Jump to content

Talk:Uzbekistan

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeUzbekistan was a Geography and places good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 31, 2013Good article nomineeNot listed
On this day...Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on September 1, 2006, September 1, 2007, September 1, 2008, September 1, 2009, September 1, 2010, September 1, 2011, and September 1, 2012.

The use of Eric Gilbertson blog or his articles

[edit]

@LWG:, I do not believe they are appropriate sources for article of global importance like this one and there's no consensus in favor of its use. Prior discussions.

Graywalls (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I am a COI editor with Gilbertson, as per his website, he is publishing work to journals such as Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. So perhaps the consensus will be different once those are published. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EXCEPTIONAL See the fourth bullet point. Overwriting the height of Mt. Rainier, the boiling point of water, or other globally important topic like the height of Uzbekistan is more than a bit different from acceptable citation for a new antenna tower atop a school or the horsepower output of some barely notable concept vehicle. @KnowledgeIsPower9281:, since you posted, would you clarify the extent of your COI/affiliation with Eric Gilbertson? After seeing the matters related to copyright and extensive upload of photos from his website, it seems you have more than casual interaction with Gilbertson. Is there $$$ exchange involved? What is the nature of your current relationship with Gilbertson? Graywalls (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but if the information is peer-reviewed in a reputable journal like Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, that's a different story. As I've stated in the past, I won't add any Gilbertson-related text to articles, but figured neutral editors should have the information.
I am not financially compensated in any way. Please assume good faith. My additions were solely to improve the articles. Mountain pages should, of course, have an image of the mountain, and I used my connection to Gilbertson to achieve this. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But surely, it could be done in a way that doesn't involve dropping "countryhighpoints" website in such a way that causes traffic to that website. Graywalls (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To upload the image to Wikipedia, you are prompted to cite the website you found it on. Those images came from Eric's website, so I included a link to the blog post the image exists on. If you feel it is necessary, I can remove the link to his blog and simply say the source is "Eric Gilbertson".
As for the usage of Gilbertson-related content, I agree that his blog should not be used as a source, instead using secondary sources or peer-reviewed scientific articles written by him (with content being introduced by a non-COI, neutral editor)
I can understand initially leaving the information off an article like Uzbekistan (instead saving it for the mountain pages, until more coverage occurs), but if Gilbertson's work is published and peer-reviewed in Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, among other journals, I feel that we should re-open the discussion on the reliability of Gilbertson-related content. Since I am a COI editor, I would refrain from heavy participation, but want to give this info to neutral editors.
If you need more COI info, please go to the archive on my talk page. My correspondence with Gilbertson to upload those images was solely for that reason. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Something might be usable for a hump in the neighborhood park, but using it to overwrite a height that contradicts with other published sources like CIA World Factbook or Britannica is in WP:EXCEPTIONAL territory and definitely warrants a thorough discussion in RSN and relevant Wikproject pages. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but you're assuming that these tertiary sources get the information from a comprehensive survey, which is unlikely to be the case. (t · c) buIdhe 18:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no COI (I hadn't even heard of Eric Gilbertson before I read the AAJ article on the claimed new Uzbekistan high point, and I was unaware that Gilbertson's survey data was a subject of contention in other articles. I have no opinion on the Mt. Rainier or water boiling point questions, except that I totally agree that Eric's blog is not in itself sufficient to overturn more established sources. However, for the question of the Uzbekistan high point, I would say:
  1. Publication in a journal like the American Alpine Journal is just about the closest thing to peer review you are likely to see anywhere for this sort of claim.
  2. The existing Uzbekistan high point is also poorly sourced - sources like the CIA World Factbook are most likely just repeating the same Soviet era survey data, and it's likely that even the height of Khazret Sultan has only been rigorously measured twice - once by whatever Soviet era survey made the map other sources are drawing from, and once by the recent Gilbertson expedition.
  3. Mainstream sources don't even agree on the Uzbek high point, for example Brittanica gives a different mountain and elevation than the CIA World Factbook, and neither the CIA Factbook nor Britannica give the basis or source for their claimed high points.
  4. As far as I am aware, no mainstream source explicitly rejects the AAJ/Gilbertson claims (i.e., no source claims that Alpomish is less than 4,643m elevation, or that Khazret Sultan is more than 4,668m in elevation, or that Gilbertson's measurements are inaccurate). There's not currently any actual contention between sources, there's just a recently-published claim that older sources have not yet been updated to include or reject.
Given all of the above, I personally think it would be reasonable to accept the AAJ publication as RS validation of Gilbertson's claim, and to include it in the article until/unless some other RS explicitly rejects it. I am open to hearing other perspectives. I will open a conversation at RSN to get more input. -- LWG talk 18:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like the "journal" is just the name and it's more of a magazine than an actual academic journal. So, I'm inclined to disagree, but with Gilbertson in particularly, strongly disagree. Graywalls (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The AAJ is definitely more than just a "magazine", it's a major journal of record for climbing and mountaineering. It's not at all comparable with something like Climbing (magazine). Granted it's not a formal academic journal that goes through the academic peer review process normally used for academic research, but that's because mountaineering isn't an academic discipline. None of the sources for Khazret Sultan have that level of academic rigor either. What formal peer-reviewed academic journal would you suggest we cite for country high point information? Also, what do you say to the fact that CIA World Factbook and Britannica disagree with each other as to the Uzbekistan high point?
You said you strongly disagree with Gilbertson in particular. What is the reason for that? As I said, I first heard of him through the AAJ article so if he has a reputation for inaccurate claims I'd be interested to read up on that context. -- LWG talk 00:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm entirely opposed to using Eric Gilbertson. His papers have been about gas valves and such. Has he written a rigorously peer reviewed academic journal articles on mountain/elevations/geology and have those been cited by others repeatedly? Absolutely opposed to infusing Gilbertson sources into articles. Gilbertson is not a recognized expert in this discipline. Graywalls (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @LWG and @KnowledgeIsPower9281, notwithstanding KIP's COI, that there are reputable sources that cite this and we should accept them for their expertise. As you said above, a bar should be geographers (this is not the work of geologists). As this has now been vetted by physical geographers, in addition to it being the subject of fact-checking by AAJ, the AAC editorialization, the Los Angeles Times, and others. If these reliable sources find it credible, particularly, physical geographers, then it is appropriate for us to include.
I have done so in agreement with the above editors as this is a consensus.See discussion below Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was entirely opposed back in June 2025. It is December 20, 2025. Between then and now, a Gilbertson publication occurred in November 2025 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15230430.2025.2572898 which is why a discussion about this particular source spawned again. So, I stand by having held the opinion at the time of full opposition with what was available at the time. By the way, it should also be noted that American Alpine Club funded Gilbertson's latest publication which isn't about Uzbekistan, but affects the status of the author on the subject matter. Graywalls (talk) 13:56, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please view the discussion below. This is deprecated. Revolving Doormat (talk) 13:59, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite aware of the discussion below. This is not "deprecated". Graywalls (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am allowed to deprecate my own position, actually. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another occurrence of Gilbertson insertion

[edit]

I believe it's undue to shoehorn Gilbertson into every geographical and places article. Part of that discussion is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_497#h-Use_of_Eric_Gilbertson_Peer-Reviewed_Survey_Journal_Articles_As_Sources_For_Rele-20251119214500 @David Eppstein:, do you feel it's reasonable to even include Gilbertson into various country articles? Graywalls (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that shoehorning him into every geographical and places article would be undue. However, the country here is mentioning the high point, which is now in dispute for more than a year, and covered in more than one reliable, secondary source, and vetted by geographers through a reputable scientific journal's peer-review process, and addition to the AAJ's. Can you clarify why you believe it is undue in this particular context alone? Revolving Doormat (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This RSN discussion was primarily about using Gilbertson's blog, which isn't being done here. I agree that is not a WP:RS, though not everyone agreed with you on that matter.
The remainder of the discussion about reliable sources which discuss his measurements follows a consensus that is not in agreement with you (ie, @DJ Cane, @Buidhe, @Isaidnoway, @FastpackingTurtle and @ActivelyDisinterested; vs @Horse Eye's Back and @David Eppstein). I examined this RSN discussion before agreeing with the editors in the discussion from June here that it is now has sufficient coverage that the mention (properly attributed) is due. Revolving Doormat (talk) 17:57, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to @LWG on this discussion. Revolving Doormat (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As with the discussion at Talk:Mount Rainier, I view inserting Gilbertson's claims as being WP:UNDUE except in certain circumstances. One peer-reviewed journal does not outweigh the huge amount of other information. Placing such info in the prose of the relevant mountain article with proper context is sufficient. Blasting it everywhere it could possibly have some minor level of relevance, such as a country article like this, is pretty obviously giving it undue weight.
I do not view media discussions of one peer-reviewed journal article as adding weight to the claim. What would add weight is additional peer-reviewed scientific material. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 18:45, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. In this case, there is a 1981 land survey that was then printed in a book of record by the government in 2007. Would it be undue to say that it is disputed with something like "since 2024, this has been disputed by the American Alpine Club" (+ one additional secondary source; i.e., LA Times without mentioning it in the text)? Or is it better to leave it as is until some other sources discuss it over a longer period? Revolving Doormat (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a source to show that the American Alpine Club disputes it or are they just one of the mediums through which Gilbertson is sharing his claims? My understanding of the situation was that it was the latter so attributing it to the club would be inappropriate even if consensus leads to it being included. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 19:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, here: [1] Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alpomish (ca 4,668m, Uzbekistan) is editorialized by the AAC after the re-printing of his journal article about the ascent. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this news-type article about one of their members is the same thing as the AAC saying that for their purposes they use Gilbertson's data over the official/previously accepted data for all references to the highpoint of Uzbekistan. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 20:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a fair position and I think you're right. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DJ Cane:, Also, one thing I was unaware of until this week is that American Alpine Club funded Eric's study which then published it in its AAJ. This is potentially relevant, because the funder and publisher is the same group. Graywalls (talk) 14:01, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is in the Eric Gilbertson (climber) article: In 2024 he was awarded a grant by the American Alpine Club to survey the Cascade Range in Washington state to determine how Washington's mountains were being impacted by climate change. Though I don't think that's really relevant; I don't see anything discounted because it was funded by other scientific grants. Feel free to share any diffs to correct that. Revolving Doormat (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
High points are something many surveyors have not even been focused on and many third world countries have not been surveyed as much as the United States or the Alps. Before Gilbertson it's likely that the high point was based on the assumption that no one found a higher point. So in my opinion regardless of whether it's published on a blog or not it's more likely to be accurate than previous guesses. (t · c) buIdhe 18:46, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, having it in a page as important as the country's main page in my opinion is highly undue. Discuss in Gilbertson page, perhaps. Gilbertson finding for Uzbekistan is probably on the same level of importance as the oldest hydrant, or the widest pothole in a city level article. Graywalls (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This argument doesn't make sense. The Uzbekistan article does not have the oldest hydrant or widest pothole in its article or its geolocality page, nor do I see that covered by any reliable sources. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page discussion doesn't require sources. I'm saying Gilbertson's finding on something as notable and high view as Uzbekistan is pretty similar in level to covering similar importance articles (in my opinion) in more local pages, like, say Tacoma, WA using sources that's of reasonable reliability in what it says... but of questionable inclusionworthiness. Graywalls (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that your analogous argument is fallacious because you are comparing two things that have no meaningful commonalities in this context. The highest point in a country is in the articles of countries and found in reliable sources. The oldest fire hydrant and the widest pothole are not. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To interject, I think part of the argument @Graywalls is trying to make (and one that I agree with) is that unless Gilbertson's findings on the subject become a big deal outside of niche circles coverage of it is outside the scope of this article. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 20:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on Graywalls' intended argument.
I do agree with you, as I said above, that the AAC editorialized piece is primarily about Gilbertson, and thus a brief mention of it does not necessarily warrant its inclusion (nor do I necessarily think [2] changes that, despite that it's about travel). Blinders off, I think this is WP:TOOSOON until a reliable third party (such as the country itself) makes it a point on its own. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For posterity, I think it would be helpful if these discussions would remain about the content and the sources, rather than about Gilbertson. It is helpful in seeing the forest through the trees. Revolving Doormat (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that, for now, all of these are essentially Gilbertson against the world. I hold the view that he's probably on the right track with a lot of this but for our purposes we still need more than just Gilbertson (+ articles about his work). His claims are quite exceptional, even if they're right or closer to being correct, thus we need additional lines of evidence from reliable sources for them to be usable in a widespread fashion.
Changes based on Gilbertson's work have been injected into multiple articles but the problem is that (for better or worse) Gilbertson is the only one doing it. Until that changes it's undue in most settings. DJ Cane (he/him) (Talk) 21:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will say as a newcomer reading all of these discussions in one sitting, nearly every single one has devolved into a WP:COI accusation against one or more editors, which only appears to have been true in a single case. I believe this stems from framing the content as "insertions about Gilbertson", even when the content isn't really about him at all, he is merely being attributed.
I've seen so many irrational arguments about the reliability of various obviously reliable sources that I didn't even see what you pointed out until you pointed it out. While the coverage (peer-reviewed journals, newspaper articles, whatever) all stems from his work, anyone who comes upon it and has any interest in geography, or topography, or mountaineering, climbing, remote sensing, climate change, any related subject, would likely argue fervently that the sources are reliable. Hence, being unable to see the big picture obscured by irrelevant details. My position instantly changed when the framing was shifted to the real issue at hand. Just my two cents. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:52, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And on that, discussing the number of tree needles or the exact gram of the heaviest timber from that forest would be undue. Graywalls (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Again, this argument by analogy is illogical unless you believe the highest point in the country is undue. But you only removed the dispute that it is actually the highest point, which suggests you don't actually think that.
The problem is that there isn't WP:SIGCOV, because the reliable sources are not specifically about Alpomish specifically being the highest point in the country. The rest of the arguments are just noise that obscure the reality that this is likely accurate and will likely be updated, it is simply WP:TOOSOON. Revolving Doormat (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A great deal of these -ist and -est trivia of ranking war nature aren't encyclopedic. Inclusion of such by the inclusionists is often a point of disagreements. Graywalls (talk) 22:10, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I'm currently prioritizing holiday social obligations over wiki so I can't read everyone's arguments in detail or give this the response it deserves. A few thoughts though:
  • I understand and share Graywalls' concerns about a past pattern of COI editing in this area, and about due weight of mentioning details of the Gilbertson expedition in the main country article.
  • The fact that someone has been the subject of unconstructive editing on enwiki does not in itself discount their usefulness as a source.
  • The LA times article is relevant in discussion of Gilbertson or Alpomish but isn't really about Uzbekistan generally.
  • The available sources for Khazret Sultan's highpoint status are both old and not particularly helpful in adjudicating this as they all depend on a 1980s-era survey that did not measure Alpomish, and they don't even agree with each other (Britannica gives Beshtor peak as the highpoint, which is clearly incorrect).
  • Between the initial expedition's publication in AAC and the follow-up expedition which took more precise measurements as published in Progress in Physical Geography, there isn't really much reason to doubt that Alpomish is in fact the Uzbekistan highpoint. In other words, sources published prior to 2023 reflect the consensus at that time, which is now known to have been incorrect.
  • With that said, the discrepancy between the recent discovery and the information available in older reference works seems to require at least some explanation, which puts in a catch-22 as simply asserting Alpomish as the highpoint demands explanation, while extensive discussion of the Gilbertson expedition runs into weight issues.
  • I think the current wording, which attributes and dates the claim that Khazret Sultan is the highest peak, is fine, at least for now, especially since the Khazret Sultan article is wikilinked and explains the situation.
If my meatspace obligations and current involvement in other wiki discussions allow me, I hope to do a deep dive into the sourcing soon and then make a pass at improving all Uzbek mountaineering-related articles, which will hopefully help smooth out some of these issues. -- LWG talk (VOPOV) 21:35, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

showing wrong map of India

[edit]

here is showing wrong map of India, a big part of India is showing included with Pakistan 110.226.47.11 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. (CC) Tbhotch™ 00:45, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Authoritarian dictatorship?

[edit]

Other Central Asian authoritiarian regimes are described as such in the infoboxes of respective pages. I wonder why Uzbekistan was spared. Gorgedweller (talk) 11:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The others shouldn't. There is well-established consensus that real people should never be objectively described as dictators unless it's part of a title. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:51, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of Cyrillic

[edit]

Why does Cyrillic feature in the infobox? As far as the Uzbek government is concerned, the Uzbek language in Uzbekistan is written only in the Latin-based alphabet, not in the old, Soviet-era Cyrillic one.

You will not find Cyrillic anywhere in government documents, in education, or in any use as far as the Uzbek language itself is concerned. AuthorOfOne (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Religion mentions and incorrect words such as surroundered by and Earth

[edit]

hey im editing and removing that sentence saying Most Uzbek are sunni muslims I dont think this should be mentioned as religion is already mentioned down there in page i have never seen this in any Islamic country pages also Surrounded by sounds like its at war use bordered by it sounds more natural thank you Dqyxd (talk) 19:47, 19 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Double Landlocked?

[edit]

Even though its a technical peculiarity, this detail probably shouldn’t be in the main description and moved to a geographic details section. It is not double landlocked if you count the Caspian Sea which, as the name implies, has historically been considered more as a sea than a lake.

So, the statement isn’t wrong by modern definitions. But, it just isn’t a definite matter of fact to warrant being in the overall description. ~2026-36324-80 (talk) 15:21, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't count the Caspian Sea. See for example the FAQ at Talk:Azerbaijan and Talk:Kazakhstan: "A landlocked country does not have direct access to an an ocean or a sea that has access to the ocean. The Caspian Sea is an endorheic basin." Mellk (talk) 22:54, 23 June 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Uzbekistan&oldid=1360838441"