Talk:Bir Tawil
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bir Tawil article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Consistency on Territorial Claims for Micronations[edit]
The claims to Bir Tawil are offensive and stupid. It doesn't take much investigation to discover that this land is claimed by the 'Ababdah tribe and that they have taken on-the-ground efforts to protect their claims. No internationally recognised state claims the land for itself, but it's not empty of people. That said, the micronation claims happen & they land in the press. Yesterday, 7 August, one editor added a citation for a claim from 2017, reported in Business Insider. Another editor removed the citation with the explanation: 'no need for claims from non notable people'. I'm not sure that the other claim represented in the citations--that of Jeremiah Heaton--is notable either. In addition to the Business Insider story, Suyash Dixit's claim is covered by The Times of India (here), Times Now (here), & Live Mint (here). This stuff is absurd & I don't want it to get more space than it's got, but it seems that we should have a consistent approach. Pathawi (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- People who actually visited Bir Tawil might deserve a very brief mention. I don't think that people who just sat in their armchairs thousands of miles away deserve any mention at all... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I agree the article needs a clean up. I disagree that simply visiting there and staking a claim deserves mention here. I reverted that edit because we don't need more frivolous claims; this article is about the unclaimed land and not a list of every Tom, Dick, and Harry who claims it. Masterhatch (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Both of these individuals visited Bir Tawil, so there's no distinction there, AnonMoos. However, in principle, I don't think it makes much sense for us to create a criterion unique to this article: The info is notable based on general Wikipedia criteria, or it's not. I agree, Masterhatch, that the claims are frivolous. I just don't see any real distinction between the citation you removed & the claim that remains cited. I'd like us to be consistent. I'm trying to think this thru: I don't think that either Heaton or Dixit has any real importance at all in relation to Bir Tawil. We don't include mention of Emperor Norton in the article United States of America. So we could just delete the Claims section altogether. But then the reality is that most mentions of Bir Tawil in English-language press relate to these frivolous claims, so it seems odd not to mention this issue in this article. I think that the thing which makes most sense is to allow these supporting citations for the Claims section as it stands if & only if these are reliable secondary sources. I don't recommend the expansion of the text of this section, but I think that the supporting citations make sense, & I don't think I see good Wikipedia guideline grounds to remove them. What do you think? Pathawi (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really care if both or neither of them are in. As I had said, I reverted to help avoid a long list of frivolous claims. Having an agreed upon set of criteria for which claims make it and which claims don't would be a good idea. Considering that people actually live there, simply visiting and claiming shouldn't be the only criteria needed. Masterhatch (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've been reading over the above (repeat, annoying) discussions of the Heaton claim on this Talk page. I think that the most recent comment before this new topic was bonadea's summing up: 'the consensus is to include that reference and any other reliable sources that discuss such claims at any length, without adding any details about the individual claims themselves'. The justification is largely thru WP:UNDUE. This makes sense to me, & I'm for sticking to that path. Since the damned Suyash Dixit claim was more recent than the three cited articles, & since it appeared in multiple reliable sources, I think it makes sense to restore that citation. I think it also might be worth paring down the Heaton claims (there are three articles on this, all from The Guardian—one should suffice). Do you object, Masterhatch? Pathawi (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't object. I think that works. Masterhatch (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I've been reading over the above (repeat, annoying) discussions of the Heaton claim on this Talk page. I think that the most recent comment before this new topic was bonadea's summing up: 'the consensus is to include that reference and any other reliable sources that discuss such claims at any length, without adding any details about the individual claims themselves'. The justification is largely thru WP:UNDUE. This makes sense to me, & I'm for sticking to that path. Since the damned Suyash Dixit claim was more recent than the three cited articles, & since it appeared in multiple reliable sources, I think it makes sense to restore that citation. I think it also might be worth paring down the Heaton claims (there are three articles on this, all from The Guardian—one should suffice). Do you object, Masterhatch? Pathawi (talk) 16:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't really care if both or neither of them are in. As I had said, I reverted to help avoid a long list of frivolous claims. Having an agreed upon set of criteria for which claims make it and which claims don't would be a good idea. Considering that people actually live there, simply visiting and claiming shouldn't be the only criteria needed. Masterhatch (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- Both of these individuals visited Bir Tawil, so there's no distinction there, AnonMoos. However, in principle, I don't think it makes much sense for us to create a criterion unique to this article: The info is notable based on general Wikipedia criteria, or it's not. I agree, Masterhatch, that the claims are frivolous. I just don't see any real distinction between the citation you removed & the claim that remains cited. I'd like us to be consistent. I'm trying to think this thru: I don't think that either Heaton or Dixit has any real importance at all in relation to Bir Tawil. We don't include mention of Emperor Norton in the article United States of America. So we could just delete the Claims section altogether. But then the reality is that most mentions of Bir Tawil in English-language press relate to these frivolous claims, so it seems odd not to mention this issue in this article. I think that the thing which makes most sense is to allow these supporting citations for the Claims section as it stands if & only if these are reliable secondary sources. I don't recommend the expansion of the text of this section, but I think that the supporting citations make sense, & I don't think I see good Wikipedia guideline grounds to remove them. What do you think? Pathawi (talk) 23:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Over the past few days, several editors have contributed to a new section on the "micronation" of Northern Sudan. I would like to revert these edits. @Goustien, Ira Leviton, Auric, Rodw, FCBWanderer, and Itsnotacookie: If you'd like to keep the current content on Northern Sudan, this would be a good place to reopen the earlier discussions. I'm aware that some of you probably only contributed because of following a template. I just didn't want to presume that any of you lacked interest. Pathawi (talk) 23:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
- Please note, by the way, that most of the conversation has been archived: Talk:Bir Tawil/Archive 1. Pathawi (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)