Talk:Jabal Soudah

Highest point in Saudi Arabia

At this discussion on my talk page I have been discussing the reliability of the references used to reassign the referenced hight of this peak to one lower than another in Saudi Arabia. User_talk:Andrewgprout#Saudi_Arabia_High_Point.

My original revert was on this related page [[1]]

I have reverted the detail of this change but left the basics of the newer claim as a unverified claim in the hope that future references can be found to verify one or the other hights. What I am sure of is that the previous editor does not want to understand that Wikipedia requires a sensible secondary reliable reference to back up his claim and that the people who climb to the top of these mountains with GPS units and then write about what they find might not be biased in finding controversial stuff. Andrewgprout (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Dear Andrewgprout. Please, help me understand correctly your reasoning! Let us suppose, that somebody carries out a DGPS elevation measurement of a certain point on Earth and publishes his findings (measurement details, measured charts, etc.) somewhere on the Internet. Later somebody else independently repeats this DGPS measurement with his devices and he also publishes his findings on the Internet. Let us suppose, that the results of the two independent measurements are the same (within the error margin of a DGPS measurement). Then some time later a third person repeats this DGPS measurement again, publishes his findings and his result is again the same as the former two were. How many such independent measurements has to happen according to your opinion / reasoning, to consider the result an acceptable and reliable one? Four, three, two, one? Or does it depend on where the findings are published? Or does it depend on who carried out the measurement(s)? It is a DGPS measurement result acceptable at all according to your point of view, if we try to determine the elevation of a certain point on Earth? Please, do not consider my question as an insult - because it is indeed not. I am really curious about your views. Kószab (talk) 17:35, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kószab. I'll try to answer your questions as I see them. The answer to your questions are mostly "it depends". Firstly who is the "somebody" up the mountain doing the DGPS elevation measurement" Are they a private citizen doing so because they are interested in this stuff, or part of a scientific or geographic survey by a government or international organisation. This matters because one carries more confidence that the survey was undertaken in a proper and controlled way. The main way Wikipedia ensures it accepts only vaid data is its core principle WP:V which says everything must be verifiable.

Secondly where is "somewhere on the internet" of which you speak - if the results of the survey are written up and made available on a personal webpage or blog then the results as far as Wikipedia is concerned didn't happen, this would go under the definition of self published. Wikipedia requires as a core value sources be WP:RS If the results are documented in a truly published publication, ie someone has selected, proof read, questioned, peer reviewed, and made it available in an established publication there is a better chance that a detail will be acceptable to Wikipedia editors. A blog or website that collects trip reports of amateur expeditions will not be as reliable (if at all) a source as a full scientific expedition by National Geographic for instance.

Can I just say that I have no real doubt that some currently established heights are wrong and some readjustment of these are almost inevitable, but you must accept that the role Wikipedia (as a WP:TERTIARY resource has in this is to reflect such changes only after they have become established in the same places that the current details are taken from a selection of, maps, academic journals, books, etc. If you are truly right in making a claim that something is wrong and there is enough evidence that this is so, the established sources will change to refect the new thinking, or if you don't really have the evidence they will not. Whatever - we must wait and see if such publications take up the new updated detail and only then can Wikipedia relect the new thinking. It is not and must not be Wikipedia editors who make such decisions of validity.

I hope this helps and don't ever be afraid of asking questions - it is the way we build an encyclopaedia of value. Andrewgprout (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your thorough answer. Kószab (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrewgprout WP:RS is a guideline. It is not set in stone. It is about who or what is more reliable. Quite apart from your thinly veiled personal attack, I find it astonishing that you are challenging the reliability of a DGPS survey by experienced GPS users while upholding the reliability of the sources that uphold 3133 metres. Think about it, which is more reliable, an established publication or a GPS survey by an experienced GPS user? Summit heights that date back to rough estimates, that were first published long before GPS became available, abound in printed sources. For technical reasons, these do not generally get updated in new editions, so it is likely that they will continue to abound and be reproduced by august sources for many years. It follows that the accuracy of heights in established publications should not be regarded as reliable. In the case of Jabal Sawda it is easy to verify the GPS claim using public domain SRTM data, which is completely inconsistent with 3133 metres. Viewfinder (talk) 20:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Further to the above Andrewgprout, I have found this reference, which does appear to meet your reliability position. It upholds 3000m (albeit in imperial units). On the subject of the Saudi HP it is contradictory, giving a higher elevation for Ferwa. Viewfinder (talk) 21:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Viewfinder: You have to be joking. Please understand that nothing in Wikipedia is set in stone does not mean that it is a free for all. You would need serious consensus to put the crappy references you are putting forward to carry more weight than more established sources. I think you need to read Wikipedia:Five_pillars to understand how wrong most of what you are saying is.

Some points. Already discussed above but repeated again.

1. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to do anything other than reflect the established consensus. The self published or near self published and seriously contradictory references that you are putting forward smacks of desperation and agenda pushing. Just wait until the new heights become established or not.

2. It is not up to Wikipedia editors to gauge the accuracy or not of a survey. We should gauge the reliableness of these however in established published resources - you will find a considerable consensus that suggests what is reliable and what isn't.

...and a comment. The original heights were NOT rough estimates they were carefully derived through trangulation surveys with great care and surprising overall accuracy. Of course these could be potentially wrong but I believe you have to much faith in GPS accuracy at the levels you are arguing about. I, you, and all other Wikipedia editors have no way of knowing the rigour of the surveys (by these so called "experienced GPS users" you are promoting, as they do not appear to have been published in established or scientific publications. Andrewgprout (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Agreed that careful triangulation surveys were carried out. The heights of Everest and K2, which date back to the 19th century triangulation surveys, have stood the test of time, but there is no evidence whatsoever that the 3133m for Sawda was measured by such a survey. The 5671m elevation for Damavand, which has been trashed by official and scientific surveys, will long persist in august "reliable" publications. It dates back to a rough estimate by an Austrian geologist. The references that I have been putting forward are in close agreement. All, including {{GPS]], SRTM and several other satellite surveys, are more than 100m lower than your so-called reliably sourced 3133m. Viewfinder (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Soudah

Hello,

The real name of this moutains is Soudah not Jabal Sawda, can we please modify it.

https://www.visitsaudi.com/en/see-do/destinations/al-soudah

https://www.arabnews.com/node/2261831/saudi-arabia

https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/sgi/saudi-arabia-soudah-mountains-nature-b2240646.html

amongst many other

Thank you for providing proper sources. What these show is the mountains are called Soudha, not this particular peak. The Soudha Mountains are already described at the Al Souda article. It may make sense to change the name of the Al Souda article to Soudha, or Soudha Mountains. Grachester (talk) 03:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Highest Point in Saudi Arabia (continued)

I have been here already, but not for some time as I have been more or less content with the article as it has been for the last few years. But more recently, I am concerned that material has been removed from the article and replaced with less accurate material.

The 3015 metre height that is being supported by the article is an improvement on the 3133 metre height that it has been claimed in the past, but I can see no evidence that it has any particular official status. Most of the sites that have been supporting it are promotional, not topographic. One topographic site, World Atlas, upholds the claim that Sawda is highest, but then gives heights which contradict that claim. The CIA World Factbook is neutral on the issue. 3015m dates back to an old US/UK survey for their military joint operations maps. By contrast, the technical report at Country Highpoints was written by a GPS expert and professor of Mathematics who has used modern methods to survey many national highpoints. The survey work was carried out with the cooperation of the Saudi authorities, and is recognised by the Saudi Mountain Federation (second source).

I therefore put it to other editors that the material that was based on this report should be restored, and a neutral position be taken on the location of the Saudi national high point.

COI declaration: I have never met the authors of Country Highpoints, but we have communicated. Viewfinder (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Viewfinder, totally agree with you here. I have a COI with the Gilbertsons, but believe their work belongs on the encyclopedia especially as more trustworthy, independent, reliable sources recognize their surveys. I made an agreement with @Graywalls and @Axad12 to stop editing anything directly related to the Gilbertsons, but you have my full support. I think every high point they surveyed should be on the encyclopedia since Gilbertson is well-versed in surveying and should be a reputable source in the field. It's not like he's standing on top of some peak with his phone GPS and calls it a day. He's using technical surveying equipment and knows how to use it, writing up technical reports on the process. So long as his work has been acknowledged by secondary sources, I see no reason why it can't be included in the encyclopedia. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Absolutely oppose. Those Gilbertson people are not recognized as experts in this field and they're not cited in relevant scholarly journal in this discipline such that they would pass WP:EXPERTSPS. Wikipedia does not lead in publishing the latest fad/news. We follow what's been published in reliable secondary sources, which Gilbertson paper is not and we don't use WP:QS like Countryhighpoints.com Please review the talk page dicussion on Talk:Mount_Rainier. Courtesy ping to DJ Cane. Graywalls (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I also oppose very strongly. This thread is just a re-heat of previous discussions (ad nauseum) on this sort of topic - including some where KnowledgeIsPower's conflict of interest and general conduct was placed under the microscope and found to be wanting (to the extent that the user voluntarily agreed to stop operating in this topic area).

I'm agnostic when it comes to whether or not the Gilbertsons are 'right', but Graywalls is certainly correct when it comes to Wikipedia only following the reliable secondary sources.

Thus, the discussion on what this (or any other) high point is will take place off-wiki amongst subject matter experts in the relevant field and then Wikipedia will reflect their deliberations in due course once they are reflected in the appropriate sources. This is clearly the appropriate way for the encyclopaedia content to be determined, rather than the Gilbertsons themselves and their various COI advocates attempting to alter the figures directly or to make arguments to that effect.

Following the reliable secondary sources is the same approach that Wikipedia has for any other 'cutting edge' type research taking place in any other field. Wikipedia does not seek to be a publisher of this type of data, regardless of whether or not the researchers have previously placed the data online elsewhere (which clearly, in this case, does not constitute 'publishing' in the sense required by WP:RS and WP:V).

I'm very disappointed to see KnowledgeIsPower saying So long as his work has been acknowledged by secondary sources, I see no reason why it can't be included in the encyclopedia. The user is very well aware that the fundamental problem is that the work has not yet been acknowledged by secondary sources.

Once it has been acknowledged in that way I suggest we return to this subject. Until then, a variety of accounts who have communicated with the Gilbertsons need to drop the stick.

I'd also suggest that the Gilbertsons stop claiming off-wiki that their research is being erased from Wikipedia and that Wikipedia is an unreliable source. Their behaviour in this regard is clearly producing WP:MEATPUPPETS who are disrupting the encyclopaedia over what is ultimately a foundational point of Wikipedia's design. If the Gilbertsons wish to propagate their own research then the place to do that is elsewhere, via appropriate academic channels, as has now been explained on multiple occasions. Wikipedia is not an appropriate battleground for these sorts of issues. Attempting to install such material directly into Wikipedia, bypassing (or, at least, preceding) legitimate subject matter expert discussion elsewhere, is actually an abuse of Wikipedia. Axad12 (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I've told Eric that his best bet to getting stuff included on the encyclopedia without it being removed is through getting more secondary independent sources to recognize his surveys (i.e: government databases/geographical lists, scientific papers, mountaineering journals, etc).

Given my COI and that I am a highpointer, of course I have a strong perspective and strongly favor the inclusion of his surveys on the encyclopedia. I am still committed to not directly editing any article pertaining to Eric, but will participate in Gilbertson-related discussions such as these.

However, I will say regardless of perspective or Wikipedia policy, you should at least acknowledge that Eric is expert-level in what he does regarding surveys. He uses professional surveying equipment and techniques, and has a technical, detailed, academic-style write-up for each one. Unfortunately, I have to accept that the consensus was not in favor of the Gilbertsons, so we'll have to wait until Eric gets more secondary coverage.

If Eric published his survey write-ups in scientific journals pertaining to climbing or geography, then Wikipedia policy would support their inclusion in the encyclopedia. I suppose the problem with WP policy is most of his papers are self-published on his site, though I am aware of a few write-ups he's working on that will be published in scientific journals. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The Gilbertson brothers have made the bottom half of their page a diatribe against me. https://www.countryhighpoints.com/ clearly they're closely monitoring Wikipedia. KnowledgeIsPower9281, by now you should be quite aware of WP:RS and WP:PSTS, so I'm not sure why you continue to push for non-compliant highly questionable bloggy sources. Graywalls (talk) 04:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I would also be interested to hear an explanation for the widespread unsourced changes to national highpoint measurements made at List of elevation extremes by country by multiple Calgary Alberta based IP addresses such as [2] and [3].

Is there any reason to assume that this is not related to off-wiki canvassing by individuals known to be interested in implementing widespread changes to national highpoints on Wikipedia? Axad12 (talk) 05:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

A few subsidiary points:

1) With regard to you should at least acknowledge that Eric is expert-level in what he does regarding surveys… I have no issue with Gilbertson’s expertise or his methodology, I simply object to the continual attempts by COI users to breach WP:V and WP:RS (plus I object to the off-wiki canvassing which is clearly going on within the highpointing community).

2) With regard to I have a strong perspective and strongly favor the inclusion of his surveys on the encyclopedia… The issue of inclusion has been discussed many times and explained to you at great length. That you continue to argue contrary to policy for inclusion under the present circumstances is symptomatic of your routine WP:IDHT approach to this subject matter.

3) With regard to If Eric published his survey write-ups in scientific journals pertaining to climbing or geography, then Wikipedia policy would support their inclusion in the encyclopedia… I disagree. The issue is that the findings need to be reflected in sources not connected to Gilbertson. However, if he were to publish write-ups in scientific journals then clearly that would be a first step to obtaining the recognition required for the measurements to be included in independent sources and then in Wikipedia.

4) With regard to I suppose the problem with WP policy is… This seems to be your fundamental misunderstanding. This isn’t a problem with WP policy. The problem is that you and others associated with Gilbertson seem to have zero respect for WP policy on issues such as notability, recreation of the deleted Gilbertson biography, reliable sources, off-wiki canvassing, meatpuppetry, etc., etc.

Realistically we cannot continue with a situation where multiple users in direct off-wiki contact with Gilbertson are undertaking a lengthy on-wiki campaign to alter highpoint data in line with his research - research which at this point in time does not meet the requisite bar for inclusion. The behaviour is disruptive and is an ongoing timesink for non-conflicted users. Axad12 (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I respect both Wikipedia policy and that the consensus is against my opinion. It's just that my conflict of interest naturally makes me biased in favor of Eric and thus I may neglect WP policy in the subject at times. Although I personally consider Gilbertson a reliable source as a highpointer, I understand why WP policy does not see it this way and that an exception won't be made for one individual.

@Graywalls, when I talk to Eric next I'll try to explain to him that the only way to get his surveys on Wikipedia are to publish them to multiple, secondary, independent reliable sources and get them recognized by the climbing/surveying community (many of which have already). Also, it's worth mentioning that Wikipedia is not the first source for most highpointers. If highpointers want information on a highpoint, they will actively seek out beta (trip reports) or blog posts detailing a person's ascent of that peak. It's just that Wikipedia policy does not support these sources, even if the sources like Eric's blog are more factually accurate than the current state of these outdated Wikipedia articles. For instance, his Colombia survey in 2024 is the most recent one done and thus is far more accurate than a survey done decades ago given snowmelt. Hopefully when Eric publishes a scientific report on the matter it can be mentioned on the encyclopedia, if the Colombian government acknowledges the survey.

I will try to better explain Wikipedia policy to Eric so that he understands Graywalls' removal of information, while frustrating due to his hard work not being recognized, is not necessarily a personal vendetta, but just someone with no connection to the subject following Wikipedia policy. Also, on his site he removed specific mention of users. I agree that arguing and pointing fingers at others is not a way to move forward, so let's bring the tone down. The solution here is for Eric to publish his sources elsewhere and wait for them to catch on to governments/trusted sources and then they can be included in the encyclopedia. Still, I think each survey is worth at least worth a mention as they have been discussed at numerous lengths in secondary sources that were in the BLP article. But that's just my opinion and if the consensus is not in my favor, I'll just have to accept that. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

As for the IPs, I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers Eric a reliable source. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you can say let's bring the tone down directly after saying Graywalls' removal of information [...] is not necessarily a personal vendetta. Why is it so difficult for you to accept that it is not any kind of vendetta.

As for the IP addresses, it is quite clear what has gone on there. It's either the result of off-wiki canvassing or was done by a known pro-Gilbertson account while logged out, or both. Axad12 (talk) 15:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, I meant to get Eric to understand it isn't a personal vendetta. I understand why Graywalls has removed the information per WP policy, even if it is frustrating from a highpointing perspective. While the information is reliable from a Wikipedia perspective, it is factually inaccurate and incorrect from a highpointing perspective. But again, I understand that the consensus is against inclusion, and I respect that. See my above points. I hope that when Eric gets more content published to scientific journals his valuable information can be included in our encyclopedia.

I will state again that I have nothing to do with those IPs. You can have an admin do a background check; my IPs are either New York or Texas, not Alberta. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Also as for your claim that you respect [...] Wikipedia policy, if so why did you introduce your Gilbertson biography directly into mainspace after it was turned down twice at AfC and why did you then recreate it once again shortly after it was deleted (only for it to be almost immediately deleted again)?

Let's be honest here, you have routinely breached Wikipedia policy in relation to your activities in this topic area.

A user (likely with a COI) is clearly breaching Wikipedia policy by editing that page while logged out. Whether or not it is you is neither here nor there. There is widespread off-wiki canvassing going on within the highpointing community, and it is known who is orchestrating that activity because it can be seen on the individual's own website. Realistically that is not the way to get anything done on Wikipedia. In fact it is obviously massively counter-productive. Axad12 (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Because I was submitting it through AfC for unbiased editors to determine if it was notable or not. I drafted the article and waited for an AfC reviewer to accept or decline it to the mainspace, of which the former happened. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

And I submitted a better draft to AfC than the original one. The past is the past, but you should understand the final submission went through AfC and I did not move the draft to the mainspace myself. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That isn't my recollection of events. the initial draft was turned down (I believe twice) and then you implemented it yourself. Back when this was discussed at COIN it was accepted that you had acted in bad faith in that regard even by a user who was inclined to defend you to some degree.

It was later accepted at AfC, although that didn't prevent it from being deleted at AfD shortly afterwards.

If I am wrong, where is the post on your talk page indicating acceptance at AfC prior to the first deletion of the article? Axad12 (talk) 15:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

An attempt at an olive branch, in the hope that we can work together constructively...

KnowledgeIsPower9281, would you be interested in taking a look at the long series of circa 80 IP edits made to the article on List of elevation extremes by country on 11th/12th January and giving your opinion on the purpose behind them?

For example, are the edits motivated by a pro-Gilbertson agenda, can you discern a non-Gilbertson related motive, or were they simple vandalism (which appears to have been the opinion of the first user to appear on the scene after they were made, who reverted the edits en masse here [4]).

Evidently a large number of highpoint measurements were changed without any sourcing or edit summaries and the situation would appear to be rather unusual and (to the layman) unsatisfactory.

I would genuinely value your input in unravelling what happened there a few weeks ago.

Best wishes, Axad12 (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough for the initial drafting back in Sept/Oct 2024. But for the Dec 2024 draft, that was submitted through AfC. As for the IP, I think that was just a vandal or perhaps a casual reader about highpoints. The IP could have just been browsing data on peakbagger.com and changed the elevation. I don't think there's any deeper motive behind that. Just an IP making random unsourced changes to the encyclopedia that they think belongs on the site (good faith if they thought it was allowed to do this, bad faith if they knew unsourced changes would be reverted or were just changing things for fun). Since they were only acting on this article, I doubt the motivation was to promote Gilbertson, even if the data was Gilbertson-derived. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay, that's interesting. Thank you.

You will appreciate my concern, however, given the fact that Gilbertson has made a very public song and dance about the discrepancy between Wikipedia's figures and 'his' figures.

So, to be clear, are we saying that (regardless of the actual motivation) the effect of the edits was to adjust Wikipedia's data in line with Gilbertson-derived data? Or is that just an assumption?

I suppose this could be demonstrated one way or the other fairly easily by sampling 1 in 10 of the edits and comparing them to Gilbertson's data. Axad12 (talk) 17:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe Gilbertson is closely watching this discussion. Somehow, they're kept in close loop.

before I commented on Gilbertson brother's diatribe dedicated to me and shortly after I mentioned about it in this discussion Graywalls (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Prior discussion on Gilbertson blog

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#Eric_&_Matthew_Gilbert,_PhD_site_at_https://www.countryhighpoints.com/about/ Graywalls (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

So if we cannot accept Gilbertson, Wikipedia must continue to support an elevation that is not official or supported by any academic sources. Viewfinder (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

And restore 7723m to Ulugh Muztagh on the grounds that it is still supported by the Times Atlas and Encyclopqedia Brittanica despite the fact that it is as obvious from every up to date data source that 6973m is correct as it is that the sky is blue. Viewfinder (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Are you the user who recently made circa 80 changes to List of elevation extremes by country via IP addresses?

And what is your degree of contact with Gilbertson? Axad12 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I have made no IP edits to anything since I registered in 2005. I had never communicated with Gilbertson until he contacted me a few weeks ago. Since then we have exchanged emails. He is certainly not on my payroll. There are no rules, only guidelines. Ultimately it is about writing the best possible encyclopaedia with the most accurate up to date information, not about demanding ever increasing august and academic citations. Viewfinder (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

He contacted you a few weeks ago... with regard to altering highpoint measurements on Wikipedia? Axad12 (talk) 19:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The reason I ask is that two weeks ago you returned to Wikipedia after a 4 month break, apparently solely to adjust the measurements of highpoints. The fact that Gilbertson contacted you shortly prior to that is obviously not a coincidence given his well known opinions about Wikipedia and highpoint measurements. You are a WP:MEATPUPPET. Axad12 (talk) 19:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I had not communicated with Gilbertson for several months when I returned to Wikipedia to edit Pico Simon Bolivar, and I had no contact with Gilbertson prior to my earlier edits to Soudah. I edit Wikipedia solely with the aim of creating a better encyclopaedia. If I find or someone contacts me to point out an error or inaccuracy, and I can reference my correction, I correct it, even if I cannot always find august and academic secondary sources. Viewfinder (talk) 20:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Earlier today you said that Gilbertson contacted you a few weeks ago and that you had never communicated with Gilbertson prior to that.

Now you say that when you returned to Wikipedia to edit Pico Simon Bolivar (16th Jan) you had not communicated with Gilbertson for several months.

How can those statements both be true?

Not only are you a WP:MEATPUPPET, you are also a liar. Axad12 (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I will not be needled into responding to incivility with incivility. I declared my conflict of interest and will not edit the article. 3015m will stand despite it not being official or backed by any modern survey or academic source. Infact I would not have edited the Santa Marta articles if I had known about the current controversy at this article. Viewfinder (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I do not see the incivility in pointing out 2 obviously inconsistent statements made within the space of an hour, one of which must be a lie.

As soon as it was observed that your return (to make pro-Gilbertson edits) occurred shortly after the time when you said that Gilbertson had contacted you, you changed your story.

You have also admitted above that you will make edits if someone else contacts you off-wiki and asks you to do so. That is pretty much the definition of being a meatpuppet given that Gilbertson has his own account here and you hadn't declared your COI when you made the earlier edits. Again, there is no incivility in observing that that is the case - especially given the campaign of off-wiki canvassing that has clearly been taking place. Axad12 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

To clarify: I had no recent communication with Gilbertson in the weeks prior to the article edit in question. Gilbertson did not request that edit. Following the contact, I made no edits to the article here, I edited only the talk page. Why must it be so controversial to update a wrong peak height, referenced only to archaic material, with a new peak height using a thorough and up to date survey as evidence? Viewfinder (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Viewfinder:, Some random person who vouch for another random person's blog/website is not the arbiter of correctness. Wikipedia is not a place to report original finding by researchers and mad scientists. The previous discussion didn't find Gilbertson website/blog/papers/whatever as WP:RS. It's been some time since then. You can start your own reliable source noticeboard discussion if you want. Graywalls (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Axad12: @Graywalls:Could I suggest that if you insist that all peak heights on Wikipedia must be referenced to an august academic source, you will have to delete almost every peak height on the Wikipedia site, right? Viewfinder (talk) 02:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, arguably so if they cannot be verified (as per WP:V).

The thread you started at WP:RSN on this general topic [5] only served to demonstrate the strong consensus against you re: how these measurements should be dealt with.

This all boils down to one simple point: Wikipedia policy requires that information be verifiable in independent, published reliable sources, not that one man with GPS equipment posts his data on his own blog and then his associates import it to Wikipedia. The policy on this point, WP:RS, is universally applicable and highpointing hobbyists do not get a free pass.

All that Gilbertson needs to do is get his data on to Wikipedia is to get it accepted in independent, published reliable sources. In that regard he is no different to any other kind of researcher, scientist, etc., working in any other field of human endeavour.

Those who have arrived at this thread via the link at Gilbertson's own blog [6] should thus please note that all that is happening here is the routine application of standard Wikipedia policy and not some kind of anti-highpointing / anti-Gilbertson agenda.

If the relevant policy did not exist then the quality of all kinds of data across Wikipedia would swiftly deteriorate because any user could change any data, fact or statement on any Wikipedia article based effectively on their own say-so. This would result in a situation where there would be continual edit warring between users with different agendas or perspectives (including those with political or promotional agendas, or those who simply wished to create hoaxes).

Therefore the material published in independent, reliable published sources is the de facto arbiter in all such cases. This is clearly a superior and more transparent mechanism for determining content than for the associates of a given individual to descend on Wikipedia to state that "this person is highly respected in the blogosphere". If Wikipedia content was determined in that way then it would clearly be subject to considerable abuse. Axad12 (talk) 04:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)