Talk:List of military occupations/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

Kosovo is a state with limited recognition following a unilateral decision to declare independence, and can be considered as occupied by NATO forces.24.246.11.235 (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

The question wouldn't be if it can be but if it is.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2015 (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)

While I don't doubt you hold that opinion, that opinion is widely rejected by sources such as the UN, US, HRW, Amnesty, ICJ, etc, and per policy, we write what the sources say. Sepsis II (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The section is also under 1RR which you have broken and may be blocked for, please revert per BRD rather than edit war. Sepsis II (talk) 01:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you want to be technical, the UN might say that Gaza is still under occupation, but it's not under military occupation. The only military presence in Gaza is from Hamas. The Israeli military withdrew from Gaza years ago. Yossiea ^(talk) 03:38, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I am clueless how you can go to Sepsis II's talk page and warn him for "disruptive editing" when the problem is that you remove this from the list with only presenting your own opinion. You need sources for this. Even if you were right, it would be wrong to remove it wholly from the list when it then should have been in under "After World War II".

I think we should do as it is on other articles here, like Israeli-occupied territories, which is to write: "2005/present (disputed)". --IRISZOOM (talk) 04:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not disputed, the Israeli military withdrew from Gaza. Yossiea ^(talk) 05:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I find it very problematic that you reverted again. You wrote "Please see Talk Page and discuss first". If you would have looked here, you would have seen that I wrote here. It is also astonishing that you keep saying that others should discuss it first, while you, who have not presented anything other than your own opinion, decide that Gaza Strip should not be listed (which it has been for a long time).

It is disputed and you have been told why. While Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, many still see it as occupied and you have been given examples. There is also a quote by UN. I say it again, we should write "2005/present (disputed)". --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So write disputed, that at least would be a start on the way to truth. Yossiea ^(talk) 22:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It is not the "start..." but the most accurate way to describe it. Sean.hoyland's comment are very thoughtful, though. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Do not canvass as you did here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

What I did is not canvassing. Look at the page again. Yossiea ^(talk) 19:15, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You went there stating the opinion you have offered here, saying that "Gaza Strip is being inserted under the 'current' section of military occupations even though Israel withdrew". That is not the right way to inform them about this and same goes for only writing there. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:30, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Going to a Israel project page to let them know is not canvassing. It says so right on the canvassing page. Yossiea ^(talk) 22:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have explained that it was not only because you went just there but also how you informed them. --IRISZOOM (talk) 16:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yossiea, I think you are quite right based on a very literal reading of that guideline, but common sense suggests that probably just shows that the guideline is worthless in this context. Perhaps it needs to be changed. Posting to the project associated with only one of the belligerents in the conflict is bound to be seen as canvassing because if someone wanted to increase the chance of a preferred outcome, that is exactly what they would do. So, whatever the guideline says, that behavior is likely to produce the same result as canvassing (individual members of the project for example). Sean.hoyland - talk 18:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm sad to see here that yet again, facts are ignored on Wikipedia articles. What Yossiea said is right and there's no question about it - Israel has withdrawn its military from the Gaza strip (which even the UN admits), and therefore it can no longer be under the current section of "list of military occupations". So IRISZOOM, even if "many still see it as occupied", none see it as "militarily occupied", which is the name of this article, in case anyone forgot.

You could all read this this, or that for more details. -Shalom11111 (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

First of all, facts are not being ignored here, because the dispute is not about facts - it is about opinions: whether or not Gaza is occupied is a question of opinion, and the first two documents you offer are legal opinions. Second, the opinion - widely held in Israel and not only in Israel - that Gaza is no longer occupied is not ignored. It is stated explicitly in the first sentence of the footnote qualifying the sentence in question.

Third, and perhaps most important, the question of the current legal status of Gaza is very complex - as shown by the articles you cite - and deserves better coverage than it is currently given in Wikipedia. The section in the article on Gaza (Gaza_Strip#Legal_status is entirely superficial and piss-poor. As someone intensely interested in this topic, perhaps Shalom11111 would be interested in taking upon himself the task of summarizing the legal views, including, as well as those he cited, the opposing ones (for example, this and this). --Ravpapa (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Great post, Ravpapa. I want to add than that the notion that those who see Gaza Strip as "occupied" do not mean "military occupied" is rubbish. Of course that is what is meant. Shalom11111, could you try to offer one alternative interpretation? What do they mean with "occupation" then? --IRISZOOM (talk) 07:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I removed the part that West Bank's status is "disputed by Israel". It is a fringe view not deserved of such a big representation. Just because Israel disagree, that does not mean that we should state that in every article. The world is clear on the status of the West Bank and other occupied territories. We are listing military occupations here and respective country's position can be discussed in the main articles and others. --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your edit. The view that Gaza is no longer occupied, while held primarily by Israel, is not a fringe view. There are others in the international legal community who agree. See, for example, this paper.

The legal problem, as I noted on Shalom11111's talk page, is that there is no sovereign entity to replace Israel. This leaves a legal vacuum, where no one is responsible for protecting the human rights of the people living there - something intolerable in international law. If there were such an entity - for example, if the UN were to recognize the Hamas as a sovereign entity - certainly no one would say that Israel was occupying Gaza (which, of course, does not relieve Israel of responsibility for other possible human rights violations it may commit there). So I think you should restore the footnote, which, after all, is not "such a big representation." --Ravpapa (talk) 08:45, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding me. I removed it from the part about the West Bank. Shalom11111 had inserted it today. For issues were this is clear, there is no reason to have that. For situations like the Gaza Strip, I have already suggested that we should write, as it is done on other articles here, "2005/present (disputed)". --IRISZOOM (talk) 08:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. My error, sorry. --Ravpapa (talk) 09:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just a thought, but one possible way to resolve this potentially unsolvable issue which doesn't have a convenient binary yes or no answer, is perhaps by being intentionally vague i.e. by combining the separate lines for the Gaza Strip and the West Bank into a single statement about the Occupation of the Palestinian territories/State of Palestine or whatever. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I should perhaps say something more about this. In my world, what we are talking about here is an entity that the International Organization for Standardization refers to as the State of Palestine, represented by ISO 3166-1 code PS (as well as the ISO 3166-2:PS codes). Many organizations and sources deal with this entity at this scale using one name (that varies of course e.g. oPt, the Palestinian territories, Palestine, Occupied Palestinian territory, State of Palestine etc). The scale we use is a actually matter of choice and the nature of disputes that arise depends on that choice. At the moment the Gaza Strip and the West Bank (inc East Jerusalem) are being treated as separate entities. But it seems to me that the complexity and hence the amount of dispute is a function of scale, the spatial objects we decide to deal with. Is Area A of the West Bank currently under military occupation by Israel ? How about East Jerusalem, is that a military occupation in the way this article means it ? Perhaps the complexity and disputes might go away if work at the state/country level. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have changed to "2005/present (disputed)" now. But the comment above by Sean.hoyland should be considered. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of opinion but facts. The definitions I found for the term "military occupation" were "control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory" and "a condition in which territory is under the effective control of a foreign armed force." The term simply "military occupation" doesn't apply to Israel and Gaza today, as the Gaza Strip is a self-governed entity, which is what its own article even says. So don't you see the contradiction here? It may be confusing because the UN said in 2012 it considers Gaza to be part of the (so called) occupied Palestinian territories, but it did not say it's under Israeli military control. The Gaza Strip is militarily occupied by Israel just as much is it is occupied by Egypt, see Blockade of the Gaza Strip. -Shalom11111 (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

But it's not a "fact". Can we at the very least not misuse language here ? The dispute can't be resolved by using a false premise or by Wikipedia editors trying to figure out whether or not it is, as a matter of fact, a military occupation. If the intent is to deal with Gaza separately there's no avoiding doing the work, trawling through a representative/large enough sample of sources to see what they actually say on the matter. Pethaps someone is interested in doing that. I'm not, although I'm moderately curious how having armed drones flying around and not needing people on the ground factors into these things nowadays. Sean.hoyland - talk 07:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact. As Shalom11111 pointed out, if you're going to list Israel as an occupier, you need to list Egypt as well since Egypt is participating in the blockade. While you're at it, you can list Hamas as occupying Gaza. I still fail to see how you can single out Israel for a military occupation when there is no military presence in Gaza. I will list Egypt as well, since the reason why Israel is listed also applies to Egypt. Yossiea ^(talk) 07:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, that's fine. I give up. If there isn't even a shared understanding of what qualifies as a fact there is nothing more to discuss here for me. Hopefully the RfC will resolve the issue, assuming people actually look at sources. Although I must just add that the way the RfC is written uses circular reasoning, cites no sources whatsoever and amounts to nothing more than a personal opinion on the matter. So, if you want an RfC to resolve this you should fix all of those issues i.e. assume nothing about the status of Gaza, include nothing based on personal opinion and if sources are provided, make sure they are a representative/large enough sample. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Again, of course it is a "military occupation" that is referred to. There is nothing else that can be meant. The fact that you call the Palestinian territories for "so called occupied" tells much.

So you are adding Egypt too because they have a blockade too. That is OR and you yourself acknowledge it above by mentioning why you are adding that. It is really laughable. First you say the Gaza Strip is not occupied by Israel, then you want to "counter it" being listed by adding it is occupied by Egypt too. Yossiea goes a step further and adds Hamas too. And in this case, there is not even a mention of "disputed". There is much you can say about this but the easiest thing is to say that it does not work this way. You need of course support by sources.

I agree with Sean.hoyland about the RfC. The way you, Yossiea, wrote it is worse than what you wrote in WikiProject Israel, which I explained to you was not the right way to inform people. Read the section Statement should be neutral and brief in WP:RFC. --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I am adding this RFC to get some outside input. For some reason, even though there is no military occupation of Gaza by Israel, Israel is listed here, one of the reasons given is that Israel is blockading Gaza. Firstly, a blockade is not the same thing as a military occupation. Secondly, if a blockade is reason enough to list Israel, then Egypt should be listed as well since Egypt has been participating in the blockade since 2007. Additionally, Hamas should be listed as a military occupier since they are occupying Gaza. Yossiea ^(talk) 07:45, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I have again removed that West Bank's status is "disputed". Can you stop inserting this, Shalom11111? --IRISZOOM (talk) 12:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC Discussion

For editors who are new to this dispute, I will attempt to summarize the arguments:

First, the facts: Israel withdrew its forces from the Gaza Strip in 2005, and since then has no permanent military force there. It occasionally executes artillery and drone attacks against specific targets within Gaza. It, together with Egypt, maintains a blockade of goods going into and out of Gaza, limiting imports to items it considers to be of no military value. It provides the fuel for Gaza's electrical power, it provides virtually all of Gaza's water, it provides cellular telephone and internet access. It severely curtails the ability of Gazans to travel outside the strip. It has no effective control over governance of Gaza (except through the application of pressure through the blockade and provision of essential services), which is ruled by a government led by the Hamas Islamic faction.

When Shalom11111 and Yossiea talk about facts, these are the facts they mean. These facts are, I think, undisputed.

The question, given this situation on the ground, is whether Israel can be considered an occupying power of Gaza. Here are the arguments pro and con:

No, Israel is not an occupying power

This argument is presented most cogently by Pnina Sharvit Barukh, a senior research fellow in International Law at Tel Aviv University. Sharvit Barukh argues that, in international law, "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," and that a necessary condition of military occupation is that the occupying force has "effective control" of the territory in question. Since Israel has no military presence in Gaza, and has no effective control, it cannot be considered an occupying force.

Sharvit Barukh goes on to examine the question: if Gaza is not occupied by Israel, who is the legitimate government of Gaza? It is an axiom of international law that for every territory there is a legitimate government that is responsible for protecting the human rights of that territory. This is clearly a gnarly issue, since no one - not Israel, nor anyone else - recognizes the Hamas as a legitimate government. Sharvit Barukh writes, "...if the [Palestinian Authority] is accepted as a genuine independent government which is not subject to Israel, so must the Hamas government be regarded, notwithstanding its brutal takeover and political unacceptability." In other words, the Hamas government must be seen, at least for this purpose, and the legitimate government of Gaza.

Yes, Israel is an occupying power

There are essentially four primary arguments in favor of viewing Israel as the occupying power of Gaza:

• Israel does maintain "effective control" of Gaza, through its blockade, through its occasional military incursions and the threat of more massive incursion, and through its control of Gaza's utilities. Here it is perhaps relevant to look again at the facts: has Israel's exercise of these pressure points actually had an effect on the policies of the Gaza government? Here Sharvit Barukh offers a surprisingly candid answer, for someone who supports Israel's use of military force in Gaza: "The fact that notwithstanding these incursions, Israel continues to be under constant attacks from the Gaza Strip is a further indication of the lack of any practical effective control." (One can't help but ask, if these incursions have no practical effect, why do the Israelis do it? But that is neither here nor there.)

• Israel is identified as the occupying force in Gaza by decisions of the UN General Assembly, which have the force of law. This argument was set forth by a UN spokesman here. The withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza does not change this legal determination, which can only be changed by a UN resolution rescinding the existing status (or, perhaps, by a ruling of the International Court).

• The legitimate government of Gaza, as recognized by the UN and by many countries as well, is the Palestinian Authority (PA). Since the PA is considered to be under belligerent occupation, by extension, Gaza is necessarily also under that occupation.

• In the absence of a recognized legal government in Gaza, Israel continues to be responsible for the protection of Gazans under International Humanitarian Law. An opinion published by B'Tselem, and Israeli human rights organization, states, "Even if Israel's control in the Gaza Strip does not amount to 'effective control' and the territory is not considered occupied, Israel still bears certain responsibilities under international humanitarian law. IHL is not limited to protecting civilians living under occupation, but includes provisions intended to protect civilians during an armed conflict, regardless of the status of the territory in which they live. Given that Israel contends that an armed conflict exists between it and the Palestinian organizations fighting against it, which has continued even after the disengagement, such provisions apply."

I think that sums it up. Now, uninvolved editors, do your stuff. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:06, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Dicussion

if there's no recognized legal government wouldn't that mean that Hamas is occupying Gaza? Yossiea ^(talk) 18:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

No. Only recognized state entities can be occupying powers. So the last recognized state entity to rule in Gaza would still be responsible for human rights there. That would be Israel. The fact that Israel decided voluntarily to withdraw from the territory does not mean it has abrogated its legal responsibility to protect the human rights of Gazans.

(This is, incidentally, an argument very familiar to Israelis. For many years, Israel held the government of Lebanon responsible for terrorist attacks and bombardments by Jihadists in Southern Lebanon, even though the Lebanese government was powerless to stop them. The fact that Lebanon chose not or could not control attacks from within its borders did not, in Israel's eyes, make it any less responsible.)

That, anyway, is the argument. I am not expressing an opinion about it (though I may later in the discussion). --Ravpapa (talk) 21:04, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Lebanon was still Lebanon so they did have responsibility to control terrorism from Southern Lebanon. In addition, the page currently has ISIS as occupying parts of Syria, they are not a recognized State. Hamas is even more "stately" than ISIS, they are de facto ruling Gaza as an entity. Hamas is in Gaza, yet you don't call that occupying, Egypt is blockading Gaza, yet you don't call that occupying. Israel is not in Gaza and is blockading and that is called occupying? If you are including Israel, you must include Hamas and Egypt as well. Yossiea ^(talk) 21:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

• We don't actually have to debate the pros and cons of each side of the argument here and come to a decision about who is right and who is wrong. We just have to state that there is a divergence of significant views and include in the footnote which significant viewpoints support the view that Israel is the occupying power and which dispute the view that Israel is the occupying power. Dlv999 (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Except that my edit including Hamas and Egypt was removed by Ravpapa. Yossiea ^(talk) 02:43, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
• Furthermore, this page is MILITARY OCCUPATION, not occupation, so even if you think that Israel might be occupying Gaza for whatever reason, there is no military occupation of Gaza by Israel. As I keep saying, the only military occupying Gaza is Hamas' military wing. Yossiea ^(talk) 02:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built upon sources, not the opinions of its editors, you need to accept that most sources state that Gaza is under military occupation by Israel. Sepsis II (talk) 03:03, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

My response to Yossiea: You are right about ISIS, it should not be there. Only states should be included in this list. Otherwise, we would have to include every territory controlled by rebels (Syria, Mali, Yemen, Congo, etc.).

My response to Div999: You are also right, that we don't have to resolve the question if there is a clear lack of consensus. On the other hand, if, as a result of this RFC, a consensus develops that Israel does not occupy Gaza (something unlikely at the moment but not impossible), then it should be removed from the list. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but consensus is based on source evidence (What significant views have been published in RS? What are the quality of the sources? What is the relative prominence of the different views in RS?) and Wikipedia policy not editors individual views on the topic. Saying that "Israel does not occupy Gaza" as a fact in Wikipedia means that there are no significant published views that would dispute the statement. Well you have already pointed out that the UNGA has stated that it views Gaza as still occupied by Israel, and the UNGA statement is a significant published view. You could also add the UN Security Council, the UN Secretary General, international human rights groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and Palestinian leaders (all significant published views).

Looking at high quality sources (scholars published under academic imprint) I have read three that state that Israel is still the occupying power and one that says the Israeli occupation ended in 2005. Dlv999 (talk) 12:14, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

• The West Bank are under Military Occupation. This is the Major view of the International community. You can't remove it because a small minority now disagrees.
• Beyond that who actually disputes this? Just Israel? I'm sure not Israels objection should be mentioned.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:01, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

References

RFC Results

I think they are in.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems the consensus is that Israel should remian as the Occupying power.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine and Egypt-Gaza

Apparently Ravpapa forgets what he himself posts. I am not sure why Ukraine was deleted. Russia is now occupying parts of the Ukraine. Or does he hold that only Israel can occupy? also, not surwe why Egypt wasa deleted. Israel is listed partly because of the blockade, well Egypt is also blockading Gaza. Yossiea ^(talk) 23:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I deleted Ukraine because this is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. When the dust settles, if Russia is occupying Ukraine, it should certainly be added to the list. But the idea here is not to update the article every day with a list of new military incursions that might or might not turn into lasting occupations.

As for Egypt occupying Gaza - You have on this page a list of sources that argue either that Israel is or that Israel is not occupying Gaza. Do any of those sources suggest that Egypt is occupying Gaza? Do you know of some source that says that Egypt is occupying Gaza? If so, by all means cite it here and we can consider adding it to the list. As far as I know, no one other than yourself has suggested this. Personally, it sounds pretty far-fetched, but if you find a source, by all means present it.

As for forgetting what I myself post, I don't know what post you are referring to, but the idea of forgetting sounds like something wonderful. Who needs to keep cluttering his mind with these ephemera? --Ravpapa (talk) 05:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not a newpaper. However Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Cananda views Crimea as being under a illegal Military Occupation. If nothing else this represents a signifigant minority view and meets the criteria for inclusion. With that said however it may be the majority view that Crimea is under military occupation. I haven't bothered to check. There is no reason for me to as it meets the criteria for inclusion.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While the inclusion of Crimea is merited, there is no evidence to suggest that Donetsk/Lugansk are under a foreign state's occupation. The rebellion taking place there is by Ukrainian nationals regardless of their alleged affiliation with Russian Federation. There are no Russian conventional forces and only hearsay of them fighting alongside the rebels. As such, until the conflict is resolved or Russian forces become stationed there, this does not qualify as a military occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.11.235 (talk • contribs)

@JaconaFrere:The IP above presents a reasonable position for their removal. As there are no reliable sources to justify the inclusion of South-Eastern Ukrainem do you have any to justify it's inclusion?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Gaza disuputed

Israel can dispute it as much as it like. WP:ABOUTSELF However That's abit self serving. Do you have a source that isn't self published or questionable? If not don't put disputed beside Gaza.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Palestinian Territories

The Previous verion of this article looked like this. It listed The Gaza Strip sperately from The West Bank and East Jerusalem. It mentioned seperately that each were Palestinian territory. I combined the two listings to read:

• The Palestinian territories - The Gaza Strip and the West Bank including East Jerusalem<ref name="fn_4">The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem regions have been de facto annexed by Israel. These annexations have not been recognised by the United Nations.</ref> occupied by Israel since 1967Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Works well enough, and is less wordy to boot. 174.131.56.114 (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Does not work well enough. The view that Israel does not occupy Gaza, while it may be a minority view, is a significant one. It does not appear only in self-published sources as you suggest, but appears in academic and general sources as well. I refer you to only a couple that appear on this page: this, for example, or this. Even legal opinions like that of B'tselem, which are clearly condemnatory of Israel's continuing human rights violations of residents of Gaza, leave open the possibility that Gaza is not legally under occupation.

For this reason, the edit you made is misleading, and ignores significant, if minority, sources. Moreover, the previous text was the result of considerable discussion and consensus building. I will wait for more comments here before reverting. Regards, --Ravpapa (talk) 05:59, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even going to entertain your B'tselem source with a response. Don't grasp at straws. this is not a reliable source. Pnina Sharvit-Baruch the writer of [this is Israeli former IDF soldier and there's an inherent conflict of interest. It is a minority view from questionable sources.

The edit I made here is in no way misleading. I removed the (disputed) tag in a seperate edit from these edits. I opened a talk section for that edit right above this one. If you find some reliable sources you can change the current edit to read:

• The Palestinian territories - The Gaza Strip (disputed) and the West Bank including East Jerusalem<ref name="fn_4">The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem regions have been de facto annexed by Israel. These annexations have not been recognised by the United Nations.</ref> occupied by Israel since 1967Serialjoepsycho (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable compromise. Let's hear from some other editors before making the change. --Ravpapa (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

As with the compromise I suggested: Someone would need to get RELIABLE SOURCES and then make the change. I don't actually care what anyone has to say with out them.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So it seems Hamas Shares this position as well. Reinserted the disputed tag and a reference to Hamas. Looks as follows:

• The Palestinian territories - The Gaza Strip (Disputed) and the West Bank including East Jerusalem<ref name="fn_4">The Golan Heights and East Jerusalem regions have been de facto annexed by Israel. These annexations have not been recognised by the United Nations.</ref> occupied by Israel since 1967 Serialjoepsycho (talk) 02:07, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that this is better. I did reinsert this, though, and maybe you made a mistake here. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The Op-Ed piece by the head of an advocacy group published in the Jpost is not suitable for verification of facts. Dlv999 (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Then pick a source.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Transnistria

It's very unclear if it is under military occupation. From all I have specifically been able to find the Russian soldiers currently there are a peace keeping force. I put Russian soldiers at about 1,200. The 1992 agreement allows them 2,500 soldiers there. If I understand they agreed to be gone by 1997. However they take part in Joint Control Commission as peacekeepers. This is not a clear case of military occupation. I'm not sure that anyone has made the position this is military occupation. European Court of Human Rights considers Transnistria "under the effective authority or at least decisive influence of Russia". Would anyone care to way in and perhaps help with a little research?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

[Would anyone care to way in and perhaps help with a little research?Serialjoepsycho (talk) 06:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)]. Well, as evidence shows, apparently not. There are so many other current military occupations, but if it doesn't involve Israel, all of a sudden no one cares. It's been 10 days since you posted this thread and no editor has voiced their support/opposition to your idea. So even though this article is probably included in hundreds of editors' watchlists, you will most likely meet no resistance if you make that change you propose to the article, so go ahead. Shalom11111 (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

That's one reason why I don't really participate much on Wiki anymore and certainly wouldn't use it for anything where I needed to be 100% correct. If the page is military occupation, then it should have those territories that are under a military occupation, not the threat of invasion or other stuff, and if we are going to include Israel occupying Gaza, then certainly Transnistria should stay, and I still don't know why Egypt's blockade of Gaza (which was a reason for listing Israel-Gaze here) is not allowed. Yossiea (talk)

Yes you can see more of that above. Israel Pov pushing and hey that one guy really wanted Hawai'i on the list. Transnistria should stay because Israel is on the list? Great argument.... Why is Israel on the list and not Egypt? The UN as well as others say they still occupy the territory. Where as fringe POV pushers claim Egypt is.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Egypt militarily controls Gaza’s southern border, how is this FACT that a fringe POV? Also, a Hamas official said that Gaza is not occupied by Israel, shouldn't that be given some weight? And to many others, evidence indicates this too. Shalom11111 (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Your original research has no place here. And Hamas is given weight. There is a disputed tag by Gaza.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

There was no OR here, the video link was mentioned just as part of the point I was making. I saw your edit now, thanks. Shalom11111 (talk) 15:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Well that's not true but hey what ever. And thanks so much for making a topic that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel all about Israel.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:30, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome, it was easy. It probably would've happened anyway, because people are just so obsessed with Israel, it's incredible. But hey, whatever. Transnistria still rocks. Shalom11111 (talk) 20:08, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It's all good. I think Transnistria should probably stay looking thru at everything. As far as Israel, I hope it don't turn into a Hawaii Thing.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Tibet is a part of China

It's fairly simple. It's internationally recognized. It doesn't belong on this list. Adding it is about like adding Hawaii.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for discussing philosophical issues on this talk page, but your comment points up a fundamental flaw with this type of article. First of all, you are wrong: it is not fairly simple: while all nations that have taken a position on Chinese sovereignty of Tibet have recognized it, not all nations have taken a position. Moreover, at least two international bodies have formally recognized the right of the Tibetan people to self-determination, a right which strikes at the heart of Chinese sovereignty. Finally, supporters of Tibetan separatism, who are supported by many governmental and non-governmental bodies internationally, do not recognize the Chinese sovereignty over Tibet.

I am not arguing that Tibet is or is not occupied. I am simply saying that, by including or not including Tibet in this article, Wikipedia is essentially taking a position on a disputed political issue. You will say, "we only go by the sources." But we all know that sources are conflicting, and what is today a predominant opinion in sources is tomorrow a marginal one.

This argument is true for just about every entry in this list. We have certainly heard it - more than a bellyfull - about the Israeli occupied territories. It surely applies to the occupations of Abhazia and Ossetia - "occupations" recognized by all of Russia's allies. And what about places that are not on this list? Taiwan, occupied by a secessionist government that just about no one recognizes.

This article takes a snakes' nest of extremely gnarly and complex political issues and, by an act of reductio ad absurdem, reduces them into a list. It adds nothing to the sum total of human knowledge, and puts Wikipedia as an institution in a compromising and embattled position.

If I were Czar of the Wikipedia, I would make articles like this against the rules. Of course, there is no Czar of Wikipedia, and it is precisely the lack of a guiding hand that makes this kind of problematic article possible; and it is precisely the controversial nature of the entries in this list which makes the article impossible to delete. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Every addition requires special consideration. Yes the sources is what we go by. The Tibet entry lacked sources. The one clear thing here is that this is a minority point of view. The question would be if it is significant. If it is then by whom? The Dalai Lama doesn't hold that to be true. A few Hollywood actors do but I'd struggle to call that significant.

This article is no more problematic that the articles related to Palestine or ect. What it really sounds like you saying is don't rock the boat. Why avoid controversey again? It adds nothing to the sum of Human knowledge? You can see the areas historically and currently under military occupation and compare the history under said occupation.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Crimea

The Ukraine is not the only country or orgsanization to hold the position that Crimea is occupied. The EU currently has Russia under sanctions for this occupation. The change that I just undid employs alot of undue weight to speak against the notion of a occupied crimea. It contends that this is the sole position of the Ukraine. Serialjoepsycho (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, many Western (or, more accurately, English-language) newspapers term it "annexation" rather than "occupation" (this is why we name this article "annexation"), and they sanction Russia for "redrawing borders" i.e. for annexation, because occupation, as you can see, is "effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign". Russia assumed (or rather claimed for itself) that said "formal sovereignty" (see annexation) and disputes (in fact, completly rejects) Ukrainian "sovereign rights" ("violates actual sovereign") on Crimea. This is why it's not occupation. By the way, Baltic events of 1940 were annexation too, but they are named Occupation of Baltic states due to WP:COMMONNAME and "non-recognition" of said annexation (which don't changed anything until USSR broke, in 1940-1991 Baltic citizens were full-fledged Soviet citizens, just like Russian, Ukrainian or other ones - and just like inhabitants of Crimea are becoming Russian citizens now (unless they opt themselves out of new citizenship)). Either way, I presented that Crimea was annexed but widely considered occupied. Bests, Seryo93 (talk) 14:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The EU and by proxy the states it represents see it as an occupation currently. This was the language in the most recent sanctions. As far as is or isn't, that's not for me to say. As per your recent change, That represents the facts on the ground. It is a good change. It is in noway misleading to the current situation. I applaud this change.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 01:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of Eritrean/Ethiopian entries

At the request of Serialjoepsycho, I would like to explain why I removed Bure and Badme from the list of modern occupations. The main reason is that both cases appear to be border disputes as no sources mention military occupation (at least that I could find). In fact, the article for Bure is "Bure (disputed zone)". If these instances are border disputes I feel that adding them would open up the flood gates to lots of entries that would be inappropriate for this list. However, if anyone finds a reliable source that lists either Bure or Badme as being under a military occupation, please feel free to add them. – Zntrip 18:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Western Sahara

Hello,

As said before, the case of Western Sahara doesn't fit the definition of a military occupation, as given in the introduction: "[an] effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign. The intended temporary nature of occupation, when no claim for permanent sovereignty is made by the occupying entity, distinguishes occupation from annexation". That definition makes the Western Sahara issue a case of annexation (illegal or not, that's another subject that we can discuss on another article's talk page), but certainly not a military occupation, as claims the Polisario Front (which is a claimant and part of the conflict, thus making the mention of that claim a NPOV case).

Btw, according to the definition, WS case isn't a military occupation, and per NPOV, it shouldn't be added to that list.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Your invocation of NPOV borders on the absurd. Allow me to paraphrase: the Polisario Front's position is that the situation is a military occupation, but because it is party to the conflict, the article should just reflect Morocco's position (which is also party to the conflict) that the situation is not an occupation. This logic is simply untenable. The best formulation to actually maintain NPOV would be to articulate both positions. – Zntrip 05:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I think that you didn't get it:

1- Per definition, WS isn't a "military occupation" case since there's a sovereignty claim made by the controlling state, making it an annexation (illegal or not, that's another subject) ;

2- NPOV is that nor Polisario's claim (= military occupation) nor Morocc's claim (reincorporated to Morocco after having been separated from it in the 19th century) should be shown on wiki as the sole valuable position ;

Regards :)

--Omar-toons (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we're actually in agreement. I would be happy to see the Moroccan perspective reflected in the article. I just don't think the entry should be removed. – Zntrip 03:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Since, Per definition, WS isn't a "military occupation" case (see "1" above), it shouldn't be mentioned on a "list of military occupations". Is there sth that could be hard to understand? --Omar-toons (talk) 07:51, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

<- Content decisions can't be based on a Wikipedia editor's analysis. It doesn't matter whether someone here thinks WS does or doesn't fit "the definition of a military occupation". It's textbook original research absolutely forbidden by policy. Any edit made on that basis has to be automatically reverted. The only way WS can be included here is if RS refer to it as a military occupation and even a quick look confirms that there are high quality/scholarly RS that do in fact refer to it as a military occupation e.g.

• Stephen Zunes and Jacob Mundy, Western Sahara: War, Nationalism, and Conflict Irresolution (2010), p. 261, Syracuse University Press, ISBN 9780815632191
• Christine Chinkin, Laws of occupation
• Realizing Utopia: The Future of International Law (2012), p. 115, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199647088
• Stuart Casey-Maslen, The War Report: 2012 p. 63, Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0199689088

It should be included in this list and multiple sources should be cited to provide WP:V compliance for its inclusion. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:25, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

There are also a lot of sources describing it as an "annexation" [1], and I don't think that playing the "I can give more refs than you" game can solve anything. The are sources describing it as an occupation and other ones citing it as an annexation: WP policies (NPOV) shouldn't be bypassed on this article/list by only giving weight to the "occupation" version.

The only question is: does the WS case match the given definition? No. Then, maybe it can be cited on the list, but a detailed commentary must be added to it.

Regards,

--Omar-toons (talk) 02:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine redux

Egypt also controls Gaza's land and sea borders together with Israel, but because of the increased violence and terror attacks on Israel, it has to take the necessary requirements to secure the borders so as to not let terror attacks take place. Israel allows all the food and medical supplies into Gaza that it needs - the only thing it does not allow, is weapons and things that can be used to make weapons. Both Israel and Egypt are taking necessary security precautions to destroy the illegal terror tunnels Between Gaza and both Israel and Egypt. Hamas has controlled Gaza since 2005, and Israel has had no desire to control Gaza since. 114.198.7.61 (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Egypt controls a land border. Israel controls land, sea, and air. Israel has never stopped exercising effective control of Gaza. Sure you have an Israeli source that says Gaza is no longer occupied. The article reflects that Israel no longer considers themselves an occupying power there. The view of the majority of the international community is that Gaza is still occupied.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:24, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

How can Gaza be occupied if Israel gave up control in 2005? The only reason Israel has to control their borders is the same reason any other countries have to protect their borders - purely for the sake of protecting their land and their people. The fact is, that Gaza is producing their own weapons and importing weapons from Iran ^[2], and Israel has to control these weapons so they are not used. The only reason Gaza is producing and importing weapons is purely because Hamas wants to destroy Israel, and Israel, just like any other country would do, is protecting itself from weapons, terror tunnels and rockets.

If Israel were to give up control of the borders, it is harming the safety of innocent Israeli civilians. So no, Israel is not occupying Gaza, it is simply protecting itself, and Hamas has control over Gaza. Full stop. 203.214.37.183 (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles reflect what other sources say. There is an overwhelming number of authoritative sources that characterize Israel's control over the Gaza Strip as a military occupation and therefore that is what is reflected in the article. However, because there is also a significant number of sources that challenges this view, a note is made in the article that Israel does not consider itself an occupying power. The majority view is presented and a note mentions the minority view. There is absolutely no reason to change anything. – Zntrip 18:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Islands

I don't understand why my additions were removed. The articles for Paracel Islands and Spratly Islands clearly say they are occupied. --UA Victory (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

My house is occupied. I'm not putting it on the list. There are multiple claimants to these Islands. This is a territorial dispute, it is unclear who the true claimant is.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

These islands legally do not belong to any state and nobody recognises the sovereignty of the occupying states over these islands. Territorial dispute occurs when some state questions the recognised sovereignty of other state over some territory, but does not actually control it. --UA Victory (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Do any credible sources claim that the Paracel or Spratly Islands are under military occupation? If not, they shouldn't be on the list. – Zntrip 18:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

After a quick search found that Britannica says that Paracel Islands are occupied by China. As for the Spratly islands, The Wall Street Journal says that China has occupied Johnson Reef, China Daily Mail and Inquirer say that some islands are occupied by the Phillipines, this university considers Spratly Islands to be occupied. It is clear that the sovereignty over these islands formally does not belong to any state and this can not merely be classified as the territorial dispute. --UA Victory (talk) 12:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Here is the problem: each state's sovereign claims overlap with another state's claim and the rest of the world does not recognize any particular narrative as being the prevailing one. This is a classic case of a territorial dispute. To characterize this as a military occupation is misleading. Occupied territory is sovereign territory of one state that another state temporarily controls as the result of an armed conflict. To say that one island in the South China Sea is occupied by China means that it is in fact not the sovereign territory of China. Because we cannot all agree on who owns which island, we cannot call the situation an occupation. The China Daily Mail makes it clear that China's position is that several islands are under a military occupation imposed by the Philippines, but that does not seem to be a NPOV. The rest of the sources appear to use the word "occupation" colloquially and are not trying to characterize the legal status of any of the islands. Moreover, your position that the islands are occupied and that no one owns them cannot be true because for territory to be occupied, there must be a rightful claimant whose authority has been usurped by the occupier. – Zntrip 21:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Western Sahara is given as an example of military occupation, however no rightful claimant is indicated in the table while Morocco is has the status of the occupier.--UA Victory (talk) 21:55, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Western Sahara is an exceptional case. The "rightful claimant" in that case is not a state, but rather a group of people who have yet to exercise their right to self-determination. Essentially, Western Sahara is a colony that never had the chance to declare its independence. The same can be said about West Papua (an even more obscure situation) and Palestine before 1988. – Zntrip 23:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

While Western Sahara is a special case, but this isn't original research. It has been verified by multiple sources. It is either a majority pov or a significant minority pov. At one point someone tried to put Hawaii on here because fringe Hawaii separatist groups say it is under military occupation. We can not put Hawaii on here because some fringe source sees it that way. When we do that we unduly legitimize their POV. Wikipedia is also not the arbitrator of this Island dispute. If we are going to include them here we need to verify that they are under military occupation. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. We can not unduly legitimize the position that these Islands are under occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

After World War II

I changed the format of this section to match the current section. Some of the Items I have left out from the original list.

• Occupation of South Vietnam, parts of Cambodia and Laos during the Vietnam War by North Vietnam 1959-1976
• Occupation of parts of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegowina by the Yugoslav Army and Serb paramilitary forces during the Yugoslav Wars 1991-1995
• Occupation of parts of Eritrea and Ethiopia during the Eritrean–Ethiopian War 1998–2002
• Invasion of Tibet by People's Republic of China (October 1950)

They just need to be worked in. I just need to research the North Vietnam occupation. The Eritrea and Ethiopia occupation just needs to be put in. Tibet needs ro be discussed. My understanding is that the position that Tibet was occupied in 1950 holds that it is still currently occupied. If it has place here it would be in the current section but this really should be discussed. Does it's addition unduly legitimize this position. As for Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegowina, the wars in which they were occupied seem to be wars of independence and this should also be discussed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Added back Laos, dates based off: [3]. Could probably use a better source. Will look later.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

World War I

I changed the format of the World War 1 section. There are two items that I left off.

• Occupation of large parts of Turkish Empire by the Allies during World War I
• Occupation of German colonies by the Allies during World War I

The Turkish Empire being the Ottoman Empire. Not all of the Territory was returned to Turkey when the Occupation ended. This should be added back in a way that if informative and useful.

The German colonies, only one was listed. It is on the list. What were the other German colonies?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

World War II

Left out the following:

• Occupation of European countries by Germany during World War II, 1939–1945
• Military-led administrations in occupied territories
• Occupation of parts of the Soviet Union
• Occupation of the Italian colony of Eritrea by the Allies in 1941 until status changed to British protectorate
• Occupation of Libya, Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and parts of Italy by the Allies
• Eastern Bloc
• Soviet occupation of Afghanistan

The first two seem pointless since the list contains the countries related to this. These can be moved to the see also section if need be. Occupation of the Soviet Union needs to be validated and then added. Eritrea inclusion needs to be validated and added. Libya is on the list. The others need to be validated. The Eastern bloc the countries under occupation are listed. Afghanistan occupation links to an invasion from 1979-1989. If there was an occupation their during world war II era it needs to be validated. That can be moved to the after world war II section.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

West Papua

A source was added to validate this "Green left weekly" and it seems rather questionable. This items inclusion should be discussed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be removed. Although there are plenty of sources that discuss the dubious nature of Indonesia's absorption of West Papua, very few sources characterize the current status as a military occupation suggesting that its a fringe view. – Zntrip 21:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I looked and couldn't find anything but dubious sources that suggested it was under military occupation. There above was a effort to include Hawaii. It does seem that we run the risk of unduly legitimizing this claim. It maybe in Wikipedias best interest that it is removed. I think standard would be WP:WEIGHT.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've gone ahead and removed it. – Zntrip 22:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Good point, and I also agree. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Tibet

We should discuss Tibet's inclusion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and I think it should be removed. – Zntrip 05:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)