Rich,
I dont think either Neil or I said that “lay out” meant construct. I suggest you reread Neil's post as he explained the concept better than I.
As for your verdict. I think you and Peter are insistent on pronouncing edicts on mysteries of your own making. Quite I trick, worthy of any English Literature Seminar, even graduate level:
-- First ignore what I have written,
-- Then tell me what you think I was really trying to say
-- Then conclude that what I was really trying to say is unsupported by the text you've largely ignored.
Problem is, my essay is not a work of fiction, and it requires none of your advanced English Literature interpretive skills to understand.
My interpretation of what you and others have presented would be something to the effect of:
--Barker advised Merion (in it's broadest sense) in June 1910 about the suitability of the land for a golf course. In doing so it was likely (but not proven) that he walked the land and prepared some sort of routing (probably primitive, seemingly lost to history, per yopur recent admission).
My recent admission? You say this as if I had previously pretended to have the rough sketch. If I had the sketch I surely would have included it. As far as whether it is "proven" that he inspected the land and prepared the rough sketch, I can only tell you what Barker and Merion's Site Committee wrote on the matter. If that is not enough proof for you, then it is likely nothing will move you. But then I think we already both know that.
To say it was suitable, one had to be able to envision 18 holes on the land. I assume that Barker did although I have no idea at all what those holes might have been, and neither does anybody participating on this thread. That being said, it is not at all speculative to think that the routing would have taken the same general path as was built, and still exists (i.e. go out left and then cross the road, work your way out and then back to the road, cross the road and finish where you started, at the farmhouse/clubhouse).
Man! You are much more willing to speculate than I was in my essay. If you really believe Barker's routing outlined the same general path and still exists, then you must have information to which I am not privy. Where your speculation really breaks down, though, is here:
--Once the general concept was agreed upon, and after some addiitonal planning had been done, M&W were consulted about a number a matters, the details of which are still vague, based on what I have read.
This seems pure fiction to me, at least as far as support goes. I've read absolutely nothing that leads me to believe that "a general concept was agreed upon" and "some additional plans had been done"
BEFORE M&W were consulted. Yes, it is convenient to your Verdict, but don’t you think that ought to be based on the facts presented?
--Very quickly (at least by today's standards), the club created a Construction Committee, gave the Chairmanship to Wilson, and Bob's Your Uncle. a great golf course eventually emerged.
"Very quickly" indeed in your version, which is fiction by omission, as you ignore the historical record, including M&W’s document involvement with choosing the site, the NGLA meeting, Hugh Wilson's description of how the course emerged, the later trip down before construction, and more.
One interpretation of this Classic Comics precis of the "facts" is that M&W (possibly incorporating Barker's ideas) did a proper layout of the course which they passed onto the powers that be who chose Wilson to manage their implementation. At the other end of the specturm, one could interpret that Barker's routing was useful, but primitive, M&W advised only on the general scheme as well as providing some specific ideas regarding soils, seeds, etc. (an area where they had significant experience). Probably they talked about "templates" too, but given the fact that there were very few holes on the original course which evoked British golf, their ideas on this were very unlikely to have been influential. So, Wilson grabbed the ball and did (in consultation with the rest of the Committee) most of the detailed planning (i.e. "routing").
Behind every waiter and English Literature major there is a frustrated fiction writer. But this isn't even good historical fiction, because it ignores the factual record, including the various statements made by those who were there. I've read Hugh Wilson's description of the NGLA meeting, and I dont recall "soils and seeds" being on the agenda. It also ignores that the "routing" had already been done before Wilson got involved. But punch it up with some sort of sexual tension and maybe it could be a mini-series.
Based on all that I have read on this thread, and the other inisgnificant snippets of knowledge I have gleaned over the past 61 years, the latter scneario seems more plausible.
Yet it ignores the historical record and is contradicted by much of it.
Vis a vis your comments regarding Peter P's most recent contriubtion, I must side with him. I too have spent some time both writing for publication (public and private) and editing other's work. As you probably know, my first degree was in English Literature. Peter is absolutely right that all writers have points of view, biases, agendas, histories, etc., even including me and you! The sum of these characteristics is the "voice" of the writer which pervades every piece they put to paper. No matter how "neutral" you try to be, you never can be. In fact, as I think Peter is trying to say, the best of all writing does take a point of view and builds the words, phrase, sentences, paragraphs and chapters upon the evolving fabric of that point of view to create a story. It is up to the editor to make sure that this this story is clear, consistent and well-written. It is then up to the reader to decide if this point of view is valid, and if so, interesting.
You have replaced my point of view with what you think it should be, and replaced the facts with what you want them to be. Is that really what editors do?
__________________________
David,
Please, I thought we'd put that behind us.
Mike, how could we have left it behind us when in your last post you again implied that TomMacWood and I held back that article to embarrass you, and have been lying about is ever since? Don't expect me to politely continue to field your questions while you continue to malign my character. You have proven yourself neither capable nor worthy of civilized discussion.
Rich -
Good summary.
I share Peter's and your scepticism about "objective " writing. It doesn't happen. Better to be honest, put your "take" on the table and go from there. Ironically that sort of writing has always seemed more "objective" to me. It allows the reader to see where the writer is trying to take things. That is always helpful to a reader who will rarely know the facts as well as the author.
Bob
Bob, my essay certainly does have a point of view, just not the point of view that Rich and Peter want to attribute to it. They both look for the essay to do what it wasn’t meant to do, and then criticize it because it doesn’t prove that which it did not intend to prove. Rich goes further and ironically comes up with his own summary of events that is divorced from the historical record.
I am surprised you and others are so accepting of Rich’s summary. He give Barker much more credit than I have, and possibly more than the historical record thus far justifies. Most of his review either contradicts or ignores the facts as we know them.
Perhaps you and others are so smitten with his overall conclusions that you don’t mind the complete lack of factual support? No offense meant, just pointing out that readers have a point of view as well.
TEPaul wrote:
Wait a minute, David Moriarty, aren't you just once again completely dismissing Alan Wilson and his report? Have you bothered yet to read that entire report? In it he sure did mention that Hugh Wilson and his committee DESIGNED and constructed Merion East with some help and advice from Macdonald and Whigam. He also said that to a man the rest of the committee told him that of all of them Hugh Wilson was 'the person in the main responsible for the ARCHITECTURE both of this course and the West Course.'
Why in the world is the same word (DESIGNED) from some guy who may've been at Merion just twice now more important than a man from Merion who saw the entire thing from beginning to end?? 
Alan Wilson’s account was over a dozen years later, and by his own words appears to be second hand. According to the evidence as we know it, Alan Wilson was NOT on the Site Committee when that committee received MacDonald’s letter, he wasn’t at the NGLA meeting, and there is no evidence that he was on the site at all during the process. His account is not first-hand, and contains obvious errors, like the one about Hugh Wilson traveling abroad as a first step, in 1910. Plus, Alan Wilson does not say that Hugh Wilson did the original routing.
But even if we ignore all of that, the Alan Wilson article does not support the conclusions you draw from it.
In sum, what Alan Wilson said was: EXCEPT FOR WHAT M&W CONTRIBUTED, the design was homegrown, and of the committee members Hugh I. Wilson deserves the most credit for that design.While its weight as evidence is suspect because of its second-hand nature and because it was written by Hugh’s brother shortly after Hugh’s untimely death,
I agree with him 100%. Especially when one considers it was written in 1926 after Wilson had been tinkering with the course for 15 years!But, because Wilson carefully excepts M&W’s contributions, it tells us very little about what is at issue today. If anything, it speaks to Barker’s involvement, but given that Alan Wilson was not there and may not even had known there was a barker routing, I put little weight in his letter on that front.
______________________________________
What I'm really after is if Mr. Cirba's birth certificate finds that H.I. Wilson was, indeed, H.D. Wilson he was spending some time on a ship and looking at some courses overseas. He was also making time for his wife, if she had a daughter in Sept. 1910 
If he did, indeed, return in March 1910, then sketching a routing during that time (and maybe getting it tweaked by Barber and/or Charlie Mac later in the year) would coincide with beginning construction in Spring 1911.
But, if he also returned on a ship in September 1911, I'd sure as hell like to know how long he was gone. He sure as heck wasn't overseeing much construction in the summer of 1911 if he was gone during this time.
All this garbage I'm spewing could be irrelevant if H.D Wilson wasn't H.I Wilson, obviously.
I think it is irrelevant even if it was the correct Hugh I. Wilson.
Tony, Mike's timeline is nonsensical. Nothing evidences that Merion's members were working on the routing in the spring of 1910, or earlier, and no evidence that Hugh Wilson was at all involved at that date. Most of Mike’s dates are off by about a full year. Plus, I doubt Merion was seeding the East course in September of 1911, so I doubt that Hugh I Wilson was traveling.
Again, Hugh Wilson tells us then he studied golf courses overseas: After the NGLA trip, which occurred after the committee was appointed, which occurred after the land was purchased, which occurred sometime around early January 1911.
______________________________________________
For those of us who are interested in this thread but don't have four hours to read all the posts, could someone summarize what has or has not been concluded so far
Sure Mark.
Here is my tongue in cheek account, which I am sure will not be taken in the spirit that it is meant, but I'm used to that.
Except for the inexplicable attempt to keep the novel and unsupportable two-trip theory alive, I think most posters have largely accepted my essay and have moved past the essay onto different questions that the essay never intended to address. Whether the posters realize this or not is another question.
Some have raised interesting questions, such as why Macdonald and Merion did not attribute design credit to M&W, barker, or even Wilson. I offered a theory, but not sure anyone even read it. I also tried to explain that this is entirely outside the scope of my essay. But I am sure no one cares about that.
Peter, Rich Goodale and others all read the essay from a literary persective and so they go well beyond its intended scope, usually interpreting it as my attempt to solely credit M&W for the design. Like any true editor would, they all know my intentions better than me, and therefore ignore me when I explain that my paper does not even attempt to address that issue or others they repeatedly raise.
Apparently it is not my decision to decide what the essay is about. Others can just make up their own hypotheses, if only to criticize the essay for not answering questions it never asked. Rich even makes up his own facts!
Mike Cirba has come up with his fifth or sixth (at least) attempt to identify Hugh Wilson’s supposed early trip, but he fails to explain or understand what relevance, if any, this information has, or to address the information that suggests that no earlier STUDY trip took place. Apparently he thinks that if Hugh I Wilson ever stepped foot in Europe before 1912, this proves that Hugh I Wilson he must have used the trip to become an expert on the European courses, despite that Hugh Wilson told us where he learned these things.
I don’t know what else Mike is up to because I quit reading his posts or fielding his questions after he again accused Tom MacWood and I of sandbagging, then lying about it. But I am sure he will tell you that his behavior has been exemplary.
TomPaul has pontificated on the days of yore, and swears that Hugh I. Wilson must have been designing the course in 1909 and 1910 even though there is no record of any of it. His proof? No proof at all, except he says that this is just how rich people were. Because he says so.
Plus, he does not need proof because I cannot prove conclusively that it did not happen the way TEPaul says it happened. So long as I cannot prove that a negative did not happen, Tom thinks he has no burden of proof whatsoever. Unfortunately, if I do prove that it did not happen, Tom will just move to the next unsupported conjecture like he has with the two-trip abroad conjecture.
That is about it. Thanks for stopping by.