Talk:Global Positioning System

Neutrality of LightSquared section

Whoever wrote the section documenting the LightSquared/Coalition to Save Our GPS controversy is clearly biased in favour of the coalition. These two lines particularly caught my attention: "In the face of demonstrated disruption to GPS operations, LightSquared has turned to a strategy of blaming GPS manufacturers for building receiving equipment which "..looks into their (LightSquared) spectrum". This, despite the fact that the spectrum in question was never envisioned as being used for terrestrial broadcast." The language of this section is not neutral enough for Wikipedia, and should be substantially rewritten or removed. --The Editor 18:17, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Reality is somewhat biased on this issue. It's certainly true that LightSquared has been trying to place the responsibility on the GPS community by insisting that GPS users add filters to their receivers, and it's also true that this part of the spectrum was never envisioned as being used for terrestrial broadcast in that the entire neighboring band was used for satellite communications. siafu (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I just wanted to add my thoughts - Siafu, the statement in this section is indeed factually correct, however, the wording is quite biased. I think phrasing like "LightSquared says that GPS manufacturers are to blame for building receiving equipment which "..looks into their (LightSquared) spectrum". They say that the GPS industry has had almost 10 years to prepare or object, but has chosen not to until recently. However, the spectrum in question was never envisioned as being used for terrestrial broadcast." would be much more neutral. I'm leaving this for someone else to make any actual changes, but wanted to help. If no one changes this in the near future, I will make it myself. (I'm leaving it for others because: a. I have never made a change before and am somewhat uncomfortable doing so, and b. because I'm not actually happy with my version, though I think it would be a big improvement from the existing wording.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.46.168.178 (talk) 05:51, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Bancroft method made even more neutral, current reference retained, new may be added

So long as the section "Bancroft's method" remains as it is now, I have no objections to removing "Bancroft's method is perhaps the most important method of solving the navigation equations". I don't think it was a violation of the neutrality policy since it is like saying, I think GPS is perhaps a better navigation system than dead reckoning. RHB100 (talk) 22:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The referebce, http://www.macalester.edu/~halverson/math36/GPS.pdf, must be retained. It is the best written and most clear description of the Bancroft method of any free source I have been able to find on the internet. Additional references may be added but it is important that this source be retained. To judge the best source, it is necessary to read and comprehend the material. I don't believe DVdm has read the source material with sufficient comprehension to understand the Bancroft method. RHB100 (talk) 22:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

If I would not have a masters degree in mathematics (and another one in IT, by the way), my understanding of the Bancroft method would be just as irrelevant as it is now (see your talk page and this old WQA) . It does not matter whether you and I understand it, or whether you and I are qualified in anything. It matters whether Wikipedia text is wp:verifiable by means of wp:reliable sources. Trust me, I do understand the equations, and I am quailified to judge that, and they are good—very good. There is no question about that, but for Wikipedia our judgment is irrelevant. My point is just this: having noticed that this particular source is merely a student assignment (and therefore not peer-reviewed), albeit, as you said "on the website of a highly respected Canadian university", and although 100% OK for you and for me, I wondered whether we didn't have "Wikipedia-better" sources, i.e. published books or peer reviewed articles. Don't be afraid, I will not remove "your" source, but if someone removes it and replaces it with something more solid (in the Wikipedia sense), I will support that action. That said, what do you (and others) think about adding the statement I suggested in the previous section, together with the book-source I provided? - DVdm (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, ref to original added - see prv section. - DVdm (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference resides on the website of a Minnesota college, http://macalester.edu, not a Canadian university, 'highly respected' or otherwise. - Pirround (talk) 00:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what statement in the previous section you are talking about. RHB100 (talk) 00:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ resource

Beijing Launches Its Own GPS Rival by Jeremy Page 28. December.2011 (page A9 in print). 99.181.153.29 (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible problematic edits

I noticed that an editor who made several edits to this article may be linked to a PR company (see WP:COIN#Qorvis for background). Could someone with more knowledge of GPS check the edits that WeatherBug17 (talk · contribs) made to the article? Some of the content has already been removed but some remains. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, this section in GPS modernization and the entirety of Joint Polar Satellite System was written by them if anyone has the time to check them over. SmartSE (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Opening Comment

The comment, "This article's use of external links may not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Please improve this article by removing excessive or inappropriate external links, and converting useful links where appropriate into footnote references. (January 2012)", appears more likely to cause harm than to result in benefits. I recommend that it be removed. RHB100 (talk) 02:32, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with that comment, and recommend that it be followed in stead of removed. See wp:ELNO. - DVdm (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)