Talk:List of elevation extremes by country

What is a "country"?

I dispute many of the table entries, as they are not "countries". For example, French Guiana, Martinque, Guadeloupe and Réunion are integral parts of the French republic; calling them "countries" is akin to calling Alaska and Hawaii countries (and neither of those appear on this list). Similarly, Svalvard and Jan Mayen are integral parts of the Kingdom of Norway, and not classified as territorial possessions. I know that ISO 3166 has unique codes for these places, but that does not make them "countries". This list ought to align with the identical inclusion criteria as the main list of countries we have on this wiki. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Excluding Greenland would mean Denmark, for example, would need to reflect Greenland's figure. So not useful. Denmark does consider Greenland to be a separate country so that is reason to keep Greenland. Nice to have Antarctica in the list too. Could the lead description allow for significant geographic areas too?--Andynct (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The list of countries seems to be based on ISO 3166-1, which is an official standard.--BIL (talk) 20:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

ISO 3166-1 Looks like a good definition. Thanks. Any objections to using that?

Perhaps those areas which are not sovereign states or disputed territories etc. (Greenland, France Territories etc.) could be italicised? This is what I've seen on other lists like this. LaiYeh (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Har Meron

Har Meron is the highest elevation in Israel, Hermon is completely within Syria and Lebanon. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The Golan heights is part of Israel, acording to Israel position. Syria claims wonership of this. There is no reason to preper the Syrian position. Biegel (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The topic has already been discussed, see the "Israel" section below. Kószab (talk) 14:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Serbia and Kosovo

Gjeravica/Deravica is posted as the highest point of both Serbia AND Kosovo, because recognition of Kosovo is still disputed. Fine. Although I think a note at the "Serbia" entry should tell the interested Wikipedians, that the highest point of Serbia proper ist the Midžor: 2,169 m >> see it at the CIA World Factbook Beraldosuperfigo (talk) 19:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguations

In See Also, the link to summit should be to Summit (topography). I can't do it since I'm new here, so could somebody fix that up? Thanks. CarnivorousGnomeCatuse (talk) 19:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. But I thought that was a change anybody could make--even an IP (that is, not registered) user. Uporządnicki (talk) 18:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Merging With Elevation Extremes

'Strong Support of Merge'- There's a page already that contains high and low points for countries. Having a high points and a low points page in addition is superfluous. Let's do a merge Cesium 133 (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

It's been more than 5 months since the merge was proposed, and no one has objected to it. I'm going to perform the merge. There is really no need to have three articles for something that can be comprehensively covered in one. Vanjagenije (talk) 10:35, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's just an opinion, but I'd prefer to revert this merge because the former List of countries by highest point had an elevation ranking, while this article doesn't have it. That ranking was an important information. Scheridon (talk) 22:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add it to this article. No need for whole new article just because of that ranking. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a ranking is not possible to this article because of its format. The previous format was better than the current one. Scheridon (talk) 22:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think it's not possible? I think it is possible. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

It's not possible because the countries are disposed in an alphabetical order (not in an elevation order). Scheridon (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Scheridon: Yes, but this wikitable is WP:sortable. It can be sorted by any column values. That means that you can add a column with ranking and the table can be sorted by that ranking with just one click. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Vanjagenije: I hadn't thought about it until I read your comment (lol). What a shame! Scheridon (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Greece

An area in the Evrotas Municipality in Laconia,Greece has an altitude of -3 metres just immediately north of the settlement Trinisa according to Google EarthWeatherextremes (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually the lowest point of Greece is in Missolonghi with -6 metres .Have now corrected this on the articleWeatherextremes (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Well it seems that after all the lowest point of Greece is in Aetolia-Acarnania at -7.98 meters. Weatherextremes (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

yet another change in Greece's lowest point.I reckon this time is the correct one Weatherextremes (talk) 00:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: You should provide some WP:reliable source. Vanjagenije (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The source is in the Aetolia-Acarnania article and is reliable.Check it out [1] Weatherextremes (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: You need a reliable source that says that particular point is the lowest point of Greece. That source doesn't say that. WP:Original synthesis is not allowed. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Well then there is a problem of consistency with the article because at least for Europe most of the articles per country do not specifically say this.In fact for Netherlands you get a pretty generic statement that the lowest altitude is somewhere between -1 to -7 meters.I have been checking all over Greece the past few days and this is the lowest altitude I could find.I devoted close to 3 days for this so I am pretty sure this is the lowest altitude that can be found in Greece Weatherextremes (talk) 19:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok i noticed that for Netherlands the CIA fact book is the reference.But what about France?I couldnt find any reliable source that states what the lowest altitude is.In fact i think this is the case for other European countries as well from what I remember when I was checking the past few days Weatherextremes (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Germany as well.The article Neuendorf-Sachsenbande does not seem to have a citation Weatherextremes (talk) 19:47, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

@Weatherextremes: In regards to finding the lowest point in Greece, unfortunately it is not enough to go to Google Earth and find the lowest altitude listed there Wikipedia requires someone reliable to have actually published where and what the lowest point is, you trolling Google Earth for the lowest point is not acceptable and is WP:Original synthesis. Google Earth is great but is simply not accurate enough for you to accurately derive the figure you have from it. I have looked and I agree that the area is probably at least partially below sea level (probably maintained artificially so, however I'm not sure that matters) but it is unlikely to be 10 metres below, particularly when points metres away from your referenced point is only 1.5 metres below.Andrewgprout (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Please check my latest edits at the Aetolia-Acarnania article talk page.We can have the debate over there Weatherextremes (talk) 03:12, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Source

What source is this using? The entries for several countries (e.g. Afghanistan and Australia) differ from the figures used in the CIA word factbook. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• @Thryduulf: Feel free to correct it and cite CIA world factbook. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Well, CIA World Factbook is not always accurate... Regarding Australia - see the Mount Kosciuszko article itself for references. Regarding Afghanistan - see this USGS publication. Kószab (talk) 13:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a note, another Wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference per WP:CIRCULAR. But, feel free to correct the info using reliable sources. Vanjagenije (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Man, you misunderstood me. I referred to the references that can be read in the Mount Kosciuszko article. No. 2 and No. 3. in the references chapter of the article. One of them is from Peakbagger, the other one is from the Australian Alps National Parks. Peace and happy Xmas. :) Kószab (talk) 13:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

The CIA Factbook is currently one of the least reliable sites for elevations, easy to prove for most areas with the advent of SRTM and the recent release of the more accurate 30 meter SRTM (see NOTE below) postings for areas outside the US. The Factbook has a 20-year-old figure for the Dead Sea that is off by 23 meters, and antiquated or never-valid values off by >130 meters (425 ft.) (!) for high points of Bangladesh, Bouvet Is., Gabon (>500m!), Nicaragua, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Uzbekistan, Wallis & Futuna, and Western Sahara.

More reliably, better sourced sites (that provide sources) include http://www.peakbagger.com/list.aspx?lid=1100 and htpp://www.viewfinderpanoramas.org/elevmisquotes.html , with, for the Andes, http://www.andes.org.uk and on occasion, for volcanoes, http://volcano.si.edu/volcano.cfm?vn=243061

NOTE: SRTM has serious underestimation problems of up to ~40 m for extremely sharp pointed peaks, or those with a high point at the edge of a high vertical precipice. Otherwise, NASA's stated relative vertical SRTM2 accuracy is 10m, absolute 16m (http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/srtm/statistics.html) (assuming no trees; a dense canopy will somewhat inflate the SRTM2...see http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/1/2/36/pdf and pp. 462-3 & 475-6 at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/220605790 DLinth (talk) 04:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Antarctica

The low point of Antarctica is Deep Lake, in the Vestfold Hills (68.559759°S,78.197761°E), at -50m +/- 1m. See https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/soe/display_indicator.cfm?soe_id=62 for more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.162.173 (talk) 10:18, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

This Australian website is a reliable source that Deep Lake is has a -50m elevation, but is not a reliable source that this is the lowest surface elevation in Antarctica. I have looked for such a reliable source and cannot find it. The Science paper listed in the table does not have the surface elevation of Deep Lake (as far as I can tell). Can someone supply a reliable source that there is no lake lower than Deep Lake? (I take it we're going to ignore subglacial elevations, some of which are thousands of meters below sea-level). —hike395 (talk) 02:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

@DLinth: The Gibson paper in Science (on page 182) states that Oval Lake is at -30 m elevation, but does not state this is the lowest elevation in Antarctica. The Australian website is a reliable source that Deep Lake is at -50 m elevation. Oval Lake cannot be the lowest elevation in Antarctica. We still have no evidence, that there are no lakes with lower surface elevation than Deep Lake. (Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). —hike395 (talk) 02:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: I agree fully... I hadn't seen the Australian source; glad that you just mentioned that. Why not include that source in the article; while it doesn't definitively declare that it's the lowest spot, there sure aren't all that many ice free spots below sea level that could possibly be lower. Anyway, it's a good source to include, I should think. I didn't do the original first 22 Jan Deep Lake edit; I was just trying to find a source for it. DLinth (talk) 03:58, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hike395: @DLinth: GNIS has an Antarctic database. Using this page to search for features lower than -2 (meters), it provides two matches:

name	type	elevation	coordinate	GNIS ID
Emona Anchorage	Harbor	−100 m (−330 ft)	62.626667°S 60.371667°W / -62.626667; -60.371667 (Emona Anchorage)	17425
Spillane Fjord	Bay	−1,250 m (−4,100 ft)	65.333333°S 62.166667°W / -65.333333; -62.166667 (Spillane Fjord)	18945

No idea how extensive GNIS datapoints are for the Antarctic, but if either of these are valid, they would discredit the initial assertion. —EncMstr (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looking at a map for lat/long for both of those, they both map to places in the water. Are they bathymetric features, maybe? —hike395 (talk) 06:59, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have added the Deep Lake information anonymously. I have worked on Antarctic Lakes extensively for many years and am very sure (though can never be absolutely certain) that Deep Lake is the lowest point on the continent. It is certainly the lowest point in the Vestfold Hills, one of the largest ice-free areas of the continent. The lowest point of the McMurdo Dry Valleys (the largest ice-free area) is sea level, and there are no lower points in the Schirmacher Oasis, Bunger Hills, or the Windmill Islands. I have searched maps of other areas as well, and have not found any deeper sites. The one other area of Antarctica with below sea level areas of which I am aware is the coastline near the Japanese Syowa base (Lake Hunazoko, 23 m below sea level (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228486407_Distribution_of_aquatic_mosses_in_the_Soya_Coast_region_East_Antarctica), and a three other lakes at higher altitude but below sea level). Detailed maps of the Vestfold Hills are dowloadable from https://data.aad.gov.au/aadc/mapcat/list_view.cfm?list_id=45 (scroll down to get to the more general topographic maps). Deep Lake is near the SE corner of map 2. John Gibson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.87.162.173 (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Pinging @Andrew Gray: who might have access to survey resources. Jheald (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with John that it seems very likely - there simply isn't much of Antarctica which would be a plausible candidate. (If you'd forced me to guess, I'd have said the Dry Valleys, but they're too high.) I've had a poke around and can't find anyone stating this clearly other than a lot of "lists of lowest points", annoyingly. I say leave it in with a footnote saying "often described as such, but no clear list of lowest points exists" or something similar? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Israel

@Glide08: Israel does not officially claim Golan Heights as part of its territory. But even if it did, it's irrelevant because no other country nor UN recognizes that claim. Wikipedia should be neutral. Please, revert your edit. Vanjagenije (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Israel does claim the Golan Heights as part of its territory; I know becuase I live there. According to your logic, Taiwan shouldn't have it's own separate value because the UN says it's part of the PRC. Glide08 (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Please provide some evidence. I know becuase I live there is WP:original research. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

According to Israel: current issues and historical background by Edgar S. Marshall (Nova Publishers, 2002. pg. 34. ISBN 1-59033-325-X), "The [Golan Heights law] had the practical effect of annexing the [Golan Heights] to Israel". Glide08 (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

So, we agree that de jure Golan Heights are not part of Israel. Please, revert your edit. We are just wasting our time. Vanjagenije (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

No ,becuase that's not the Israeli Government's PoV. How can the Golan not being Israeli be the Government's PoV, when the Prime Minister Himself says that the Golan is an integral part of the State of Israel? Glide08 (talk) 06:02, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion is not up to date. Israel does claim sovereignty over the Golan heights, which was recognized by the US

Dear Anonym user. The US (more appropriately - an extrovert former president) is not the whole world. At least 196 other countries do not recognize the Israeli claim. This article must reflect this very fact. However, I will not revert your edit again, I do not want to be involved in an edit war. More experienced Wikipedians will know how to handle this situation appropriately. Kószab (talk) 17:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to list the highest point of Israel as defined in Option 1:-- Mount Meron (Mount Hermon if the Golan Heights are included).Ownership of Golan Heights are disputed.Winged Blades ^Godric 09:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

---

How should the highest point of Israel be listed?

1. Mount Meron (Mount Hermon if the Golan Heights are included), or
2. Mount Hermon

Note that Mount Hermon is located in the Golan Heights region that nobody except Israel considers the territory of Israel. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Mount Hermon - Israel has annexed the Golan heights (unlike the west bank), and controls the territory. We should not play politics of counting who recognizes claims.Icewhiz (talk) 04:03, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 Mount Meron (Mount Hermon if the Golan Heights are included). Since almost no one recognises the claim, we should not endorse it here. Pincrete (talk) 14:57, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 per @Icewhiz: and because our article on Israel includes the Golan Heights in Israel's area and population and Wikipedia should aim to be consistent. Amisom (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

  Actually our Israel article says: Israel has since fought several wars with neighboring Arab states,[17] in the course of which it has occupied territories including the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Gaza Strip … … It extended its laws to the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, but not the West Bank. Consistency would imply us saying that the claim is disputed. Pincrete (talk) 10:19, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  See the infobox in Israel. Amisom (talk) 11:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  The word is mightier than the infobox, which anyway refers to the GHs as 'annexed'. Pincrete (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

  Then the consensus will probably support you. Amisom (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

• Option 1 Mount Meron (Mount Hermon if the Golan Heights are included). This is not the first time this question pops up here. It seems to me (excuse me for the generalization), that everybody who lives in Israel or sympathizes with Israel is going to support Option 2, and the rest of the world is going to support Option 1. I do not know if an acceptable concensus could ever be reached between the two groups. Therefore my suggestion would be (which is neither perfect nor totally aligned with Wikipedia's principles), that the Option 1 should be chosen here, because it reflects better the "rest of the world" point of view, and Option 2 should be chosen in the Hebrew version of this article, because it reflects better the Israeli point of view. Kószab (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 as the UN has not recognized the claim. Lets stick with recognized norms of the law. scope_creep (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
• Note: According to CIA World Factbook, the highest point is Mount Meron [2]. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 per scope_creep, and contra Kószab we should not attempt to rule on non-English Wikipedia in this forum. —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 since the Hermon Mount is both officially annexed as well as practically a part of Israel. Traveling there, you would not notice anything to suggest you are not in Israel, ergo per WP:DUCK you are in Israel. Ask any Israeli, what the highest mountain in the country is: Hermon, of course! Debresser (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 per Pincrete and scope_creep. And if the infobox for our Israel article "counts" the Golan Heights, so what? Consistency is admirable but nuance is more important. Snuge purveyor (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 2 because it shows the present status of Israel, it is owned by Israel. Lorstaking (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 obviously, frankly. A mountain in a disputed area cannot be accepted as in Israeli territory. We should go with the highest mountain in what is undisputed Israeli territory, which I understand is Meron. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:39, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 is correct ofc ImTheIP (talk) 15:15, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 which recognizes that the GH territorial claim is disputed, but provides identification of both locations, so that a reader may choose the one of his liking. DonFB (talk) 06:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
• Both - The easiest decision is not to make one, and slap down a well sourced Template:efn explaining the problem in fairly good detail. TimothyJosephWood 10:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Option 1 although it is a clear case of a compromise. (Option 1 should be simply "Mount Meron".) The issue is, how exactly is the Israeli area defined? According to the Wikipedia article on Israel, the Golan area has not been annexed by Jerusalem. Therefore, the status of the Golan Heights, as far as Israel itself is concerned, is quite clear: It is occupied by but not owned by Israel - which is pretty much the same situation that exists in the West Bank. The so-called Golan Heights Law of December 1981 extended Israeli "laws, jurisdiction and administration" to the Golan Heights but there was no formal annexation, which is a distinct, diplomatic step of the highest importance. Plainly put, the Golan Heights according to Israel are not official Israeli territory.

Plus, I accept the fact, noticed above by Kószab, that the responses to this RfC will mostly be divided according to editors' stance on the overall Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The only way to proceed beyond such views is to try and strictly follow Wikipedia's rules. (And, by the way, how the Israeli Wikipedia decides on this issue is irrelevant to the English Wikipedia.) -The Gnome (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Israel, I believe, never formally used the word annex in relation to any territory - also not territory gained in 1948-9 (This is the ordinace which enacted Israeli law on captured territory in 1948 - [3] (Hebrew) - it does not include the word annex). The Golan Heights Law is effectively a de-jure annexation - even though it does not use the word (the law avoid using annexation as a term, but does everything an annexation would do). The law elicited a response at the time - United Nations Security Council Resolution 497. The territory is treated as part of Israel in all internal matters (e.g. bureau of statistics, any publication by the Israeli government - which is not the case regarding the West bank). That the annexation is not recognized - is a different matter - but it was effectively annexed.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

The very fact that one feels obliged to use the term "effectively a de jure annexation" (emphasis added) attests to the fact that a formal act of annexation has never taken place. Either something is a de jure situation or it is not de jure at all; at best, it is a de facto situation, which is what the situation with the West Bank and the Golan actually is. There is a somewhat unique problem with Israel as far as official borders are concerned - Israel has never officially declared them after 1948! This is something quite exceptional in matters of territorial sovereignty. Perhaps, interested editors of Wikipedia should petition and pressure the Knesset to formally annex the Golan and West Bank areas in order for us to have fewer disputes and RfCs. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 15:02, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

The west bank (excluding Jerusalem) is a separate issue - it has not been annexed, and is not treated by Israel as fully soverign territory (one perhaaps may claim a de facto creeping annexation - but not formal de jure one). The de jure annexation of the Golan was done similiarly to Nazareth (which was outside of Israel in May 1948). Internatioonal recoognition is a different matter, but in terms of internal law, your claim is quite novel and not typically an accepted view.Icewhiz (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The declaration of annexing a territory is, by definition, an issue of international status and relations, and not merely of "domestic law". The area of the Golan has never been de jure annexed and neither has the West Bank. Contrary to what you claim, the issues are identical as far as annexation is concerned. As to Nazareth, thank you for bringing to our attention the article on the Northern District because it is quite helpful:

"The Golan Heights has been run as a sub-district of the North District of Israel since the 1981 Golan Heights Law was passed." (Emphasis added.)

The area is "run as [if]" it belongs to Israel - and that is all there is to it!.. Even the law itself, i.e. of "running" the area, has never been recognized internationally - and this article is about an international issue. Hope this provides the necessary background. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Switzerland

The article says Monta Rosa at 15,203 ft. But Mont Blanc is 15,777 ft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AA15:E142:2A80:2575:E700:2C4F:B611 (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Mont Blanc is located on the border between France and Italy, but not in Switzerland.--BIL (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Much point in including extremely low lying territories?

I see the point in territories that have higher elevations than their parent country such as Greenland/Denmark. But places like the Ashmore and Cartier Islands or Cocos (Keeling) Islands and others seem unnecessary inclusions 81.108.165.3 (talk) 21:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See the very first chapter on this talk page. The entries of this list follow the content of the ISO 3166-1 list. Kószab (talk) 23:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Elevation

Has anyone seen a 17 feet elevation in Maldives? 202.153.81.139 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing to countries rather than separating out territories

The article should be limited to sovereign/partially recognised countries and notable terra nullius. As the article is Country High Points it's unimportant that eg. the US Minor Outlying Islands have a height of 13m; this should be included in the US states and territories list with only Denali included for the US. While Greenland/Denmark and South Georgia/UK are notable overseas territories with higher elevations than their parent country, these intricacies can be included in the countries' own "high points by state/major subdivision" pages. 1rre (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Bangladesh

Is there any reliable source claiming Tazing Dong to be the highest peak rather than Saka Haphong? It was changed without any considerations. Human (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Uzbekistan HP

Based on the information in this article it might be worth to mention, that there is a chance, that Uzbekistan's true hightpoint is not Khazret Sultan. I am not an expert, how to handle this kind of information in a Wikipedia-conform way, so any help is appreciated. Kószab (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2023 (UTC)