Talk:Newport Tower (Rhode Island)/Archive 3

"no documents which would date the Tower to the pre-Colonial period"

The article states that there are "no artifacts or documents which would date the Tower to the pre-Colonial period." That would seem to be an overstatement, arbitrarily dismissing the "Commodities" document associated with the 1632 Plowden Petition. Since this assumption is central to the current organization of the article, calling it into question also calls for the article's substantial revision.

The article appears to rely on Doug Weller's "The Newport Tower and the Plowden Petition" at http://www.hallofmaat.com/modules.php?name=Articles&file=article&sid=99. I think that Weller may have mis-handled the evidence, as I describe below. Since this subject tends to be fiercely controversial, I have made the effort to fully outline my own position, so as to avoid misunderstandings and to make objections to my assessment of the evidence more efficient. I welcome such objections; I don't have a dog in this fight, beyond the effort to get my facts straight.

1. At the beginning of his article, Weller presents a long quotation from Verranazzo's 1524 report. This report describes the local Indians, at an area which could be present-day Newport, in terms that could support a claim of racial admixture with Europeans in previous generations; but this is inconclusive, to say the least. I know of no evidence that points to the existence of a tower at Newport in or before 1524.

2. William S. Godfrey, in "The Archaeology of the Old Stone Mill in Newport, Rhode Island (American Antiquity, Oct. 1951), states that he found no archeological evidence that the tower dated to a pre-colonial period. Godfrey specifically rejects the notion of a Norse origin of the tower.

3. Godfrey reasonably surmises that the tower was built before 1675, around which time (he reasons) it was converted to a windmill. This agrees with the opinion of Frederick J. Pohl, who, in "Was the Newport Tower Standing in 1632?" (The New England Quarterly, Dec. 1945), argued that the tower was standing in 1632. Pohl furthermore argues for the tower's medieval Norse origin. Pohl notes (pp. 502-503) that the tower was clearly built with defense in mind, discussing the irregular position of the windows and the construction of the doorway into the tower.

4. Pohl then turns his attention to a document related to Sir Edmund Plowden's 1632 petition to establish a colony in the area of present-day Delaware and New Jersey. Weller assumes that, since the actual petition refers to land to the south of Long Island, then the related document can't be referring to Long Island and the southern coast of New England. Section 26 of this related document (entitled "Commodities of the Island called Manati or Long Island"; hereafter "The Commodities"), envisioning a settlement on Long Island, refers to "the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west." This reference makes it absolutely clear that "Long Island" in "The Commodities" is the same as today's Long Island, New York, which extends for over 100 miles due east of the former Dutch plantation.

5. Doug Weller ignores this reference to "the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west," as he attempts to dismiss the possibility that in Section 27 of "The Commodities" the "rownd stone towre" is the same as the Newport Tower. I think that this question bears re-visiting.

6. If we readmit the possibility that "The Commodities" was referring to an existing tower at present-day Newport, and if we accept Godfrey's rejection of the possibility of a Norse origin of the Newport tower, then we are left with the possibility that the tower was a relic of an earlier English (or possibly other European) attempt to establish a colony or trading post.

7. Pohl, on page 56, refers to a 1635 map of New England that refers to "Old Plymouth" (as opposed to "New Plymouth," home of the Mayflower pilgrims) to the north of the Newport Tower. This strongly suggests English settlement or trading activity in the Rhode Island area before 1632, and I submit this as a possible origin of the Newport Tower.

8. After writing the above, I discovered the following quote from Suzanne Carlson's "Loose Threads in a Tapestry of Stone: The Architecture of the Newport Tower" (at http://www.neara.org/CARLSON/newporttower.htm):

"Horace Silliman, in his articles and monograph on the Newport Tower, published by NEARA, was the lone proponent of a carefully reasoned theory that the tower was built by restive Catholics as a secret base from which to plot the restoration of a Catholic monarchy in England. He traces the intricate interrelationships between various factions—Catholic-Protestant, merchant adventurers, Spanish sympathizers, anti Spanish forces, free-booting pirates, privateers and agents for all or any patron. Narrowing the field to Henry Fitzalan, twelfth Earl of Arundel, who had the connections and capacity to have implemented such a project, probably in 1570, or possibly a few years earlier. Silliman expands his theory to suggest that later adventurers such as Humphrey Gilbert or Bartholomew Gosnold might have gotten wind of this base of operation and under the patronage of the Protestant faction set out with the dual purpose of ousting the Catholics from their base, and using it themselves as a base for prospecting for gold, silver or other precious metals."

In conclusion, I think that Silliman's theory should be included in the article. If my critique of Weller's dismissal of the relevance of the "Commodities" document stands to reason, then perhaps Silliman's view deserves pride of place. --Other Choices (talk) 05:18, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Doug Weller did not mis-handle the Plowden Petition commodities document evidence- those who would use it in support of the pre-1632 Newport Tower theory did. You can't avoid the simple fact that Newport RI is not at 39 degrees latitude, 150 miles from Jamestown (James City)- where, if you look at old maps, you will see a long island just off the coast. David Trochos (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I'm not following your reasoning here. What does "39 degrees latitude" have to do with "the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west"? Does the phrase "39 degrees latitude" appear anywhere in the Commodities document? Is there any reason to suppose that the territory described in the Commodities document is exactly the same as that requested in the petition to the king? Are you arguing that the reference to "the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west" should read "the Dutch plantation 60 miles to the NORTH"?--Other Choices (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't as though there aren't a number of reliable sources that make it clear that Plowden was concerned with the land along the Delaware River -- Maryland and Delaware today. The revised petition is the 'modified prayer' here [1]

This is a description of New Albion [2].

And here it is clear that the petition and the 'commodities' document are talking about the same geographical area [3]. Dougweller (talk) 08:25, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, perhaps you are right. At the very least, in the record you linked, the London authorities took the "Commodities" to be referring to the same area as the petition. However, we still have the problem of "the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west." How do you explain this language? There seems to be a paradox here. If this phrase, "the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west," is taken at face value, then "Long Island" becomes the same as present-day Long Island, New York. This seems, at the very least, to be a plausible interpretation of the "Commodities" document. If such an interpretation is to be rejected, then I think we need some reason, or at least the acknowledgment that something here seems to defy logical explanation. And if we don't have a logical explanation, that opens the door to other choices, such as (for example) the Silliman thesis, or (God forbid) speculations about medieval Norsemen. Furthermore, it is clear that the extant Plowden petition is a "modified" petition. That raises the obvious question of what was included in the original petition. Perhaps Plowden and company originally got their geography wrong, or perhaps they were originally overstretching their claims. Of course that is just speculation, but it seems that there are are various issues here about which we don't have a clear answer. If that is indeed the case, then honesty compels us to admit that we don't have a definitive explanation. And if we don't have a definitive explanation of "the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west," then perhaps a re-write of the article is in order. --Other Choices (talk) 11:59, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

All the sources I have seen that discuss Plowden's claims that don't mention the Newport Tower are clear about the geography, none suggest it was near or included Rhode Island. I'm not clear what you mean about the obvious question of what was included in the original petition. As for the Dutch, why do you think that the 'Dutch plantation' had nothing to do with the Dutch that we know were already in the Delaware River area? Dougweller (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, a source you linked to above -- Sheyichbi and the Strand, see page 28 -- clearly associates the "Commodities" document with Long Island, not the Jersey Shore. Your point is taken that discussions of Plowden's claims that DON'T mention the Newport Tower don't mention present-day Rhode Island. However, present-day scholars' confusion between Long Island and a now-disappeared sand bar off the Jersey Shore, combined with imperfect knowledge of the geography of the area in the first third of the 17th century, combined with the known existence of one and only one round stone tower in the area that could possibly be associated with the mention in the Commodities, combined with the facts that the Newport Tower is on an island and that Plowden was demonstrably interested in islands near Long Island, render plausible (in my mind, at least) the theory that the Newport Tower was indeed the tower mentioned in the Commodities. In my opinion, this theory is at least as viable as the dubious notion that Benedict Arnold originally built the Newport Tower as a windmill.

Regarding the "original" and the "modified" petitions, the above-mentioned page 28 has a summary. I'm sure you know this material better than I do; I can't vouch for the summary's accuracy.

I think that the wording of the Commodities, including the reference to the Dutch, makes it clear beyond the shadow of a doubt that this document is referring to Long Island. Here is Pohl's 1945 summary of the Commodities document:

Among the commodities listed in the first twenty-five sections were "Black wilde vines which make verie good vergies or vinniger for to use with meate," "great stoare of deere," "verrie fayre turkeys, with berries, chestnuts, beechnuts," "oacks, ash and wallnut trees, red ceader and pines, fers and deale," "fitt places to build and lanch ships," "infinite store of Sturgion and mulliote," "trade for hatchets knives and nayles beads and toyes, with the Savages for their Beavers, otters and deere skinnes...worth ten for one by way of trucke," "fresh fish, sea and shell fish," "freedom to hunt fish and foule," and "spring waters thear as good as small beere heere."

Pohl then quotes section 26 of "Commodities" as follows: "By unitie and societie of Partners, securitie and hope of gaine growes if order and dissapline and intelligence with the savages Verginea on the South New England on the North, the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west be had." Beyond the fact that an oversize sand bar off the coast of New Jersey couldn't have supported all the wildlife catalogued in "Commodities," the reference to the Dutch "plantation" clearly points to a power that was capable of influencing the success or failure of the proposed colony on Long Island. I don't think that the scattered, minimal Dutch presence in New Jersey at the time qualifies.--Other Choices (talk) 11:30, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

First, if you look at other writings by Plowden (which I have), he exaggerates to say the least. That same list has Fort Nassau due West of Plowden Island/Long Isle. You are evidently claiming that Fort Nassau is due west of present day Long Island. Sure, Sheyichbi mentions 'Long Island', that's not surprising, but doesn't prove anything. And your claim that 'Dutch planatation' proves anything other than that the Dutch were in the area and had an interest in it, it doesn't speak to the size of whatever is meant. The Dutch were in the Delaware River valley, can we agree on that? And the article Sir Edmund Plowden and the New Albion Charter, 1632-1785 by Edward C. Carter, 2nd and Clifford Lewis, 3rd says "The location of Plowden Island or "long isle" has never been determined. It is definitely not Long Island, N. Y., as has been stated by many historians. Plowden in his list of "commodities," located Fort Nassau due west of Plowden Island. It might be Long Beach Island, or some island near Stone Harbor, N. J." You do understand that what you are doing is original research? I'm more or less away for most of the next few days, editing a bit but with not a lot of time unless my plans change. I don't understand why you think the island is now a sandbar. And there is no evidence that 'a round stone tower' means 'the round stone tower that's already there'. Dougweller (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

That the tower would be built with defense in mind is utter nonsense. If it was a defensive structure, the first floor would not be arches. That's something you use because you want to raise something above ground.Can you find *one* medieval defensive structure (Norse or otherwise) whose lower level is arches. Of course not. It doesn't make any defensive sense. Each and every claim aimed to support a pre 1632 origin for the tower, like the claim that it's defensive, is taken completely out of thin air and does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, the Newport Tower would have been a lousy defensive structure. You wouldn't put soldiers in it. Which is one reason it's more likely that they were going to build a round tower or this is some completely different tower. And as I recall, it isn't big enough for 30 soldiers anyway. Dougweller (talk) 17:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller and OpenFuture, I am going to answer your points, one-by-one, all in the same post. I realize, Dougweller, that you may be gone for several days; and I realize that a careful response to my points will require time. This discussion has raised issues that appear to be central to the proper construction of articles here at wikipedia, and it is important to me to gain clarity on what can and can't be properly said in a wikipedia article.

• Dougweller, you claim that the Commodities document located Fort Nassau due west of its "Long Island." I don't know why you say that -- could you provide a quote from the Commodities document? You use that claim as the basis of a supposition that I am claiming that Fort Nassau is due west of today's Long Island. That would seem to be a debating tactic. I will restate my position: At the very least, IT IS A PLAUSIBLE ASSUMPTION that the Commodities' "Long Island" is the same as today's Long Island, New York.
• I relied on Pohl's published quotes from the "Commodities" for my discussion, and his quotes didn't include "Fort Nassau." I can definitely agree that the Dutch were in New Jersey in the 1630s. I am confused by your statement that I am doing original research. Could you please clarify? Everything that I have quoted or discussed comes from a secondary source, so I don't understand how you can call any of that "original research." Please explain.
• You note that Plowden tended to exaggerate. Perhaps the author of "Commodities" exaggerated in his description of "Long Island," and perhaps he played fast and loose with the geography of the area, making it more difficult for people like us to establish just what he was and wasn't talking about. If that is the case, then it seems reckless or biased to categorically assume that "Commodities" does NOT refer to Long Island.
• You refer to the 1959 article by Carter and Lewis, who state that Plowden Isle "definitely isn't Long Island, as has been stated by many historians." This quote simply gives their opinion and reveals disagreement about the subject, unless you choose to privilege it above other sources. And here is a basic question that I am grappling with as I get to know wikipedia: in a contentious subject like this one, which sources (if any) get properly privileged? I suppose that such an issue requires reasoned discussion among the editors, leading either to consensus or to drafting an article in such a way as to reflect a lack of consensus. In the second case, I think that good will and mutual respect are essential. In particular, it requires that everybody concerned refrain from premature assumptions that they have proven their case.
• You say that Sheyichbi's mention of Long Island doesn't prove anything. I disagree: it reinforces the quote you supplied from Carter and Lewis, proving that scholarly association of Plowden with Long Island has a long, well-established history.
• Regarding my "sand bar" reference, I have seen the claim that old maps of New Jersey showed a long thin barrier island ("sand bar" -- go ahead and click on barrier island) that no longer exists. Today's Long Beach Island, New Jersey is such an "oversize sand bar," incompatible with the "Commodities" description of "Long Island."
• You state that "there is no evidence that 'a round stone tower' means 'the round stone tower that's already there'." I'm not sure that "evidence" is the correct word to use here; this seems to be a question of interpretation, not of evidence. But your basic point is taken: Even if "Commodities" does refer to Long Island, it might not be referring to an existing stone tower. My opinion is that a reference to an existing tower is the most logical interpretation of the sentence; others may differ, and I suppose that there is no way to come up with a definitive answer to this question.
• OpenFuture, you dismiss as "utter nonsense" the idea that the tower was built with defense in mind, ignoring the source that I provided for that statement. Please be aware that your statement does not come across as respectful. Perhaps your efforts to defend wikipedia against barbarian conspiracy theorists have made you trigger-happy. You seem to be under the false impression that I ascribe a "medieval" origin to the Newport Tower. I made a point of making clear that this is not the case, with the hope of avoiding senseless attacks by people like you. Perhaps you didn't read my earlier post carefully. Furthermore, you claim that "each and every claim aimed to support a pre 1632 origin for the tower, like the claim that it's defensive, is taken completely out of thin air and does not stand up to even the most basic scrutiny." Please keep in mind that such language appears to be argumentative and makes no contribution to the discussion at hand. If you want to make a specific rebuttal of the reference that I cited (which I thought presented a reasonable argument, centered on the construction of the door and windows), I would be pleased to examine your point of view. I have no objection to your point that arches on the ground floor don't make for good defensive architecture. However, I see no reason to dismiss the idea that a structure whose primary purpose is not defensive can incorporate defensive features. --Other Choices (talk) 09:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a plausible assumption that "Long Island" is the same as todays Long Island, NY. And another plausible assumption is that it is *not* the same Island as Long Island, NY. So we need to look at these assumptions, and when this is done, it shows that for example Long Beach Island is a better match. Although text doesn't mention Fort Nassau, it mentions the dutch 60 miles west. That doesn't fit very well with Long Island (but very well with Long Beach Island, and Fort Nassau). Does Plowden exaggerate and is play fast and loose with geography? Possibly. But your conclusion of this is exactly 180 degrees wrong. If he is unreliable, then it is reckless or biased to assume that "Commodities" DOES refer to Long Island. If Plowden isn't reliable, then we can learn nothing from him. His unreliability can NEVER be used to support something that he doesn't say. Two wrongs do NOT make one right.
• Does all this matter? No, not one single bit! Because even if it is Long Island, NY, then it talks about building a "rownd stone towre" at Long Island. Yes, building. It suggests that 30 soldiers get housed in "a tower". There is no indication there whatsoever that the tower already exists. If there was an abandoned tower there to use, this would have been mentioned amongst all the other benefits of this Island, like it's good places to build and launch ships, and the "1000 load of oyster shells in a heap to make lime of" (ie a native american oyster midden). It's clear that the tower is a part of the fortifications that should be built as a part of this venture. So however which way you bend and twist this, that document simply has absolutely nothing to do with the Newport tower. The *only* connection is that is mentions a round tower. It does *not* mention an existing tower, and it does *not* concern Newport.
• I'm ignoring your source, because your source, Pohl, is pulling things out of thin air. It is as grounded in reality a my Little Pony book. I realize this is hard for you to know as you simply take it as an authoritative source who knows what he is talking about, but it isn't. It's fantasy. Yes, he presents a reasonable argument, up until the moment you actually look at his arguments critically, and try to verify his claims, at which point they all collapse. He makes the typical pseudo-historical mistake: He will bring up every single detail that can be twisted into supporting the conclusion he wants to reach, but he will ignore the glaring blaring elephant in the room that shows that he is wrong. Of course something that is not primarily defensive can have defensive features. But the claim was that it was built for defense, or "with defense in mind". This is obviously *not* the case. If it was built with defense in mind, in any reasonable meaning of the words, it would have solid stone walls. So it was *not* built with defense in mind. And if it was the tower mentioned by Plowden, it would have been.
• The facts still remain: We have documents claiming a windmill was built on this place by Benedict Arnold some time before 1677. There isn't one single reliable smidgen of evidence that contradicts this. Hence, the only reasonable assumption is that the tower was built by Benedict Arnold, as a windmill.
• And for your accusations about attacks, I have made no attack whatsoever. I am direct, honest and blunt. If this means that your hopes are crushed, I understand you feel bad, but it is *not* an attack on anything except your arguments. So I have made no attacks, and will make no attacks. I have however, made a specific rebuttal of the argument. Here it is again: "If it was a defensive structure, the first floor would not be arches. That's something you use because you want to raise something above ground." --OpenFuture (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Carter and Lewis, so far as I know, are the only authors who have done a detailed study of the locations in these documents. Others have just restated what's in the documents. They are also using a new translation. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I am going to skip over several counter-arguments for the moment, and focus on two of your statements. First of all is your statement that "we have documents claiming a windmill was built on this place by Benedict Arnold some time before 1677." Can you please give a quote from these documents, or at least name them? I don't think you know what you're talking about, but I don't mind being proven wrong.

Second is your claim that "the Dutch 60 miles on the west" doesn't fit very well with Long Island. Why not? If you look at a map of Long Island, and go about 60 miles east of Manhattan, you find the spot where the North Fork of the island separates from the South Fork, forming a nice big harbor! I submit that this location would be, to quote the "Commodities," a "fitt place to build and launch ships." So far you have provided no reason for your claim that Long Beach Island, New Jersey, is a better fit than Long Island, New York. You are welcome to do so...

Furthermore, Carter and Lewis's article (thanks to Dougweller for the reference) on page 160 locates the location of the north-east corner of the mainland part of Plowden's grant "at the exact spot where the Passiac and Hackensack Rivers empty into present-day Newark Bay." This point is on the west side of Jersey City, due west of the southern tip of Manhattan, with Long Island extending to the east. Long Island, New York is a perfect fit for the Plowden grant, which specifically mentions Long Island "lying near or between the thirty-ninth & fortieth degree of latitude." (Quoted in Carter and Lewis, p. 160) It seems crystal clear that Carter and Lewis mis-handled the evidence when they made the groundless claim, in a footnote on page 161, that the "Commodities" located Fort Nassau due west of Plowden Island.

OpenFuture, the whole purpose of this discussion is to re-examine the Newport Island article with an eye toward re-writing it. A critical objection to this is your claim that "we have documents claiming a windmill was built on this place by Benedict Arnold some time before 1677." I would appreciate if you could either support this claim or withdraw it.--Other Choices (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think BA built it, but who cares what I think? The bottom line is that Wikipedia guidelines and policies say that your opinion of Carter & Lewis doesn't matter, it's considered a reliable source by our policy criteria and we don't get to second guess it. If you can find a more recent reliable source that discusses the location, great, bring it here. You are basically calling people incompetent - you'd need reliable sources stating that. My own guess is that you simply don't have the resources to do the research they did and have misunderstood them. Dougweller (talk) 05:21, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, please -- saying that "everybody (including me) makes mistakes" is not the same as calling someone incompetent. My biggest gripe with the academic profession is the commonly perceived need to put on an air of infallibility. Regarding the wikipedia policy criteria, I'm glad you brought that up, because I definitely need to get a better idea of what can and can't be said. Using Carter and Lewis as an example: They present a closely-reasoned and well-documented argument for the northeastern boundary of the mainland portion of Plowden's land grant. However, without any discussion, they stick a completely unsupported claim into a footnote, contradicting everybody else in the field, stating that "Long Island" is not Long Island. Are you saying that in the case of Plowden and Long Island, we have to privilege the view of Carter and Lewis if they are the most recent experts to say anything (however wild or unsubstantiated or obviously erroneous) about the subject? --Other Choices (talk) 06:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The original petition by Plowden and others, for the formation of a county called Syon, relates to "a remoate place w'thin the Confines of Virginia some 150 myles Northwards from the Savages & James Citty w'thout the bay of Chisapeak and a conuenient Isle there to be inhabited called Manitie, or Long Isle in 39 degrees of lattitude, and within the bounds of Virginia abutting on the Ocean Eastwards 18 myles and of the Continent Westwards neere Dellawars Baye'". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.22.51 (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The above was transcribed by me from a photograph of the original document. Now here's the relevant section from "The Commodities of the Island called Manati ore Long Isle w'thin the Continent of Virginia" [Public Record Office, London. Colonial Papers vol. VI, no. 61; transcript from "Collections of the New York Historical Society for the year 1869"]

26. By vnitie and societie of Partners, securetie and hope of gaine growes if order and dissapline and intelligence w'th the savages Verginea on the South New England on the North, the Dutch plantation 60 miles on the west be had.

27. So that 30 idle men as souldiers or gent be resident in a rownd stone towre and by tornes to trade w'th the savages and to keep their ordinance and armes neate ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.22.51 (talk) 09:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Right, and this fits all remarkably well with Long Beach Island, and it doesn't fit at all with Long Island, and definitely has absolutly nothing to do with Newport. Case closed. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)--OpenFuture (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• Can you please give a quote from these documents, or at least name them? - I think you should read the Wikipedia article before you discuss it.
• Second is your claim that "the Dutch 60 miles on the west" doesn't fit very well with Long Island. Why not? - Because there is no known dutch settlement 60 miles west of Long Island at this time.
• If you look at a map of Long Island, and go about 60 miles east of Manhattan, you find the spot where the North Fork of the island separates from the South Fork, forming a nice big harbor! - So? That spot is not Long Island. The whole island is Long Island. You can't seriously claim that Manhattan is 60 miles west of Long Island.
• So far you have provided no reason - Yes I have. You are ignoring all arguments that contradict your position, while trying to absurdly twist irrelevant details into support.
• Long Island, New York is a perfect fit for the Plowden grant, which specifically mentions Long Island "lying near or between the thirty-ninth & fortieth degree of latitude." - But Long Island doesn't lie between the 39th and 40th degrees. However, Long Beach Island does. And as you mention, the north EAST corner or the grant is at Newark Bay, and Long Island extends to the EAST from there. Hence it's *outside* the grant. Long Beach Island is however *inside* the grant. Long Island does *not* have a Dutch settlement 60 miles to the east. Long Beach Island *does*. Claiming that Long Island is a perfect fit is utterly absurd. *nothing* fits, except the name.
• However, without any discussion, they stick a completely unsupported claim - The claim is well supported, as you see above. Don't close your eyes to all facts that contradict your position. If you do that, you'll never learn anything.
• Once again: 1. The assumption that "Long Island" is Long Island, NY is based on name only. But everything else does *not* fit. It's not Long Island. 2. Even if it was, it's irrelevant to the Newport Tower as Newport is not on Long Island. This is not a complicated or difficult issue. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:18, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find the original petition online, although it's quoted in what seems to be full text here: [4] "The commodities" was printed in 1865, that edition can be read here: [5] --OpenFuture (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a big part of the problem in this discussion is that OtherChoices is new and unfamiliar with WP:RS and WP:OR. We don't use our own opinions and arguments in articles, and much of this discussion belongs in a forum, not here. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Dougweller, for getting this discussion back on track. This subject threatens to turn into an ever-expanding, all-consuming black hole. I think that some of the points raised (and sources mentioned) can be profitably moved over to the Edmund Plowden (colonial governor) article, which right now is just a stub.

• WP:RS states that we should make sure "that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered." The article privileges the view that Newport Tower was originally built by Benedict Arnold as a windmill, without establishing that this is the majority view. I think this is a problem with the article. How do we decide which (if any) view among the various possibilities holds the majority? William S. Godfrey, for example, rejects BOTH the Norse hypothesis and the idea that tower was originally built as a windmill.
• To help answer that question, Jan Barstad's historiographical essay provides what I consider to be a lucid summary of who has claimed what over the centuries. It's a PDF file here: http://www.chronognostic.org/pdf/tower_project_report_2007.pdf This seems to be a "self-published" document, so I have a technical question: is it impermissible to use this document as a reference in the article?
• Back to the original point of this section, the article states that there are "no documents which would date the Tower to the pre-Colonial period." I'm going to suggest a pair of alternative sentences, for the consideration of the editors:

"There is no documentary evidence supporting the pre-colonial origin of the Tower, with the possible exception of the Plowden Commodities document." "There is no documentary evidence supporting the colonial origin of the Tower, with the possible exception of Benedict Arnold's will."

• Finally, I hope that nobody objects to adding mention of the Silliman thesis to the list of alternative hypotheses. I propose the following language, citing Carlson as a reference: Horace Silliman of the New England Antiquities Research Organization has argued that the tower was built by sixteenth-century English Catholics "as a secret base from which to plot the restoration of a Catholic monarchy in England." --Other Choices (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose the suggested change to the first sentence, since both options change the sentence in a way to be in the first case directly false and the other case misleading. Adding the Silliman hypothesis would be fine in my opinion.
• It's always hard to establish the majority view in any pseudo-historical case, because in all of these cases, the majority view simply produces no publications, as the majority view is simple, obvious and already well documented. No historian can for example make and publish a paper on the Newport tower, as there simply isn't anything really new to say about it. Therefore, and this is a problem in all pseudo-history and pseudo-archaeology, almost all texts produced are produced by crackpots with weird theories. This makes the majority view look like just one theory amongst many, even though it isn't. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

One other comment about "The Commodities of the iland called Manati ore Long Ile" document. If it did refer to Long Island (and we have conflicting reliable sources on that), then the "So that 30 idle men as fouldiers or gent be reftdent in a rownd ftone towre" would be on Long Island, not Rhode Island. And how 30 men could be resident in the Newport Tower is something I wouldn't try to explain. I still don't think Silliman's view significant enough to be in the article, but if people can find enough other reliable sources discussing it I might change my mind. Dougweller (talk) 09:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be the simplest reading of the document, but not necessarily the only interpretation. I could detail an alternative speculation, but I don't think that has any place here. At this point in my understanding of what can be properly included here at wikipedia, associating the Commodities with the Newport Tower is worse than associating the Chesterton Mill with the Newport Tower.--Other Choices (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No, other even more reasonable interpretations, is that the "Long Ile" is further to the south. There is however nothing in the document that supports the interpretation that equates the mentioned tower with the Newport tower. Absolutely nothing. Can we now please leave this topic? "The Commodities of the iland called Manati ore Long Ile" is as relevant to the Newport tower as "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds" is. This discussion should be archived. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If Dougweller concurs, I have no problem with archiving this section.Other Choices (talk) 00:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Who is Horace F. Silliman?

I missed this discussion, or at least didn't reply to this bit. Is this view significant enough to meet are criteria at WP:NPOV? Dougweller (talk) 03:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Tricky. I can't quite rid myself of the suspicion that the Silliman hypothesis was concocted specifically to illustrate how easy it is to create pseudo-history! David Trochos (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Nono, this is New England Antiquities Research Organisation we are talking about here. They are deadly serious with their nonsense. From the source: "Silliman was a retired metallurgist from Waterbury Connecticut and amateur historian. His well researched theories were published by NEARA as The Newport Tower, the Elizabethian Solution, in 1979." Is he notable? Of course not. But are *any* of the alternative theories notable by those criteria? They are all made by amateur historians. Yes, even Carl Christian Rafn, called "archeologist" was nothing but an amateur historian, because archaeology didn't exist then in any form that would be recognized as professional by todays standards. So Sillimans theory is exactly as notable as all the other alternative hypothesis here. And this of course goes for *all* pseudo-archaeology and pseudo-history. It's done by happy amateurs who have no clue to what they are doing, and are completely incapable of admitting the existence of arguments against their hypothesis.

So, IMO, the Silliman hypothesis stays, or they all go. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually no. Read WP:NPOV and particularly WP:UNDUE. Rafn's ideas are discussed in a number of reliable sources, so he clearly stays. But you need to do more than get published by NEARA (more or less self-publishing in my book) to be included, we don't just include anyone who writes about a subject. I don't see why Silliman's view is 'significant' in our terms. I'm sympathetic with David Trochos, as soon as I saw it added I thought 'is that meant to be an example of how silly some of these ideas can be'? So unless someone can show more sources than I could find, Silliman's views aren't significant enough to be here. Dougweller (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You have a point about Rafn being referenced in reliable sources, even though of course there is nothing reliable about archaeology before the early 1900's in the first place. Self-publishing is usually accepted in pseudo-archaeology, see the similar discussion on Talk:Kensington Runestone (probably archived by now), simply because otherwise there are no sources at all. We could clean out all of that stuff, but we'd have to deal with a lot of people coming in and adding all these nonsense-theories all the time. Maybe that's preferable. The theories that would be kept then is Rafn's Norse hypothesis and Menzies' Chinese. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course, 'reliable sources' -- our policy at WP:RS and WP:Verify don't offer any certainty of accuracy/truth. Self-publishing is accepted at times on fringe stuff, I agree, but only at times. Rafn and Menzies are significant by our standards, Means as well. I'm not sure who we'd toss out besides Silliman. Dougweller (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Does the work of William Penhallow deserve mention? How about Edmund B. Delabarre? ClovisPt (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Penhallow is NEARA again, Delabarre was not an archaeologist and there is no reliable sources. Again, as far as I can see only the Norse and Chinese hypothesis remains with normal WP:RS standards. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

You may be correct. I'm happy to wait for other editors to chime in, but I'm feeling like the "Alternative hypothesis" needs some constructive trimming, to be sure that we don't give undue weight to fringe claims. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 16:21, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with taking this sort of stuff out is that, as OpenFuture says, it then creeps back in - people who don't know that the fringe theories aren't supported by the available facts, and / or are new to the subject, pitch up at this article, think "oh, they haven't mentioned theory X" and add it to the article. That also makes it difficult to present a coherent and flowing article with a "bias" towards the accepted history since a lot of space has to be occupied with material that contradicts the fringe ideas (such as the claim and counterevidence about early maps, which has recently been removed but which ought to be in there somewhere) Ghughesarch (talk) 20:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So what do we do? RFC? Just cut it and see what happens? Nothing? :) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I find this entire discussion page useless because of the name-calling and invective of the user OpenFuture. It seems his primary motive is to hurt the feelings of those who disagree with him rather than to produce a better wiki article. Shame on wiki, useless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.201.195 (talk) 12:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

What name calling and invectives? I'm sorry that you find the truth painful, but Wikipedia is not here to make you feel good, but to be a useful encyclopedia. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

As I continue to learn about wikipedia guidelines... WP:UNDUE says: "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views." Well, a tiny minority of what??? A minority of those who have published in the area, or of reasonably informed people who have opinions on the subject, or...? I suspect that most historians and archeologists have never thought about the Newport Tower. I understand that, on an obscure issue like this, the understandable inattention of mainstream scholarship is going to impact the relative importance of fringe groups who focus on the subject. Within the little universe of Newport Tower discussion, the significance of Silliman's view seems to be immediately linked to the significance of NEARA. What guidelines cover our assessment of NEARA and its significance to public discussion of the Newport Tower? --Other Choices (talk) 03:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think NEARA rather falls foul of WP:RS. As an association they publish any sort of pseudo-archaeological nonsense, and is a far cry from the peer-reviewed journals that would constitute a reliable source in this case. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Are peer-reviewed journals the only possible reliable sources? WP:RS says "published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Even if NEARA publishes pseudo-archeological speculation, is the factual information in their articles generally accurate? Suzanne Carlson's article on the Newport Tower seemed to be very well-done. If that represents the typical NEARA standard (and I admit that so far I haven't read any of their other stuff), then it seems to me that they should be acceptable as a reliable source.--Other Choices (talk) 00:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've seen her article criticised for being factually inaccurate, but I don't think I have time for a while to find the criticisms. Sorry for the copout. Dougweller (talk) 05:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What's an RS depends on what is said. If you want to say "The moon is made of cheese" then you better have a peer reviewed journal, yes. If you say "John Dillinger says the moon was made of cheese" then any WP:RS works, like a newspaper or a book publisher with a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". As NEARA in fact is a very unreliable source, the question here has been raised if Silliman exists, or if somebody in fact has tricked NEARA by getting them to publish an idiotic theory with a silly name as a joke. So therefore we need a reliable source that Silliman exists and had these ideas.

Some NAERA articles present pure fantasy as facts. Examples are Suzanne Carlsons "translation" of the Spirit Pond Runestone. So factually reliable? No. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

per google search: NEARA claims that Silliman was a "retired metallurgist of Waterbury, Conneticut." The following link, http://www.ctgenweb.org/county/comiddlesex/Deep%20River/fh_sz.html, shows that Horace F. Silliman died 11/8/1987 and is buried at Fountain Hill Cemetery, town of Deep River, Middlesex Co., Connecticut.--Other Choices (talk) 00:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Although I'm not going to get too excited about this, I can't see any way that Silliman's views are 'significant' in the way we use the word. Who else mentions them? Dougweller (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost disappointed that he turns out to have existed. But I guess it was too good to be true that someone would have pulled a stunt on NEARA. :-) But as noted, NEARA is not a reliable source, so we should probably remove his mention. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

inappropriate speculation about Chesterton windmill

This article contains a lot of speculation (with phrases like "entirely plausible" and "one such candidate") about the Chesterton windmill, accompanied by a photo. I think that this reflects a bias that is unsupported by any cited sources. Right now, the article does not refer to any reliable source that claims that Arnold originally built the tower AS A WINDMILL. I think that either such a source should be provided, or the references to the Chesterton windmill should be pared down and the photo removed. If nobody objects, I will go ahead and do that myself.--Other Choices (talk) 04:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I object. Why aren't you offering to look for sources yourself? Dougweller (talk) 05:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I also object. There is no reliable source for the building history of most ancillary buildings in the world, except in jurisdictions where permits were required (and even in those cases, record preservation is an issue). The 1632 Chesterton mill happens to be a clearly-documented exception, and happens to use the same arcaded design concept as the Newport Tower, which is described by its owner as a stone windmill in the 1670s. Also to be considered is the total lack of earlier documents describing the Newport Tower as something other than a windmill, which is a pretty fundamental lack of reliable sources for other theories. David Trochos (talk) 05:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the Chesterton Mill hypothesis is conceivable, but my question here involves the standard for inclusion in a wikipedia article. WP:V says, "This policy requires that anything challenged or likely to be challenged, including all quotations, be attributed to a reliable source in the form of an inline citation, and that the source directly support the material in question." Is this article exempt from that standard? Should the Chesterton Mill hypothesis be privileged above all other proposed explanations? If so, why? Shouldn't we have a source?

Dougweller, there was no need for me to offer since I have already been looking for such a source, going through all the references that I could find online. I haven't been able to find anything, so finally I gave up and decided to bring it up here. I figure that there are other people around here who know the literature better than I do, so maybe somebody else can come up with something, or else -- well, what is the proper application of wikipedia policy in such a case?--Other Choices (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Right now, the article does not refer to any reliable source that claims that Arnold originally built the tower AS A WINDMILL."

• "In a document of 1741 the tower is described as "the old stone mill." In 1760 the Tower was used as a haymow, while in 1767 it was described as having been used as a powder store "some time past". De Barres' plan of Newport, published in 1776, marks it as "Stone Wind Mill." Referenced with: Buckland, J. S. P. The Origins of the Tower Mill, with a note on Chesterton Proc. 11 Mills Research Conference, Mills Research Group [1](Essex, UK) 1994
• Aslo, Arnolds will: http://www.bigbertis.com/mill/wilofgov.htm

The claim that no reliable source claims that Arnold originally built it as a mill is bullshit. Enough of this nonsense. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, I object to your use of expletive language. The sources that you mention do NOT in any way, shape or form indicate the original construction of the windmill, but only that the Newport Tower was once USED as a windmill. William Godfrey, a reliable source mentioned in the article, rejected the idea that the Newport Tower was originally built as a windmill. The article mentions this view of Godfrey and then cites later research that appears to answer Godfrey's stated reason for his conclusion. This part of the article violates another wikipedia policy at WP:SYN: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."--Other Choices (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

In respect particularly of Godfrey's rejection of the windmill hypothesis, how else would you deal with the fact that what was (arguably) a reliable source in the 1940s no longer is reliable? Godfrey's reason, quoted in the article, for dismissing the possibility that the Newport Tower was a windmill (that tower mills were uncommon until the eighteenth century) has been comprehensively demolished by subsequent research, and it is not a synthesis to say so and provide a reference to a paper which shows that to be the case - that doesn't (necessarily) mean the NT was built as as a windmill (even though it wasn't built for any other purpose that's supported by any reliable evidence), but Godfrey's (and some of his contemporaries', especially Philip Means) wrong conclusions are still trotted out in support of "anything but a windmill" arguments. Ghughesarch (talk) 11:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Choices, there is nothing in the sources to indicate that Arnold used the tower as anything else than a windmill. There is also nothing that indicates the tower existed before Arnold owned the lands. Every early source we have call it a mill. Hence, it is the claim that it was not built as a mill that needs sources, not the other way around.

There is also no synthesis in the section you mention, it's simply stated that Godfrey thought it could not have been a Windmill because he thought there was no tower mills at that time, and this is sourced. Then it is shown that he was incorrect, and that's also sourced. There is no synthesis, which is drawing a conclusion that neither sources support. That is simply not done in the section. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Other Choices is still struggling with what we mean by OR and synthesis. Ironically, others including me have been reverting some of his edits are OR. I also fail to see any synthesis. Dougweller (talk) 12:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I am still struggling with the meaning of OR and synthesis. Part of the problem is that I am hearing conflicting things from different editors.

• Recently, one experienced editor kindly explained that original research includes "the reliance on primary rather than secondary sources to explain why a particular view is reasonable." This seems to apply to OpenFuture's interpretation of inconclusive primary sources in favor of the "original mill" theory. As another experienced editor explained, "Here, you must put aside your own convictions, and your urge to cite primary sources, and instead, try to represent what others--however ill-informed--are already saying." Okay, where are reliable sources that associate the Newport Tower with the Chesterton windmill?
• Ghughesarch has referred to William Godfrey's "wrong conclusions" which have been "comprehensively demolished by subsequent research." This opinion, and its more moderate counterpart in the article, would seem to be original research unless either of the sources cited in the article mentions Godfrey. The accuracy of this point depends on wikipedia editors' assessment of Godfrey's use of the word "common." One of the article's two sources for this claim (quoting the authors' summary at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/technology_and_culture/v046/46.4langdon.html) "surveys the six certain, probable and possible cases of tower windmills in medieval England and then tries to explain why there were not more of them." I haven't located the other source, but I ask: what number of English stone windmills in, say, 1620, qualifies as "common"?
• This article's synthesis of primary sources and windmill speculation is implied in the structure of the article, which gives preeminence to the "windmill" hypotheses. This implication is reinforced by the inclusion of a photo of the windmill, which includes a caption arguing against the Norse hypothesis.
• Furthermore, this article fails to mention Godfrey's preferred hypothesis that "the tower was built as a comfortable retreat and lookout for a very rich and very autocratic old man." [quoting William S. Godfrey, Jr., "The Archeology of the Old Stone Mill in Newport, Rhode Island," American Antiquity (Feb. 1951), p. 129.] According to wikipedia policy, shouldn't this opinion, in the absence of any other reliable source, be the preferred view?--Other Choices (talk) 07:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The tower is known locally as 'the old stone mill'. The first written references to it are in 1677 and refer to it as a stone windmill. A 1776 map of Newport has a label 'Stone Wind Mill' where the tower is, with no other structure indicated in the area. referring to the tower. Hertz also mentions a 1675 report referring to a windmill he thinks is the tower. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be some confusion here.

• I have never mentioned the Chesterton mill, yet you seem to demand of me secondary sources that connect it to the Newport mill. I don't understand your reasoning there.
• The article does not say that Godfreys conclusion has been comprehensively demolished. You are now requiring that anything written on the talk page follows all Wikipedia policy for articles. I hope you realize the absurdity of that.
• You talk about "Implied" synthesis. That means that when you read the article *you* draw the conclusion that the windmill hypothesis is the correct one, and you get upset, because you don't want to draw that conclusion, so you blame the article. But that is not WP:SYN or WP:OR, because it is not the article that draw that conclusion, it is *you* who draw that conclusion based on the facts as presented by the article. Somebody else might draw another conclusion. Presenting the facts and letting people capable of rational thought draw their own conclusions from that is perfectly acceptable, and not WP:SYN. Be happy that you are able to draw conclusions. Recently some other guy read the whole Kensington runestone article and concluded it was real. :-) Be thankful you aren't him.
• Again you claim there are no other reliable sources, even after you have been given them. Stop doing that.
• I don't mind having Godfreys speculation about a "comfortable retreat" in the article, it just shows how utterly ridiculous he is. I'd like to know how he explains that the "autocratic old man" calls his "retreat", a "mill". :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I came across this reference in Doug Weller, The Newport Tower and the Plowden Petition, Skeptical Intelligencer Vol. 7, 2004:

“John Hull, a contemporary of Arnold, observed the Arnold windmill also in 1665 (Diaries of John Hull, 1847,Transactions of the American Antiquarian Society, pp 208,213,218 cited in Kuhlmann 1929:5) Hull goes on to state that Arnold built the tower to resemble a windmill he had know back home in England.”

(Kuhlman is Kuhlman, Charles B. (1929) The Development of the Flour-milling Industry in the United States. Boston & New York: Houghton Mifflin Company)

I don’t have ready access to the AAS Transactions (and I suspect the date given should actually be 1857) but if Hull’s diary really does make that claim, then it needs to be cited here. (Of course, the fact that it hasn’t already been leads me to suspect that perhaps Hull’s diary isn’t so clear cut on the matter and that this might be a gloss added by Kuhlman)Ghughesarch (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good find! The diaries are available on Google books, and as far as I can see, the claim is pure fantasy. [6] --OpenFuture (talk) 17:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

True. I can't help as I don't have access to Kuhlmann anymore, and am puzzled by this from Google Books "Charles Byron Kuhlmann - 1973 - 349 pages

Nicholas Easton, afterwards Governor of Rhode Island, built a windmill at Newport in 1663, and Governor Benedict Arnold's stone mill, the tower of which is still standing, was erected at Newport in 1678." which makes little sense. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it makes little sense for multiple reasons- in short, it's sloppy research. Again. David Trochos (talk) 18:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Annoying though, because if Kuhlmann did make that claim in print, it would count as a RS, no matter if it was made up. Thus is Wikipedia hoist on its own petard of verifibility Ghughesarch (talk) 02:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OtherChoices wrote Ghughesarch has referred to William Godfrey's "wrong conclusions" which have been "comprehensively demolished by subsequent research." This opinion, and its more moderate counterpart in the article, would seem to be original research unless either of the sources cited in the article mentions Godfrey. The accuracy of this point depends on wikipedia editors' assessment of Godfrey's use of the word "common." One of the article's two sources for this claim (quoting the authors' summary at http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=/journals/technology_and_culture/v046/46.4langdon.html) "surveys the six certain, probable and possible cases of tower windmills in medieval England and then tries to explain why there were not more of them." I haven't located the other source, but I ask: what number of English stone windmills in, say, 1620, qualifies as "common"?

Langdon and Watts’ cut-off date is c.1450.

What follows is, in Wikipedia terms, “original research”, but apart from Burton Dassett, Warwickshire (ante 1367), the following English tower mills are reasonably securely dated to before 1650 – and are all still standing and must therefore represent a sample of a considerably larger number.

Fowey, Cornwall 1564

Sark, Channel Isles 1571

Forton, Staffordshire 1573

Tidenham, Gloucestershire ante 1584

Portland Dorset, two tower mills, ante 1609

Empacombe, Cornwall 1629

Chesterton, Warwickshire 1632-3

There are several others in Wales (eg Rogiet, Monmouthshire, 16th century; Merthyr Mawr Warren, Glamorgan, 15th century)

But this is bringing a debate that belongs on sci.archaeology to wikipediaGhughesarch (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• If we assume that Ghughesarch's list accurately summarizes the stone mills discussed in footnotes 14 and 15 of the article, and if we acknowledge the likelihood of other early stone mills that no longer exist, is that sufficient to refute Godfrey's opinion that stone mills were "not common" in the early 17th century? What is the proper way to handle this question in the article?
• I share OpenFuture's opinion that Godfrey's article is worth examining. Godfrey's view that "the tower was built as a comfortable retreat and lookout for a very rich and very autocratic old man" is the final conclusion of his entire article, which addresses (plausibly, in my opinion) OpenFuture's point about the tower being described as a "windmill" in Arnold's will. I will suggest that "lookout" could include "astronomical observatory," per the hypothesis mentioned in the article.
• I would be interested in hearing Dougweller's opinion on the following question: In principle, if there is no reliable source that associates the Chesterton Mill with the Newport Tower, shouldn't we remove most or all discussion of the Chesterton Mill from the article?--Other Choices (talk) 00:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Point 1 - no, because they are examples I happen to know from the wide published literature on English windmills, not specifically from Watts and Langdon (as I explained when I made the comment, hence my not including them in the article, and my suggesting that this discussion needs to be held elsewhere - you have also wilfully ignored my admission that Watts and Langdon have a cut-off date of c.1450, whereas my examples are, with one exception, later - and therefore closer to the date of the Newport Tower and Chesterton Mill). But Godfrey's assertion was that tower mills were uncommon before the 18th, not (as you say) 17th century, and in that he was wrong.

Point 2 - Godfrey concluded that the tower was of 17th century date. Means had already (by the standards of the time) discounted any possibility of it having been a windmill (subsequent research shows this to have been an unjustified dismissal). Godfrey fitted his conclusions to that.

Point 3 - Given that there is no evidence (archaeological or documentary) for the tower's existence before the C17, but plentiful evidence for it being C17, the onus must be on the proponents of "alternative" hypotheses to provide proof for their standpoints to justify the continued inclusion of Vikings, Chinese, Portuguese etc., in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghughesarch (talk • contribs) 01:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Chesterton's possible association has been pretty widely discussed and I believe people are going to expect to find some mention here, so I'd strongly object to it being removed. Dougweller (talk) 05:47, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The situation seems to be that an engraving of the Chesterton mill was printed (without any reference to Newport) in the "Penny Magazine" in November 1836, which eventually came to the attention of people in Newport, who recognised the resemblance to their "old stone mill". Hence the Chesterton association was published at least as early as 1847, in a letter by David Melville to the Newport Herald, and has remained well-known through publication in other sources ever since (e.g. Charles T. Brooks, "The Controversy Touching the Old Stone Mill" 1851, with comparative illustrations). There is no question of its removal from this article. David Trochos (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops -- please everybody, I phrased my earlier post VERY carefully, and it seems that some people didn't quite catch my choice of words. But nothing serious, at least for the moment.

David Trochos, thank you for the reference associating the mill and the tower. I hope that somebody will find a way to add that (or maybe a better reference will show up) to the article soon.

The next question is, how prominently should the Chesterton Mill figure in the article, as compared to William Godfrey's explanation? What is the proper balance here? I think that Godfrey's explanation should get at least equal billing, especially if we can't find a reliable source that ADVOCATES (instead of just mentioning) the "original mill" hypothesis. I disagree with parts of what both OpenFuture and Ghughesarch have said about Godfrey. In particular, it seems to me that attempts to dismiss Godfrey's conclusions based on interpretations of his phrase "not common" are original research. It seems to me that Ghughesarch and OpenFuture are too focused on the "truth" of the matter, as opposed to focusing on a neutral summary of what reliable sources have said. (Regarding the fringe theorists, I would support trimming down the verbiage on the summary of Menzies and maybe a couple of others). I would appreciate hearing Dougweller's opinion on the following: If there were as many as a couple dozen stone windmills in England in in the late 17th century, does that qualify as "common"? Should wikipedia editors even be thinking about such a question? --Other Choices (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The word "common" or not, his conclusions is based on that there are no or few precedents, and this is clearly false. I don't see how that is OR. His speculation of it being a retreat or similar is complete nonsense, but that *is* OR. ;) Having Godfreys conclusion and the similarity to the Chesterton mill take about equal space seems fine to me. In fact, that's how it already is. Possibly Godfrey gets slightly more space, but it's not significant. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think that reporting a reliable source's reasoned speculation is OR. And I still think that our attempts to answer the question of how many precedents would refute Godfrey qualify as OR. However, I just found that Godfrey modified his earlier assessment, which changes this discussion. In 1954, answering Frederick J. Pohl's criticism of his earlier article, he wrote: "When my article was written, I was doubtful about the mill theory. Today, I am not so sure. Rex Wailes, noted English expert on windmills, has re-examined the evidence for the Newport structure and the suggested prototype in England, Chesterton Mill (Wailes, in press), and has supported the contention that both structures were built as mills." (William Godfrey, "Answer to 'Plaster under the Tower,'" American Antiquity, vol. 19, no. 3 (Jan. 1954), p. 278.) So it seems that Rex Wailes' book, if it was ever published, is the place to look for a reliable source associating the Newport Tower with the Chesterton Mill.--Other Choices (talk) 00:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In that context, Rex Wailes' "in press" book would have been "The English Windmill", published in 1954, which (if I remember correctly - I'll have to find my copy) doesn't mention Newport and doesn't explicitly state that Chesterton was built as a mill. It was only after Wailes' death in 1986 that the building accounts for Chesterton, showing it was always a mill, were located. However, you might try Derek Ogden, Chesterton Windmill, Warwickshire, England in Transactions of the Fifth International Symposium on Molinology, The International Molinological Society, 1982, in which the view is expressed that Means would not have written his book had he bothered to visit Chesterton.Ghughesarch (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The similarity between Newport and Chesterton is remarked upon by Richard Bennett and John Elton, A History of Corn Milling, Volume 2, Watermills and Windmills, London, Simpkin Marshall & Co, 1899 (p299-301), and though they are largely quoting from previous (19th century) sources, that's at least as reliable a source as any other for this particular topic. It seems there are two important conclusions Godfrey reached. The first, and most important, is that the tower was built in the 17th century, a conclusion which is the result of his excavation, and which (still) destroys the various fringe hypotheses which can produce no contrary evidence. The second (a speculation rather than hard fact) is that the tower was built as a "retreat" - summerhouse, observatory or whatever, not as a mill, a view which suited the orthodoxy of the 1940s in which a 17th century tower mill was unlikely if not impossible, but which we now know to have been a mistaken view, and one from which Godfrey himself later retreatedGhughesarch (talk) 01:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold's Birthplace

"The notion that Arnold was born in Leamington, Warwickshire, only a few miles from Chesterton, is mistaken: the correct place is Limington in Somerset,"

I've seen both locations claimed in various sources, in each case with apparently good supporting documentation. However, the assertion in the article needs a reference if it's to stay. Ghughesarch (talk) 11:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, after a rough-and-ready sort of fashion. David Trochos (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

Hi to all the editors watching this page. I've removed several items from the article; I believe I summarized my edits adequately, but I am happy to explain further and discuss here. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 20:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted two of ClovisPt's recent edits, because I think that NEARA represents a reliable source and a significant minority within the realm of Newport Tower discussion. If there is strong disagreement with my reversions, perhaps it would be best for us to request that some neutral editors examine this issue on the appropriate notice board. The following discussion is based on 15 minutes of google searching -- anybody else could have easily found the same information:

• NEARA is a well-established organization with chapters in several different states; their journal has been published for 35 years. Looking around their website, I notice that they sponsored a conference at an Ivy League university in 1992; and the resulting book received favorable comments from university professors. This is not a "fringe" organization, and it has been noticed by other publications. Jan Barstad of the Chronognostic Society, in her article, "The Newport Tower Project," discusses articles by William Penhallow and Suzanne Carlson in the NEARA journal. As Penhallow was a professor of astronomy; his discussion of the tower as an observatory seems to be well worth including. An abstract of Penhallow's 1994 NEARA article was published in 1997 in the academic journal Baltic Astronomy; see http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1997BaltA...6...71P Furthermore, the Redwood Library's website includes Horace F. Silliman's articles in its list of "well rounded and well researched histories on the Old Stone Mill." There is simply no way that NEARA and its authors can be glibly dismissed as "fringe."--Other Choices (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the Chrognostic Research foundation is also not a reliable source, and they are most definitely fringe. They are for all intents and purposes Jan Barstad, her husband and two friends. They seem to only care about one thing: Proving that the Newport tower is pre-colonial.

So is the NEARA Journal a reliable source? Well, it's not peer reviewed. Of the authors listed here only one seem to have actually published something outside of NEARA (James W. Mavor). And as mentioned several of their articles are full of pure nonsense. They simply do not fulfill the requirements for being reliable source. If they are fringe or not isn't relevant.

Now if you can find *other* sources that *are* reliable that mentions a theory, then that theory can be mentioned based on that source. But The NEARA Journal is not a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

OpenFuture, on this particular issue we simply disagree, and from past experience it seems that when we disagree, we often end up talking past each other, not to each other. Earlier (in the "Who is Horace Silliman" discussion) I avoided getting too far into this debate, because we both tend to express our opinions strongly, and I'd really like to avoid fruitless argumentation. In a nutshell, I don't think that your assessment of NEARA is reliable. As I suggested in my previous post, if editors on this page disagree strongly about this issue, perhaps a review by neutral editors is in order. Such a review would definitely help me to better understand what is and isn't "reliable."--Other Choices (talk) 06:30, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I *am* a neutral editor. ;) Anyhow, understanding that is a reliable sources is easy, as it's specified in the relevant policies.

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy - The NEARA Journal obviously fails this utterly. There is no fact-checking, and the journal is if anything notable for it's complete and utter inaccuracy, like publishing Suzanne Carlssons "translation" of the spirit Pond runestones. Perhaps NEARA used to be reliable, but they definitely are not now, and your efforts to argue for it is nothing more than wishful thinking, sorry.

It's pretty clear on the policy page on scholarly resurces. A RS is a secondary source that is peer-reviewed. Ph.D. dissertations are reliable (because they are vetted by peers) and a source is also reliable if get cited in several other reliable sources. NEARA's Journal is not peer-reviewed, and none of the articles on NEARA's page linked above has been cited anywhere, showing that it is not generally to be seen as reliable. They generally publish articles by happy amateurs fiddling in areas where they have little or no expertise.

Obviously, in all cases of policy, there can be borderline cases. NEARA s not one of those. It can't be used as a reliable source, you need to find other sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

NEARA

Of course NEARA is fringe. Claims that Beothuks are Europeans, Celts in America, John Anthony West as a speaker in April, Ogham in America,support for the Epigraphic Society Occasional Papers, etc all make that clear. Yes, they try to be respectable. That does not make them not fringe. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if they are always fringe but they clearly print material that a mainstream academic journal wouldn't countenance. Not a scholarly source. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

restoring alternative hypotheses

Recently an editor jumped in and deleted most of the alternative hypotheses discussed on this page. I am going to be reverting some and perhaps all of those deletions once again -- not all at once, because I want to facilitate case-by-case discussion. If disagreement about these issues persists in affecting deletions and reversions to the article, then formal mediation seems to be the obvious next step, but I'd prefer to avoid that if possible. Perhaps it should be stressed that these are ALTERNATIVE hypotheses. The issue here is not their accuracy, but their existence -- or rather, whether their existence is sufficiently noteworthy to merit mention in a wikipedia article.

• My approach to this question is to start with the webpage of the Redwood Library. If it's not in the Redwood Library's list of additional theories, then it's not worth mentioning. I hope that everybody can agree with that.
• For the record, my ancestor Clement Weaver was a "wall builder" (stonemason) from Glastonbury, England who settled in Newport, Rhode Island in the 1650s. Maybe he built the tower, but I'm not going to try to put that into the article.
• WP:RS says that "significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources" should be covered. My understanding is that reliable sources must have some sort of editorial control, but they are NOT limited to peer-reviewed journals. If anybody disagrees with this understanding of wikipedia policy, please let me know.
• I will start by restoring Penhallow's "observatory" hypothesis. It was written by a university professor and published by NEARA and, as documented earlier, noticed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. I realize that the NEARA question can get very sticky, but -- in this particular case -- mention of Penhallow's article in Baltic Astronomy seems to qualify as "appearing in a reliable source." If anybody wants to revert my restoration of the observatory hypothesis, please address this specific issue.--Other Choices (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, as noted in the Silliman discussion above, these alternate hypothesis are not notable, and has no reliable sources, therefore they should be removed. It was also noted that they likely would creep back in because the denialists doesn't care about things like WP:VERIFIABILITY. No consensus on what to do with that was reached, So we gotta stay with Wikipedia policy here, and that means remove the material. Case-by-case discussion is very possible, just bring them up. If we can find reliable sources the hypothesis should probably go back.

The theories mentioned on the Redwood library is the Norse theory and the Arnold theory. Specifically, the observatory theory is *not* mentioned.

The NEARA question is not "sticky". They simply are not a reliable source. It's an obvious clear cut case. Your attempts to get NEARA to be reliable are nothing more than wishful thinking. Give up.

I don't know if abstracts count. The policy states: The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. An abstract is not a citation, so it's not obvious that it counts. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:08, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oops, perhaps I should clarify my reference to the Redwood Library. At this page of their website, http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/tower/add.htm, they have a bibliography of "additional theories." Penhallow's work isn't mentioned there, presumably because it doesn't present a specific suggestion regarding WHO built the tower, and it doesn't presuppose a pre-colonial origin. (For example, Arnold could have built the tower in part as an observatory and then converted it to a windmill. That fits Godfrey's original hypothesis.)

And here is a fine point where it might be most useful to ask for uninvolved outside editors to help us think about wikipedia policy: The Newport Tower's significance is due in large part to the rich legacy (or encrustation, if you prefer) of "alternative" hypotheses. In this particular case, wikipedia policy on reliable sources, as written, simply doesn't apply very well. Perhaps we've been looking in the wrong place: questionable sources can be quoted as evidence of their own existence! And that is all that the "alternative hypothesis" section is for -- it's not promoting anything.

Furthermore, a number of editors are concerned about not encouraging belief in fringe theories of pre-Columbian intercontinental travel. In this case, I think that across-the-board removal of all such theories is counterproductive, because it just makes ignorant people suspicious. Or, they get excited about the opportunity to post their "latest" find (**"can't believe nobody around here has heard about [fill in the blank]"**), and feel deflated and resentful when their silly contribution gets imperiously slapped down. Instead, giving them an abundance of choices, together with links rebutting them (I especially liked the anti-Templar article), serves to dilute their favorite choice and make them think twice (or three or four times) about all the possibilities. And THAT is where I think the Silliman hypothesis is useful -- it gives a conceivable pre-colonial alternative (less fantastic, in my opinion, than the sketchy Portuguese shipwreck hypothesis) to the various pre-Columbian hypotheses. People who are attracted to fringe theories are by nature speculative -- so why not give them a feast of contradictory speeculations? As currently written, the article comes out squarely for the mainstream hypothesis, so what's the problem? One last thought, together with adding back concise mentions of the various "alternatives," I'd prefer to cut down the verbiage describing the Menzies hypothesis. Three or four sentences should be enough to get the idea across; I could probably do it in two. --Other Choices (talk) 11:49, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss changes in Wikipedia policy.

make them think twice (or three or four times) - You are presuming rationality from those who hold irrational views. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it's better to say that I'm presuming the capacity for rationality from people who have been superficially influenced by the casual reading of plausible-sounding speculations.

Regarding the question of how to apply wikipedia policy to the well-known (and not-so-well-known) alternative hypotheses surrounding the Newport Tower, we seem to be at an impasse. My impression is that your approach to this question might be too rigid; perhaps other editors can share their thoughts.--Other Choices (talk) 00:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty flexible to interpreting policy, but not to breaking it. This is not rigidity, the policy is there for good reason. If you want to change/extend policy, it shouldn't be discussed here.

I also think most people who get influenced by the pseudo-archaeological speculation are capable of rational thought, but I seriously doubt we can make Wikipedia into a debunking site, as WP has to present everything in a neutral point of view. It could be possible only if we can find scholarly resources that does the debunking, and since scholars ignore the crackpots, we generally can't. That means that we end up just presenting the speculation. Now, I don't mind that, because I think that people who have the capacity for rational thought won't fall for the speculation when presented with a rational alternative, while those who isn't rational won't believe the truth whatever you tell them. But policy is *not* the present every crackpot theory, even though I want to (especially the really stupid ones).

The same debate goes on a conspiracy theory articles (it's both a form of denialism, after all, and works the same way, which is why there is an overlap with Knight Templars and such). There you'll see two camps. Those who want the most stupid and insane theories included (usually non-believers), and those who don't (usually believers). The believers don't want to include the crackpot theories, because it shows how insane conspiracism is. The rational people want it in there, for exactly the same reason. So what to do? Well: Follow policy. Include what is notable, and have reliable sources.

We must do the same here. I'd love to have Sillimans conspiracy nonsense in the article, because it shows how crazy pseudo-archeology is. but we can't. It's policy, and it's there for a good reason. If you want to change it, this is not the place to do those discussions. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if the existence of various fringe theories not published in reliable sources could simply be acknowledged without going into detail about any of them? David Trochos (talk) 05:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a very interesting idea, perhaps a simply summary of the existence of fringe claims would suffice? Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I re-removed content sourced to NEARA - I think that given how easy publication is with them, considering their low-standards and position as a clearing house of unprofessional silliness, these sources suggest no indication of notability. I would also like to draw your attention to this edit - it was in fact a minor edit that you were reverting; no content was deleted. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 21:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Not the biggest deal, but that "minor" edit deleted the mention of pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, which, in my opinion, is an important part of the cultural significance of the tower. Perhaps we can agree to disagree on this one. Regards, Other Choices (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Like you say, not the biggest deal, but I would like to point out that all that edit did was combine the three sentences in the introduction into one paragraph - again, not a single word was deleted. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on Newport Tower (Rhode Island)/Archive 3 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: Let me begin by making two additional disclaimers: First, one particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an off the top of the head opinion of that nature. Second, as noted by a userbox on my userpage, I am a skeptic. With that out of the way, let me say that I do not think that it can be denied that some subjects which are not notable enough to be included in Wikipedia on any purely–objective, non–fringe basis are on a sociological basis justifiably deemed notable because of the urban legends or other fringe theories and attendant publicity which have surrounded them. Borley Rectory and Vanishing hitchhiker come to mind as examples. I think that the same logic can be applied when looking at articles which have objective notability, if they also have a fringe notability which is significant and which is either sufficiently notable on its own to have justified an article about the subject or which has substantially contributed to or affected the objective notability of the subject. I think that Newport Tower may well be one of these cases. Let me suggest a rough test: If any of the high-quality academic sources about the tower either have come about to test or confront a popular or fringe theory or, though done for independent academic purposes, such sources have felt it necessary to address the popular or fringe theories, then the popular or fringe theories so addressed may be notable enough to be mentioned in the article. If that's the case, however, then I think that they must carefully labeled and described in order to avoid giving them only the weight that they deserve as popular or fringe theories disproven by reliable academic research. Similarly, spending any considerable amount of space on them is likely to run afoul of WP:UNDUE and it appears that both the labeling and the space devoted to them could be improved here.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Sinclair

Isn't the Sinclair theory a "singular view"? This is Andrew Sinclair claiming that his forefather discovered America, but that no-one noticed. Is there anyone else that claims Earl Henry Sinclair built the Newport tower? Because if it's only him, that's a singular view, and probably should be omitted (see WP:FRINGE). I think we don't need reliable sources for that, we just need to establish that the fringe people actually take this seriously, right? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense, I'll try to look into this. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 21:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Penhallow's observatory hypothesis

I added back the Penhallow/observatory section and provided additional references. I will explain in detail here:

• Penhallow and three other scientists gave a presentation on the archeo-astronomy of the Newport Tower -- supporting the Norse hypothesis -- at the 23rd annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society's Division on Dynamical Astronomy, entitled "Archaeoastronomy of the Old Stone Tower." An abstract was published in the 1992 edition of the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, Vol. 24, p.1066. See this link (at the bottom right, continuing on the following page): http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/seri/BAAS./0024//0001066.000.html
• The manuscript of this presentation is listed at the Redwood Library website here: http://www.redwoodlibrary.org/tower/norse.htm
• Penhallow once again presented his "observatory hypothesis," dropping the Norse connection, at the NEARA conference at Brown University in 1992; this was published in the NEARA journal in 1994 and abstracted in Baltic Astronomy in 1997.
• Further discussion of Penhallow's explanation of the astronomical purpose of the tower, together with yet another alternative hypothesis about the tower's origin, appears here:http://newporttowermuseum.com/Newport_Tower_Museum/03_Astronomical_Alignments_in_the_Tower.html
• In summary, Penhallow's NEARA article simply re-hashed information that he had already presented at a scientific conference. I think that warrants inclusion of his observatory hypothesis in the article. --Other Choices (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit. The newporttowermuseum.com site is just a personal website by an advocate of the astronomical hypothesis who is also a NEARA coordinator. The address of the web page is extremely misleading and I'm surprised you used it. Describing Penhallow as an astronomy specialist and not saying that he was in fact a Professor of Physics is also very misleading and unsourced. And why say he was a professor emeritus? Sounds like argument from authority, a fallacy that doesn't belong in this article. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: Archaeoastronomy is a sort of number magic. You look at something until you can find that if you stand somewhere two things align with a star or the moon at some certain time. Well, whatever you look at you *are* going to find alignments, because there simply are so many stars and times and things that some of them *have* to align. However, the supposed alignments in the Newport tower makes no sense. You have a whole massive stone tower and a few alignments that isn't even seen from the inside of the tower. If you wanted to check those alignments, there would have been many ways of doing that much simpler than building a whole tower. But, coming from me, that's WP:OR, unfortunately. :) --OpenFuture (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's an interesting wikipedia article on the subject: Archaeoastronomy. Beyond that, the observatory hypothesis posits that the Newport Tower was built as a type of Camera obscura. There are technical as well as artistic and philosophical (or theological) reasons for building complicated structures as sophisticated tools for studying the heavens.--Other Choices (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, I have restored my edit, for the following reasons:

• The lack of a reliable source was the sole reason given for deleting this section in the first place; so I provided an academic source, which you simply ignored in your explanation of why you deleted my edit. If you think that this source and the Baltic Astronomy reference are insufficient to justify mention in the list of alternative hypotheses, you are welcome to say so and explain why.
• Your use of the word "misleading" in your edit summary was misleading, because my edit simply restored language that appeared in the article previously. I had nothing to do with the initial drafting of that section. You had plenty of opportunity previously to improve the section's language, but you didn't do so.
• Reference to Penhallow as an "astronomy specialist" does serve to clarify Penhallow's former role within the Department of Physics at the University of Rhode Island. Many universities don't have a separate astronomy department; for such schools, astronomy is a specialty within the more general field of physics. Penhallow was closely associated with (and apparently the founder of) the Quonochontaug Observatory at the University of Rhode Island. (You can google "Quonochontaug Penhallow"...) Given this situation, is "astronomy specialist" misleading? Perhaps there is a better way to phrase this, but once again, I was simply restoring language that you tacitly approved before.
• If you want to quibble about Penhallow's official status as "professor emeritus," I don't think it's significant to the sub-section as a whole. Mentioning it serves to clarify Penhallow's present relationship with his university; perhaps that's not necessary in this situation. But once again, it's more language that you tacitly approved before.
• I provided a supplementary reference to Penhallow's personal website -- demonstrating his observatory hypothesis -- in this sub-section of the article devoted exclusively to a brief description of Penhallow's observatory hypothesis. If that is contrary to your interpretation of wikipedia policy, then please explain. Furthermore, you can delete that final supplementary reference without deleting the whole section.--Other Choices (talk) 07:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've deleted the emeritus bit, it has no relevance to this article, and we don't use words like 'now'. I've deleted the NEARA reference and the alleged museum site which is just a personal website. I had looked but not found evidence for what he taught, only finding his title and department, but you've convinced me that astronomer is correct. There are lots of things in articles that I don't get around to dealing with, that does not mean I tacitly approve them. Dougweller (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is the presentations of the Historical Astronomy Division peer reviewed before acceptance as talks? If not, I don't see how that is a reliable source. The fact that they in the abstract push claim that the tower is a fortified viking round church observatory makes it hard for me to accept it as a reliable source without some hard evidence. (Viking and Bornholm Churches... Hmm... I wonder if this is the source of Wolters ideas of viking Knight Templars making the Kensington stone... ah well).

Also I don't know how it normally works. Is an abstract in a reliable source itself a reliable source? It's just an abstract that was published in Baltic Astronomy, not an article. I don't know if that counts. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

It's an abstract of a talk at a conference, so the issue is even more complex. Normally the talk wouldn't be a reliable source unless it was published, so I don't see the abstract as one either. Thanks, I hadn't caught that. So we have one reference to the abstract of a talk, one reference to an abstract of the NEARA article, and one reference to the NEARA article itself. This is a bit silly. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Dougweller -- your point about not dealing with every problem that you see.--Other Choices (talk) 22:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Portuguese hypothesis

I added back the Portuguese hypothesis, with a new reference, The History and Future of Narragansett Bay by Capers Jones. To facilitate discussion of whether this is a reliable source, here is the website of his publisher: http://www.universal-publishers.com/about.php And here is Jones's biography: http://www.english.ufl.edu/alumni/fall2009/jones.html You can access his book online at google books. --Other Choices (talk) 05:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, if a book on history written by a computer programmer that mentions another book on history written by a medical doctor is seen as a reliable source without extra evidence for that, then we need to get Wikipedia policy changed. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps so; or perhaps we simply need to recognize that the Newport Tower is an exceptional subject that doesn't really fit the general rules, calling for some sort of specially-crafted common-sense exception. Is there a procedure for that? My understanding is that "reliable sources" require editorial oversight, which seems to apply in this case -- it's not self-published. I could have referenced Pell's 1948 article on the Newport Tower in Rhode Island History. Do you think that qualifies as a reliable source? Perhaps you will think that it's better to just mention Pell's work on the Portuguese hypothesis and leave it at that. Perhaps other editors could share their thoughts. --Other Choices (talk) 07:27, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

If the Newport Tower is an "Exceptional subject" that doesn't fit policy, that again means policy needs to be changed so it does. In both cases, that book ends up not being a reliable source. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep in mind that pre-Columbian voyages to America were common place for 500 years since Leif Ericsson built his colony there. I also think it is important to keep in mind the Antillias map showing the lands of North America in 1424 which included the islands of the Azores opposite the lands of Iberia. Furthermore it is important to consider the Portuguese Corte-Real voyages to North America. These voyages are documented in the Portuguese archives and are not speculation. Miguel Corte-Real's father travelled to the lands of North America in later 1400s. His son Gaspar Corte-Real travelled to those same lands in 1500 and Gaspar's brother Miguel Corte-Real made his voyage to those same locations in 1500-1502. One must also keep in mind that the Portuguese territory was the last refuge for the Templar Knights operating under the name of Ordem de Cristo. This makes Prince Henry the Navigator the Templar master of his time since he was head of the Order of Christ. The Order of Christ's headquarters is the same Templar fort built in the 1100s by Portugal's First Templar Master Gualdim Pais which has at the center of the initiation altar a similar structure of 8 legs as the Newport Tower. One must also keep in mind that the Templar Master in Portugal in 1500 was none other then King Manuel I who was Miguel Corte-Real's boss. One must further keep in mind that the Portuguese marked their discoveries with Pillars (padrões) beginning in the 1480s and that when a pillar was not available on the ship they carved on stone as did Diogo Cão. Dighton Rock appears to have Miguel Corte-Real's name on it and is located just 20 miles up the river from the Newport Tower. The name Miguel Corte-Real and the year 1511 were discovered on the rock by Professor Edmund Delabarre. All of these things tend to support a Portuguese presence in Narragansett bay in the 1500s and a Portuguese Templar origin for the Tower and this must be taken into consideration as a plausible solution to this puzzle. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC).

Further consideration should be given to the fact that the structure had a fireplace suggesting a planned long stay for its builders. Windmills, as far as I am aware were not built with fireplaces in them as they were used for short chores requiring no long-term residence from its operators.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Consider also the "observatory" theory which also fits into the Portuguese hypothesis seeing that Miguel Corte-Real had with him instructed pilots who would be well prepared in the arts of astronomy and cosmography. In all aspects one should consider that the building was built as a labor of necessity and of fervor for something more than just shelter or milling grain. This fits into the general feeling in Portugal at the time of buildings that carried hidden messages and like the center piece of these two Portuguese churches (Monforte-(Portalegre)-Portugal-Igreja do Calvário) (Serra do Pilar), a larger structure would some day be built around the Newport Tower. The structure had planning and strategic location as well as implementation even though its stonework shows the lack of proper tools for a proper esoteric monument as those that were being built in Portugal at that time. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Colon-el-Nuevo's mix of speculation, statement of unverified hypothesis (eg Corte-Real's voyage) as fact, and repetition of demonstrably untrue statements (eg fireplaces in windmills), sadly amply illustrates why we won't ever get a proper article here about the Newport Tower. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with you. His post doesn't even belong here, it's a forum style argument. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

User:Ghughesarch, you have a lot to study if you believe the Corte real voyages are unverified. I also challenge yo to show us one windmill that had in it a fireplace.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.16.51.250 (talk) 20:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

well, a few of the nmany examples of windmills with fireplaces are mentioned in the article. I would also refer you to Derek Ogden's article, cited in the article. Corte Real went missing in 1501 so any statements as to where he went or what he saw on that voyage are speculation, as the wikipedia article on him, linked from Colon-el-Nuevo's post above, states very clearly. But as Doug Weller says, if you want to debate that sort of thing, it's an discussion that belongs somewhere other than here, Ghughesarch (talk) 21:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Miguel Corte-Real went missing in the coasts of New England. The other ship of that voyage that returned to Portugal explained that Miguel never arrived to the previously agreed meeting point for the return trip.Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

No reliable evidence for the claim that Corte-Real was lost "in the coasts of New England". But as you've already been told, that's not a discussion that belongs here. Ghughesarch (talk) 19:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources, fringe theories, speculation and fact

I think, in respect to Other Choices query, we are getting bogged down in what constitutes a "reliable source". I'd be quite happy for hypotheses published by fringe organisations (I would allow NEARA, for example, to be cited as a RS in respect of the fringe theories it espouses, but not in respect of the overall conclusion as to the date and purpose of the Newport Tower) to be included in the article, provided they are accorded a weight appropriate to their fringe status and not allowed to overwhelm the facts, which are that all the primary documentary and archaeological evidence point to a mid-17th century date, and construction as a windmill for or by Benedict Arnold. As I said upthread, and as the "Portuguese Hypothesis" bit of the discussion shows, those fringe theories aren't going to go away and we have to find a way of accommodating them in the article given that at least as many people are going to be interested in the Tower - thus conferring notability - because of the unlikely things that have been claimed for it, as are interested in it as part of the development of tower mills in the colonies. Ghughesarch (talk) 20:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree. The problem mainly arises when people try to go into detail about them, when they generally only warrant a couple of sentences unless we also have reliable sources discussing them. On the other hand, I'm still dubious about Wolter's self-published stuff, if it's going to be in I'd like to see it cited to a reliable source and if it is notable at all I'd think we could find one. The article isn't here to publicise his self-published books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts and suggestions:

• In line with the above discussion, I will suggest restoring the previous NEARA citation for Penhallow's hypothesis, because that is where he used the quoted phrase "so odd."
• At this point, I'm not going to try to add back the Silliman hypothesis to the "alternative hypotheses" section, because as far as I can tell it never was significant and today is not relevant to discussion of the tower.
• The closest thing to a reliable source that I found for Wolter was this: http://www.chaskaherald.com/news/entertainment/changing-history-controversial-documentary-sold-history-channel-107 It seems that he's just doing a variation of the templar theory, which has already been mentioned; perhaps a single sentence at the end of that one would do for him if somebody else has a better source and wants to add it.
• As someone recently demonstrated above, allowing self-published references could be an invitation to ongoing headaches from partisans of particular theories who don't really understand or care about the general wikipedia project.
• I imagine that the latest "John Dee" hypothesis from Penhallow and Jim Egan is going to show up soon in the NEARA journal. Perhaps an additional sentence or two at the end of the "observatory" sub-section when that happens; Egan's website suggests historical evidence of an actual colonizing mission.
• I would like to suggest shortening the Menzies paragraph to the following:

The amateur historian Gavin Menzies argues in 1421: The Year China Discovered America that the tower was built by a colony of Chinese sailors and concubines from the junks of Zheng He's voyages either as a lighthouse, or, based on Penhallow's findings,[31] as an observatory to determine the longitude of the colony. Menzies claimed that the tower closely matches designs used in Chinese observatories and lighthouses elsewhere. However, these claims have been debunked by professional historians.[32]--Other Choices (talk) 12:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to have reliable sources mentioning the fringe theories, as we otherwise open up for any one with a any crazy theory getting that theory added here. Having a reliable source acts as a guarantee that it's a notable theory, even a whole bunch of quasi-reliable sources would work. The Portugese theory does not currently have a reliable source, neither does the sinclair hypothesis. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I added a reference to Pell's article for the Portuguese hypothesis. Regarding the templar hypothesis, I assumed that Andrew Sinclair was sufficiently notable (he has his own wikipedia page). However, to demonstrate notability of his Sword and Grail book, here is a link to mainstream (non-scholarly) reviews: http://catalog.dclibrary.org/vufind/Record/ocm25551149/Reviews Not sure if it's necessary or proper to add this link as a reference in the article.--Other Choices (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources or not

The discussion about the Newport tower has decided to not include any fringe theories unless we have reliable sources for them. The question then is what is a reliable source?

• The Observatory Hypothesis is nowadays included because one reliable source reviews a book where the theory is mentioned. Is a review really a reliable source?

• The Portugese Theory is included because of a book of non-historian Capers Jones. But it's not self-published. How do we determine if that is a reliable source?

• The theory of Medieval Templars is wholly based on Andrew Sinclairs book where he, with no proof whatsoever, claims that one of his forefathers discovered America. His book is obviously not a reliable source, but it could be claimed that the theory is notable anyway, as Andrew Sinclair is notable. Is that a reasonable way of seeing things?

Help with this would be appreciated. OpenFuture (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

• I come to this as a result of the RFC posting. I would suggest that the space taken up on the fringe theories is too great. However, the fact that they exist is notable, so that they should appear. Nevertheless, I think that a series of short bulletted points, each with a reference to the source where the theory was published would be quite sufficient. At present the fringe theories certainly have undue prominence. Perhaps the answer is that some one needs to undertake some serious historical (archival) research into the origins of the tower, for example by locating title deeds that refer to it. If the city owns it, I would expect that they have some title deeds for the land. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, that fringe theories exist definitely is notable. Nobody is suggesting to remove all of them. The question is which fringe theories is notable, and that discussion has partly gotten stuck on what is reliable sources. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Portugese Theory

Again I must emphasize that the Portuguese theory has answers for European origin and Templar origin, since Miguel Corte-real was a real person whose King was the templar Master of the Order of Christ and a real person who made a real voyage and a date of 1511 which was located on a carved boulder in the same bay and only 20 miles form the tower. Colon-el-Nuevo (talk) 16:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For all we know, you may be right, but it simply isn't relevant to this article. As of right now, the Portuguese hypothesis is mentioned in the article together with several other alternative hypotheses, reflecting what is "out there" in the literature concerning Newport Tower. If the Portuguese hypothesis had more mainstream notability, then it would deserve more space in the article, and I would be the first to make sure it was properly represented.--Other Choices (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)