Talk:Mount Venamo

Mount Venamo - Waukauyengtipu: Two separate places, or just one?

A discussion has taken place at the Teahouse as a result of a new article being drafted on Draft:Waukauyengtipu (by an explorer who says they've been there) which has cast serious doubts on the 2013 edits here which stated that Venamo and Waukauyengtipu are one and the same mountain.

See 2019 Teahouse discussion, archived here.

My own conclusion is that the two places are indeed different, but that published sources on this very remote region are extremely scarce, and so direct verification is currently rather difficult to prove (as is the 2013 claim that they are one and the same). Nick Moyes (talk) 09:29, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

See also this further discussion in May 2020 on my talk page. Nick Moyes (talk) 21:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Greetings from the future, Nick_Moyes, heh. Have there been any technological improvements in GPS since this? Seems like a facetious question to ask, but at the rate technology moves, I'm asking in all seriousness. I'd be nice if someone-knew-someone at NASA, or better yet the Guiana Space Centre. I tried reading through the discussions and some of the sources (I haven't poured through the botany reports yet) and looked at the coordinates, but it's the same headache I've been dealing with for Guyana's rivers. The good thing about the rivers is that they are primary water sources for Amerindians and attract mining (which require permits and geo-spatial such and such.)

While it sounds like I'm 'veering off course', I'm mentioning rivers because I've seen mentions of mountains (that don't have WP articles) in sources about waterways. Just yesterday I worked on Kako River which mentioned "Karawuta Mountain" - see photo 8" (also known as 'the angry one'). The river and associated village are in the same region as these conflicting mountains, but I also couldn't find "Karawuta" using Google Maps. What, if any, would be the relationship of Waukauyengtipu and Venamo to the Pacaraima Mountains?

Until sources come up (considering humans' need to discover stuff, will happen inevitably), I think the 'controversy' needs to be downplayed. It looks terrible to an average reader (me), as it stops describing the mountain and looks more like an academic pissing match (sorry for the rude innuendo). Rather than breaking it down point-by-point, the info from each party should be provided separately. I'm sure there's some bureaucratic rule against this, but I wouldn't mind a map with multiple coordinate marks showing all the 'potential' locations. I think that would be an interesting and coherent way to present this as a 'questionable' location.

The last thing is that I feel like Waukauyengtipu is more of a coat-rack for promoting photography blogs. I know this is a breach of assuming good faith and all, but why not add more photos, even crappy ones, to other Guyana articles? Why only specifically work on this one mountain? Did the author only feel qualified to work on Waukauyengtipu? I'd have felt better if it was attached to a university or government survey team. Can you point me to the paper their work is associated with? That would really assuage my doubts.

Sorry it's a long useless comment. Mount Roraima is an interesting article, then from there everything is... stubs. Improving the quality of Guyana articles is my aim. Estheim (talk) 13:23, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Closed merge, given that it is unclear as to whether there is any support, and equivalence is contested. Klbrain (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2021 (UTC)