Talk:List of military occupations

South Africa Bush War

Someone more knowledgeable than me on the war needs to consider if the SADF occupied parts of the territories of Angola and Mozambique during the Bush War[1] or if the penetrations into the territory of other sovereign states were no more than cross border raids. --PBS (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

removed

I removed the Tibet entry as since 1914 the Tibetans had affirmed Chinese suzerainty. According to international law a Suzerain has unchallenged right to station troops and represent the sub-state internationally.

Even the greatest supporters of Tibetan independence, the British Empire and the US, recognized Chinese suzerainty.--219.79.122.72 (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Pre-Hague Convention of 1907 occupations

Can someone point me to the appropriate article for these since they are not in See also?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition for a military occupation before 1899? --PBS (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking for a definition before 1899. I am looking for a list where pre-1907 occupations are listed according to the 1907 definition--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the definition of military occupations prior to 1907 is

Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

But how do you separate that from annexation, empire building, etc, before there was a rule about it? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Still waiting for a reply... - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Umm, I posted a pretty long one above a few days ago. All this arguing over definitions amounts to "how should we best conduct our WP:OR?" We're not really supposed to do so at all, though conducting "OR" is a good thing if it means understanding concepts and definitions and what is being talked about well enough to distinguish good sources from bad ones and write good articles with understanding. In fact it's easier to distinguish between occupation and annexation and empire-building in the 19th century than the 20th, because then the rule was "it's annexed if I says it's annexed." "Occupation" is not such a terribly problematic concept. My recommendation is to create a list, throw in some definitions from old IL textbooks or the Hague definition, and list what occupations people find using high-quality reliable sources, not dime-a-dozen silly nationalist ones saying things like - We Lower Slobovians, who are the true ancient Slobovians, were occupied by the rotten Slobbovian empire in 3000BC.John Z (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry User:Themightyquill, missed your reply. Actually John is right, and telling occupations from annexations before 20th century was easy, and here is why...titles! All those imperialistic royals loved to amass titles or appoint governors. There are a plethora of reliable sources, including original documents that provide exact dates of annexation which ended occupations.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can find specific references that assert certain places were occupied first then annexed, or occupied then released, and clearly differentiate these terms, no one here can stop you from adding the information to wikipedia. My problem with your suggestion, and John Z's above, is that historians describing changes in control of land prior to 1907, when there wasn't a specific internationally accepted definition, might well casually use the term occupation without actually considering it in a modern context. Hey, that's fine, but another historian might refer to the same change of control as an annexation, or something else. Of course, this is just me imagining the worst without giving any references, but so far, no else one has provided any references either. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. JPG-GR (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

List of military occupations → List of military occupations since 1907 —(Discuss)— reflects defined constraint of current article content --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no need for this as there is no other list and the definition at the top makes it clear what the range is. Before the Hague conventions of 1899 defining what was or was not a military occupation becomes difficult to do with any objectivity, particularly as one goes further back in history. Renaming this list will only encourage another person to re-create this list without the constraint which allows the list some sort of objectivity. -PBS (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please! If there was a need for a definition in 1907, there must have been existing and prior to 1907 occupations that brought it forth. Therefore there were pre-1907 occupations by the 1907 definition, and there needs to be a list for that also.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so no reply here, possibly because of bias due to the wars in South Africa prior to 1907.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Throwing accusations if bias around as you are doing without any foundation in truth, is a breach of WP:CIVIL, and at a practical level it makes it much more difficult to work towards a compromise (Ever heard of How to Win Friends and Influence People?). Why would I object to the mention of belligerent military occupation by the British Army anywhere (providing it was belligerent military occupation and not something else as was the case during the Troubles)? Further if you look through the history of this article you will see that I added many of the entries, including most of the belligerent British military occupations.[2]. So I hope on reflection you will apologise.--PBS (talk) 17:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I apologise if I misinterpreted your good intentions Philip. Please note however that you never offered a compromise. Its just that your opposition seems to be conceived from some strange notion that if some historical events can not be categorised from the point of view of modern legal practice, they should not be referred to as such in a reference work. The truth is that occupations are easy to define. How's this from the top of my head "A territorial occupation, other then as defined in 1907, is an opposed or unopposed presence of civilian and military administration in a territory other then its own area of settlement."--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 22:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: As per PBS. It's to difficult to categorize all past conflict that might be considered occupations. Modern warfare has different rules and definitions. This article isn't a great solution, but I can't think of a better one. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 00:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It might be too difficult, but if sourced there is no difficulty in producing such a list. In fact you are denying the reader a source of reference counter to the purpose of Wikipedia by offering a personal view that there were no occupations because there was no pre-1907 definitions.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose This would simply add more complexity for the user for some dubious gain. Oberiko (talk) 11:59, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference works do tend to be complex Oberiko. Are you suggesting that producing a list of pre-1907 occupations would be of dubious value to the users?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose per the reasons given by Oberiko and TheMightyQuill, as well as PBS Skinny87 (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Clarification for mrg - I fail to see why there should be a list of occupations etc for pre-1907 when the conditions set by Geneva didn't exist. It's rather like using hindsight and doesn't make any sense. Skinny87 (talk) 15:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC

But Skinny87, there were pre-1907 occupations, right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No reply here either--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

• Opport or Suppose or whatever: I'm fine with keeping this list post 1907 Hague. But there is a place for a pre-1907 list, covering the preceding century or so. The main criterion for this list isn't the Hague definition, but the same criterion as everything else in Wikipedia - what high-quality reliable sources say. That's the same thing that should be used for pre-1907. After all, the Hague definition wasn't a gigantic change, more just writing down customary law. If a book about international law or a paper in an IL journal says Fredonia occupied Ruritania in 1837, we should say that. After all, the concept of occupation actually became more problematic soon after 1907, more confusing, because of the changes in international law. In classical 19th century law, it was easy to tell - if someone had won a battle and militarily controlled an area for a length of time, and hadn't said it's ours, we annex it, then it was occupied, because forcible annexation and subjugation was fine and legal back then. What we wouldn't and shouldn't have on the list is things like Rome occupied Britain. The concept didn't exist back then, and I strongly doubt there are any good RS's that say something like that. Britain was just part of the empire, worshipped and payed taxes to the emperor like everyone else. There are free, out of copyright old international law textbooks out there online that would be very helpful building a list.John Z (talk) 02:35, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose per above. Us defining the exact conditions of pre-1907 occupations without a legal guideline would be very close to WP:OR. Buckshot06(prof) 20:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so until the "occupation" was not legally defined, there were none? right?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

And no reply here either--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So far it seems to me that opposition is based on denial that there were occupations before 1907, and that the reference to these would not be useful for the Wikipedia users.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Five people have told you the definition issue makes it too unclear Mrg, while one seems to have more of a grip on the technicalities and is swithering. None have mentioned denial of anything. Can you read? Buckshot06(prof) 05:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This only means that these five people admit they are unable to produce a definition or a source for one, and not that there were no occupations before 1907. The fact that the issue was considered at Hague in 1899 only serves to prove this. As it happens the occupation of South Africa by Britain occurred before 1907, so I have every reason to question Philip's motive never mind all the other occupations of the British Empire. Now, if you, or anyone else, can not find sources for pre-1907 occupations, I suggest you withdraw your opposition. Or is it that your favourite OCD says the word occupation in its meaning of territory by military forces only entered the English language in 1907?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The reason I picked 1907 is because that is the version that is accepted (thanks to the Nuremberg Trials) as part of the customary laws of war binding on all states whether they signed the conventions or not. But even if we took 1899 it is debatable if the Second Boer War should be included as it started in 1899 and the Boer states were occupied in the (southern hemisphere) winter months of 1900 -- just before the Hague Convention of 1899 entering into force on September 4, 1900. --PBS (talk) 07:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

PS. Please don't use "majority thinks" arguments on me. If these arguments worked, we would still be walking on flat Earth.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 05:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

1. Not that these five have said they can't find a definition; they've said there are too many definitions (in my view, implicitly saying that wiki isn't the place for trying to agree among them). 2. I'm not using 'majority thinks' on you - but I would probably say that there is a WP:Consensus, and that it's against you. If you wish to change WP:CON however, this isn't the place to argue it. Buckshot06(prof) 05:55, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it that when people oppose something they actually read the question, and offer a logical response.

What is being opposed here? That the article covers occupations after 1907? Yes, the definition in the article explicitly states the article only deals with occupations after 1907.

What is challenged by yourself and other opposers is the ability, seemingly on my part alone, to find a sourced definition for occupations before 1907 in creating another article. However, neither you, nor the other 6 billion people on the planet can prevent me from starting another article title List of military occupations before 1907. Its just that all of you will look rather silly in having an article that despite its title only covers a century in time.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Mrg for those helpful comments. I think [3] is my most appropriate course of action here. Buckshot06(prof) 06:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, the old "I can't offer a logical argument, so why not call him a troll" trick. Well, that "professionalism" tag is really coming to signify something.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 06:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Look, this article isn't exactly huge and is 99% list. Can't we just have one article with two sections - pre-1907 and post-1907? Wouldn't that solve all the problems here? Skinny87 (talk) 08:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Occupations before 1907

During the move discussion above three editors suggested that we should have a section of belligerent military occupations before 1907. As John Z put it

... [T]here is a place for a pre-1907 list, covering the preceding century or so. The main criterion for this list isn't the Hague definition, but the same criterion as everything else in Wikipedia - what high-quality reliable sources say. That's the same thing that should be used for pre-1907. After all, the Hague definition wasn't a gigantic change, more just writing down customary law. If a book about international law or a paper in an IL journal says Fredonia occupied Ruritania in 1837, we should say that. After all, the concept of occupation actually became more problematic soon after 1907, more confusing, because of the changes in international law. In classical 19th century law, it was easy to tell - if someone had won a battle and militarily controlled an area for a length of time, and hadn't said it's ours, we annex it, then it was occupied, because forcible annexation and subjugation was fine and legal back then.

In principle I am not against this for more recent centuries but as John Z "What we wouldn't and shouldn't have on the list is things like Rome occupied Britain. The concept didn't exist back then, and I strongly doubt there are any good RS's that say something like that."

But before we decide to redefine the definition at the top I would like to play through some scenarios to see what comes out of them and then decide on whether it s possible to push the definition back by a century:

• Bonaparte's expedition to Egypt what parts of the affair was a military occupation? Were the British also a military occupying force? What do reliable sources say?
• The invasion of France by the Coalition forces in 1815 (part of the Hundred Days). As the war was against Bonaparte and not against the French nation who as far as the Coalition were concerned were still governed by the King Louis XVIII. Was this a military occupation and it was was it a belligerent occupation? What do reliable sources say?
• Shaka and his wars. Do we include those types of wars or keep with the ideas of wars between "Civilized Nations" as described in the Hague Conventions? What do reliable sources say?
• The New Zealand Wars before the Treaty of Waitangi and the Indian Wars##West of the Mississippi (1823–1890). Do we include those types of wars or keep with the ideas of wars between "Civilized Nations" as described in the Hague Conventions? What do reliable sources say?
• Russian expansion to the east and into south east Europe (Georgia etc). I know little about it but I can see that it could be a POV minefield. What do you think mrg3105 were the peoples of the caucuses civilized people within the definition of Hague? What do reliable sources say?
• American Civil War. Was it a war between two states? If it was then did military occupation occur after the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia? Was each State occupied separately or was it one occupation. I think this is a particularly good example because it is full of POV considerations "The South will rise again" and a strong bias in sources.
• If there are no reliable sources that mention whether an occupation was a "military occupation" and whether a nation was civilized, do we include the occupation or not? What if a reliable source uses the term "occupation" but not "military occupation"?

This is just an example of the types of scenarios that we will be faced with before 1907 and I am not sure that we can produce a list that is anywhere near complete and not full of POV problems; and if it is not anywhere near complete it is probably not of much use to the reader and will probably have a built bias (as did the list before I expanded it). However I am willing to be proved wrong and answers to the above examples will help to make it clear if it is possible to go before 1907 or not. --PBS (talk) 10:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad we have agreement. I very strongly share your concerns about POV minefield possibilities and think it is a good idea to keep the articles separate, at least for now. I think we should use only very high quality sources for pre 20th century : books and journals on international law, not even run of the mill histories in disputable cases unless we are sure the historian is using technical and not loose, figurative vocabulary, and I am willing to be quite a hard-ass about it, contrary to my usual outlook. It may keep the list small at first, but like everything else here it will grow. I think the US Civil War is a particularly important case. The Lieber code and the Lieber-Halleck correspondence had a real effect on the law of war and occupation. The USA and the UK recognized the CSA as a belligerent. As I understand things, people tried to "do things by the book" such as it was, and international law sources about this as an occupation should be numerous. France in Egypt, and come to think of it Britain in Egypt a half century later are other examples where I think I've seen good sources seriously consider it an occupation. Cf the sources in Convention of Constantinople which I was just expanding. As I said above, not that I've been intelligent enough to save the links, there are quite a few old, public domain books on international law for free on the net; they should be helpful building a list. Above all, we need high quality sources and people with access to them. Regards,John Z (talk) 23:32, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Suez Crisis

user:One last pharaoh: wrote in the history of the article "Examples of belligerent military occupations: before. and after the war, "the various parts" were not occupied, and military movements during conflict, are not considered occupation." [4] and deleted the entry for "Occupation of parts of Egypt by France, Britain, and Israel in 1956 during the Suez Crisis".

One last pharaoh are you suggesting that the British did not occupy part of Egypt and if an Egyptian traffic policeman had tried to stop a British convoy he would not have been arrested by the British? --PBS (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I am saying that after the nationalization of the Suez canal, the three countries declared war on egypt with the goal of recapture it as a colony for the french, and the british with israel taking the sinai as it's share. the armed conflict breaks up, and the egyptian army concentrates it's defenses at the canal by retreating from the entire sinai as declared by the egyptian government, which was considered a victory, and even called "the Sinai campaign" by israel. the soviets union threatens with action against the invaders, and the war ends. the british, and french had to retreat much earlier than israel regarding the political pressure, some thing that israel did not suffer from, as much as they did.

I believe that that makes the war end with the invading armies retreating from captured areas during hostilities.

Occupation is when a military power gains a territory, and keeps it as a result of the military actions.

much more occasion would be considered military occupation according to the aspect u are following which is that -if, i am not mistaking- each single square cm of land that contacted an invading army during a war is an occupation, no matter weather the invasion was successful, or not.

for an example, the royal egyptian forces were about 30km away from telaviv in the 48 war, and i cannot see that mentioned as a military occupation. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

After a cease fire was agreed upon, Israeli forces continued to hold the Sinai and Gaza strip for nearly 5 months. This is a military occupation, and we have reliable sources, including official Egyptian government sources, calling it an occupation. This is not a matter of your definition vs. mine, but a question of what reliable sources say. Please stop removing well sourced information. Canadian Monkey (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Military occupations happen during a war if land is captured during fighting it is under military occupation. It does not matter if it is for five minutes of five years. --PBS (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

One last pharaoh If I understand your argument correctly, you would argue that the Third Reich never occupied any part of the Soviet Union as they did not hold on to any territory of the Soviet Union after hostilities ended. Is that your position? --PBS (talk) 00:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. the WW2, and the great war cannot be compared to what happened in the suez. in WW2, gemany captured lands through victory over other nations, that's an occupation. latter on, those territories were recaptured also by military action.

the 3Is "three invading countries" did not achieve their goals. in a matter of fact, the 1956 war never reached it's goal since the invasion was never completed, due to multiple pressures on several fields, which included the Soviet threatening, which i think was the primary reason that the invasion failed.

so do u really think that the presence of the egyptian royal forces in the 1948 war was an occupation? One last pharaoh (talk) 20:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I can not answer you question as I do not know what area the Egyptian forces occupied if any during 1948. For example under who's sovereignty did the territory you mention lie? --PBS (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

A comparison can be made between any incursion by one belligerent on another's territory. The Soviet Union was not beaten by the Third Reich, so by the logic you are putting forward none of the Soviet Union was under German military occupation during World War II. But if you (One last pharaoh) want to look at a smaller war did the Argentinian occupy the Falkland Islands during the Falklands war? If so what is the difference (apart from duration) between the invasion and military occupation of parts Egypt during the Suez Crisis and the military occupation by the Argentinian Army of the Falkland Islands during the Falklands War? --PBS (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not about logic, it is about sources. Unless there is a reliable source calling something a military occupation, then things can be removed from this list. --Elonka 22:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Then what about statements like "2+2=4" and "murder is against the law"? --PBS (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind that - the items that OLP has been removing have all been well sourced. How are we supposed to treat the deletion of well sourced items, with an edit summary that falsely says they are not sourced? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, for future reference, you probably want to read, Dealing with disruptive editors. But what that'll tell you is what you've already been doing, up through, "Contact an administrator". And you've got an admin here now: moi.  :) I'm monitoring the page now. I agree that there were some problematic edits, on the part of multiple editors. But I'm not going to go blocking people, because it's not Wikipedia policy to use blocks in a punitive manner. Instead, we use them only for prevention. Also, we don't block unless we give a warning first (see WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings). At this point, all parties have been warned, so now we'll see how things go. Hopefully from here on out, the article will stabilize, and everyone will focus on providing solid sources for anything they want to change. If there are further problems, I'll deal with 'em. Or if I'm not around, you may wish to post at ANI. But hopefully that won't be necessary. --Elonka 01:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

While common sense dictates that the suez crisis did involve an occupation, a better reference would probably be a good idea. The "official government" document I looked at briefl seemed to a monthly travel guide. This kind of debate is exactly why I worry about including occupations from 200 years ago. TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a travel guide, but a publication of the official Egyptian SIS - State Information Service - about the Sinai - including history, natural resources etc. The reason I chose this particular reference is that One last pharaoh claims on his user page to be one with Egypt itself, so I thought he'd be impressed with his flesh and blood telling him he's wrong. But apparently not...Anyway, it's not a matter of "common sense", but a matter of what reliable sources say, and there are countless such sources that describe the results of the Suez war as an occupation. Searching Google, the first one that comes up is this - headlined "The occupation of Sinai (1956)", and in the text below "Israel occupied Sinai", and in the map's legend "Territoires occupes par Israel jusq'au 6 Mars, 1957". I don't know about occupations form 200 years ago, but this one is an open and shut case. Canadian Monkey (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

ok. state the phrase were the "official governmental source" states that it was occupied, please.

I think that a french source "one of the countries that joined the invasion" should not be considered a neutral source. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The reference is this, from 'Egypt State Information Service", which is an official organ of the Egyptian government, with a .gov.eg domain. It states, clearly, in the section titled "Historical piece about North Sinai ", that "In 1956 there was the Tripartite Aggression on Egypt and the Israeli forces' occupation of Sinai." (My emphasis). That same section also states "1967, the War of the Six Days took place resulting in Israeli occupation of all Sinai." - which is another piece of information you've been removing, with the clever edit summary "stupid enough to be deleted". Continued deletion of well-sourced information with edit summaries such as that one is going to get you labeled as a vandal, and your editing will be restricted. There's nothing wrong with le Monde Diplomatique as a reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, but if you'd like a non-French source saying the same thing, have a look at this - an Arab historian writing in a peer-reviewed academic journal, who calls it an occupation. Canadian Monkey (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Small correction: Disagreements about content, are not vandalism. We reserve that word for blatant deliberate attempts to compromise Wikipedia, such as page blanking, inserting profanity or inappropriate pictures, etc. See WP:VANDAL#NOT. What's going on here, is a content dispute. Possibly tendentious, possibly disruptive, possibly just a difference of opinion. It may even lead to restrictions on one or more parties. But it's still not vandalism. --Elonka 23:36, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

There's actually a bit more to it than that. WP:VANDALISM lists "Blanking" as the first type of vandalism, and explains "Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason". I'd argue that removing 4 entires from a list, all of which are well sourced, with an edit summary that says "stupid enough to be deleted" qualifies as removing a significant part of this page's content without any reason. Canadian Monkey (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Removing items from a list because one disagrees about the definition, is not vandalism. Now, if someone deleted large chunks of a page with an edit summary of "YO MAMA", then yes, that would be vandalism. But OLP seems to be offering good-faith reasons for his deletions, so that's a content dispute. You could refer to his editing (or he could refer to yours) as tendentious, disruptive, POV or a variety of other things. But it's still not vandalism. --Elonka 01:12, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Is '"stupid enough to be deleted" considered a 'good-faith reasons for his deletions'? Canadian Monkey (talk) 01:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is considered a violation of WP:CIVIL, and if that was the only thing he'd said, it might be a case for vandalism, but it's just one comment in a pattern of a larger content dispute. Sorry if it seems I'm quibbling here, but there are very strict rules for what is or isn't vandalism. If I blocked an editor for "vandalism", when it was just a content dispute, the block would (rightly) be overturned very rapidly. For another way of looking at it, you might wish to review some of the reports at WP:AIV, where real vandalism gets reported. If Pharaoh were reported there, you'd probably see the report get deleted fairly rapidly as "content dispute, not vandalism". --Elonka 01:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) Don't have the time to check sources at the moment, but here are a few points. 1)The 1967-1982 occupation of the Sinai was of course just that, just like the other "territories occupied" in the 1967 war. One Last Pharaoh - I hope you aren't disputing that. 2) Israel occupied the Sinai Peninsula but gradually withdrew from it under sustained political pressure rather than military action, starting at the end of November 1956. By January 15, 1957 it only retained Gaza and Sharm al-Sheikh, having tried to retain a strip between the latter and Eilat until then. (Morris, Righteous Victims p.299). I think Shlaim's Iron Wall has some info on the withdrawal too. The British and French held on to territory for much less time; One Last Pharaoh's point does have some validity, the Hague definition requires that the territory be actually held, not just momentarily acquired in back and forth fighting. 3) Another point he brings up is interesting. The DMZs declared by the Armistice Agreements, Ralph Bunche's idea that broke the deadlock between the sides, were areas inside mandatory Palestine steadily occupied by Egyptian or Syrian forces until the signing of the agreements. So for the months when they were under Egyptian or Syrian control, they probably do belong on the list, and I think I could find sources. (Of course Egypt occupied Gaza, 30 miles from Tel Aviv, for a long time.)John Z (talk) 04:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Hague definition requires that the territory be actually held, not just momentarily acquired in back and forth fighting." Hague Iv 42 seems to be clear in this case. While few would doubt that while fighting for control of the grain silo continued in Stalingrad that the land it stood upon was not under German occupation, if Egyptian territory captured by the British and French was not under occupation then the civilian population would not have had the protection of Hague or GCIV, which is not a position most would hold as it would drive a coach an horses through the protections afforded by international humanitarian law. --PBS (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Did the Egyptian occupation of Gaza have UN approval? --PBS (talk) 06:47, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, of course I agree that the Egyptian territory held by the British and French was occupied once they had secured control of it. Was just trying to say that some of One Last Pharaoh's ideas are not unreasonable, not foreign to the Hague definition, though stretching them to say there was no British or French occupation is unusual and probably not supportable by reliable sources. The Egyptian occupation of Gaza was part of the armistice agreement mediated by the UN, so I'd say the answer to your question is yes.John Z (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The Egyptian occupation of Gaza is already listed as an occupation in this article. If you agree that the Egyptian territory held by the British and French was occupied, and presumably also agree that the Egyptian territory held by Israel was occupied - which of One Last Pharaoh's ideas are not unreasonable? Canadian Monkey (talk) 18:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I always think it better to look for the productive and thoughtful content in others' edits. Granted, this goal can present varying degrees of intellectual challenge. Pharaoh reminded us of the necessity of actual control, and his edits suggested more precision about dates and areas of occupation. Although he took the point too strictly, he was doing it neutrally, as he thought it ruled out the legitimate case of Egyptian occupation of small areas in Palestine, missed until he highlighted it. Besides, I mistrust the highly suspect contributions of this unscrupulous vandal that I like to wiki-stalk, who I believe put here much of the material Pharaoh was removing.John Z (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Please John Z, don't call me OLP (it looks like a name of a medicine), if u don't mind. Pharaoh is much better. Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not think that that stuff would attract so much disputes.

Well, i did not read every thing, but i wanna comment about some thing here, which is disputing weather should i be blocked, or not. I am not some one who likes to talk about him self with much pride, but i for one do not think that any article deserves that i violate the laws for it. in another ward, i try to keep the laws in mind and respect them whenever i am editing. now Mr. Canadian Monkey, u apparently don't understand the vandalism stuff correctly, in a matter of fact, when i wrote "stupid enough to be deleted", i did not insult a single member. the way u described that action at the first time is what can be much more closer to be considered non-civil contribution, since u pointed the insult to a certain member, that is me. I am not threatening u, but i surely don't think that u should be very proud of ur talk page. try to attain friendships, if u cant, at least attain friendly manner with other members. I have been through many disputes, that some times became personal dispute more than a logical discussion, but i did not report a single member to the administration until now, even those who apparently violated some discussion rules, but for a single member in which relations between us is now friendly as much as i think. In another word, i am not looking for trouble, but i can, and shall find some mistakes u have done that worths being reported -god's will-, and might eventually lead to a blocking, and i really don't like to do that, but i might have to do so, if u did not stop pointing my mistakes to administrators, and even argue with them when they -having more experience- know that it does not worth even a warning. constructive editors such as me, make mistakes all the time, but not any mistake should be considered vandalism.

Dear Elonka, and PBS; i want u to take another look to my talk page, and the articles history, to make sure that i really do not deserve the warning, please. perhaps after u do, u may want to remove it, since i feel like it's some how wrong to remove a warning i got, even if the member who added it, and my self agreed that i did not deserve it. ex. the warning added by Vanderdecken, because he thought i might violate a rule, in which we agrred in another talk page that it can be removed, but he did not want to remove it him self, and the result is that it still a scare in my talk page to the present day; so, if u thought that i did not deserve the warning, remove it. please.

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Belligerent vs non-belligerent

Can we get a solid definition of belligerent vs. non-belligerent occupations? I'm having trouble understanding why NATO occupations are listed under non-belligerent. Peace-keeping forces, which are invited by both sides, I understand, but NATO invasions aiming to overthrow governments don't seem non-belligerent as far as I'm concerned. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Which of the missions listed do you think is/was "aiming to overthrow [a] government"? --PBS (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

ISAF was initially charged with securing Kabul and surrounding areas from the Taliban, al Qaeda and factional warlords, so as to allow for the establishment of the Afghan Transitional Administration headed by Hamid Karzai. [3] In October 2003, the UN Security Council authorized the expansion of the ISAF mission throughout Afghanistan,[4] and ISAF subsequently expanded the mission in four main stages over the whole of the country.[5] Since 2006, ISAF has been involved in more intensive combat operations in southern Afghanistan, a tendency which continued in 2007. Attacks on ISAF in other parts of Afghanistan are also mounting.

ISAF exists to use aggressive combat to keep the Taliban out of power and allow its for replacement with a new government. By what definition does that qualify as "non-belligerent" ? United Nations approval does not automatically grant non-belligerent status, when they are in active combat mode. They could send in forces anywhere so long as the Security Council approves it. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, just popping in as an uninvolved administrator. If it's helpful, please consider that how Wikipedia editors define belligerent or non-belligerent, is irrelevant. The key is whether or not there are reliable sources that use those terms. If not, then there shouldn't be any listing at all. The List of military occupations page looks to have a great deal of useful information on it, but it is very lacking in sources. As a reminder, anything in the list that is unsourced, can be removed immediately by any editor, per WP:V. Now, it's usually better to add a {{fact}} tag rather than deletion, but when it comes down to a dispute, the decision is going to be based on sources, not editor opinion. Hope that helps, --Elonka 21:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you're correct, but at the same time, many lists and categories on wikipedia have their own rules for inclusion. Listing anything referred to as an occupation by anyone would make the list incredibly long and effectively useless. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It is not whether the ISAF had/has a belligerent mandate, it depends on whether the sovereign state accepts the presence of forces on its territory. I think it is beyond dispute that it is not currently a belligerent occupation (as the internationally recognised government wants NATO's presence). But whether it was initially one or not, I guess depends on whether one thinks the Taliban was a sovereign government or if the Taliban was still in power when the first NATO troops arrived on the ground. I guess we will have to find a source that gives a legal opinion on it, because the UN security council resolution is not clear on this issue. However I would be very surprised if the Security Council would pass a resolution that mandated a belligerent occupation of territory in opposition to the wishes of a sovereign state's government - just look at the fuss over Darfor and Sudan's sovereignty. --PBS (talk) 22:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

By that rationale, Germany's occupation of Czechoslovakia didn't last until 1945, only until they installed a new government. =) - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Not according to international law see THE ISRAELI "DISENGAGEMENT" PLAN: GAZA STILL OCCUPIED

In The Hostages Case, the Nuremburg Tribunal expounded upon The Hague Regulations' basic definition of occupation in order to ascertain when occupation ends.[34] It held that "[t]he test for application of the legal regime of occupation is not whether the occupying power fails to exercise effective control over the territory, but whether it has the ability to exercise such power."[35] In that case, the Tribunal had to decide whether Germany's occupation of Greece and Yugoslavia had ended when Germany had ceded de facto control to non-German forces of certain territories. Even though Germany did not actually control those areas, the Tribunal held that Germany indeed remained the "occupying power"—both in Greece and Yugoslavia generally and in the territories to which it had ceded control—since it could have reentered and controlled those territories at will. References

• 34 Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, 3 Martens Nouveau Recueil (ser. 3) 461, 187 Consol. T.S. 227, entered into force Jan. 26, 1910, hereinafter "The Hague Convention."
• 35 U.S.A v. Wilhelm List, Nuremberg Tribunal, 1948. [United States military tribunal: USA v. Wilhelm List (Hostage case), XI T.W.C. 757]

The current Afghanistan government can ask NATO to leave (Turkeys voting for Christmas springs to mind). Which is not something a Czechoslovakian administration could ask the Germans to do. Of course this is a narrow legal definition! --PBS (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a stretch... Slovakia was officially independent, as was Hungary, I believe. Then again, Vichy France isn't on the list. How do you decide when a government installed by force is independent enough that an occupation has ended? According to Soviet occupation of Hungary, "The Soviet occupation of Hungary followed the defeat of Hungary in World War II, and lasted for 45 years." (and it's referenced!)

The reference does not even begin to address the legal implications of the Paris Peace Treaties, 1947. The danger here is that one ends up down the rabbit hole with Alice over: Paragraph 2 of Article 53 of the UN Charter, the territories of Germany, particularly those of the Kaliningrad Oblast and Western Poland, the Debellation or not of Germany, and sovereignty as expressed in the Bonn-Paris conventions and that of the Two Plus Four Agreement (When there is seen to be a difference between "the full authority of a sovereign State" and "full sovereignty over its internal and external affairs")! --PBS (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

If you seriously believe that, if the current Afghanistan government asked NATO to leave, they would, I doubt I'm going to change your mind. TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

The position in international law, as I understand it, was that the United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan (the so-called Northern Alliance) was the internationally recognised government of Afghanistan, even though it controlled only about 10% of Afghanistan at the peak of the Taliban's power. Only the UAE, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia recognised the Taliban as the legitimate government, and if I remember rightly, they had all withdrawn their recognition under American pressure before the invasion of Afghanistan began. The Taliban was therefore not recognised as the sovereign government by anyone at the time of the invasion. The Northern Alliance naturally welcomed NATO intervention against their enemies, and because they were the internationally recognised governing authority they had the right under international law to invite NATO forces to enter the country. After the Taliban were overthrown, the Northern Alliance reconstituted itself as the national government in Kabul. So the situation in Afghanistan, legally speaking, has always been that the NATO presence has been authorised by the internationally recognised government of the country. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Heheh... And how does that affect the People's Republic of China & Taiwan? The Communists were belligerent occupiers of China for decades, until international opinion switched to recognize Beijing, and then suddenly the Communist occupation ended, and the Republic of China began its occupation of the island of Taiwan? - TheMightyQuill (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Civil wars are not included in this list, only international occupations, gets us out of the POV minefields like Anglo-Irish War, and the Russian Civil War to name but two early examples out of many. --PBS (talk) 01:17, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Minority of one? Are you kidding me? Having a UN mandate doesn't guarantee non-belligerence. Look at the Korean war. Legal and non-belligerent have two very different meanings. They are actively fighting an army that never invited them in. It has nothing to do with peacekeeping, which - in all other circumstances - has involved two sides agreeing to invite in peacekeepers. As Elonka mentioned, this article is largely Uncited and Original Research. If you're not willing to compromise on this, I'd be happy to suggest an AfD. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

By a minority of one I meant that you are the only person to state in this section that ISAF is not a peacekeeping force. A Google search on [ISAF peacekeeping] returns 100's of reliable sources that say it is a peacekeeping mission. --PBS (talk) 21:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The definition of belligerent is one that has been made up purely by the authors this article. This mission does not fit that definition. This is a problem. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Arab occupation of parts of Palestine

Where the:

• Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt, 1947–October 1956; March 1957–June 1967
• Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem regions of Palestine by Jordan, 1948 – 1967

"Examples of belligerent military occupations" or where they "Examples of other foreign non-belligerent military occupations"? --PBS (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tibet

The entry that claims that Chamdo (Tibet) was occupied by China 1950–1951 should be removed from the list of examples of military occupations, because Tibet was not recognized as a state in 1950 by any recognized state, and for the purposes of international law, it was a territory of China. It is for the same reason that we do not say that Chechnya is occupied by Russia since 2000, or that we would not say that Somaliland is occupied by Somalia if Somalia were to reestablish control over Somaliland tomorrow. Quigley (talk) 13:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Russian troops in Moldova, Georgia

Some of these are/were under CIS/OSCE/UNOMIG mandates, some are/were non-belligerent, others are/were belligerent (or it depends on who you ask), but they are there and are not listed.

Also I think that an article like List of foreign military deployments or List of military deployments abroad should be made with all US/French/Russian/Turkish/other military bases/temporary deployments/operations in foreign countries. Alinor (talk) 12:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Military Occupation & how it ends?

Hi I have read about Military occupation and some four ways of ending it 1.Involuntarily 2.Unilaterally, through the volition of the occupying power 3.By a consensual bond between states (including the occupying power) 4. With a binding order from the security council

Can some one elaborate these points as I sincerely do not understand the contents? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sajeewa2 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Israel

Hi!

I am sorry to be rude but I don't know what shold I say so let's get right to my controversial edit at List of military occupations.

1. as well as I know Israel invaded Lebanon in 6 June 1982 and not at 1978 - it shold be tested.

2. The ccupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel has ended in 2005 at the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan, Israel disengaged its military forces from the Gaza Strip and no longer occupying the territory.

3. the "West bank" shold not be considered as an occupied territory because it was never been a legal territory of any naition. so, according to the international law it is not an "occupied territory" however it is a "disputed teritory".

4. I checked the issue and I realized that my edit about occupied Golan Heights was incorrect - my apology

5. East Jerusalem is part of Jerusalem - the capital city of Isrel, Except for a few Jordanian bunkers and Jerusalem's old city it was nothing in East Jerusalem until 1967. when Israel controled the city Homes, neighborhoods and parks were built and used by people of all religions - In contrast to the time of Jordanian rule Which allowed freedom of religion and residence only to Muslims. and denied access of Jews and Christians to their holy places.

Therefore I re-editing this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by פליקס במנהרת הזמן (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I continue to be concerned, as I said on your talk page (talk), with your editing - as a very new editor - that you are editing this page in a way that is diminishing its neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), and shows little understanding about the way WP is edited. The Middle East is an enormously controversial political region, and you are expected to leave in verifiable statements from those whose points of view you may disagree with. This article is essentially a list only, with very few comments to show where there are some disputed definitions of the situation. It is not acceptable to edit out statements that indicate that opinions differ, replacing as 'facts' things that are a matter of ongoing differences of opinion. --Greenmaven (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

ק.... (Can you please give a Latin transliteration of your user name?) Please see above #Gaza still occupied. Please provide links to reliable sources that support the removals that you have been making. -- PBS (talk) 05:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Transliteration isn't useful. As far as I can tell, פליקס במנהרת הזמן is the title of a children's book about a time-traveling rabbit. PЄTЄRS J V ►TALK 06:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Taiwan?

Can Taiwan be listed under "Belligerent Occupation"? Taiwan was handed over to ROC by the Allied Forces and the ROC did not "forcibly" occupy, unless is whoever listed Taiwan thinking about the 228 incident. Even with that in consideration I don't think it qualifies as such. Mistakefinder (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The previous two items in the list are "Occupation of Austria at the end of World War II in Europe" and "Occupation of Japan, by the United States, 1945–1951". Taiwan was, like Austria, attached to one of principal Axis powers of World War II and itself thus part of the Axis. Taiwanese soldiers volunteered to fight for Japan, including fighting for Japan in China. Allied planes bombed Taiwan. While Neither Austria, Japan nor Taiwan were invaded prior to the surrender (anyway Japan and Taiwan weren't, I couldn't find information that said Austria was invaded), all were subject to rule by military forces that had been had been on the opposite side of a shooting war (i.e. "belligerent powers"). While one could try to argue that Taiwan is an exceptional case because even though they had been fighting a war, somehow the relationship between Taiwan and the ROC was more friendly than say, the relationship between Austria and the Allies or between Japan and the US but as you note, the 228 incident and martial law would seem to lay that claim to rest. There were no similar massacres in Austria and Japan. Readin (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted out most of the changes made this year including:

• Occupation of Taiwan, by the Republic of China, 1945–
• Occupation of Indochina by France, 1945-1954
• Occupation of South Vietnam by USA, 1965-1973
• Occupation of Afghanistan by USA, 2001-present

Belligerent military occupation is a term of art. None of these were (or are) belligerent military occupations:

• Taiwan was occupied by the recognised sovereign government of the territory so it was not a belligerent military occupation.
• Indochina was a colony -- colonies are not under belligerent military occupation, but colonisation.
• South Vietnam was not under belligerent military occupation by the US as it was a soverign state that had invited the US in as an ally
• Likewise Afghanistan.

-- PBS (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

At the time the Republic of China took over Taiwan, it was not the recognized sovereign government of Taiwan. The ROC was given administrative duties in Taiwan until the fate of Taiwan could be resolved. The ROC eventually claimed sovereignty, but this has never been recognized by international law or treaty. Even the Treaty of San Francisco (1952) which was supposed to deal with many of the territorial issues resulting from the Pacific War did not explicitly give sovereignty to the ROC since agreement could not be reached as to whether sovereignty should go to the PRC or the ROC (neither had existed when Taiwan was part of the Qing empire).

The Republic of China was not the recognized sovereign of Taiwan at the time, and as ridiculous as it sounds the ROC is still not the recognized sovereign (the ROC clearly is the sovereign, but it is not formally recognized as such).

I didn't put an end-date on the occupation because it is difficult to say when (or even if) it ended. But it clearly began as an occupation. Readin (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

As one of the Allies of World War II, I presume that the ROC was a sovereign power -- but even if not so "The ROC was given administrative duties in Taiwan until the fate of Taiwan could be resolved." would mean that it was not a belligerent military occupation. -- PBS (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

When the ROC was one of the Allies of World War II, it was indeed an internationally recognized sovereign power, but it wasn't the sovereign power of Tawian - Japan was the sovereign power of Taiwan. The ROC was put in charge of Taiwan just as the US was put in charge of Japan and part of Germany and just as Russia power was given administrative duties in east Germany, and just as whichever power(s) it was were given administrative duties in Austria. The occupations of Germany, Austria and Japan are all listed here too. When the Axis surrendered the Allies suddenly found themselves with a lot of Axis territory that needed to be managed so they divided up responsibilities for managing those territories.

Anyway, we have reliable sources. Readin (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that the source you have found is convincing. -- PBS (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Abkhazia and South Ossetia

I fail to see why this entry should be in this list. In recent times, Georgia has been pushing its claim that the presence of Russian troops in Abkhazia and South Ossetia constitutes a military occupation, and it has found support among some of its political allies. However, just saying that something is a military occupation doesn't automatically make it so. In particular, the cited sources only give the political opinions of the a) UK House of Commons Defence Committee, b) First Deputy Foreign Minister of Georgia and c) Minister of State of the USA.

This article starts out with

In most wars, some territory is placed under the martial law of a hostile army. Most belligerent military occupations end with the cessation of hostilities. In some cases, the occupied territory is returned and in other cases, the land remains under the control of the occupying power, but usually not as militarily-occupied territory.

whereas Abkhazia and South Ossetia have never been under martial law. The Russian troops are there on the basis of treaties signed with the respective governments, and do not exercise any sort of power. The fact that most of the world's countries don't recognise the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia doesn't factor into it --- otherwise the American troops in Kosovo should likewise constitute a 'military occupation'.

In general, I would say that the list includes far too many cases that are not military occupations, because there is a civilian administration in place. In particular, once a country annexes some territory, millitary occupation ends. This should not be merely a list of disputed territories.sephia karta | dimmi 20:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I very much agree with the latter statement. The problem is that if we include areas subject to territorial disputes we would have to include the entire List of territorial disputes on here we is way beyond the scope of this list. Plus including those will inevitably lead to endless disputes about who is the occupying power and who is the "legitimate" power in places like Kashmir. I'll thefore remove Abkhazia/South Ossetia, Northern Cyprus and add links to List of states with limited recognition and List of territorial disputes instead. Travelbird (talk) 11:09, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Barxudarlı, Karki, Yuxarı Əskipara and Artsvashen

The above territories are controlled and administered by Armenia or Azerbaijan respectively. Does anyone have reliable sources stating whether they were ever actually annexed to Armenia/Azerbaijan or whether they are technically still occupied territory ? Travelbird (talk) 11:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Iraq 2003

While many counties took part in the invasion (or turned up later to help with the occupation) three countries, Poland, the UK and the US were in command of the zones of occupation (see the map). So those three countries are the ones that should be listed here. -- PBS (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Gaza Strip

I have moved the "Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Israel (1967-2005) down into the current occupation and changed it to (1967-present).

I have done this because previously the footnote said

In 2005, Israel disengaged its military forces from the Gaza Strip and no longer considers itself to be occupying the territory. However, some dispute this and argue that Gaza remains occupied as Israel continues to control its airspace, maritime borders, and the majority of its land borders.

I think that the wording "However, some dispute this" was biased as it implies a minority of the international community. But I also think that a reliable source was needed to correct this, luckily for me the UN obliged about a year ago so I have altered the footnote to:

In 2005, Israel disengaged its military forces from the Gaza Strip and no longer considers itself to be occupying the territory. However, in a Spokesperson's Noon Briefing" on 19 January 2012, Martin Nesirky, Spokesperson for the Secretary-General, stated "under resolutions adopted by both the Security Council and the General Assembly on the Middle East peace process, the Gaza Strip continues to be regarded as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The United Nations will accordingly continue to refer to the Gaza Strip as part of the Occupied Palestinian Territory until such time as either the General Assembly or the Security Council take a different view."

-- PBS (talk) 03:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Kingdom of Hawaii? Occupied today, in 2013? Hawaii is a fully fledged US state, with full democratic representation, in both the US congress, the US senate, and the electoral college. While a large military force is based in Hawaii, it does not interfere with the operation of , substitute for, or interfere with the will of the elected Hawaiian state government (which has all the powers granted to any state under the US constitution). So how can you justify saying here that the state of Hawaii is subject to military occupation 'to the present'? Think this needs to be looked into... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.137.217.177 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The United States participated in the illegal 1893 overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom, failed twice to subsequently obtain a treaty of annexation, then used a congressional joint resolution to unilaterally annex the territory in 1898, using the Spanish-American War as a pretext. After this war, rather than de-occupying the Hawaiian territory, the U.S. spent the next 61 years transferring its own population into the territory, before the statehood vote in 1959. In 1993, U.S. Public Law 103-150 affirmed that the 1959 statehood vote was not a plebiscite or referendum, and that a treaty of cession has never been obtained. Since a treaty of cession is prerequisite for annexation, which is in turn prerequisite for admission into the union as a state, Hawaiʻi remains occupied. Acquisitive prescription, which is sovereignty transfer through the passage of time, similar to adverse possession, is forever negated by the well-established history of protest in the Hawaiian Kingdom against foreign takeover. There is no case law precedent to support otherwise. Furthermore, since 1900, Hawaiʻi has played a role in every U.S. armed conflict. Because of this, it has been used as the headquarters, since 1947, of the single largest combined U.S. military presence in the world, the U.S. Pacific Command. This makes the ongoing legal status of the Hawaiian Islands a military occupation. Keokani (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hawaii

I deleted the reference to "the Kingdom of Hawaii" as being militarily occupied by the United States. It's a ridiculous and unfounded claim that lacks credible sources. User:Keokani reverted my edit on the grounds that it was disruptive. I stand by my edit and suggest that in reality, his is disruptive. --189.122.201.52 (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Of all 50 U.S. states, the only one without a treaty of cession is Hawaiʻi. Texas has the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, for example. If a treaty of cession was not needed for annexation, then the U.S. would not have tried twice to obtain one for Hawai'i. Both attempts failed. The burden is not on anyone to prove the continued legal existence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, but on anyone who believes that its sovereignty was ever legally transferred to the United States. Public Law 103-150 formally acknowledges that the Hawaiian Kingdom "never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum." Furthermore, the abundant history of protest in the Hawaiian Kingdom against foreign takeover, forever negates any claim the U.S. could try to make based on acquisitive prescription, which is the transfer of sovereignty based on the passage of time, similar to adverse possession. Finally, 25% of the Hawaiian Islands is currently occupied by military bases. Again, the burden of proof is on those who believe that Hawai'i is not militarily occupied, to prove that it is not. The presumption of sovereignty lies with the Hawaiian Kingdom and not the United States. Currently, there is nothing to rebut that presumption. Therefore, deleting Hawai'i from this Wikipedia list of current military occupations, without providing any evidence or sources to rebut this presumption, is the disruptive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keokani (talk • contribs) 18:24, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from your disruptive editing.

1. The English spelling does not have an apostrophe. If you want to write the name of the state with an apostrophe, I suggest you do so on pages that are written in languages that spell it with an apostrophe.
2. Including Hawaii on this list is a violation of WP:Fringe.
3. None of your cited sources fit criteria given by WP:Reliable.

• http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/petition.html. A petition = not reliable. Does not mention military occupation.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newlands_Resolution. Wikipedia = not reliable. Does not mention military occupation.
• http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/US_Public_Law_103-150. A wiki = not reliable. Does not mention military occupation.
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Hawaii. Wikipedia = not reliable. Does not mention military occupation.
• http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org. A blog = not reliable. Does not mention military occupation.
• http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/. A blog = not reliable. Does not mention military occupation.

I don't need to prove that it isn't occupied militarily. You are saying that it is. You need to prove it.

--189.122.201.52 (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Hawaiian language has an ʻokina, or glottal stop, between the two i's in "Hawaiʻi," which is identical to a single open quote in English.

Those sources do mention military occupation, either explicitly or implicitly. If you had evidence that Hawaiʻi is not occupied, you would have provided it by now. Specifically, you have not disputed that there is no treaty of cession, as there is for the preceding 49 U.S. states (including the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo for Texas). U.S. Public Law 103-150 alone supports the fact that there is nothing to rebut the presumption that the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands belongs to the de jure Hawaiian Kingdom and not the United States. Every single one of your deletions was committed without providing any logical argument or reliable sources. The burden of proof remains on you to substantiate Hawai'i as an annexed state rather than an occupied state, and therefore justify your deletions.

As I state above, this is the English Wikipedia page. I realize that the Hawaiian language spells it with an apostrophe, however, we are writing on en.wikipedia.org. The en is short for English. If you wish to spell words in Hawaiian, you are free to do so on the Wikipedia pages written in Hawaiian.

More importantly, the standards for a reliable source are listed here: WP:RS. It's not my opinion. It's the Wikipedia standards.

I'm not sure what you mean by "every single one of [my] deletions." I deleted one item on the list (specifically the one that says that Hawaii is occupied by the US military.

I was referring to the five times that you deleted the listing. Keokani (talk) 05:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to prove a negative--I don't need to prove that Hawaii isn't occupied.

--189.122.201.52 (talk) 22:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you prefer, we can request a Third Opinion. --189.122.201.52 (talk) 22:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Just as someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, a country is presumed sovereign unless there is evidence to rebut that presumption. The presumption of sovereignty lies not with the country claiming to annex it, but with the country that had it originally. As I have stated over and over again, there is no treaty of cession, plebiscite, referendum, or acquisitive prescription supported by case law precedents, to rebut the presumption of the Hawaiian Kingdom's continuity as a sovereign--albeit occupied--state. This was formally acknowledged by U.S. Congress in 1993 with the passage of U.S. Public Law 103-150, which is a credible reference that I have provided.

Only one of the 50 U.S. states is secured without a treaty. Here they are listed in reverse chronological order by date of statehood:

◾Hawaiʻi - 1959 NO TREATY OF CESSION: Occupied by U.S. since August 12, 1898 ◾Alaska - 1867 Alaska Purchase (Russian Cession) ◾Arizona - 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Mexican Cession) ◾New Mexico - 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Mexican Cession) ◾Oklahoma - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Utah - 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Mexican Cession) ◾Wyoming - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Idaho - 1846 Oregon Treaty (British Cession) ◾Washington - 1846 Oregon Treaty (British Cession) ◾Montana - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾South Dakota - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾North Dakota - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Colorado - 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Mexican Cession) ◾Nebraska - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Nevada - 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Mexican Cession) ◾West Virginia - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Kansas - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Oregon - 1846 Oregon Treaty with Great Britain ◾Minnesota - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾California - 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Mexican Cession) ◾Wisconsin - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Iowa - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Texas - 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (Mexican Cession) ◾Florida - 1819 Adams–Onís Treaty (Spanish Cession) ◾Michigan - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Arkansas - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Missouri - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Maine - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Alabama - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Illinois - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Mississippi - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Indiana - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Louisiana - 1803 Louisiana Purchase (French Cession) ◾Ohio - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Tennessee - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Kentucky - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Vermont - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾District of Columbia - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Rhode Island - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾North Carolina - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾New York - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Virginia - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾New Hampshire - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾South Carolina - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Maryland - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Massachusetts - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Connecticut - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Georgia - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾New Jersey - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Pennsylvania - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession) ◾Delaware - 1783 Treaty of Paris (British Cession)

I direct you to Wikipedia:RS, Wikipedia:Fringe, and Wikipedia:English. I also direct you to www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1372.pdf

--189.122.201.52 (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no international recognition of Hawaii as state under military occupation. No reliable sources provided assert this. Hawaii is a recognized state of the United States both De jure and De facto. 198.45.184.25 (talk) 05:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Keokani seems to be the only advocate for Hawaii's inclusion on this list. I've asked them to consider mediation as per WP:RFM

to try to resolve this issue at hand. 198.45.184.25 (talk) 05:47, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The U.S. Supreme Court ruling in "Hawai'i et al v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs," available online at http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/07-1372.pdf, is limited to the territorial borders of the United States. Since the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands has never legally been transferred to the United States through a treaty of cession, plebiscite, referendum, or acquisitive prescription, the U.S. Supreme Court does not have de jure or de facto jurisdiction over the Hawaiian territory. Therefore, the U.S. Supreme Court cannot negate military occupation as the ongoing legal status of the Hawaiian Islands. Keokani (talk) 07:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to refer you to Delima V Bidwell "A treaty made by that power is said to be the supreme law of the land, as efficacious as an act of Congress; and, if subsequent and inconsistent with an act of Congress, repeals it. This must be granted, and also that one of the ordinary incidents of a treaty is the cession of territory, and that the territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as if the annexation were made, as in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress." Meaning annexation via joint resolution of congress is legal and to say the least exclaiming that the annexation of Hawaii via the joint resolution of Congress known as the new lands resolution. While you may argue that Texas was different because of the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo the major thing to point out is that Texas was admitted before that treaty. If it was a violation of international law with out a treaty of cession then the admission of Texas would have been in violation of international law even after a treaty of cession. Sounds like a bit of a strawman. The big issue though is do you have a source to show that the 1898 annexation of Hawaii was a violation of the international law of the time? The practice of Countries to cede land thru treaty in past doesn't imply a requirement thru international law. I'm unaware of any international law that set rules on annexation prior to 1947. To me it seems that in the 1898 annexation of Hawaii the Kingdom of Hawaii had ended if it hadn't before that time. So personally I think the case would have to be made that the 1898 annexation violated international law of it's time. You would have to find a treaty that the USA was bound to would have prevented it from annexation thru joint resolution of Congress.198.45.184.25 (talk) 09:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

As a result of the Spanish-American War, the United States opted to unilaterally annex the Hawaiian Islands by enacting a congressional joint resolution on July 7, 1898, in order to utilize the Hawaiian Islands as a military base to fight the Spanish in Guam and the Philippines. As a war measure, this occupation should have only lasted for the duration of the conflict. However, the United States has remained in the Hawaiian Islands and the Hawaiian Kingdom has since been under prolonged occupation to the present, but its continuity as an independent State remains intact under international law.

Like Hawai'i, there were two failed attempts to obtain a treaty of annexation for Texas through the U.S. Senate prior to annexation by joint resolution of U.S. Congress, which should tell you everything. If annexation by joint resolution was legitimate, then the U.S. would have done that to begin with. Why did they instead try and fail twice to obtain a treaty, before resorting to a joint resolution? Because all of the preceding and subsequent states—except for Hawai'i—were annexed via a bilateral treaty of cession, spanning the first 173 years of U.S. history. I disagree that Texas would continue to be in violation of international law after the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, because that is what made the cession of Texas unequivocal. Since Mexico did not recognize the Republic of Texas, the annexation by joint resolution was controversial at best, and lacked international recognition. The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo settled that. U.S. Congress could no more annex Hawai'i by joint resolution, than it could annex Canada by joint resolution. At the very least, it should concern any reasonable person that the 50th U.S. state did not have to follow the same procedure of annexation through bilateral treaty of cession, that the preceding 49 U.S. states followed, especially after two failed attempts at annexation of Hawai'i by treaty, notwithstanding U.S. participation in the illegal overthrow of 1893. If this historical anomaly is not a concern to you, I'm curious to know why?

Your quote from Delima vs. Bidwell is contrary to the 1893 executive agreements between the United States and the Hawaiian Kingdom, as well as the 1893 Blount Report, and 1993 Apology Resolution (U.S. Public Law 103-150), all of which I would give more weight to in this matter than Delima vs. Bidwell. Executive agreements were entered into by U.S. President Grover Cleveland and Queen Lili'uokalani, following the illegal 1893 overthrow. "By accepting the Queen’s temporary assignment of executive power, President Grover Cleveland bound himself and his successors in the office to temporarily administer Hawaiian Kingdom law in accordance with Article 31 of the Hawaiian constitution until the executive power would be returned." http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog/?p=1105. Furthermore, "Although executive agreements are not specifically discussed in the Constitution, they nonetheless have been considered valid international compacts under Supreme Court jurisprudence and as a matter of historical practice." http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32528.pdf

The 1893 Blount Report concluded that the United States legation assigned to the Hawaiian Kingdom, together with United States Marines and Naval personnel, were directly responsible for the illegal overthrow of the Hawaiian Kingdom government. Furthermore, the overthrow did not result in a treaty of conquest, or a treaty of surrender, to relinquish the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Kingdom and cede it to another country. http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/blount.html. Based on the findings of the Blount investigation, President Grover Cleveland gave a message to the U.S. Congress, stating that the Provisional Government was neither de facto nor de jure, but self-proclaimed. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~anu/pdf/Dissertation(Sai).pdf This negates the cession of Hawaiian sovereignty to the United States from the unlawful Provisional Government. Therefore, the United States today has neither de facto nor de jure sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands, making it an occupied territory. The fact that the U.S. Pacific Command is there, furthermore, makes it militarily occupied.

The 1993 Apology Resolution (U.S. Public Law 103-150), affirms the illegality of the overthrow, the failure to obtain a treaty of annexation, and the fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom and its citizens "never directly relinquished their claims to their inherent sovereignty as a people or over their national lands to the United States, either through their monarchy or through a plebiscite or referendum.” It also explicitly says that the self-proclaimed Provisional Government "was unable to rally the support from two-thirds of the Senate needed to ratify a treaty of annexation." Regarding the illegal overthrow, it says that the U.S. Minister in 1893 "extended diplomatic recognition to the Provisional Government that was formed by the conspirators without the consent of the Native Hawaiian people or the lawful Government of Hawai'i and in violation of treaties between the two nations and of international law." http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1510.pdf Keokani (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The Newlands resolution doesn't contain any portion that makes the claim that this was that it was intended as a temporary war measure. Here's the text: http://www.bartleby.com/43/44.html

You bring up the Blount report as if it had any legal relevance than the later Morgan report and well neither hadany legal authority. Clevelands proclamation doesn't carry a weight of law. Executive agreements are only politically binding they aren't legally binding. Clevelands executive agreement with Lili'uokalani carried no legal weight. Executive agreements are not treaties. If you give weight to the apology resolution you can't ignore Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs which makes clear that the only effect of the apology resolution was to apologize. If you gave any of those sources more weight than Bidwell then you are giving them undue weight. wp:rsuw

Most of your arguments sound like original research which I must point this policy if thats the case wp:or.

Your evidence doesn't back your claims. At best you have a legal theory but certainly can't it be held as fact that the Hawaiian Kingdom is held in Military occupation by he United States. Besides Hawaiian secessionists and movements and other secession groups (Fringe groups) in the United States I'd have to ask who supports this? The UN or any other international bodies?198.45.184.25 (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer-reviewed journal articles are acceptable as reliable sources under the Wikipedia guidelines, which I have provided in my listing and in our discussions. Furthermore, none of my sources have been used out of context.

I would say the same thing about your position: at best you have a legal theory. Let's let the mediators decide if my evidence backs my claims, or if your evidence backs your claims. Is it possible that this issue is beyond their scope of expertise? I think it is possible for this issue that we are debating to be considered an open legal question that has yet to be resolved in the legal or international community. In that case, what happens to the listing if neither of us is considered the clear winner? What is a third alternative to removing or letting it remain posted? Does it remain listed with a disclaimer? The answer will hopefully come from the outcome of the mediation.

I will agree with you that there is currently a lack of investigations and outcomes—other than the Larsen v. Hawaiian Kingdom case by the International Court of Arbitration—from the international community affirming the legal status of the Hawaiian Islands as an occupied state. According to the Hawaiian Kingdom Blog, however, the outcomes of recently opened investigations and filed complaints, are pending with the United Nations General Assembly, International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, and International Committee of the Red Cross. In the meantime, our discussion has been limited to U.S. laws and supreme court rulings, which of course have an inherent conflict of interest, because what would it benefit the United States to concede that it has occupied rather than annexed the Hawaiian Islands? Why would the United States rule against itself? Nevertheless, there are the 1893 executive agreements, the 1893 Blount Report, and the 1993 Apology Resolution, which provide information that is contrary to the idea that Hawaiian sovereignty was lawfully ceded to the United States. At best, U.S. executive agreements, laws, and supreme court rulings are contradictory in support of that argument. In my view, the fact that Hawai'i is the only U.S. state that is not secured by a bilateral treaty of cession, trumps everything in this debate. There should not be any more evidence needed beyond that.

If you give weight to the Newlands Resolution, you can't ignore the Apology Resolution, which affirms that the overthrow was illegal, that there is no treaty of cession, plebiscite, or referendum, and that the Hawaiian Kingdom was never relinquished. These are admissions, apart from the resulting effect being an apology, according to Hawai'i vs. OHA. Furthermore, these admissions affirm that the self-proclaimed Provisional Government had neither de facto nor de jure sovereignty over the Hawaiian Islands, to subsequently cede it to the United States. If there never was any cession, than there is nothing to secede from. Therefore, the term secessionist is a misnomer. What you have today are descendants of Hawaiian Kingdom citizens who were alive prior to the 1893 overthrow, or prior to the purported annexation in 1898. If the sovereignty of the Hawaiian Islands has never been relinquished by the Hawaiian Kingdom, nor lawfully transferred to the United States, then there is no need for a political movement to get it back. There is no need for a sovereignty movement, sovereignty groups, or secession. These are all misnomers that I reject. This is not a political issue, but rather a legal issue. I believe in the lawful de-occupation process. Keokani (talk) 07:05, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Red herring? That's quite an assumption of good faith my friend. My argument is specifically that your sources do not prove your case. I don't actually have to break your argument. You actually have to make it. The Newlands resolution had an effect. It annexed Hawaii. That is simply a fact. The apology resolution was an apology. It had no effect. Larsen v Hawaiian kingdom? You mean the case where it was said that: "A perusal of the material discloses that in the nineteenth century the Hawaiian Kingdom existed as an independent State recognized as such by the United States of America, the United Kingdom and various other States, including by exchanges of diplomatic or consular representatives and the conclusion of treaties.." I wasn't aware that anyone was denying that the Kingdom of Hawaii existed in the 19th century. Studabaker Car company or what ever it's name is EXISTED in the 20th century. Existed being one of those key words. Executive agreements have no authority of law. The Blount report had no authority of law. The apology act doesn't make the over throw of Hawaiian Kingdom by the provisional government an illegal act. That would be an expost facto law banned by the constitution. Was it illegal? Then why? The Apology resolution doesn't make it illegal. You keep trying to differentiate yourself from Texas. If Hawaii couldn't be brought in by joint resolution of congress then Texas couldn't have been. The later cession by Mexico is meaningless. The constitution doesn't require cession. So you are left to international law. Please point out the relevant international law. Pointing out that the other states were ceded doesn't prove a requirement. Needless to say it would be the international law of the time not later international law occurring after that. Yes why don't we argue semantics. That is a bit of an exercise in futility. Misnomer? Ok. Can you name any groups, movements, or what have you that aren't fringe that promote this? Oh and Red herring? Ya here is again the link to that policy wp:or .

Your sources are no good. They do not make your case. Let's remove your political position for a minute and look at the claim you make here. The Hawaiian Kingdom is being held under military occupation by the United States. That is your claim. What does this source Prove: http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/journal.html ? What you have here is a house of cards.198.45.184.25 (talk) 09:50, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another policy that you should consult: wp:soap Wikipedia is not a soapbox. And Scroll down further on that link and find wikipedia is not a battle ground.198.45.184.25 (talk) 14:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

See my closing statements in the RfC below. Keokani (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• On the mediation talk page Keokani as I understood backed out of mediation. I assume that based on his final response there. My agreement to not edit was contingent on the outcome of mediation and Since that concluded the mediation I removed Hawaii. My reasoning was based off Wikipedia policy arguments thru out this page in sections directly talking about Hawaii's inclusion and the majority consensus that it should be removed.198.45.184.25 (talk) 10:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Third opinion

Response to third opinion request:

First off, I think both users should take a break from editing the article because things are becoming way too heated (even on each other's talk pages, especially Keokani's). But more importantly, I agree with the IP in that Hawaii should be omitted. Keokani, although your addition does list references, the refs don't actually back up your text...and that's because I suspect you misinterpreted the definition of military occupation. Military occupation isn't people who have military positions as their occupations (as your references allude to); it's a hostile military presence in a certain geographical area...and from what I've been reading, Hawaii doesn't have that. Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

As per the suggestion provided by #198.45.184.25 (talk · contribs), I have opted to use http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RFM to formally end this dispute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/List_of_military_occupations Keokani (talk) 07:24, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

It WAS formally ended. You and I sought a third opinion. Apparently you weren't satisfied with said opinion. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't formally ended and Mediation won't formally end it. I requested mediation because 8 or so people were involved. Keokani has agreed to abide by the mediation though they don't have to as I understand. Just trying to go down the list of what to do to resolve disruptive editing in suggesting mediation. Please go sign the mediation form if you don't mind. Explain that you are the other IP that was notified.198.45.184.25 (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Considering the third opinion is based on original research and ignores sources it would be best to ignore the opinion. My third opinion is that it should be attributed to the most prominate organization (or maybe movement) which makes the claim of occupation. Something along the lines of "Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States, claimed by the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, 1898–present". This way the sources which claim occupation are not ignored but with attribution makes it clear that the view is not widely held enough to be stated in wiki-voice. Sepsis II (talk) 01:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The most prominent organization making the claim of occupation is the acting Council of Regency for the Hawaiian Kingdom Government presently operating within the occupied State of the Hawaiian Islands: http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org and http://hawaiiankingdom.org/blog

Keokani (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Most Prominent? That sounds rather subjective. It's more prominent than the Nation of Hawaiʻi? They are also Fringe. wp:fringe198.45.184.25 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

@Sepsis II- The original third opinion claims that the sources do not back up the claim or rather they aren't reliable sources via wp:rs. It does not ignore that sources were provided. I don't see the original research that you are talking about. Though I wouldn't be opposed to "Occupation of the Hawaiian Kingdom by the United States, claimed by the Hawaiian sovereignty movement, 1898–present". Though this seems like a slippery slope which would open the door for other fringe sovereignty groups such as those questioning the legal status of Texas.198.45.184.25 (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Short of receiving consensus in support of the listing as it stands now, I am okay with your proposed listing, as I have proposed essentially the same solution in the RfC section below. Keokani (talk) 03:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

There's no likelihood of a consensus. Going back to what I said before, "this seems like a slippery slope which would open the door for other fringe sovereignty groups such as those questioning the legal status of Texas." WP:VALID Read that policy. "Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship.""We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit them where including them would unduly legitimize them, and otherwise describe them in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the greater world." The views are on Hawaiian sovereignty movement where they are described "in their proper context with respect to established scholarship." To post this here wouldn't do anything other than unduly legitimize these beliefs. Sovereignty groups, secession groups, and the like support this. No legitimate governments, International Groups Composed or controlled on the International level by multiple Governments, and nothing more than a small group political and historical professionals promote this. There is no reason to give the Hawaiian Kingdom equal validity in this situation as that of the land of Palestine.198.45.184.25 (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion was to remove it. There is no reason to give it equal validity. WP:VALID Wikipedia policy a part of the guidelines for WP:NPOV. Including it only serves to unduly legitimize and sets a precedent to do the same with similar cases. Given time this cause will legitimize itself or fail but until it does succeed in that it has no place in this particular article.198.45.184.25 (talk) 09:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gilgit–Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, and Asai Chin a

Gilgit–Baltistan, Azad Kashmir, and Asai Chin are all apart of a territorial dispute between Pakistan, India, and China. All side stake claim to a part of it. They all occupy some portion of it. Simply the Kashmir conflict is a territorial dispute. 198.45.184.25 (talk) 08:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Kosovo

The Kosovo Force is NATO lead but it is also a Peace keeping force. The UN was handling administration over Kosovo which it passed a portion of to Kosovo directly and the other portion of to European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo which is set to end in June of this year unless the UN extends it. EULEX Also has Peacekeeping forces there. The question would be if Peace Keeping forces present constitutes Military occupation. If so a number of countries are notable absent from this. Also Since everyone is acting under the Authority of the UN it would seem the occupation of Kosovo is by the UN. Again the presence of Peacekeepers, Does it constitute military occupation?198.45.184.25 (talk) 11:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Hawaii be included as currently under military occupation

The following discussion 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.

---

Should Hawaii be removed? 198.45.184.25 (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

YES, should be removed, as per Wikipedia:Fringe, WP:RS, WP:Soap, WP:OR and the previously determined WP:3O. Although the last Queen of Hawaii protested the annexation, she recognized it.

• Specifically, her representative in Washington stated that "she yielded her property and authority as our Queen to the forces ,diplomatic and naval of the United States of America" (a copy is available at the Univ of Hawaii's Library's Special Collections page, here: http://libweb.hawaii.edu/digicoll/annexation/protest/liliu7.html).
• Specifically, the United States of America annexed the Kingdom of Hawaii. http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=true&doc=54&page=transcript

'll resist the urge to revert the changes that Keolani made and wait for the results of the RFM. By the way, it looks like my ISP gave me a new IP address. My previous IP was 189.122.201.52, for those perusing the talk page. --179.218.140.239 (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

NO, should remain listed. The references linked to the listing are in compliance with Wikipedia:Fringe, WP:RS, and WP:OR, which state that "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available."

• Here is what the Queen actually said, "Now to avoid any collision of armed forces, and perhaps the loss of life, I do this under protest, and impelled by said force yield my authority until such time as the Government of the United States shall, upon facts being presented to it, undo the action of its representative and reinstate me in the authority which I claim as the constitutional sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands." http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1510.pdf
• Admissions of guilt by the United States, regarding the legality of the Hawaiian Islands being transferred to the United States, which were made in the 1893 executive agreements, 1893 Blount Report, and 1993 Apology Resolution, are contrary to the 1898 Newlands Resolution, which unilaterally annexed the Hawaiian Islands to the United States. U.S. executive agreements, congressional joint resolutions, and supreme court rulings are contradictory at best in making the case that Hawaiian sovereignty was lawfully transferred to the United States. Because of the obvious, inherent conflict of interest, the U.S. Supreme Court is not a neutral third party that is in a position to make a ruling on itself in terms of the legal status of the Hawaiian Islands. This makes military occupation an open legal question that has yet to be fully resolved in the international arena. Until then, I suggest that the listing should remain, with a disclaimer that the legal status of the Hawaiian Islands, regarding military occupation, is currently in dispute. Alternatively, a subheading could be made under current military occupations, for possible cases that have yet to be determined by legal or scholarly consensus. http://www.hawaiiankingdom.org/us-occupation.shtml
• Since 1900, Hawaiʻi has played a role in every U.S. armed conflict. Because of this, it has been used as the headquarters, since 1947, of the single largest combined U.S. military presence in the world, the U.S. Pacific Command. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~hslp/journal.html

Keokani (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it should be removed. Keokani, While true that, "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available." But take a moment to read WP:RS. "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals".

• Hawaiian Society of Law and Politics and the journal exist mainly to promote Hawaiian independence. The question is if this journal has been peer reviewed by the wider Academic community. I'm not sure that this can be taken seriously. It very much seems to be an extension of David Sai's Hawaiian Kingdom sovereignty movement.
• US executive agreements, Foreign relation Committee reports, and joint resolutions of congress with no legal effect do not trump laws.

They maybe contrary to the newlands resolution however only but the newlands resolution was a law. wp:npov You are giving undue weight.

• With South Ossetia and Abkhazia there is a dispute of whether it's being held under Military occupation. Internationally recognized States disputing whether or not these two areas are under occupation is not the same as Fringe independence movements recognizing The United States of America State of Hawaii as being held under occupation. wp:fringe
• WP:redflag "Exceptional claims require exceptional sources."
• Wp:soap Wikipedia is not a soapbox. "Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions." 198.45.184.25 (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

U.S. Public Law 103-150 (Apology Resolution) is just as much a law as U.S. Public Law 55-51 (Newlands Resolution). Both are joint resolutions of U.S. Congress. Legal effect, or lack thereof, within the context of U.S. law, does not negate the admissions of guilt made in the Apology Resolution, especially within an international context. Keokani (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Admission of guilt doesn't constitute a crime. I'm guilty of just eating a ham sandwich but that's not a crime. Was a coup d'état illegal via international law at the time of the occurrence? And further is the admission of guilt a plea they are guilty of a crime or a statement they feel guilty about the past? What are they legally guilty of?198.45.184.25 (talk) 02:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

You can play devil's advocate all you want with your endless intrigue—which I believe is an evasive, diversionary tactic—but U.S. Public Law 103-150 speaks for itself in plain language for anyone here to read and judge for themselves: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-107/pdf/STATUTE-107-Pg1510.pdf. The entire document consists of admissions of guilt for participation in the illegal 1893 overthrow and historical events that ensued. A lawful action (cession of territory) cannot be achieved by unlawful means (illegal overthrow), regardless of whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court sees it that way. Of course, why would the U.S., through its supreme court, rule against itself based on the admissions made in the Apology Resolution? That should not be a surprise to anyone. However, that is what your argument relies on, taking one U.S. law or Supreme Court ruling and construing it to trump another. That is why I say that your argument is based on conflicting information at best. In other words, the United States, by its own admissions, does not unequivocally state that it has lawfully annexed the Hawaiian Islands. Besides, it is not a neutral third party which would be in a position to make that kind of judgment objectively and without conflict of interest. It is the international community that should be ruling on the legal status of the Hawaiian Islands, rather than the United States ruling in its own favor. Although this has yet to happen, it could be forthcoming in the near future, as complaints have been filed in the last few years with all of the major international bodies: UN General Assembly, International Criminal Court, International Court of Justice, International Committee of the Red Cross, etc. Keokani (talk) 06:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out to you these policies: wp:goodfaith and wp:cool. I'd like to ask that you read them.

I'm not sure it's a admission of guilt for illegal crimes on the part of the USA or if it's an admission they feel guilty for the way they legally annexed Hawaii with an apology. Please don't post original research as an argument. wp:or No original research. wp:soapbox Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Perhaps your issue with SCOTUS is better served in a Blog.wp:ball wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Alot of things could be forthcoming.198.45.184.25 (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2014 (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.

Hawaii or Hawai'i?

Hawaii is the official spelling of the State of Hawaii. Hawai'i is the official spelling of the Island of Hawai'i aka the big island. Hawai'i is also the proper spelling of pre-state Hawaii. Hawaii and Hawai'i are both used officially in the State of Hawaii. Hawaiian is an official language of Hawaii. Hawai'i and Hawaii are both pronounced the same in English. Only in Hawaiian does it sound differently. Both are English spellings. Officially the State of Hawaii is spelled Hawaii. Only in the Hawaiian language is the state spelled Hawai'i however again in English the Big Island is spelled Hawai'i. (Page 31, "Hawai'i: The Big Island")198.45.184.25 (talk) 07:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's a simple spelling question, in which case we should refer to a dictionary.

• www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hawaii
• www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Hawaii
• http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hawaii

--179.218.140.239 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No it's actual a complex spelling issue. Which was actual the fact I was pointing out. This a cultural and historical question. By cultural I do not denote cultural ethnocentrism. I mean the culture of the State of Hawaii and not Native Hawaiians. Historically the State is spelled Hawaii. Historically the big island is spelled Hawai'i. Historically Th Big Island legally changed the spelling to that. There is no reason to ignore this. That would be like ignoring the History of the pronunciation of Arkansas or Ignoring the fact that State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is the official name of Rhode Island.198.45.184.25 (talk) 23:10, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Gaza and the West Bank

The Palestinian National Authority is the Government of these two locations. All authority not directly in the control of Israel as military occupier was granted to them. I'm not exactly sure at the moment which is the successor to the Palestinian National Authority. The Hamas Government in Gaza or the State of Palestine (newly renamed Palestinian National authority.) I assume The State of Palestine is the successor. One how ever is legitimate and the other is not. One is using militant force to prevent the other from exercising the few powers of State they have. Should that group be put up beside Israel as Military occupier? 198.45.184.25 (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I removed the reference to the Gaza Strip, since it is not under MILITARY OCCUPATION. Please discuss on the talk page before putting it back in. Yossiea ^(talk) 05:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)