On 03/10/14 20:41, Guy Harris wrote:
This underscores the unreliability of our old source Shanks. We already
knew Shanks was wrong for large swaths of the world in the 20th century. Even so, it's surprisingly bad for a U.S. source like Shanks to get South Vietnam wrong in 1973. Wasn't Shanks reading the newspapers?
What it does demonstrate is that now we are getting more people involved, the better documented provenance is starting to be uncovered? ...and that, as Paul has repeatedly said, much of the current historical data in the tz database is bogus.
I'd not disagree with that ... but hiding proven valid data away in backzone is not the way to improve the quality. There is as much uncorroborated data still in main database as has been ring fenced in backzone as suspect. If we spend time researching material only for it to be a lottery if it is included or not what is the point of bothering? -- Lester Caine - G8HFL ----------------------------- Contact - http://lsces.co.uk/wiki/?page=contact L.S.Caine Electronic Services - http://lsces.co.uk EnquirySolve - http://enquirysolve.com/ Model Engineers Digital Workshop - http://medw.co.uk Rainbow Digital Media - http://rainbowdigitalmedia.co.uk