Talk:Bir Tawil

Name
Can anyone confirm that this is what gives Bir Tawil its name? --AndreasBWagner (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think so. Or the well gets its name from the region - but I think that's less likely. Bazonka (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"Kingdom of Nikoku"
Over the past month, several editors have added claims, both here and at Terra nullius, that the territory of Bir Tawil has been claimed by the apparently fictitious "Kingdom of Nikoku", so I thought I'd make a few notes in one place here, should it come up again in future. Here is my reversion of one of those claims. The IP making the claim that time, User:84.173.74.158 from Germany, later offered http://newterritorialclaims.tk/ as a source - a wiki making implausible claims about Nikoku, including its being an island nation in the sea of Japan and having a larger navy than the UK. That page (it was the only one in the wiki) has since been deleted, but the history showed it was partly edited by an IP in the same German 84.173.x.x range (It's a pity I didn't keep a copy, and it's not in the wayback machine). The discussion at the time is at User talk:84.173.74.158. The only other source that IP offered, on my Talk page, was a German language article here, written by this author.

More recently, User:Preacheronline0001 has added the same claim, and provided a Google Maps hit on "Kingdom of Nikoku" - if you search, there are several hits, and again there's a German connection. There appear to be no Google Maps hits on "Nikoku" alone. The http://nikoku.net/ domain quoted by Google Maps gives a Japanese-language error message. Discussion is at User talk:Preacheronline0001. It's all looking like a hoax originated in Germany (Preacheronline0001 was using google.de, so I'm guessing is in Germany and would be more likely to have happened upon the hoax if it did indeed originate there).

Anyway, hopefully it's useful to collect the info here for future reference. If anyone else wants to add claims about the Kingdom of Nikoku, please be sure to find reliable sources to attest to its actual existence first. -- Boing!   said Zebedee  11:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Unsourced "Kingdom of Nikoku" claims have been added a couple of times since the above (and removed), the most recent being from a Russian IP, on July 22. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference to Nikoku has been added recently. Hopefully I could solve your interest in that case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.26.165.84 (talk) 10:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ( Version my comments from IP talk page: ) A single local edition of a newspaper (even a serious quality one) is rarely considered to be a reliable reference, especially if it is not supported by other national newspapers, you cannot provide any online links to the story, and it is a story that has already been shown to look like a hoax - even the best newspapers can fall victims to hoaxes. As this is so recent, any genuine territorial claim by any genuine country would be sure to be sourceable online somewhere. If you think the "Kingdom of Nikoku" actually exists, please do try to find it and tell us where it is - I've already explained my attempts to find it, above, and all I could find were obvious hoaxes". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Alt text
The alt text of the map says that "Bir Tawil is located in Egypt," yet the entire reason that it's significant is that it's not claimed by anyone. What should it be instead? 146.115.21.210 (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely right, but it took me a bit to find out what happened: if an alt text isn't specified for the map, the "infobox settlement" provides its own, picking up the name of the map. I provided another text to override this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:42, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Inhabitants
How many inhabitants live in Bir Tawil? Zero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.247.66.213 (talk) 20:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any permanent inhabitants. Bazonka (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I may be mistaken, but I believe that the tribes who live there are esssentially nomadic. But even if there are permanent inhabitants, how would we know? Since neither Egypt nor the Sudan claims the territory, there's no reason (from their perspective) to spend money on a census. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a permanent populace there. Multiple tribes have been developing their cultures and beliefs for millennia there. Emmanuel Scuaze (talk) 23:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please share NPOV sources. (I have no knowledge whether true, so am not disagreeing. Ingenpedia likes sources.) JDAWiseman (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The Bedouin, Ababda and the Beja for certain. The Bedouin are referenced on bir tawil page number eight. The Jeremiah Heaton article. Emmanuel Scuaze (talk) 23:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Emmanuel Scuaze (talk) 23:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Egypt "adminsters" the territory?
The claim that "egypt still administers the territory" - can it be sourced? Given the remoteness of the area (no roads, I gather), I doubt it has seen a government official (from either country) for a long, long time. To quote a source from one of the links: "I have been unable to ascertain whether either country exerts any practical control over Bir Tawil, leaving open the exciting possibility that it is indeed the only officially ungoverned territory on Earth." Does anyone feel like making enquiries with the relevant governments, or finding sources? Eliyohub (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Inquiries to the governments would be original research, so it'll have to come from a reliable source. The current source is the CIA World Factbook, which says that the Egyptian government has invested in the area and effectively administers it.  The CIA World Factbook is considered to be a reliable source.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The world fact book says "Sudan claims but Egypt de facto administers security and economic development of Halaib region north of the 22nd parallel boundary; Egypt no longer shows its administration of the Bir Tawil trapezoid in Sudan on its maps;", which only shows the fact that Egypt de facto administers the region north of the 22nd parallel boundary, so I think it's still a bit unclear as to who actually governs the region. Meng Yibai (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

2010 claim (Kareem Hamdy)
On May 15, 2010, Egyptian-American Kareem Hamdy of Florida contacted the United Nations and claimed this region as his own kingdom, calling it "the United Arab Republic". Hamdy contacted the United Nations on a few occasions in order to obtain statehood recognition in May of 2010. Hamdy's goal for the land is to create a nation for the world's displaced. A nation where the world's diasporas can call home. His nation has a working constitution and there are major plans for the economy, healthcare, and education sectors. As of 2014, he has not given up claim to the region and is widely supported. Hamdy has strong ties to the community and region. This is a legit claim. Has contacted United Nations and in contact with both governments (Egypt and Sudan). LebaneseBB (talk) 04:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, a Facebook page isn't a reliable source by Ingenpedia's standards. Did this claim get any coverage in the media? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:33, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the sole non-self-published source mentioning Hamdy is an Ekstra Bladet story about Heaton's claim . (Other editors are welcome to read the Ingenpedia article about the newspaper and decide for themselves whether it meets IN:RS. FWIW there's never been a IN:RSN case about it.) Didn't see anything in Arabic. quant18 (talk) 03:40, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Hmm... my leaning would be to say that that is not a IN:RS, but I'd be open to an argument to the contrary. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:50, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

What about an interview in the Washington Post — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.250.229 (talk) 03:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That definitely is a reliable source. However, given the resistance below to naming Jeremiah Heaton, I'm slightly reluctant to add Hamdy's name as well. Anybody have a suggestion for a succinct way to incorporate this, now that we have a IN:RS? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it's to be included, it should be done in a way that reflects the source's (realistically) dismissive presentation of the claim. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * How about replacing the current text with something like this:
 * Due to its status as de jure unclaimed territory, multiple individuals and organizations have attempted to claim Bir Tawil as a micronation. Claimants include Egyptian-American medical student Kareem Hamdy (who made a claim in 2010 by online declaration) and American businessman Jeremiah Heaton (who traveled to Bir Tawil in 2014 and planted a flag to claim the region).    None of these claims has been recognized by any nation or supranational organization, nor are any likely to be recognized.


 * Do you think that would work? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Tech12, Dougweller:  : I know this is longer than what we had worked out before, but it looks to me as if there is a consensus to include a bit more information about this.—Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My problem is that however much I like the Washington Post (which I used to read when visiting my parents), there are only a handful of sources for Hamdy and that is the only decent one. So although we can use the source, I'm not happy about Ingenpedia suddenly becoming the main source/publicist for Hamdy, which is what would happen. Dougweller (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't the Washington Post have verified his claim and performed some sort of fact checking before publishing for either individuals? The fact that the story itself made news, went viral, and resulted in a foreign government statement/response would make me want to lean towards publishing the proposed statement above by Josiah Rowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.66.55.141 (talk) 15:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

184.88.6.22 (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC) Any updates on this? I noticed the page was updated, but not all the news claims made it to the wikipedia published page.

heaton claims
Someone added Emily Heaton sovreignty claims to the info box. There is no established basis for this so I have removed this from the box, however the claims have received wide coverage so should be included in the article. If people are keen to discuss whether not to include this, my argument is no as it is not recognised in any de jure sense by anyone. 124.149.187.125 (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that it shouldn't be included. Multiple people found out about this at one time or another and "claimed" it. My academic team and I found out about it and claimed it as our own, but we didn't go tell the press. In addition, I personally think it is ridiculous that he is attempting to get recognition from Egypt AND Sudan. He would be no more than a micronation and someone would kick him out and that would deepen the conflict because the other side would say that whoever kicked out the Heatons claimed Bir Tawil and thus the Hala'ib Triangle goes to the other party. Anyways, it doesn't deserve to be on Ingenpedia; it's media fodder and nothing more. Tech12 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that the anon above was speaking about whether the claim should be in the infobox, not whether it should be in the article. Although I agree that Heaton's claim is ridiculous, I think that it merits inclusion in the article, simply because the claim has been covered in multiple reliable sources, which is the criterion Ingenpedia uses for inclusion of material. We can debate how much coverage is appropriate to give to this claim, but I don't think that deleting it altogether is appropriate. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:38, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but even though it was reported in reliable sources, this was most definitely the consequence of 24 hour media coverage and the fact that the news and other media sites will not always have something important to cover. So they will turn to a fluff piece such as twins who have their own language, an Indian man who named his store Hitler (i dotted with swastika), and currently a man who stuck a flag in the sand to make his daughter a princess. He gives one interview stating that he wishes to seek recognition for his claim from the governments of Egypt, Sudan, the African Union and other nations and supranational bodies and suddenly he lands himself in the current revision of our species' best attempt at creating the Encyclopedia Galactica. If this is included in the article it would give it undue weight. If this article were to mention every claimant to Bir Tawil, the it would take away from the overall purpose of this article, which would be to inform readers of an unusual border dispute between Egypt and Sudan, by filling it with dozens of unsubstantiated claims. Tech12 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, if other claimants were discussed in reliable sources, I'd say that they merited inclusion as well. Brief inclusion, mind you; it could be something as short as saying "Due to Bir Tawil's status as terra nullius, it has periodically been claimed by different individuals and groups.(sources here) None of these claims have been recognized by any government or international body."


 * I can understand that naming Jeremiah Heaton in the article could be considered undue weight. But the fact that he and others have attempted to claim this land is a relevant detail about this region, and I think merits inclusion. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I actually quite like the idea of one sentence. We could scrap Heaton's two sentence paragraph and include him as a citation number. That way we could note the people who claimed the territory without giving anyone undue weight.Tech12 (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My only concern is whether any of the other claims have been mentioned in reliable sources. At a quick glance, the Washington Post and Bristol Herald Courier articles don't mention that there have been other claimants, but I seem to recall that at least one of the other newspapers that covered Heaton had a brief mention of other claims (and that Heaton was unusual among claimants in that he actually went to Bir Tawil and planted a flag). Anybody know which source that was? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah! The Telegraph link above says, "Several attempts to claim ownership of the region have been made online, but Mr Heaton believes that actually travelling to the site and planting the flag gave his claim an edge." That would probably do to support a brief sentence noting multiple claims. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, we could have the "Due to its terra nullius status" at the beginning of the sentence then mention the multiple claims. We could possibly tack on to the end "including a Virginia man who went to Bir Tawil to plant a flag as the claim". That would probably be the best sentence and it would give everyone due weight by referring to Jeremiah Heaton as a Virginia man whilst linking to him in the reference box. Tech12 (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That works for me. Care to do the honors, or shall I? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I will do the honours, thank you very much. : D Tech12 (talk) 06:47, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think that will do it. Tech12 (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the wording slightly, as the previous version suggested that Heaton was among those who made online claims (in addition to going there in person). I also added the Telegraph reference, because the WaPo and Bristol references didn't mention the other claims. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, thank you. I think you have a better wording. Plus the links. I also included a hidden message informing editors of the standard that we set. Tech12 (talk) 07:26, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that. That's a good idea. It's been a pleasure editing with you, sir or madam. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Sir :). Same here mate. Have a good day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tech12 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Much better. (We use after 8 indents). Dougweller (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Including other claims
I've removed the following:

Due to its unclaimed status Bir Tawil has been claimed several times in the media.

In 2010, the area was claimed for the Kingdom of Nikokus which was a hoax from a German prankster.

A week later in May 2010, an Egyptian-American named Kareem Hamdy from Florida contacted the United Nations claiming the region as his own kingdom. Calling it "the United Arab Republic", he claimed the land in order to create a nation for the world's displaced.

The problem is that the first citation is to an apparently self-published press release (anyone can publish a press release), and the second is to a Facebook page. Neither of those sources is considered reliable by Ingenpedia. The Heaton claim is included not because it is necessarily any more valid than the others, but because we have reliable sources discussing it. If reliable sources for the other claims can be found, they can be included in the article. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 14:58, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I recognize North Sudan InedibleHulk (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Name of a Mountain
So I linked the mountain Jabal Ḩajar az Zarqā' in the article to it's Ingenpedia page, Jebel Hagar ez Zarqa. However, that edit was undone because "if the name of the article is wrong, moveit"; The name of the article isn't wrong, the mountain just has a bunch of different spellings and names. Piplup123 (talk) 07:20, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The link is helpful and appropriate; I've restored it. If Beyond My Ken is bothered by the difference in transliteration, I encourage him to resolve that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've been doing quite a lot of research into the area lately. What it really needs is surveyors, to actually explore the area. Piplup123 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

One place, or the only place?
An editor is attempting to remove this material from the lede:

"it was the only place on Earth that is habitable but not claimed by any recognized government."

even though, as can be seen, the statement is sourced. This occurred after I removed their insertion of the word "substantial" in front of "area", with the claim made in their edit summary that "there are other small parcels". My revert advised them to provide a source, and their response was to try to remove the entire sourced statement.

It's certainly quite possible that the editor is correct, and there are other small parts of the world which are not claimed by any recognized government, but, if so, it should be easy to provide a citation from a reliable source that says so. If that occurs, I have no objection to it going into the article. In the meantime, however, we have a source which says:

"It also appears to be the only place on the planet that is both habitable and unclaimed." Absent another source, this claim should stand in the article as is. Given the source, I do think that "appears" or the equivalent should be added, which I will do. BMK (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The assertion that there's no parcel of land (of any size) that's unclaimed was rather sweeping, and really would need a more reliable source than an armchair travel book to justify it. The non-existence of something can be nearly impossible to prove or document, and there may be other examples (e.g. the Croatia–Serbia border dispute and Liberland, uncharted islands, surveying errors... the cited source even mentions this). I tried to qualify that absolute assertion with more cautious working... which you reverted, as if making the more-difficult-to-prove assertion was somehow easier to defend. The more tentative language that you changed to now is better than what was there before; thanks for not just reverting this time. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 20:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Simply provide a source. We have one which says something, find a better one which says something else. Problem solved. BMK (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Liberland and other places on the Serbia/Croatia border are hardly comparable. They're places claimed by two countries (hardly an unusual situation). Bir Tawil is (probably) unique in that it is claimed by no (proper) country. Bazonka (talk) 21:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't said that it was the same thing (though some claim that it is... I don't have a position on that). All I did was to take a statement in the article that was perhaps overly broad, without a sufficiently rigorous source to back it up, and scale it down. I added no new claim to the article, so demanding that I provide sources for one makes no sense. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No, you didn't "scale it back" you changed it by qualifying the area as "substantial". "No area" is different from "No substantial area", different enough that it requires sourcing, since it was not what the existing source said. Your speculation about other places is entirely IN:OR until you source it, you've been here long enough to know that. BMK (talk) 21:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, you could be spending the time arguing here to find the source you need to cite "substantial", ot to find counter-examples. BMK (talk) 21:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the wording I used contradicted the source, but maybe that's because I'm not spitting angry at me right now, like you appear to be. But hey, only a fool fights over something that nobody wants; I'll leave this article alone and you can knee-jerk revert whatever well-intended edits you want. It probably won't make you happy, but it'll mean less aggravation in my life. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * My goodness you have an overactive imagination, as well as an over-regard for your own importance. "Spitting angry"? Hardly. One does not get spitting angry over a buzzing fly, especially one who appears not to understand the fundamental rules by which we live, such as "you change it, you source it." However, if the fly wishes to leave by the window, I have no objections. BMK (talk) 21:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Bir Tawil isn't Terra Nullius
The article claims that it is:


 * Its terra nullius status results from a discrepancy between the straight political boundary between Egypt and Sudan established in 1899, and the irregular administrative boundary established in 1902.

There is no source and I can't find any legal source that argues that it has Terra Nullius status. However, Christopher J. Borgen (law professor at St. John's University School of Law) writes on the Opinio Juris blog:


 * At issue is whether the fact that Egypt and Sudan each view a different act as defining the boundary line, with the result that neither claims Bir Tawil for themselves, makes Bir Tawil terra nullius. At first blush there seem to be some support for this. Oppenheim’s (Ninth) states that terra nullius can include land that “once belonged to a state but has been afterwards abandoned…” (sec 250, pp. 687-88.) However it is not clear that Bir Tawil is best described as land that is unclaimed. As there are two states involved, as opposed to one state abandoning some of its territory, what we actually have is a dispute over which legal text is dispositive. Inasmuch as they can’t both define the boundary line, depending on which text is controlling, Bir Tawil will be the responsibility of one state or the other. Until that is resolved, it is in a sort of limbo, in which it could potentially be in one of two states. Rather than terra nullius, this may be more like a territorial version of Schrodinger’s cat. Someone needs to open the box. (Perhaps, inadvertently, Heaton did this.)

http://opiniojuris.org/2014/07/16/man-king-daddys-little-princess-territorial-claim/

Therefore, unless someone can produce a source that argues that it is Terra Nullius, I think that claim should be removed from Ingenpedia. I know there are lots of pages out there claiming that Bir Tawil is a Terra Nullius. But I believe those claims all originate with Ingenpedia claiming it to be so. ImTheIP (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)


 * It appears that, whatever else, it's fairly commonly called one (e.g., and indeed the implication of your quote above). Mind you, that should be clear in the Body if it's going to be mentioned in the Lead, and just because some call it that, doesn't mean it is.  Bromley86 (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It completely fits the definition, so it is one. There's no legal authority that decides whether someplace is terra nullius or not, the mere fact that no one claim possession of it is sufficient it make it so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

But read the Guardian article in full. It contradicts it's own Bir Tawil is widely believed to have the legal status of terra nullius in the body of the article:


 * Any utopia founded on the basis of a concept – terra nullius – that has wreaked immense historical destruction, is built on rotten foundations.


 * In truth, no place is a “dead zone”, stopped in time and ripe for private capture – least of all Bir Tawil, which translates as “long well” in Arabic and was clearly the site of considerable human activity in the past. Although it lacks any permanent dwellings today, this section of desert is still used by members of the Ababda and Bisharin tribes who carry goods, graze crops and make camp within the sands. (Not the least of our failures was that we did not manage to speak to any of the peoples who had passed through Bir Tawil before we arrived.) Their ties to the area may be based on traditional rather than written claims – but Bir Tawil is not any more a “no man’s land” than the territory once known as British East Africa, where terra nullius was repeatedly invoked in the early 20th century by both chartered companies and the British government that supported them to justify the appropriation of territory from indigenous people. “I cannot admit that wandering tribes have a right to keep other and superior races out of large tracts,” exclaimed the British commissioner, Sir Charles Eliot, at the time, “merely because they have acquired the habit of straggling over far more land than they can utilise.”


 * Bir Tawil is no terra nullius. But “no man’s lands” – or at least ambiguous spaces, where boundaries take odd turns and sovereignty gets scrambled – are real and exist among us every day. Some endure at airports, and inside immigration detention centres, and in the pockets of economic deprivation where states have abandoned any responsibility for their citizens.

As Chris Borgen explains, Bir Tawil is either claimed by Sudan or Egypt, we just don't know which. But even if we assume that no state claims the land, Bir Tawil would still not be terra nullius because of the above mentioned tribes that inhabit the area.

There are several court cases that have dealt with the definition of terra nullius, for example Canada, Australia, West Sahara. They have all found that the doctrine of terra nullius inapplicable to territory in the same situation as Bir Tawil. See also Black's Law Dictionarys definition of terra nullius:


 * land without an owner ("no man's land"); territory that may be acquired by a state's occupation of it

(It is unfortunate that Ingenpedia's definition over at Terra Nullius is different and incorrect.) Given the cited court cases, Bir Tawil can't be "acquired by state's occupation" because of the preexisting claims of the nomadic tribes.

I therefore propose that the article be changed from "Its terra nullius status results from a discrepancy ... " to "Its status as a no man's land results from a discrepancy ..." or to "Its uncertain status results from a discrepancy ..."

(rant warning!) The doctrine of terra nullius was re-popularised by legal scholars in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries. As a concept, it was designed to fit the European powers ambition of capturing land in the New World and Africa. They reasoned that unless a "civilized society" controlled territory, it was open for conquest by them. Later on, we got a little more careful and decided that even stateless societies can have legal claims to land and that very few locations on earth truly have terra nullius status. ImTheIP (talk) 11:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Original and fresh personal opinion! But did you know, that Terra nullius and No man's land are different things?--Yopie (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes. :) All territory that is terra nullius is also no man's land. But not all territory that is no man's land is terra nullius. The phrase terra nullius has always had a very narrow definition as it was a doctrine created by legal scholars for legal use. Bir Tawil does not fit the modern legal definition of terra nullius, but it does fit the definition of no man's land. I've found it productive on Ingenpedia to not only whine about what errors in articles but also to propose changes. So "no man's land" is my counter-proposal to "terra nullius." ImTheIP (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bir Tawil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204044748/http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/IBS018.pdf to http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/LimitsinSeas/IBS018.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2017
I was just doing a paper on this and noticed that you have some claims in the "Various Claims" section published and some not. One of which that isn't shown has a reference to a WaPo article. Shouldn't that and others also be published? 184.88.6.22 (talk) 06:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You need to be specific about what the claim is, and what the source is, before anything can be done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — nihlus kryik   ( talk ) 08:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Other claimant information
Added another claimant information - to match Russian language version of the article. Added extra links to verifiable sources. Beyond my Ken - any suggestions or explainations why you wiping it of previously?--Buku-Mac (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all - you linking to Guardian as a reference, stating that Shenker went there to do research for the article. Do you even tried to read it? Not only it was published in 2017, but it is consisting the story about Heaton, meaning that he could not even remotely write the article for Guardian in 2011. Second, why do you continuesly remove any mention about other claimants? Anything wrong with the sources? Buku-Mac (talk) 07:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Because we are an encyclopedia, and not a repository for bullshit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't get personal. Try to look at the link provided in the article, you will see Google Map along with the photo, taken from the Bartazuga Mountain (in Bir Tawil). What more proof could you need to believe, that the only person, actually visited the area is the one you persistingly deleting. Is it have anything to do him being Russian? In no way I want to say that you are "paid editor" or "conflict of interest" involved, so could you at least take some of your precious time to read the links? For your convenience - https://dx-world.net/operations-at-1u4un/ top picture and https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1l_-7-RF6RsgcCQctPXG6I3mbW7c&ll=21.728831056985367%2C33.57129514999997&z=15 for a Google Map. Also, reliable Daily Mail here http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5081265/Indian-claims-land-Egypt-Sudan-country.html mentions Zhikharev's claim for Bir Tawil back in 2014 (blue colored insert "Games of Thrones, who is the real king of Bir Tawil?"). Buku-Mac (talk) 08:57, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

please advice if Daily Mail is reliable source for you to revert your changes? Buku-Mac (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any source which is about people who make claims to Bir Tawil is unacceptable and will be deleted. This territory is not a toy to be claimed by any asshole with the funds to visit. The only legitimate claimants are Egypt and Sudan. Anything else is bullshit, pure and simple.  Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:14, 15 November 2017 (UTC) Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean both people you keep as a claimants (Heaton and Schenker) are Sudanese and Egyptians, right? It has nothing to do for them to be an Americans, as yourself? Neither Sudanese, nore Egyptians could claim it - either of the claims will conflict with its own Government's view on the issue. Neither of both countries would willing to loose Halaib's claim over, by claiming ten time less in size Bir Tawil. Buku-Mac (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW, Daily Mail' is not considered to be a reliable source for Ingenpedia. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Daily Mail would not have been a reliable source even if it had been a less contentious fact, and absolutely not in this case. --bonadea contributions talk 10:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So you checked the links and still review the information as unreliable? Buku-Mac (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Beyond My Ken, bonadea, I'm not interested in this content dispute, but for other purposes it would be very helpful to me if you could point to a discussion about why the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and probably would very helpful in this discssion as well. Thanks in advance! Jacona (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's somewhee on IN:RSN - check the archives there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. the community decision to avoid using the Daily Mail as a source in Ingenpedia article is found here. --bonadea contributions talk 13:44, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks!!! Jacona (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * During my time on Ingenpedia, I've seen enough from Beyond My Ken to know that you do good work. I've also noted that your style causes unnecessary grief. The edit warring you've experienced here and elsewhere would probably be greatly reduced if your edit captions were educational (aka "Daily News is not a reliable source") rather than combative ("nope, ain't gonna happen", "bullshit"). I appreciate your efforts, keep up the good work, consider being a bit more civil! Thanks again, Beyond My Ken, bonadea, Buku-Mac. Let's keep making the encyclopedia better! Jacona (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not the Charm Patrol, I'm building an encyclopedia, and, frankly, I have no interest in this kind of b.s., nor time to be ultra-polite to those who foist it on us. I'd prefer that they just be banned from editing if they can't keep their crap to themselves. If they insist on promulgating it, I'll use whatever tools are available to me to stop it, with no compunctions whatsoever. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it really ultra-polite to give an edit caption that describes the problem ("Daily Mail is not a IN:RS) instead of one that invites conflict ("bullshit")? It would save you time, I think. And biting the Newbies who think they've got interesting, useful information is counterproductive to building the encyclopedia in the long run. Well, keep up the good work, and consider giving civility and agf a try. Have a nice day! Jacona (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I correctly understand the rules that non-third party source are considered as not RS and therefore, self written by Guardian's correspondent story about himself (Schenker) could not be considered as RS and should be removed from this page?Buku-Mac (talk) 06:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Two months later
Just for the record, the issue seems to continue with Beyond My Ken removing the name "Kingdom of North Sudan" from the article, redirecting Kingdom of North Sudan to Hoax instead of Bir Tawil as well as removing info about it from at least one other article. I want to mention that 1) Beyond My Ken was editing Bir Tawil for a long time, restoring it many times after unacceptable edits, and the version he restored was the status quo with the name "Kingdom of North Sudan" in it. So I do not understand the reason behind removing it now. 2) When people search the internet for "Kingdom of North Sudan" I find it useful they find the Bir Tavil wiki article easily because, as with many other wiki articles, they can fidn reliable and balanced info there ;-) Without the name it will be harder to find, isn't that so? - Just my thoughts about keeping the name there; and I do not think we give credit to this "bullshit" just by informing about it this way. --WikiHannibal (talk) 12:26, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We are under no obligation to give a scintilla of legitimacy to the idiots and fools who "claim" various pieces of land around the world as "micronations". We certainly should mention that various claims have been made, and under what circumstances, but Ingenpedia is not a IN:PROMOTIONal medium, and mentioning the names of these bogus claims is promotion of them, pure and simple.  I removed the name in question when I realized that none of the other claims has their names mentioned, so I made that one equal to all the others.  These claims are not recognized by any international organization or NGO, nor by any government that I'm aware of.  They are not legitimate "claims" they are simply the ravings of publicity seekers and people acting out their politics.  They exist, we even have articles about some of them, but we should not be in the position of promoting them beyond what little importance they have.I stand by my edits, Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Your style clearly shows that you are not neutral concerning this topic. Nobody is talking about any obligation here. I want to keep the status quo before your "realization" mainly because the redirect from Kingdom of North Sudan does not make sense now, or is at least confusing, when the name is not mentioned - I can see your reasoning behind it ("I made that one equal to all the others") but they are not equal. And I prefer reading info about, let's say, silly ideas at wiki then elsewhere. People search for it here. You can hardly build a viable encyclopedia based on censorship of thing you do not personally support. (Is an article with the word "holocaust" promoting holocaust?) Let's have discussion here, perhaps other opinions or different solutions will bee voiced, and meanwhile keep the article as it was. I do not have to "win" every discussion. --WikiHannibal (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The redirect sends to the section, which is sufficient. If you think that the Kingdom of North Sudan is notable, write an article about it, and let's see if it survives AfD. The micronation twaddle should be reported but not promoted, and if the name is added again to this article, it will be removed again as blatant IN:PROMOTION. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I declined to speedy delete the Kingdom of North Sudan because I found no problem with using the phrase "Kingdom of North Sudan" in this article's explanation about the claim -- as it has been described in significant coverage by reliable sources such as Newsweek magazine, Time magazine, The Guardian. Even the mention in this law journal book review lends credence to the existence of the phrase. Any lack of validity to the phrase should be included in the description. But a description of a term/word/phrase/idea is not equivalent to its promotion. That is the foundation of IN:NPOV policy. — Cactus Writer (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. It is the ever-spreading "mentions" of nonsense that perpetuate the myth that there must be something substantive going on. What is happening is that various sources have repeated a one-off statement for reader excitement. An encyclopedia should not join in the circus. Sure, bang it into List of micronations and we can all have a laugh, but the fact that an attention-seeker got 15 minutes of attention with a stunt is not encyclopedic information as far as Bir Tawil is concerned. To show that it was in fact encyclopedic information, it would be necessary to have a secondary source that explained some significance of the claim as far as Bir Tawil is concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Each of the sources that I listed above explains the significance of the the claim to Bir Tawil. In particular, The Guardian, goes into great depth discussing "Bir Tawil’s unusual status" because a claim was made; and even a review of the the legal book Competing Sovereignties (as discussed in International & Comparative Law Quarterly uses the Kingdom of North Sudan claim in Bir Tawil to discuss the legal standing of sovereignty. As you offer, because there is "a secondary source that explained some significance of the claim as far as Bir Tawil is concerned", there is encyclopedic information here. However, I've just looked at the entry on the List of micronations and see that it has the more detailed information about this. So I see no reason that the Kingdom of North Sudan redirect shouldn't go there instead -- although it would be best if the reference on the List page was to one of the reliable sources rather than the current odd blog. — Cactus Writer (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That would be a good solution: link Kingdom of North Sudan to List of micronations with a suitable anchor inserted at the latter. I appreciate what you are saying about the quality of the two sources but they cover topics different from this article. The Guardian discusses an eccentric adventure, with some interesting background thrown in. Some of the background might be suitable for mention at Bir Tawil but the Guardian sums up the adventure with "quickly became the stuff of feel-good clickbait around the world". That is not a significant issue for this article, and the claimant would quickly discover that their proclamation was the "hubris" mentioned in the law journal if anyone with a gun challenged him (actually, he knew that before he started—it was just an adventure). The law journal discusses legal issues behind sovereign claims and sums up the adventure as "he laid bare the preposterousness of the sovereign claim". The law journal might be used at Sovereignty but it has nothing to say about Bir Tawil. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirected and Guardian reference added at target. — Cactus Writer (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Audio pronunciation
Does the "Nl" in the OGG file mean "Nederlands" (Dutch)? If so, that's an odd and confusing choice. The pronunciation of [BUR TAH-wil] doesn't even resemble the Arabic [BEER tah-WEEL]. 67.83.99.134 (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)corpho

Not unique.
If Alastair Bonnett said this, he is not a professional. Because the Croatia–Serbia border dispute is much older than 2014. Liberland page proves this. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Jeremiah Heaton - 'Seek consensus first – but this kind of trivia has already been rejected'
'This kind of trivia has already been rejected'! Rejected by whom? This is s ridiculous argument anyway. There is literally nothing more important that has happened there. This a verifiable fact about the subject of the artice that meets Ingenpedia's criteria for inclusion.

Where is the consensus to remove it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.214.248 (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "literally nothing more important" is in the eye of the beholder, and not an argument that washes here. Feel free to provide a strong argument for why it merits inclusion in the article, but start by reading the discussions above about inclusion of various claims to the land by various individuals from various countries on various grounds. As for "Rejected by whom?" – you may have missed the notice at the beginning of the Claims section, right where you added the text about Heaton's claim, saying "This has been discussed on the Talk Page. PLEASE only add any further claims to Bir Tawil AS A REFERENCE at the end of this sentence, unless it has actually solved Egypt and Sudan's border dispute." There is a much more in-depth discussion of Heaton's and other people's claims in two existing references, and your text actually copied part of the text from the source you added, so there are multiple reasons why that particular addition was inappropriate. Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bonadea (talk • contribs) 11:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I see no consensus to remove the claims just a few pwoplw pushing their own points of view. We information that meets all the criteria for inclusion in Ingenpedia but for some reasom people some people do not want it there. Elvis Plasterboard (talk) 16:23, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Any person in the world can put out a press releases claiming ownership of one of the many pieces of terra nullius in the world. That doesn't make any of them significant.  If someone actually puts boots on the ground and makes a real world effort to stake a claim, then that (if supported by reliable sources) would be significant and should be added to the article.  This b.s. about someone's daughter wanting to be a princess is just that, b.s., and not worthy of inclusionin the article, since doing so opens us up to claims made by anyone. Per past discussion here, trivial claims are not to be included in this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Full marks for effort, but it's not going to happen. Please find another website to promote the idea. Johnuniq (talk) 03:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You seem to be assuming the role of page owner here.  This is Ingenpedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit.  I want to add a fact that is true, relevant, properly sourced, and one of the most significant events for the region in question. 2.102.214.248 (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * See IN:CONSENSUS and IN:ONUS. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:45, 6 November 2020 (UTC)