most unlikely that the (hoax) Plate was found in situ by either Caldeira or Shinn..." See REPORT OF FINDINGS RELATING TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF SIR FRANCIS DRAKE'S ENCAMPMENT AT POINT REYES NATIONAL SEASHORE, 1970.

Does anyone have documentation of Robert Power's position on the Plate of Brass after the revised analysis? Mr. Power died in 1991, but was alive and active when the revised analysis was published.

Are any other sites claimed to be "based on the authenticity" of the now-debunked Plate? MikeVdP (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV - 2016[edit]

The neutrality notice was put up in May 2015.

There doesn't seem to be much new information coming out.

The US National Park Service has determined the "most likely" and "most probable" site at Point Reyes, California. The plaque was dedicated without controversy on October 22, 2016. No other proposal for a National Historic Landmark has been brought to the National Park Service.

A number of the posts have been made by people interested in one location or another. This article does seem to have a good balance of the accepted site and the three other sites that have had some stronger interest over the years. The score of other proposals are on the linked article.

Do any of the independent Wikipedians want to weigh in and, possibly, remove the neutrality tag?MikeVdP (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

@MikeVdP: Thar seems reasonable. Doug Weller talk 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I took the NPOV tag off the Article page, as it should have been done a long time ago. Pcvjamaica (talk) 20:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Are Jan 7 edits appropriate?[edit]

The edit on Jan 7 removed salient information regarding the location of Drake's landing. It is inappropriate and disruptive to the article. The previous version was an acceptable overview which fit well for an introduction to this section. Additionally, who is Stupack? He seems to be someone with an unusual, interesting idea that seems unable to gain traction despite the fact that he has a Kindle version book on Amazon. This edit could conceivably be viewed as an advertisement as well. The editor himself/herself is a mystery, one who rarely engages Wikipedia. The SF Bay, Larkspur ideas are appropriately discussed in the Fringe Theories page and not this one. I would like to see this edit removed. Horst59 (talk) 23:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay, no objections. I am doing it especially considering the editor who made these inappropriate changes also vandalized an associated page regarding Drake's Plate Of Brass.Horst59 (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Improve Article[edit]

The November 22, 2017 edits are a beginning of what I hope to be a great improvement to this article. Currently, the article is characterized by focusing primarily on the location and historical evidence of Drake's landing. The U.S. Department of Interior is so confident of the likelihood of Point Reyes as the location of Drake's 1579 landing that they awarded it a National Landmark status. The Editing and Talk page is characterized by playground sandbox bickering and behavior, creating a stagnant article of limited relevance. I say so because there are wikipedia article violations, including WP:UNDUE, WP:RS, WP:SOAP, WP:SELFPUB, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:COI, and WP:PA.

It's time to move on. If I were a school student or "regular Jane" on the street looking for information on Nova Albion, Sir Francis Drake, or similar information, the contents of this article would be of little to no help. Let's help this article reach it's potential! Pcvjamaica (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment Re: Fringe Theories Section[edit]

Second attempt at RfC. I'm not sure I did it correctly the first time.Pcvjamaica (talk) 23:44, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

On the WP:FRNG page, it is stated that a Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Likewise, they should be represented in proportion to their prominence. So, should the Fringe Theories section be reduced in the article New Albion? Pcvjamaica (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

On the what page? You've provided a redlink. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
WP:FRNG is what was referred to. Wasechun tashunkaHOWLTRACK 20:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate the help from both of you, and I have corrected it. Yes this is what I mean, the fringe theories and how they should or should not dominate an article. I am leaning toward reducing this section, but think it should be discussed. I am still mostly inexperienced with Wikipedia and I am glad you helped. I am looking forward to what different people have to say.Pcvjamaica (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
@Pcvjamaica: Please observe how this RfC is listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography. The question is meaningless. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
  • After the RfC tag was removed (twice--sorry for my technical clumsiness) and seeing no objections, I proceeded to edit the section on fringe theories. It is important to recognize fringe theories for the reasons stated in the text of the intro paragraph to this section. I believe it best to summarize the individual theory's point of view while avoiding criticism and disagreement with each specific theory on the New Albion article. That type of discussion, I believe, is best on the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion, the main article to which it is linked. The New Albion article is also not a place for listing all the proposed locations. I chose to keep these three due to their prominence of their reliable sources. As such, I urge keeping only these three fringe theories listed on the New Albion page until another has been published as a book (not self-pulished) or had a feature documentary made about it as these fringe theories have.Pcvjamaica (talk) 21:56, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:38, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

January 20 edits[edit]

As part of my on-going effort to improve this troubled article, I made a lot of changes to it today (after doing even a lot more research and spending a few $ at Starbucks!). I would really like to see this be a featured article, and that is what I am shooting for. Should anyone wish to help with that goal, it would be great. Please do not begin an edit war as has been done in the past. And that includes adding unhelpful editorial comments even ones disguised as helpful references. I know there are some angry editors out there. Please do not disrupt this page.Pcvjamaica (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Feb 25 edits[edit]

I am slowly going thru the article, correcting errors I made, and revising the language for precision, flow, and style. Will continue, and I want to find a better pic of the fully feathered basket. I have found some in some museums but will take at least an overnight trip to get the pic. May not be so soon. There one featured is okay, yet there are examples that fit Fletcher's description almost perfectly.

Let me know of any new ideas you might have to improve. I think the information is about set. I want to work on the legacy; it is somewhat awkward how I phrased it, and I know I can improve it. And I found more legacy info in Sugden's book. And one of the citation links is problematic. Not sure what to do about it. And, as it links to another encyclopedia, I am not certain it is the best citation to use.Pcvjamaica (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

April 21 2018 edits[edit]

Still working to dial this article in toward FA status. Thanks to editor who included the Golden Gate Park monument. I moved it to the legacy section as it fits that subject rather than historical identification. There are some other un-cited things in this legacy section. The GGP monument is one of those and so is the arterial road mention. While both seem pretty accurate I think they still need citations to get to FA status. If I am way wrong, let me know here. They are really ok for now, but when going for the FA review, I will remove them. I looked up the city in British Columbia, and I can't find a reference that is good for the legacy claim for it either. Feel free to help.Pcvjamaica (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)