Talk:The Nautical Almanac

This talk page was created after I moved some articles – before my move, an disambiguation "Nautical Almanac" and an article "Nautical almanac" existed. See now also Talk:Nautical almanac (disambiguation) --Cyfal (talk) 10:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Navsoft
I have undone external links to navsoft.com because the almanacs appear unreliable to me. First, the site provides no names and no physical address; reliable publishers give author's names and the physical address of the publisher. Next, the site's Historical Events page makes definite statements about the birth and death of Jesus; I am not aware of any serious scholar who is willing to make such definite statements. Thus I conclude the anonymous author serioulsly overestimates his/her abilities. Since navigation is a matter of life and death, no link to such a publication should appear in Wikipedia.

The relevant guideline is WP:External links. Bullet 2 states "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, except to a limited extent in articles about the viewpoints that the site is presenting." The birth and death dates for Jesus are clearly unverifiable, and no citations to modern sources are offered to support the claims.

Bullet 11 states "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception for blogs, etc, controlled by recognized authorities is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for people.)" Since the author is anonymous and no physical address is offered, this must be considered a personal website by someone who's expertise is not established. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)



REMARKS FROM NAVSOFT The above criticism above is unwarranted. A comprehensive rebuttal has been submitted to the author.

There is no basis whatsoever for the contention that "the almanacs appear unreliable." Interested parties are invited to download a NavSoft Nautical Almanac, draw their own conclusions and post them here. As noted at http://navsoft.com/almanac.html less than 0.5% of entries will differ from the UK/ US Government's "The Nautical Almanac." These government agencies hold a monopoly over the provision of data to other almanac publishers.

I know of no other source on the internet of comparable accuracy. I am surprised that a Wikipedia editor is effectively protecting a governmental monopoly.

This editor does provide a link to the notes on historical events but neglects to mention the link that was removed; http://navsoft.com/downloads.html The Historical Event pages are intended solely to provide examples of the opportunities provide by NavSoft's main program, AstroNav. These pages identify Astronomical events that are associated with the birth and death of Jesus. i.e. Contenders for the Star of Bethlehem and the eclipse that took place on Friday 3rd April 33AD. The only contentious item is the suggestion that The Star of Bethlehem puzzle falls in two parts; Astrological and Navigational.

The existence of Jesus may not be verifiable. However the only thing that these pages do is provide evidence relating to events associated with Jesus's "mythical" existence.

It is difficult to understand how conjecture on verifiable astronomical events that occurred two thousand years ago degrades the reliability of astronomical information in the present day. If anything the ability to match astronomical events that far back is a positive reflection on the underlying program's accuracy.

Perhaps if this editor had bothered to contact me in the first place, I could have dealt with his concerns. He neither did that nor warn me of his intention to publish such derogatory comments.

Michael O'Dougherty Master Mariner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modou02 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to support statements in articles, and to evaluate other reliable sources. There is no way to know if Modou02 has any astronomical qualifications, just as there is no way to know if I do. If I were to compare data from NavSoft to that which appears in better known almanacs, it would prove nothing, because I am not a reliable source and there is no evidence that I have the skill or good will to perform such a comparison. What reliable source reccommends NavSoft? What well-known institution relies on it? What evidence is there that the NavSoft website is something more than a personal website? That is what matters.


 * Further, it is contrary to Conflict of interest for an editor to promote his/her own website. Jc3s5h (talk) 21:32, 25 January 2011 (UTC)