Talk:Uzbekistan

Russian language

I'm keep seeing this edit being reverted. Template:Tq does not slightest mean official or recognized language. Beshogur (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Ostlegionen

Is it WP:DUE to mention Ostlegionen in the history section? There is also no number of volunteers specified. I am leaning towards no. Mellk (talk) 19:16, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

Department of History

The Timurids Never Used The Term Uzbek For Themselves, In Fact They Expelled The Timurids From Transoxania And The Timurids Had Insults Towards The Uzbeks Tamerlanen Soldiers (talk) 09:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Department of History

In summary, today's Uzbekistan has no connection with the Timurids outside the region. Tamerlanen Soldiers (talk) 09:15, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Department of History

And if we go from the region, the capital of the Timurids after Timur was Herat Moghols, so it is not completely in today's Uzbekistan Samarkand. Tamerlanen Soldiers (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

File:Copyright-problem.svg Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.maisonouzbek.com/en/arts-and-cultures/uzbek-literature/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, Template:Em it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of Template:Em, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, provided it does not infringe on the copyright of the original Template:Em plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The use of Eric Gilbertson blog or his articles

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

• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_453#Eric_&_Matthew_Gilbert,_PhD_site_at_https://www.countryhighpoints.com/about/
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_466#Peak_Heights
• The first few sections of Talk:Mount_Rainier

Graywalls (talk) 15:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: Although I am a COI editor with Gilbertson, as per his website, he is publishing work to journals such as Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment. So perhaps the consensus will be different once those are published. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:24, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

WP:EXCEPTIONAL See the fourth bullet point. Overwriting the height of Mt. Rainier, the boiling point of water, or other globally important topic like the height of Uzbekistan is more than a bit different from acceptable citation for a new antenna tower atop a school or the horsepower output of some barely notable concept vehicle. Template:Re, since you posted, would you clarify the extent of your COI/affiliation with Eric Gilbertson? After seeing the matters related to copyright and extensive upload of photos from his website, it seems you have more than casual interaction with Gilbertson. Is there $$$ exchange involved? What is the nature of your current relationship with Gilbertson? Graywalls (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but if the information is peer-reviewed in a reputable journal like Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, that's a different story. As I've stated in the past, I won't add any Gilbertson-related text to articles, but figured neutral editors should have the information.

I am not financially compensated in any way. Please assume good faith. My additions were solely to improve the articles. Mountain pages should, of course, have an image of the mountain, and I used my connection to Gilbertson to achieve this. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

But surely, it could be done in a way that doesn't involve dropping "countryhighpoints" website in such a way that causes traffic to that website. Graywalls (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

To upload the image to Wikipedia, you are prompted to cite the website you found it on. Those images came from Eric's website, so I included a link to the blog post the image exists on. If you feel it is necessary, I can remove the link to his blog and simply say the source is "Eric Gilbertson".

As for the usage of Gilbertson-related content, I agree that his blog should not be used as a source, instead using secondary sources or peer-reviewed scientific articles written by him (with content being introduced by a non-COI, neutral editor)

I can understand initially leaving the information off an article like Uzbekistan (instead saving it for the mountain pages, until more coverage occurs), but if Gilbertson's work is published and peer-reviewed in Progress in Physical Geography: Earth and Environment, among other journals, I feel that we should re-open the discussion on the reliability of Gilbertson-related content. Since I am a COI editor, I would refrain from heavy participation, but want to give this info to neutral editors.

If you need more COI info, please go to the archive on my talk page. My correspondence with Gilbertson to upload those images was solely for that reason. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Something might be usable for a hump in the neighborhood park, but using it to overwrite a height that contradicts with other published sources like CIA World Factbook or Britannica is in WP:EXCEPTIONAL territory and definitely warrants a thorough discussion in RSN and relevant Wikproject pages. Graywalls (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I have no COI (I hadn't even heard of Eric Gilbertson before I read the AAJ article on the claimed new Uzbekistan high point, and I was unaware that Gilbertson's survey data was a subject of contention in other articles. I have no opinion on the Mt. Rainier or water boiling point questions, except that I totally agree that Eric's blog is not in itself sufficient to overturn more established sources. However, for the question of the Uzbekistan high point, I would say:

1. Publication in a journal like the American Alpine Journal is just about the closest thing to peer review you are likely to see anywhere for this sort of claim.
2. The existing Uzbekistan high point is also poorly sourced - sources like the CIA World Factbook are most likely just repeating the same Soviet era survey data, and it's likely that even the height of Khazret Sultan has only been rigorously measured twice - once by whatever Soviet era survey made the map other sources are drawing from, and once by the recent Gilbertson expedition.
3. Mainstream sources don't even agree on the Uzbek high point, for example Brittanica gives a different mountain and elevation than the CIA World Factbook, and neither the CIA Factbook nor Britannica give the basis or source for their claimed high points.
4. As far as I am aware, no mainstream source explicitly rejects the AAJ/Gilbertson claims (i.e., no source claims that Alpomish is less than 4,643m elevation, or that Khazret Sultan is more than 4,668m in elevation, or that Gilbertson's measurements are inaccurate). There's not currently any actual contention between sources, there's just a recently-published claim that older sources have not yet been updated to include or reject.

Given all of the above, I personally think it would be reasonable to accept the AAJ publication as RS validation of Gilbertson's claim, and to include it in the article until/unless some other RS explicitly rejects it. I am open to hearing other perspectives. I will open a conversation at RSN to get more input. -- LWG ^talk 18:51, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I feel like the "journal" is just the name and it's more of a magazine than an actual academic journal. So, I'm inclined to disagree, but with Gilbertson in particularly, strongly disagree. Graywalls (talk) 23:21, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The AAJ is definitely more than just a "magazine", it's a major journal of record for climbing and mountaineering. It's not at all comparable with something like Climbing (magazine). Granted it's not a formal academic journal that goes through the academic peer review process normally used for academic research, but that's because mountaineering isn't an academic discipline. None of the sources for Khazret Sultan have that level of academic rigor either. What formal peer-reviewed academic journal would you suggest we cite for country high point information? Also, what do you say to the fact that CIA World Factbook and Britannica disagree with each other as to the Uzbekistan high point?

You said you strongly disagree with Gilbertson in particular. What is the reason for that? As I said, I first heard of him through the AAJ article so if he has a reputation for inaccurate claims I'd be interested to read up on that context. -- LWG ^talk 00:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm entirely opposed to using Eric Gilbertson. His papers have been about gas valves and such. Has he written a rigorously peer reviewed academic journal articles on mountain/elevations/geology and have those been cited by others repeatedly? Absolutely opposed to infusing Gilbertson sources into articles. Gilbertson is not a recognized expert in this discipline. Graywalls (talk) 06:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)