Talk:Nevil Maskelyne

-->

}}

Assessment = POV?

The assessment section sounds too much like an apology for Maskelyne. It wasn't just Sobel that paints Maskelyne in bad light - so to do many other writers. David S. Landes points out that Maskelyne initially was biased due to intellectual views on the matter but eventually came to hate Harrison. He refers to both Rupert Gould and G.H. Baillie as judging Maskelyne to be unfair to Harrison. Landes also points to the exchange between Maskelyne and Harrison in M's An Account of the Going of Mr. Harrison's Watch (London 1767) and in H's Remarks on a Pamphlet Lately Published by the Rev. Mr. Maskelyne under the Authority of the Board of Longitude (London 1767).

This section should avoid reference to Sobel exclusively and show a more balanced view - that many thought him unfair but that he had contributions to make nonetheless. Michael Daly 20:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Many of these more negative assessments come from authors who were principally interested in the contribution of Harrison and other clockmakers, and largely lack interest in the complementary role of astronomical and other methods of navigation. They have also been much influenced by the later Harrison "Journal", which is a very one-sided account. For balance, editors should also refer to Derek Howse's biography of Maskelyne, the book I (Rebekah Higgitt) edited called Maskelyne: Astronomer Royal, plus Richard Dunn and Rebekah Higgitt, Finding Longitude.Beckyfh (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Tobias Mayer

My understanding is that Maskelyne also inherited Tobias Mayer's lunar tables from James Bradley to whom the Board of Longitude sent them after Mayer sent them to the Admiralty in 1755, complete with the method of determining longitude. The tables and the method were widely known from that point on, I believe, long before Maskelyne "invented" his. Surely there should be some mention of this, unless I am mistaken (an ever present possibility) OsmNacht (talk) 09:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no sense in which Maskelyne "invented" the lunar-distance tables. As he explained in his introductions to the Nautical Almanac, the tables of lunar distances were based on Tobias Mayer's lunar theory and the process for presenting them and using them for navigation was based on those published by Nicolas Louis de Lacaille in the Connaissance des temps. Both should certainly be mentioned in the article and it should be clear that Maskelyne's achievement was in organising the production and publication of the data and tables, making sure that it was a largely accurate and a long-term project.Beckyfh (talk) 10:45, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nat Bowditch

Jean Lee Latham produced a biography of this sailor and mathematician from Salem, Mass entitled "Carry on, Mr. Bowditch", c. 1955. She does not cite her sources. Bowditch produced "The American Practical Navigator" first published in 1802 and still in print and in use today. Latham credits Bowditch with discovering numerous numerical errors with Mayer's tables and Maskelyne's methodology, also with revising and improving the "lunar method" and of teaching it to common sailors under his command. No mention at all is made of timepieces.

The Mapmakers

This Vintage Book was copyright 1982 by John Noble Wilford.... it includes a chapter entitled "John Harrison's Timpepiece" which goes into more detail on the manufacture of the watch and the trials. Wilford is clearly biased against Maskelyne and the lunar method and includes much more information than is present in this article. The chapter closes by relating how Harrison finally petitioned King George III for his right to the full prize and the King granted the petition. Wilford cites Gould, also Lloyd Brown, Eva Taylor, and Normal Thrower

2601:142:8200:7804:E9AC:EC53:5695:86B7 (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)John Tucker, ultracrepidarian, March 13 20182601:142:8200:7804:E9AC:EC53:5695:86B7 (talk) 11:02, 13 March 2018 (UTC)