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)