::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]