[fortytwo]

The "Equinox" Wiki section https://wiki.tfes.org/Equinox refers to this document: https://pingpdf.com/pdf-ancient-observatories-stanford-solar-center-stanford-university.html
and also has copied this table https://wiki.tfes.org/File:Equilux_table.png from this document.

I have read the document and found a link (page 40 "Above information and chart from") to the source for the data used is coming from: https://www.timeanddate.com/astronomy/equinox-not-equal.html

This page hase a nice graph which explains the equinox based on a heliocentric round earth model: https://c.tadst.com/gfx/600x337/equinoxes-and-solstice.png?1



So data source for the chart shown in the FET Wiki is coming from a source which supports RET.

Is this source trustworthy?

[Pete Svarrior]

Did you expect a description of RET phenomena to come from something else than a RET publication? This appears to be a cheap attempt at a "gotcha".

[fortytwo]

Maybe I misunderstood the Wiki where IMHO the table is used to proof the myth that day and night are equal everywhere on same day.
I was firstly happy to find a reference where the data in the Wiki was taken from and secondly surprised that it is a RET source.

I did not recognize that the Wiki intentionally uses a RET source to debunk the equal day myth.
If this is the case then I'm absolutely fine with the reference to a RET resource.
Maybe it could be stated explicitely that the table refers to RET and is not claimed by FET. This would help a newby and not native English like me.

[Tom Bishop]

Maybe I misunderstood the Wiki where IMHO the table is used to proof the myth that day and night are equal everywhere on same day.
I was firstly happy to find a reference where the data in the Wiki was taken from and secondly surprised that it is a RET source.

I did not recognize that the Wiki intentionally uses a RET source to debunk the equal day myth.
If this is the case then I'm absolutely fine with the reference to a RET resource.
Maybe it could be stated explicitely that the table refers to RET and is not claimed by FET. This would help a newby and not native English like me.

All the sources quoted are "RE" sources. The general point is that the sources quotes in the Wiki are all about how the RE model doesn't exactly match up with reality, and other mechanisms and excuses are needed to fill in the gaps.

Edit: To answer your suggestion, your suggestion has merit, and would probably be beneficial, but it would probably need to be a blanket disclaimer for most of the sources in the Wiki, not just this one.

[fortytwo]

All the sources quoted are "RE" sources.

Thanks for this information, then the reference to RET source makes sense. Picky side note: the table I referred to are and the document link are outside the quotes.