Talk:List of countries by highest point

Mt. Everest

I really dont think China has any claims whatsoever over Mt.Everest—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.144.19.196 (talk • contribs) 13:23, 24 September 2005 .

While you're entitled to that POV, please see the discussion in Tibet (and on that article's Talk page) before making related edits to this article. Current consensus is that Tibet is "controlled" by China and does not exist as an autonomous entity; therefore, it can't claim Everest. China, as controller of the region called "Tibet", can.--chris.lawson 17:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Is there a page for countries by lowest point? Andjam 00:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

• Not quite, but see our list of places on land with elevations below sea level. Warofdreams talk 10:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Major Errors in CIA list

The CIA misinformation list on which this list is based should be buried so deep that nobody would even think about bothering to retrieve it. Ditto this list. I hate improperly researched misinformation as much as I hate spam. Viewfinder 01:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Uh, what? Can you specifically point out any demonstrably false entries on this list?--chris.lawson 02:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes - see the link I have provided. I have corrected the errors that I am sure about but there may be many more. Viewfinder 02:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The link you have provided does not, in itself, meet Wikipedia standards of verifiability nor does it meet the standard of a reliable source. Please cite specific reliable and verifiable sources here on Talk for each of the data points you wish to change. I'm not saying you're wrong; I'm just saying that we have a high standard of accountability and I, for one, intend to see that followed.

Also, please do not re-insert your rant about the CIA World Factbook into the lead paragraph. It is not encyclopedic and does not belong in the article.--chris.lawson 03:03, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

If you had actually bothered to read the link that I supplied you would see that the documentary evidence pointed to in that link does meet the required standards. Most of the evidence can also be found by clicking on the names of the individual summits and I an not going to copy it all out again here. I can also substantiate the majority of my changes using SRTM data from NASA which has been proved to be reliable.

You say you have a high standard of accountability but that's rich when you permit the publication of elevations like 5,030m for Mount Carstenz which has long since been discredited by the respected Seven Summits movement. Most of the elevations I have given appear on loads of other Wikipedia pages where they have not been challenged.

If you wish to dispute any individual case then I will discuss it in more detail. But meanwhile if there are any more reversals from you Lawson I will start formal dispute proceeding without delay.

It's here in the CIA document..... must be the truth (to paraphrase Tom Robinson..) Viewfinder 09:50, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

One more question for you Lawson. Do you intend to tear down this Wikipedia document on the grounds that some of the elevations given do not meet the verifiability standards? And the Seven Summits document which gives a 4,884m elevation for Mount Carstenz, contrary to the CIA? And every other document that is not regurgitated CIA c***?Viewfinder 10:16, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I intend to tear down every single Wikipedia article brought to my attention that lacks verifiable and reliable sources for its claims. As I'm only one person, this is obviously a huge task. Please feel free to help me by providing citations and editing any articles you can find to reflect the proper elevation data. Please do not, however, cite your own personal Web site as a "reliable source." Cite the primary sources used on your site instead.--chris.lawson 16:52, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

OK Chris. Yes you can count on my help and I'll take more trouble to document the primary sources. It's just that when I saw all those archaic elevations (heaven knows why the CIA can't get round to updating them) it got to me. I'm sure you know the feeling. I never meant to claim my that website is in itself a reliable source, the claims are about the sources pointed to in that site. I hope nobody will dispute that SRTM data is accurate, reliable and verifiable. For much of the world there is no other reliable topographic source data. I have been working with it right from its arrival, I know it really well. The prominence pages have been or are being linked to the appropriate elevation sources. Viewfinder 22:28, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Summary of changes:

• HP Bhutan, no Bhutanese survey, see various links to Japanese Alpine Club documentation here re Chinese survey.
• HP Mexico (survey by professional) see summit link in main article
• HP Iran see summit link in main article, SRTM disproves 5671m
• HP Russia see Seven Summits
• HP Turkey see summit link in main article, SRTM disproves 5165m
• HP Indonesia see Seven Summits
• HP Ethiopia professional survey, see summit link
• HP Venezuela official, see here
• HP Yemen SRTM disproves higher elevation
• HP's Chad, Liberia, Somalia SRTM disproves lower elevations
• HP Dominican Republic professional and amateur surveys consistent with SRTM, see summit link
• HP Brazil official, see here
• HP Saudi Arabia SRTM disproves higher elevation
• HP Guyana Various elevations given, no accurate survey
• HP Solomon Islands SRTM, more accurate IFSAR data and official mapping disprove higher elevation and expose incorrect location
• HP Gabon SRTM exposes totally crazy location and elevation
• HP Bangladesh SRTM also exposes totally crazy location and elevation.
• HP Kazakhstan: see summit link
• HP Burundi SRTM and Russian 500k mapping both show higher summit than Mont Heha
• HP Botswana SRTM shows that Tsodilo is no more than 1400m, there are several competing high points, all over 1470m, in the Gaborone area
• HP Republic of Congo, SRTM shows that Mont Nabeba, 1,020 m at 1°50′39″N 13°59′27″E, is higher than Mont Berongou.
• HP Kosovo: SRTM data and other sources contradict CIA elevation.

---

CIA list also has Victoria Peak as the highest peak of Belize, while numerous sources (incl. Belizean govt. (http://www.belize.gov.bz/belize/welcome.shtml) and Wikipedia in Geography_of_Belize have Doyle's Delight as the highest peak - at 1124m (Victoria is quoted to have 1120 m). I have thus altered the list accordingly. naapi 09 Sep 2006

Monte Bianco?

According to the article Mont Blanc, the Italian-French border officially goes over the summit, with only some French maps indicating otherwise. Does this mean that both France and Italy should be credited equally with Mont Blanc / Monte Bianco on this list? --Stemonitis 16:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

--- The summit of Mont Blanc is wholly in France and I am not aware of any dispute about this. Perhaps the other article should be changed. Viewfinder 22:02, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Reading the article Mont Blanc (in any of the few languages I understand) indicates that there is indeed a dispute between France and Italy. Since listing Italy's highest peak as either Mont Blanc or Mont Blanc de Courmayeur would be adopting a particular point of view, I have chosen to include both. --Stemonitis 12:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This solution has been stable for more than two years but is now being challenged. Sources have been supplied in support of the challenge, but these are in Italian. Please can someone who can read Italian verify that they support the claim that joint ownership of the summit is recognised by France, because French maps (image from IGN) show otherwise. Viewfinder (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Precision Elevations

I have restored the elevation of Everest to 8,848m, and unless I am persuaded otherwise, I will restore the elevation in the Mount Everest article too. There have been several recent surveys of Everest and K2 claiming precision to less than a meter, some giving higher figures than the traditional 8,848m and 8,611m, others giving lower figures, and the spread of these exceeds their claimed accuracy. They should therefore be regarded as publicity seeking and should be ignored. In reality, the Himalayan geoid has not been determined with sufficient accuracy to allow such precision. A further point with regard to the recent Chinese survey: according to the Mount Everest page, the geologic height was measured, not the height including perennial snow and ice cover. The logical extenstion of this would demand that the elevation of Mont Blanc (which varies seasonally) be lowered by 10-20m, Khan Tangiri Shyngy to 6,995m and the South Pole to around or below sea level. Until several independent measurements show a consistent error margin, the elevations of Mount Everest and K2 should stand at 8,848m and 8,611m, and confusing alternatives should be rejected.

Serbia and Montenegro

The two nations are still listed together. Does anyone have highest points for the two separately? Warofdreams talk 01:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Djeravica (2656 m) is in Kosovo which is still nominally part of Serbia and must continue to be regarded as such for the purposes of this page. I have added the official Montenegro HP and height, but Russian 50k mapping states that it is 2520.9 m compared with 2521.8 m for Maja e Roshit, on the Montenegro-Albania border, and in any case the difference is likely to be within the survey error margin. So the question seems to me to remain open. Btw does anyone know if the re-ranking can be automated, or is it necessary to manually increment the subsequent ranks individually? Viewfinder 05:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Although I don't know of one, a pretty simple program could be written to increment the ranks - I wonder if anyone has created a bot which would do it? Warofdreams talk 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Mount Hermon

I have reverted the edits by Amoruso which I regard as POV, see the map at Golan Heights. Amoruso and I could only agree to disagree. But comments from regular, neutral contributors about how this issue should be handled would be appreciated. Some sort of footnote may be appropriate. Viewfinder 16:12, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I changed it though to what I see is more factual. Mount Hermon is IN israel. Some maps show the golan to be inside israel proper - see the national geographic ones. Amoruso 03:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of maps show the Golan Heights to be OUTSIDE Israel. Viewfinder 04:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. There are all sorts of maps. National Geographic seems pretty unbiased to me. And the way people decide to draw maps and historical armistice lines doesn't seem the appropriate criteria. There is one map that means more and that's the actual physical presence - I think maps are only help tools. Amoruso 04:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I have removed mount hermon from Israel since its entirely within Syria/Lebanon and not in Israel. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

IMHO in case of Israel Mount Hermon was not mentioned as the peak itself, but as a certain location on the side of the mountain. The footnote was quite clear about it, and the two significantly different elevation datum shows the same. So I think the recent edit should be reverted. Kószab (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

K2

There is no official international view on the matter of whether the south and west sides of K2 belong to Pakistan or India. International mapping and the international community are neutral on the subject. Maps shows no formal India-Pakistan border, only a line of control. K2 is on the Pakistani side of this line, and is therefore considered to be in Pakistan for the purposes of this article.

I should note that the area on the north and east of K2, traditionally part of Jammu and Kashmir, was ceded to China by Pakistan in 1963.[1] India doesn't recognise this. So technically, K2 lies entirely within India according to Indian maps. Most UN maps show all of Jammu and Kashmir as a disputed area. Someone needs to footnote this properly. Hornplease 07:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

it doesnt matter if india doesnt recognise if the un states its within Pakistan than it is indian POV should be removed 86.154.151.159 (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The UN does not state that K2 is within Pakistan or that Saser Kangri is within India; the UN is neutral on the issue. The Line of Control exists de facto and is not recognised as an international de jure border by the international community. Viewfinder (talk) 01:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

HP of Australia

Contrary to what we are stating in this article, Australia states that the Southern Ocean islands, and hence Mawson Peak, are as much included within Australia as Tasmania is, and the Canary Islands and Pico de Teide are within Spain. I therefore propose to change Australia's HP. Any cooments or objections? Viewfinder 08:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support: for great consistency! Comment: it's a little odd to have entries which are not generally considered to be in the country proper. Suggestion: put in an unranked entry for "Australia (mainland)" and ditto for "Spain (mainland)". –EdC 10:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Wales

Contributed by 194.83.16.10 and transferred from main article: OK what idiot deleted Wales from here. More of a country than the Isle of Man. (Wales 40 times the size,40 times the population,600,000+ Welsh speakers, Its own International football and rugby teams (Isle of Man has none). I rest my case. As for San Marino.

It has become the established practice in the artcle to list only sovereign countries and wholly self administering overseas territories. Wales is neither. Nor is England which is also not listed. By contrast, the Isle of Man, despite being ultimately subject to the UK, is wholly self administering, fiscally independent and is not represented in the UK parliament. San Marino, despite its small size, is a sovereign country. Viewfinder 13:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

194.83.16.10, please note WP:CIV and WP:NPA and refrain from directing the term "idiot" at other editors. Viewfinder 13:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Saint-Barthélemy and Saint-Martin

These two islands both were appointed overseas collectivity of France in 2007, and should therefore along with other territories with this status (f.ex French Polynesia and Mayotte) be a part of this list.Antipoeten 13:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mount Everest

I reverted two edits by User:Tenzin norbu because, whether or not we at Wikipedia think it ought to be, Tibet is internationally recognised to be part of China, and the name "Mount Everest" has become accepted at the principal name on English Wikipedia. Various other names are discussed at Mount Everest. Viewfinder 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Relative height

Do you reckon a relative height column would be appropriate in this article? Mark J 18:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, somehow this suggestion had escaped my notice. Often relative heights are available via the linked mountain pages. Where they are not, you might like to add them to the mountain pages. Viewfinder 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Elevations in ft also

I was wondering why this article on listed elevations in meters when articles like List of U.S. states by elevation and List of highest points of Canadian provinces and territories list both meter and feet? I will volunteer to add the column. Rocketmaniac 14:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Mild oppose. The main problem is that some of the heights are the subject of uncertainty. When new information becomes available, it becomes tiresome to have to get out the calculator during each update. As with relative height, heights in feet are on the individaul mountain pages. The use of "convert" template may be a solution. Viewfinder 21:11, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo and Serbia

Kosovo is still only listed at List of countries as a self declared independent country, and is therefore not listed here. But should Kosovo receive widespread recognition, should we list it here? If so, where is Serbia's undisputed highest point? I thought it was somewhere on the Kosovo-Sandžak border, but I cannot find anything there that is higher than Midžor, on the border with Bulgaria. Or havr I missed something? Viewfinder (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The compromise situation that I created seemed to be sticking, but was challenged by an unregistered editor citing Taiwan. I do not accept the comparison with Taiwan. Almost all countries recognise Taiwan de facto, they only do not recognise Taiwan formally because they see the need for normal relations with the PRC. The same cannot be said of those countries that do not recognise Kosovo. Perhaps there is room for improvement, but I do not think that we should be giving less weight to 2656m HP for Serbia. Remember that Kosovo does not have a UN seat, and please debate the issue here before editing the main article. Viewfinder (talk) 20:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo has de facto independence, clearly: they are not controlled or militarized by forces unfriendly to their independence. They have formal international relations with more countries, and more 'important' countries, than Taiwan. Taiwan 'also' does not have a UN seat.

But most importantly, how are we treating Kosovo elsewhere on Wikipedia? With the same status as Taiwan, or Palestine, or Western Sahara: as a separate country. We do not credit Israel with the land area in the West Bank. We do not credit Morocco with the coastline of Western Sahara. We do not credit China with the GDP of Taiwan. So why should we give the mountain of Kosovo to Serbia? Please apply a consistent standard, and by that, I mean a standard consistent with the rest of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.188.247.6 (talk • contribs)

OK, guys... I can see in the page history, that you have different POV on this topic, and generally on the topic of what entities should be included into this list (sovereign countries, self-administering territories, overseas dependencies, partially recognized countries, etc.). I am afraid that the continuous reverting and re-reverting is not the solution. This only could cause a (temporary) protection of the page, as I could see it on other pages regarding Kosovo. Please, find other solution! First of all - discuss the topic here on the discussion page, and make the corrections on the page just after getting to a common denominator. However, I can suggest something what might be a possible solution and I hope it would also be a NPOV. I suggest that the list should be separated. The "main" list would contain only the sovereign countries (most exactly the UN member states and the Vatican). This list might be named as "List of sovereign countries by highest point". Just to be more accurate, in this very list the UK should participate with Mount Paget, Denmark with Gunnbjorn Fjaeld, and so on. A separate list (called ie. "List of other entities by highest point") would contain the highest points of any other states and territories (regardless of their current political situation). This secont list would easily be extendable without any controversy and disagreement. 213.134.0.168 (talk) 10:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Tamas from Hungary (Viewfinder knows me)

The separate inclusion of overseas territories has become established on this list. Regarding Kosovo, the previous editor's claim that it is included separately on other lists by country appears to be valid, despite lack of formal UN recognition. I still think that Serbia's claim should be given equal weight, but I am not going to contest this further, other than to restore the footnotes. Viewfinder (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Territories

There are many territories in this list (e.g. Hong Kong, Svalbard, Jersey). I am fine with this, but I don't think they should be ranked given that the name of this page is List of countries by highest point. jax (talk) 14:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Denmark

Clicking on the highest point of Denmark, the article names a higher point in Denmark. I do not know witch one is correct... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.229.24 (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there is a contradiction here. I will correct this one. Viewfinder (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Flags

I've added flags beside all the countries' names. I know I didn't discuss this change, but I personally see it as a minor edit. If anyone objects to the change, please discuss it instead of changing it back.

FreeT (talk) 10:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Andorra

Entravessada is not fiction, but according to most recent Spanish IGM mapping it is only 2927m. The claim that it is higher and the HP Andorra is made here [2]. Can anyone attribute that claim to a more reliable source? Viewfinder (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

English and/or local names

The last edit (Ararat --> Ağrı) made me think. Is there any concensus in the English Wikipedia (or just in this article) regarding the use of the names in a given article (in this list)? I mean whether all the names should be in English (if there is a common English name of that thing [peak], and if there is no such an English name, than [and just than] we use the local name [using the most appropriate English transcript]) - or in all cases we should use the local name of the thing (peak), and just indicate (in footnote or in brackets) the common English name? Or we use the English and the local names in a mixture (as it is the case now in this article) - depending on the last editor's mood or national feelings? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.142.209 (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Honduras

Um... List of Ultras in Central America (and its source material) gives a higher Honduran peak than the one listed in this article, and on its own, as being the highest mountain in that country. Mark J (talk) 09:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

See Cerro Las Minas, which I have just edited. Viewfinder (talk) 10:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

In common with other geographical lists of countries, and most other Lists of countries, it is the long established practice in this article to list only sovereign countries and wholly self administering overseas territories. Whether or not we think it ought to be, Scotland is neither. Nor is England which is also not listed. By contrast, the Isle of Man, despite being ultimately subject to the UK, is wholly self administering, fiscally independent and is not represented in the UK parliament.

The issue has been up for discussion at the link in the above section. Correct me if I am wrong, but I can see no consensus in favour of change. Viewfinder (talk) 10:59, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree Viewfinder, this is a list of sovereign states and territories, England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland do not belong on this list separately. Just because the term country is used to describe those parts of the United Kingdom does not justify its inclusion on all lists with the title "country" in. BritishWatcher (talk) 11:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So why is Réunion listed separately? It is neither 'sovereign or wholly self-administering' - this is what the wikipedia article says describing it:"Administratively, Réunion is one of the overseas départements of France. Like the other overseas departments, Réunion is also one of the twenty-six regions of France (being an overseas region) and an integral part of the Republic with the same status as those situated on the European mainland." 86.150.206.234 (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Infact, why is Greenland included? Just like Scotland is a country within the United Kingdom, Greenland is a country within Denmark, yet Greenland gets included but not Scotland? There is serious inconsistency in this article! 86.150.206.234 (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Greenland is a territory of Denmark, Scotland has never been a territory of the United Kingdom. The two are very different BritishWatcher (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As for France it makes sense for the overseas territories of France to be listed separately as they are on other lists, however there should be a note next to France saying mainland only.

It is evident that my earlier statement needs correcting: the inclusion of territories that are separated from their mother countries by oceans has also become established, even if they are not wholly self administering. Reunion does not appear at [3]. But it is included in our other geographical lists, so for the time being it should remain included here for consistency, and the debate continued at Lists of countries. Viewfinder (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Scotland is not included in any of our geographical country lists, so the issue of Scotland should be discussed on a more general talk page before Scotland is added here. Viewfinder (talk) 13:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Well i have added Metropolitan France and overseas France next to the entries to make it clearer. It makes sense considering this is dealing with geography that overseas France be listed and ranked on their own like they are now, however if this is a real problem for some people then they need to be unranked or removed from the list completly. But again the situation between France and its overseas territories, or Denmark and Greenland is nothing like the situation between the different parts of the United Kingdom so i agree with Viewfinder they should not be included. Scotland is more like a region of mainland France, than an overseas territory. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What!!! "Scotland is more like a region of mainland France, than an overseas territory." - That is a quite remarkable statement! Scotland is a separate legal jurisdiction. Please tell me which 'region of mainland France' is a separate legal jurisdiction? It seems to me that it would improve this article if the four countries of the United Kingdom were listed separately, of course making clear in each case that the country was part of the UK. 86.150.206.234 (talk) 14:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The United States has 50 states which each have their own legal systems and courts but they are not listed. I agree on articles about legal issues Scotland / England and Wales / Northern Ireland should be listed separatly whilst stating they are part of the United Kingdom, but the different legal system in England and Scotland doesnt stop it from being one country, and thats the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Overseas France and mainland france is separated on this list because its about geography and there for helpful. Where as on the list of population, the total population of the French republic is listed and the territories dont appear on the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You didn't answer the point I made - you compared Scotland to a region of France, not to a state in the USA. Perhaps you would be so kind as to concede that Scotland is not just like a region of France. 86.150.206.234 (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Scotland forms part of a sovereign state called the United Kingdom. The regions of France form part of the Sovereign state called France. The overseas regions and territories of france are only listed on here because they are overseas, some of them are politically equal to the mainland regions of france. BritishWatcher (talk) 15:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. I had added Abkhazia only to have it reverted on the basis that no English Speaking countries have recognised it! I doubt if there is a policy on Wikipedia that says that things can only be added to articles if accepted by an English speaking country! I'll add this condition to the article. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

lmao. I agree Abkhazia and south ossetia should be listed on its own as the West Bank is, Taiwan is and even Kosovo is. Unsure on what would happen to Georgias entry if its added though. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Interestingly, Gaza is included as a separate entity when, to my knowledge, it does not have UN recognition as a separate state and is not recognised as sovereign state by any English speaking country. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Gaza is not recognized by any country in the world as a sovereign state. Usually on international lists the Palestinian territories is listed from what ive seen rather than the west bank / Gaza on their own. I have restored your version Fishie, there is no justification for leaving Abkhazia off this list whilst Kosovo and others are on it. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that! Fishiehelper2 (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Abkhazia is on none of our other geoographical lists of countries. Kosovo is recognised by many more countries; Abkhazia is only recognised by Russia and a few other small countries. Viewfinder (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

So is the issue still that it is not recognised by an English speaking country? In your opinion, how many countries are required to recognise a country for it to be included? My view is that if an area declares independence, has control over its claimed territory and has been recognised by at least one other country, that should be sufficient for inclusion. Kosovo meets those conditions, but so does Abkhazia. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have responded in the discussion linked to the previous section. Let us continue this debate there. Viewfinder (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Including the countries within the United Kingdom

I have managed to insert details of the individual countries of the United Kingdom in a way that does not undermine the position of the United Kingdom (by making clear that they are within the United kingdom) - and this does away with the need for a footnote! (Hope this arrangement manages to satisfy those on both 'sides' of the debate about whether this list should just include sovereign countries.) Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

What do other editors think about this? Viewfinder (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not like the look of it and i am sure if its like that it will simply lead to more places having to be listed underneath other sovereign states to make it "fairer". I agree that the information is useful but it doesnt justify the UK being treated in a different way to all those other countries. Personally i prefer this style List of countries and outlying territories by total area where there is a column for notes. In that column details can be included, like the UK countries. That way it doesnt mess up the look of the table and treat the UK any different. (adding a bit) If there was a note column it would also provide a good place for the explanation when dealing with disputed sovereign states like Abkhazia and Kosovo. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think it makes the article look messy, to be honest. Better to remove them entirely. "Mainly sovereign states" is not much of an inclusion criterion (so I've changed that bit back to where it was this morning and changed the link on "territory"), and provided we say what the list is listing in the lead I see no reason why we should feel the need to have these four included. Pfainuk talk 23:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised you feel like that. I thought this would allow the table to be more informative and useful to readers without compromising the article purpose of listing in order of sovereign state. Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it will simply lead to further debates in the future about "why isnt the french regions and territories listed under France" and other countries too. what do you think about the layout on the list of countries and territories by total area? That still would provide the break down of the different parts of the UK but in my opinion in a fairer and less disputable way. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

That works, though personally I thought my addition on this article was better by managing to include it in the table in a way that didn't impact on the ranking and still (in my opinion) looked neat. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 23:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I don't like having one entry on five lines, where the rest get a single line - that's why I don't like the look, I think. I agree on the notes column, since it can be used for any one of a number of things (noting disputes, for example). Indeed, it's probably a good idea even if these four are not mentioned in the article. Pfainuk talk 23:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact Northern Ireland doesnt have a flag and looks odd on its own unlike England, Wales and Scotland also doesnt help. I really think a notes column on lists where possible is the best way forward it also makes international lists far more reliable with info explained next to it rather than hidden in a notes section right at the bottom of the page at the same time as providing the same information about the different parts of the UK as the current version. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I Will try adding the column to the table tomorrow morning and people can revert it or improve it if they dont like it. The formatting may have to be fixed afterwards but ill add the column. As i go through the list i will Bold the sovereign states , italic the territories and bold+italic the disputed sovereign state so theres a clear difference between all three. Anyway night guys =) BritishWatcher (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok i added the column for notes and put an entry in for the UK. Not sure about the wording to say it but let me know what you think and make changes if theres a better way of saying it. The formatting of the table could probably be improved, i also had a problem with the - Image:Countries by highest point map.PNG|thumb|Countries by highest point - Everytime i left it on the article it would radically change the table and i dont know how to stop that. Can start adding things to the notes section for other entries if people agree on the column, i wont for the moment incase it gets undone shortly. BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no objection to your proposals, but you should probably leave further editing for a while in case there are objections from other editors. I think that if we deviate from other geographical lists of countries, e.g. by including Abkhazia, we should state that at the top. But in the long run, we should be consistent throughout our lists of countries. Viewfinder (talk) 12:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Britishwatcher. I think what you have done looks good, though I suspect others may be unhappy since it still results in the United Kingdom entry taking up 5 lines which, as I recall, was one of the complaints with my attempt to improve the table. Having said that, a notes column certainly allows more detail to be added without having to rely on footnotes so it is an improvement as far as I can see. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 13:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Once the notes box is filled up a bit with information for other countries i dont think there will be too much objection to the UKs part, it just looks very odd as its the only note at the moment. The sovereign state of all the territories can be mentioned in that notes column rather than in brackets like (UK) or (Overseas France) ones are currently. It looks much better having them described and linking to the correct aritcle for overseas territory or crown dependency etc. ALso for places like the US the link to their individual article comparing highest points in each US state can be listed. I will wait a while before doing any more just to get a few other views, but then i will move some of the info across. We can leave off Abkhazia for the moment to see how the conversation goes on the discussion page and following that we either add it with explanation or remove some of the other entities on here in the same boat. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

New sections

I have added two new sections to the list and started transferring countries to them. This seems to be better than the status quo. See the discussion at Lists of countries. This would be my preferred solution, as per List of sovereign states. I do not know if this is the best solution; the use of bold and italics within a single section is also acceptable to me. Viewfinder (talk) 16:46, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

What do you think about the idea on WT:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries about using just an ISO to decide whats included on certain list like this one as it has many sources to avoid getting bogged down in what can and can not be included? On the new section i support a new table for the disputed sovereign states although i dont think a separate one is needed for territories. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:14, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean something like ISO 3166-1. I am not sure that will stick, for example pro-Kosovo POV pushers will note their exclusion along with the inclusion of Greenland which does not (yet) even claim to be a sovereign country. Viewfinder (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That said, if consensus does support ISO as an alternative to sovereignty to define the principal list, I will go along with that. But I think that recognition and partial recognition can be defined, and I see anomalies in ISO. Viewfinder (talk) 17:40, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes there will always be disputes about what is and is not allowed to be included but it seems a fairer way and means its not decided by a few editors on wikipedia but actually an international organisation. I dont know much about how they decide the ISO format but if Taiwan can be included on their list i presume at some stage they would add Kosovo and Abkhazia. I think its right that Taiwan is mentioned but i dont feel strongly on Kosovo which should be treated the same way as Abkhazia. Kosovos details could then be mentioned in Serbias notes column and South Ossetia and ABkhazia in Georgias saying they are disputed states which have declared independence. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its best to wait and see how the conversation on the lists talk page goes. For time being i dont mind if the separate tables stay or we just put disputed state in the notes column next to them and place them in the main list. BritishWatcher (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I still think that we should proceed to separate out those territories which do not claim to be countries. I don't think they should be in the main section of this list of countries. Hence my concern about ISO, which contains several non-countries, e.g. the Faroe Islands. Viewfinder (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of ISO 3166-1 to define which territories to list in the third section seems reasonable, but I still do not want to go back to listing non-countries in the main section, even if countries are distinguished by bold type. Viewfinder (talk) 18:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the idea of separated lists. It would be an inconsistency from me not to do that, since I have previously adviced something like this up here in the "Kosovo" section. I copy here some sentences again:
"I can see ... that you have different POV ... on the topic of what entities should be included into this list (sovereign countries, self-administering territories, overseas dependencies, partially recognized countries, etc.). ... I can suggest something what might be a possible solution and I hope it would also be a NPOV. I suggest that the list should be separated. The "main" list would contain only the sovereign countries (most exactly the UN member states and the Vatican). This list might be named as "List of sovereign countries by highest point". Just to be more accurate, in this very list the UK should participate with Mount Paget, Denmark with Gunnbjorn Fjaeld, and so on. A separate list (called ie. "List of other entities by highest point") would contain the highest points of any other states and territories (regardless of their current political situation). This secont list would easily be extendable without any controversy and disagreement." Kószab (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Well i would support a name change for the article so its sovereign states and territories or "Countries and territories" like List of countries and outlying territories by total area. I still think it works out ok having territories in line with the countries as long as they are clearly explained but i dont have too much of a problem if they are separated considering this title doesnt mention the fact territories are currently included.

I would strongly object to another article to "other entites" though. That opens up a whole can of worms with having to include countries of the UK, European Union, etc. It would be ok to move territories to a separate article, but i think its better they are included on this one article either in one table or separate like currently. I had trouble seeing your comment koszab, only see it on the (Difference) page and here in edit talkpage for some reason. (adding comment) but now i see it, so no matter. BritishWatcher (talk) 19:07, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to be more accurate: I did not think of another article at all. I thought of two separate lists in one article. (Something like the current version is.) Kószab (talk) 22:45, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Ahh sorry misunderstood what you meant. I dont mind separate tables on this article like it is now, although i wouldnt use the term other entity as it does mean almost anything could be added to it. Stating they are tables of territories or disputed states is clear. BritishWatcher (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I tried to precisely compare the entries in this list and the following lists: List of sovereign states, ISO 3166-1, List of unrecognized countries, List of dependent territories and List of autonomous areas by country.
1) The form of the "sovereign" table in this article is currently identical with the list in the most recent version of the List of sovereign states - at least regarding the number of the entries (the "proper" naming could be subject of further discussion, i.e. The Kingdom of the Netherlands).
2) The "disputed sovereignity" table is still a short one here compared to the List of unrecognized countries. I suggest to include into "our" list Nagorno-Karabakh, Northern Cyprus, Somaliland, South Ossetia and Transnistria as well.
3) The "third" table is labelled to have all the entries from the ISO 3166-1 list that are not included into the first "two" tables. However, six entries from the ISO 3166-1 list still not appear here. So I suggest to include Åland Islands, Bouvet Island, British Indian Ocean Territory, French Southern Territories, 'Heard Island and McDonald Islands' and United States Minor Outlying Islands here as well.
4) The ISO 3166-1 list does not mention some entities what the List of sovereign states talks about (in its "information" column). I also suggest to include these entities into this list - although in that case the definition of the inclusion in the "third" table should be corrected. The entities are: Ashmore and Cartier Island (Australia), Coral Sea Islands (Australia), Clipperton Island (France), Akrotiri and Dhekelia (UK).
5) There is one entity that IMO still deserves inclusion although somehow missing from both the ISO 3166-1 list and the information column of the List of sovereign states. This is namely Mount Athos (Greece). I suggest to include it into the "third" table.
What do you think about all of these suggestions? Kószab (talk) 10:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to these suggestions. Do you know the high points? Otherwise I will need to find some time to research them. Viewfinder (talk) 14:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

By my understanding, Mount Athos is an integral, if autonomous, part of Greece. Further, the current consensus appears to include entries on the ISO, with de facto independent states as the only exceptions. Personally, I think adding more exceptions is probably a bad idea. That's not to say it can't be added in the notes column on the same basis as the countries of the UK. Pfainuk talk 14:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about it and I agree. So let's forget no.4 and no.5 from my suggestions. (Mount Athos is indeed a special part of Greece and it is probably better not to include some minor dependent territories than overrule the hopefully good-working concensus about using the ISO 3166-1 list.) However is there any reason not to apply the no.2 and no.3 suggestions? (The HP of Somaliland is the same as Somalia. The HP of Northern Cyprus is mentioned in the Kyrenia Mountain Range article. The HP of Bouvet Island is Olavtoppen - but you will see quite different elevation figures in the Olavtoppen and the Bouvet Island articles. The HP of the British Indian Ocean Territory is a 15m high unnamed location. The HP of the French Southern Territories is Mont Ross. The HP of the 'Heard Island and McDonald Islands' is already included in the article. The HP of the United States Minor Outlying Islands is a 76m high location on Navassa Island. The HP of Åland Islands is the 126m high Orrdals Hill [according to Britannica Online]. I currently do not have any information about the HPs of Transnistria, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh.)
One more thing. The third table currently called "Dependent countries and overseas territories". I examined all the entries in it (present and suggested) and IMO it is more or less true that they are either some kind of dependencies or some kind of overseas areas. But there are some exceptions and I would try to avoid later disagreement, so I suggest to extend the name of the table or write a little more explanation to it, or any other way to handle these exceptions. The exceptions are Åland Islands, Antarctica, Hong Kong and Macau. These are IMO neither dependencies nor overseas areas. The List of dependent territories says about them that they are "political entities" with "a special position recognized by international treaty or agreement". Kószab (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates HP

I personally agree with the change of the HP of the UAE. However I can not justify the elevation datum since the SRTM shows no higher cells around Jabal Bil 'Ays (previously named in the Google Earth as Jabal Rawla) than 1896m. But the 1910m is within the error range of the SRTM, sot it could even be right. Unfortunately our editor from Dubai (the location of the provided IP address) did not provide the source of the elevation figure (neither here nor in the other two of his or her edits about the subject).
The main problem about locating the HP of the country is that the border between the UAE and Oman is still publicly undefined. I have read here that the governments of the two countries had been agreed of the exact line of their border in 2003 but this agreement is still not available for the general public. So until that we can not be sure where the HP of the UAE is - but it seems true, that it is somewhere in the Jabal Bil 'Ays area (UAE part of).
Has anybody more detailed information about the agreement of the border line or the HP itself?
Kószab (talk) 17:01, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Grant Hutchison has just sent me this link. The information as currently stated is OK but SRTM suggests that it may be slightly lower. Viewfinder (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The recent edit of DLinth is quite interesting, since so far I thought that the exact border line between the UAE and Oman is not yet published (see the link earlier in this section) - and therefore the exact hightpoint of the UAE is hard to locate. User DLinth refers to a 1:100.000 map. It would be really great to see that map, but until then I continue to doubt that the highest point of Jabal Bil Aysh is on the border. All the previously known route reports and pictures indicated, that the exact borderline is most probably west of the peak of Jabal Bil Aysh. Even one of the trip reports on Peakbagger (which itself considers that peak to be the highest one in the UAE) suggests, that the border does not cross the very peak of this mountain. There are also some interesting pictures connected to this trip report, so I suggest to examine them. Here is the article. If nobody gives a convincing evidence, that the border crosses this mountain peak, I suggest to revert DLinth's good faith edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kószab (talk • contribs) 12:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My bad. Just self-reverted. My 1:100,000 map was very old, and, like the brand new but incorrect Google Earth boundary which triggered my (wrong) edit, makes the wrong assumption that this boundary, like most boundaries, runs along the high points/watershed ridge. In fact, the high point in UAE is this western knoll, boundary pillar 43 at a UTM reading (can switch to that in Google Earth) of 417956.15E 2870729.43N (roughly 27-57-11N 56-10-50E)... but that's OR as I can't find that boundary doc on the internet or published yet. DLinth (talk) 21:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Mountains and their peaks

It is interesting whether the last edit is right or wrong. The (anonymous) editor deleted the indication of 'Kibo' before the 'Mount Kilimanjaro' entry. This made me think - what is the "rule" of mentioning the proper peak (if one exists) beside the actual mountain in the table? The current situation is a mix of more cases. There are examples of not mentioning the name of the proper peak although there is one (e.g. Huascaran - Huascaran Sur; Elbrus - Elbrus West; Kinabalu - Low's Peak). There are other examples where both the mountain's and the peak's name are mentioned (e.g. Mount Kenya - Batian; Mount Stanley - Margherita; Mount Cameroon - Fako). To make the picture even more interesting: the distance between Kibo and Mawenzi are almost the same as the distance between (Big) Ararat and Little Ararat - so sould we distinguish properly these two as well or should we forget about mentioning the Kibo when we talk about Kilimanjaro??? (I admit this last question was a little provocative one.)
So what do you think about this? Kószab (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Nicaragua's HP

In the list the highest point of Nicaraguas is Mogoton with 2438 m. But when I go to the article about Mogoton it says Mogoton is 2107 m. Anyone knows which is the correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.100.82 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

The highest SRTM cell in Nicaragua is at 13°45'47" N, 86°23'54" W (equivalent of the location of Mogoton). Its height is 2094 m. The picture here shows that the barometric elevation data (2110 m) correlates with this figure. So the 2107 m datum seems to me more believable. I correct the list. Kószab (talk) 06:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The Palestinian Territories are not "claimed" by Israel

Sorry to be pedantic, but while the West Bank (location of the listed mountain) is militarily occupied by Israel, Israel doesn't claim that region as part of its territory (as it does with other territories that other countries don't recognize as part of Israel, like the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem). --Jfruh (talk) 23:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Natural points?

How is it defined what is counted here? Is it only natural points? Because the Danish Great Belt bridge pylons are quite a bit higher (and not anywhere near) than the Møllehøj.ospalh (talk) 10:02, 24 September 2010 (UTC), 10:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I suppose a brief note in the intro to explain this wouldn't hurt. I've removed mention of the bridge, as it's not nearly the tallest thing in Denmark. Warofdreams talk 13:11, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Crown dependencies

Bermuda is not a UK crown dependency, whatever that's supposed to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.206.149 (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2011.

I've changed it to British Overseas Territory. --George2001^hi 19:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

South Sudan HP

It is very good, that an editor from London, UK (basen on the IP location) included South Sudan less than half a day after its independence. It is clear that the newborn country inherited its HP from the former Sudan. However, the peak he/she have chosen as the HP for the new (north) Sudan is might not be the real one. The Marrah Mountains article talks about the Deriba Caldera and lists its elevation to be over 3000m. The place called Kirsin Tonga (2799m) (according to a net search) is may be a subsidiary peak on the east slopes of the Marrah.

If you look at the SRTM data, there are (at least) two candidates for the (north) Sudan HP. The elevation datum in both cases is a little less than 3000m, and they are within the error range of the SRTM. The first one is by the Deriba Caldera, more exactly the SW point on the rim or close to the SW point (a little further more SW). The second one is 18,5km from the Deriba Caldera in the direction of NE (13.02.37 N, 24.22.03 E on Google Earth).

Does anybody have more precise information about the exact location and elevation of the (nort) Sudan HP? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kószab (talk • contribs) 17:21, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

San Marino HP

The list say Monte Titano in San Marino is 755m. But in the article about Monte Titano the height is given as 739. Anyone know what is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.34.202.246 (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Rank given to dependent territories, etc.

When I saw there was no country listed at number 29, I thought there was a mistake and I almost went through and edited the table to fix it. Only after scrolling down further did I discover several ranks are reserved for territories and such in different tables below. This seems confusing and potentially cause unnecessary edits and "fixes".

In fact, instead of ranking the territories and listing them in a separate table, a better way to do it would be just the opposite: Have just one table and include territories within the table in the position where their high point would rank them, but skip them when ranking. For example, Venezuela and Indonesia would be ranked 28 and 29, but Antarctica's entry would appear between them, unranked.

Perhaps even better, do it the way List of countries and dependencies by area handles the same problem: Rank the territories all in the one main table, but italicize the names, and only un-rank an entry like Antarctica, but still put it in its position in the table for better comparison purposes.

Just a suggestion. Thoughts? --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:48, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

No feedback so I propose changing the way the table is presented to the style of List of countries by area. I will give it at least another 24 hours or so and if there is still no feedback, I make the changes myself. Then at least that will rattle the cages of anyone who cares. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 02:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This change possibly highlights a flaw in the new format I used. Not exactly in my area of expertise, but in this context the Taiwan entry appears to imply it is "owned" by China or something, when that wasn't the intention. Afraid this won't go over too well with some. As an interim solution, I will just put Taiwan in italics and leave out the parenthetical link to PRC. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I had removed the claimant countries to those with disputed sovereignty to avoid the misinterpretation of this being equivalent to a possession of an overseas territory. They were soon restored. Please discuss. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 13:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

the wrong map of russia

the wrong map of russia

where is crimea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.208.77 (talk) 11:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)