Jump to content

Talk:Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 07:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • Comment: I have four past successful DYK nominations

Created by Hu Nhu (talk). Self-nominated at 20:34, 16 August 2021 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article is new, referenced, long enough (very long enough, even if it is in a list format, the intro has lots of prose). AGF on the hook and the paraphrasing since the source is an offline one (a book). I'd go with the first hook. QPQ not yet required since the author has under 5 DYKs. Good to go. Tone 10:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To T:DYK/P6

Cold War revert

[edit]

This regards the revert I made on the Cold War edit. Before the reverted edit, the article did not read Cold War (Cold War). It read cold war. This (cold war) is cited material written by the author Adolph S. Oko Jr. Most kind regards to all.Hu Nhu (talk) 02:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

28 January 2022 edits by 97.120.93.30

[edit]

Hello 97.120.93.30. Please know that I undid your edits as they are not supported by any of the citations in the article. Also, the existing information you did alter was properly cited. Additionally, the information you inserted is a Fringe theory and there is an entirely proper article which you could edit: Fringe theories on the location of New Albion. It certainly does need attention, and this may be an article for you to consider. I see that you are an ip address editor with only one edit. Should you like assistance in editing, I am glad to help you where I can and direct you to the right people when I am unable to assist. Do please look at the Fringe theories on the location of New Albion because it really does need editing. Most kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 16:20, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Oregon Dunes landfall site is recognized by Oregon State Parks and the Oregon Historical Society. They even put up a plaque to that effect. The two Oregon organizations also recognize that Drake sailed south to spend five weeks in California. The Drakes Bay landing site is recognized by the National Park Service (National Historic Landmark) and by the state of California (California Historical Landmark #1061). Anonymous edits to support one of the fringe theories really do not help Wikipedia or the public. The edits should be reverted.MikeVdP (talk) 00:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again 97.120.93.30. It has been several days since I first elicited conversation here and I am posting again toward that end. Please know that your edits, which I certainly do view as good faith WP:GF, are moving toward disruptive editing WP:DE. You have a single-purpose account, and I encourage you to read WP:SPA. Whale Cove is an interesting idea, one of many alternatives offered regarding the area near Drakes Bay as Francis Drake's encampment and New Albion claim.
Nevertheless, this article is not the forum to discuss the various sites. It is the place to record the prevailing scholarship. Wikipedia does have an article which address other ideas.
What follows is the prevailing scholarship upon which I am relying. And as I go through the authors, I see that it is an international group of researchers. Von der Porten and Morison from the US, Turner and Cassels from the UK, and Gough from Canada. That is widespread scholarship.
Cape Arago— Here are citations regarding Cape Arago which one may find in use on the New Albion page. I do not use them all on this page because it might be WP:CITEKILL. Please note that Morison is a two time Pulitzer Prize winning historian.
  • Von der Porten, Edward (January 1975). "Drake's First Landfall". Pacific Discovery, California Academy of Sciences. Page 28.
  • Morison, Samuel Eliot (1978). The Great Explorere: The European Discovery of America. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Page 700. ISBN 978-0195042221.
  • Cassels, Sir Simon (August 2003). "Where Did Drake Careen The Golden Hind in June/July 1579? A Mariner's Assessment". The Mariner's Mirror. 89 (1). Page 263.
  • Gough, Barry (1992). The Northwest Coast: British Navigation, Trade and Discoveries to 1812. Vancouver: U Univ. of British Columbia Press. Page 14. ISBN 978-0774803991.
  • Turner, Michael (2006). In Drake's Wake Volume 2 The World Voyage. United Kingdom: Paul Mould Publishing. Page 163. ISBN 978-1-904959-28-1.
Furthermore, both the Oregon State Parks and Oregon Historical Society support that Drake anchored at Cape Arago and proceeded to sail south to seek a suitable careenage site for Golden Hind. Here is the citation for that. It too is in use on the New Albion page.
  • "Sir Francis Drake 1540-1596 Circumnavigator and And Admiral". The Historical Marker Data Base. 2021. Archived from the original on 1 November 2021. Retrieved 23 October 2021.
New Albion— Additionally, one may see the various forms of official recognition which identifies the area near Drakes Bay as Francis Drake's encampment and New Albion claim. Typically, official recognition does not occur without a process of much investigation and independent verification. I have links to the National Historic Landmark process which you can review here as an example of this: independent scholarly review and rigor and open process. Again, this is a diverse collection--Federal, two California entities, and two federally recognized tribes.
  • United States Department of the Interior
  • California State Parks
  • California Office of Historic Preservation
  • Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria
  • Coast Miwok Tribal Council of Marin
You may view details with appropriate citations HERE.
Whale Cove as a site is definitely an interesting alternative view, and it is one of many just like it. The very recent 2021 book by Laurence Bergreen puts Drake in San Francisco Bay. And Henry Raup Wagner put Drake at Trinidad Bay. Harry Kelsey, Huntington Library Research Scholar, puts Drake in Baja, and Sam Bawlf put Drake in British Columbia. Numerous less noted researchers/authors have almost two dozen other ideas. On this page, I have been writing about the New Albion site that has the prevailing weight of ongoing scholarship behind it.
So, please quit adding Whale Cove to this article and please do write about it on the appropriate page. That is how this encyclopedia is built. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 00:52, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone in the said "prevailing scholarship" comment over the integrity of the Hakluyt record for the northern Pacific segment of the expedition -vs- others less obfuscated ones such as Harley. Refer to the new recent discussion topic entered last week that remains unattended. Many authors supportive of the Central Oregon landing theory (such as Darby, Bawlf and Ward) have pointed out numerous times important obfuscations of the expedition critical data of dates, months and latitudes. The most blatant ones being July replacing August for departure and June replacing July for arrival at the careening site. Your timeline should not be so vested in one particular primary source record known to have been altered. When primary sources disagree on such critical matters, it should be pointed out in this important article. Your current timeline and "prevailing scholarship" is currently totally biased against the main alternative landing theory by obfuscating critical expedition data. Guidance is sought on how to sort this out before I submit article change just to see them reverted on the basis of the "prevailing scholarship" obvious bias. Deferring to the "Fringe idea" undermining article as you have done earlier on is not the proper way to handle such a critical matter, far from being fringe. It in fact undermines this important article. This is not how Wikipedia is supposed to work. Furthermore it undermines Wikipedia. This critical issue will not go away. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 06:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for re-wording

[edit]

This is a lovely article. I enjoy reading it. There is one sentence, however, that I always stumble over: "From Plymouth Sound, England, Drake navigated into the Pacific and then the Atlantic, ..." It sort of skips over the first passage through the Atlantic, to get to the Pacific. How about: "From Plymouth Sound, England, Drake navigated to the south-west Atlantic, into the Pacific, and then rounded the Cape of Good Hope to return to the Atlantic,..." Just a suggestion, but I think it would read better if it didn't sound like he somehow went from Plymouth directly to the Pacific. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:58, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Serjeant Buzfuz and thank you for your kind comments regarding the article. Please forgive this late reply. I broke from Wikipedia editing for a while as I grew a tired of the bit of edit war you can read about in the post above yours. I fully agree with your observation and assessment. I believe it has been corrected. If not, please do so as your suggestion is excellent. Kind regards, Hu Nhu (talk) 18:00, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mocha Island

[edit]

I have often seen quotes regarding the Mocha Island incident, but had not been able to find the original source. Wagner, Morison, Mitchell and others don't give a good source for this.

I have found it in Francis Fletcher's account of the first part of the voyage known as the Sloane MS No. 61. I have added the reference and url. This manuscript appears to be a record made by Francis Fletcher from memory, not from on-hand records. Fletcher was known to be antagonistic to Drake, so this text did not make it into The World Encompassed or Hakluyt. The original transcriber seems to be Joseph (sometimes reported as John) Conyers in 1677.MikeVdP (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should this be further updated to be more explicit with the executions and cannibalism directly in the text? (The Carder report in Purchas confirms extensive South American Indian cannibalism.)MikeVdP (talk) 08:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current text reads, "While suspecting aggressiveness from the people due to their history of hostile encounters with Spaniards, Drake underestimates their hostililty when he returns the next day with 10 men for water." Might updated language be more accurate: "While the aggressiveness of Native Peoples in prior encounters with Spaniards suggests caution, the first day's transactions gets Drake's guard down. He returns the next day with 10 men for water."?MikeVdP (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)MikeVdP (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The wording you suggest is accurate and makes much sense. Thank you for your attention to this article. Hu Nhu (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest expedition timeline looks off by at least a month

[edit]

1) Reaching 48N on June the 4th 2) Reaching Cap Arago 43.3N on June the 5th (1 day to travel that far???) 3) Reaching Drake Bay (careening site) 38.0N on June the 16th??? (11 days sighting the Washington and Oregon coastline for a careening site) 4) Departing the careening site on June the 23rd (7 days to careen) Can someone please account for this??? LeCanardQuoi (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bawlf documents (page 360) an Hakluyt coverup of simply changing from July to June in order to conceal the expedition elapsed times in the PNW (and departing in June rather than August) based on the "Anonymous Narrative" deemed more reliable. This important discrepancy should at least be pointed out as it explains the current anomaly I uncovered. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have added in the Fringe article under "Othe ideas" following:
By 2003, R. Samuel Bawlf had thoroughly revisited the various Drake expedition records in the northern Pacific and was seeking more elapsed time in support of a more northern expedition. Well buried under the "Notes 8." section page 360, Bawlf identified a simple scheme by which the official Hakluyt narrative critical expedition data of date time had been easily obfuscated and could therefore be easily unscrambled: "As part of the cover-up of Drake's northern explorations, the dates of his arrival at, and departure from, his careenage were altered or omitted from the published accounts. In The Famous Voyage (1589 and 1600), Richard Hakluyt omitted the dates. Then, in the narrative titled The Course, which he introduced in his second edition of Principal Navigations (1600), he gave the date of arrival as June 17 but omitted the date of Drake's departure. The World Encompassed, from which Hakluyt adapted these accounts of the northern voyage, states that Drake arrived on June 17 and departed on July 23, establishing that he spent a little over five weeks at the careenage. However, the "Anonymous Narrative", which gives the true latitude of the careenage and therefore is the most reliable source, states that he departed there at "ye latter end of August." In all probability, then, the simple expedient of changing the month of Drake's sojourn at the careenage from July-August to June-July (leaving the numerical dates unaltered) was employed in The World Encompassed to conceal a month of his secret explorations, and the true dates for Drake's arrival at and departure from the careenage were July 17 and August 23, respectively. This increases the time available to Drake to undertake his northern explorations subsequent to his initial landfall [...] from fourteen days to forty-four days." LeCanardQuoi (talk) 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Timeline_of_Francis_Drake%27s_circumnavigation&oldid=1267784792"