Talk:True north (geography)

Is there a reason why true north has its own page while magnetic north is merged with the North Pole article? I don't have any reason to argue whether or not they should be either merged or seperate, but it seems to me that they should both be consistent.

I have a different nit to pick...
''Currently, in 2002, Polaris is at its closest approach to the celestial north pole. 2,000 years ago, the closest star to the celestial north pole was Thuban.''
 * What does "Currently, in 2002" in that sentence signify? Does it signify that the sentence was written in 2002 or, that so far, to this date (even still in 2006, as I type) 2002 was the closest approach? The sentence really is difficult to parse. -- Cimon avaro; on a pogostick. 12:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thuban 2000 years ago the pole star?***

See:

"Use as pole star (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thuban)

Due to the precession of Earth's rotational axis, Thuban was the naked-eye star closest to the north pole from 3942 BC, when it moved farther north than Theta Boötis, until 1793 BC, when it was superseded by Kappa Draconis. It was closest to the pole in 2787 BC, when it was less than two and a half arc-minutes away from the pole. It remained within one degree of true north for nearly 200 years afterwards, and even 900 years after its closest approach, was just five degrees off the pole. Thuban was considered the pole star until about 1900 BC, when the much brighter Kochab began to approach the pole as well."

egyptians and the true north
how can the egyptians (and where is it documented) have been able to align the pyramids with true north by a margnial error of 3minutes, if there was no way of knowing what was north and south?? [[Great Pyramid of Giza] --Brownarthur (talk) 11:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)