Talk:Occupied territory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Israeli-Occupied Territories Link[edit]

The popular definition of "Occupied Territories" refers to Israeli-Palestine. It is appropriate that there be a link at the top to reflect this fact. Not doing so would be like making a "Wardrobe Malfuction" article, then purely discussing the technical meaning of the phrase. Everyone knows "Wardrobe Malfuction" refers to Janet Jackson. This must be prominently acknoledged. It is not undue weight. Do not delete the link without discussion. Thanks! NickCT (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have been around WP a long time. So you should know what WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:OWN means without having to go read it again. When you violate that so clearly, then it demands immediate rectification. Please read the two lead paragraphs of the article. The I-P conflict does not have a monopoly on that term, especially when it is so widely used about other conflicts and long before there was a 'West Bank'. You need to prove that it should stay. Source it your claims. --Shuki (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Go onto google. Type in OCCUPIED TERRITORIES. Hit search. The top ten hits refer to I-P. Almost all the search results are overwhelming about I-P. Shuki; if you are denying that the term "occupied territory" usually refers to I-P, you have reality issues. Do you really want me to find some source that states the obvious.... really? This isn't OR or NPOV or OWN. NickCT (talk) 03:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The idea of disambiguation is unnecessary. This link can be added later in article in the relevant section. I am not denying that many more articles talk about one subject over another, but this is not a popularity contest and the term is used to describe many different conflicts around the globe. --Shuki (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
When a term has a popular meaning and technical meaning, the technical meaning should be given in that term's article, but the popular meaning should be referenced at the top ( for instance, Salmonella popularly refers to a disease, and technically a bacteria, see Salmonella).
This is common practice. The rational behind the practice is that many users are typing in "occupied territories" expecting to get info on the I-P situation. They should be able to quickly do so by having a link displayed promenently at the top of the page. Not having a link at the top in this case would be highly unusual/controversial and suggestive of POV pushing. Please do not delete again without consensus. NickCT (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a feeling that you are not a pollster who has actual numbers to prove your speculative claim about what other people are thinking when they search. That is your OR. Please do not insert POV OR into the article. --Shuki (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Using common sense and the hated google test for hatnotes, disambiguation pages etc is not considered OR. They are never referenced and inserting a hatnote is not doing anything unusual. There is no doubt that "the occupied territories" is very, very often used for the I-P conflict, that is all that is necessary. Such matters are decided by consensus; NPOV, OR, OWN are not really relevant.John Z (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Shuki, two points -
1) Do you really think that the assertion that "the term (occupied territories) is generally used in relation to I-P" is contentious? I ask because you said earlier "I am not denying that many more articles talk about one subject over another" which I thought meant that you were conceding my point. Now you seem to have changed your mind.
2) If you look back at the revision history, the link I'm restoring had been present for some time, and was removed without debate. I think that was a mistake, so I am restoring the original. It's removal is clearly contentious, and should not be done without discussion.
John Z - Thanks for appealing to common sense. Sometimes that appeal is lost in the face of POV pushers NickCT (talk) 21:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

JohnZ, please read WP:COMMONSENSE. OWN is relevant since Nick is being very protective of this page. NPOV since Nick (and now you) are claiming that prevailing connotation to Occupied territories is in the I-P realm. OR - your opinions unless shown otherwise with references. I hope that the disambiguation solves the NPOV issue. Thanks. --Shuki (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Shuki - Here are ten news articles that use the term "occupied territories" to refer to IP "1","2","3","4", "5", "6","7", "8", "9","10". "Occupied Territories" is overwhelmingly used in relation to IP, far more so than any other subject.
Shuki - A quick review of your profile make your claim that you can express NPOV on this matter dubious. I am not OWNing this page. I'm OWNing this one particular topic. Having the link to IP at the top is the right thing to do and I can't stand it when POV pushers like you try to mess is Wikipedia by obfuscating things.
You haven't tried answering any of my points, when I've addressed all of yours. Now cease edit warring this. NickCT (talk) 22:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
A) That is a brilliant argument, you seem to assume I was born yesterday. You are not being sincere here. I can also bring 10 news articles referring to a certain territorial conflict as 'occupied territories'. So what? This does not confirm WP:V.
B) You are violating WP:AGF. Your accusation about my ability to NPOV is uncalled for and I suggest you take retract it. If you have proof that I am being POV, then show evidence.
C) I have answered all your points by saying that they are blatant WP:OR. You are making an unverified claims based on synthesis of your personal opinion.
D) I suggested a compromise that is undeniably NPOV reffering to a neutrel page with the major 'occupied territory' articles. You, on the other hand, have focused on making this article mainly about the I-P issue which it is not. --Shuki (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
As for your claim of 'consensus'. You can't just pull that claim out of the air, you have to show where that consensus has been reached. Please do so. Until then, leave the NPOV dab. --Shuki (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
A) All the references I gave were published within the past 2 days. You won't be able to give me 10 references that use the term "occupied terrorities" reffering to something other than I-P in the same time frame. This demonstrates the gross majority of literature uses "occupied territories" to mean I-P. If this isn't demonstrative non-OR I don't know what is. Tell me, under what conditions would you admit that "occupied terroritories" does usually refer to I-P and hence does deserve a link?
B)Retract... Hah! I reiterate. You're pro-Israel bias is clearly motivating you to try to obfuscate/bury material which may be considered negative to Isreal. It's ok. We all have biases. Some of us are just more honest about them.
C) Obviously if I just gave you 10 references supporting my point. It's not just my personal opinion.
D) A neutral page sorta defeats the purpose of what I was arguing (conveniently it would seem to support your attempt to obfuscate facts). Let me state my position again: The term "occupied terroritories" is almost overwhelming used in relation to IP. This should be reflected with a link at the top of the page.
Re 'consensus', so far I count two editors weighing in against one. You will siimply not change your mind because you are POV pushing. NickCT (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Shuki - Just thought up this potential compromise. How bout we put your disambigous link AND the IP link? This would partially satisfy your desire to obfuscate and POV push, while partially satisfying my desire to help people find the information they are looking for. Agreed? NickCT (talk) 03:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

→ (from AN3): Linking only the IP article is clearly incorrect, as it omits other articles for which readers might be searching when they type occupied territories into the searchbar; continued reinsertion of this edit without evidence of consensus here will be regarded as edit warring and participants may be blocked. There are compromise solutions which do not involve fighting with your fellow editors. The {{about}} template allows more than one link, for instance {{about|''description of this page''|territories occupied by Israel|Israeli-occupied territories|other uses}} produces

This page is about description of this page. For territories occupied by Israel, see Israeli-occupied territories. For other uses, see Occupied territories (disambiguation).

Final neutral wording to be decided here, of course. If the use of the term occupied territories truly overwhelmingly refers to I/P, it would be most appropriate to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history to reorganize this subfamily of articles. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

2/0 - Thanks for the input. Please note, I actually suggested the solution you proposed in my previous post ( see 03:03, 15 December 2009 ). If you have time, I wouldn't mind getting your opinion on a question.
Take if you will, the example of Salmonella. Imagine that there are three potential things "salmonella" could refer to.
1) The bacterium
2) The disease resulting from the bacterium
3) The rock band Salmonella Dub
Now, the current Salmonella article is about the bacterium (as I think it should be). There is a link at the top of the page that directs to Salmonella the disease. The is NO link that directs to the rock band. I think this is appropriate by the reasoning that many of the users searching for "salmonella" are interested in the disease, and not the relatively unknown rock band.
My question is this - If an edittor were to challenge my assertion that a link to Salmonella the disease belongs at the top of the Salmonella bacterium page, how would I PROVE that it was appropriate? Thanks.
NickCT (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
If there were a band named simply Salmonella, they should be in the hatnote, per WP:Disambiguation. In this case, there is some guidance at the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC section of that guideline. Personally, I have no idea whether the present article should be at this title or whether Israeli-occupied territories should be moved here and this page moved to a disambiguated title or whether linking only IP at the top is undue. Both this article and that one are relatively low traffic, indicating no overwhelming preference from the readers. WP:MILHIST looks like the best place to gather a consensus one way or the other, and can be used to attract more eyes if the editors here do not the link both solution. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you 2/0 for your advice and direction to guidelines. Nick, why are you speculating about a band? Please go to Occupied territories (disambiguation) and see for yourself. I think that it would be easy to get consensus that the Occupied Territories album is not a 'primary topic'. And deciding what other 'occupied territories' article is the primary topic is OR/POV without clear cut evidence or a strong consensus. If you go check page views, you'll find that Allied-occupied Germany gets more page views than the I-P page, so perhaps that should be the primary topic, and the disambig link second? But I disagree with the need to judge a primary topic and best to be NPOV and use only the disambig. --Shuki (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As I tried to explain above, suggestions of OR are odd in this context. Deciding on disambiguations is based on a kind of "OR" which is absolutely necessary and unavoidable, and therefore never called OR. There is pretty clearcut evidence - google testing - that if an occupation is to be singled out, it the Israeli occupations, which I think is no surprise to anyone familiar with current discourse in reliable sources and news outlets in this area. (The wiki page view evidence is circular and inferior to google imho because info on the Israeli occupations is spread over many articles, not just one.) I think linking both is the best solution, but linking just to the disambiguation page would be acceptable with me, it is not worth either disputing over or exaggerating the applicability of content and other rules.John Z (talk) 00:35, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments John Z and Shuki.
Shuki, counter points
deciding what other 'occupied territories' article is the primary topic is OR/POV without clear cut evidence or a strong consensus Counter point 1) I've provided evidence for this (e.g. as John mentioned, google), which you've rejected. You could reject any amount of evidence and simply say it is not "clear cut". What in your mind is "clear cut"? 2) Along John's reasoning; deciding that disambiguous should be the primary hat link could also be called OR/POV. I think there are clear-cut cases where a disambiguous hat link would not be appropriate. Can you prove that it is appropriate here?
I don't think we are going to come consensus on this. We should either stick to what has been on the page historically (i.e. with the I-P hat link), or adopt 2/0 compromise and us I-P & disambig hat links. Agreed? NickCT (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Again, bringing a few URLS is not evidence. I could bring 2000 to show that Occupied territories means German-occupied land. To get consensus, we will need more editors to comment, hopefully a variety of people like 2/0 suggested on the milhist board. --Shuki (talk) 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Since it exists, the (disambiguation) page should be linked in the hatnote. As a caveat, please do not weight my opinion on any other matter, as I have no intention of getting involved here. Thanks, - 2/0 (cont.) 20:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Shuki - As you well know, I wasn't simply "bringing links". I was demonstrating that majority of links available using the term "occupied terrorities" referred overwhelming to I-P. I'm beginning to wonder whether "occupied terrorities" should go directly to the disambiguous page, as sugested by WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Anyways, I will post to Milhist as suggested. NickCT (talk) 01:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. While Google testing and news articles are all well and good and helpful, reliable, scholarly sources are needed to show that the term "occupied territories" overwhelmingly refers to, in the public's eye, Israeli-occupied territories. If sources can be found that explicitly prove this, then the hatnote should certainly be included. Also, this discussion needs to be mentioned on the talk pages of all related WikiProjects, not just WikiProject Military History. The reason why I say this is that I've seen editors accused of canvassing as they only mentioned a discussion on some related WikiProjects' talk pages but not others. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this article itself should be at the singular, Occupied territory, per WP:SINGULAR. as pointed out in the section #Singular and remove irrelevant historical passages above. Then the DAB page could be at Occupied territories, as suggested by Laurinavicius. - BilCat (talk) 07:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
This is absolutely ridiculous. There is a disambiguation page and people are arguing that we shouldn't be linking to it? How does that make any sense? If we aren't going to link back to the disambiguation page, then why does it even exist? And to the person who continuously made edits claiming that we have to stick to the "historical consensus", you are full of yourself. Just because nobody noticed the problem for a while doesn't mean that there was any consensus. Putting a link to a specific example of an article at the top of the article in this manner is absolutely inappropriate and I challenge you to find other examples of things like this on Wikipedia. It just makes no sense, and I'm actually astounded that you even have the nerve to argue that it's appropriate. The fact that the page was protected in this state is further testament to the backwardness of so many of the admins here. It's really quite a shame. Breein1007 (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur with BilCat that this article should be in the singular. There should be a hatnote from here to the disambiguation page for "occupied territories" (plural). In the absence of a good source that "Occupied Territories" (note use of caps) predominantly refers to the Palestine situation, no further hatnote would be needed. If the capped phrase is shown to refer significantly to the Palestine situation, then that would be a suitable redirect to Israeli-occupied territories with a hatnote there to the disambiguation page. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
To Breein1007 - I challenge you to find other examples of things like this on Wikipedia see salmonella
To GraemeLeggett - good source that "Occupied Territories" predominantly refers to the Palestine situation What is "a good source"!?!? Please look at salmonella and note the hatnote to Salmonellosis. Is that appropriate?!? Where is the "good source" for that?
To Laurinavicius - see my note to GraemeLeggett
NickCT (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Rereading these responses I think User:BilCat touched on the correct action to take. Unless there are objections I am going to rename this article "Occupied Territory", remove the contraversial hatlink, and point "Occupied Territories" towards the DAB page. Admins please unlock. I will wait 48 hrs for objection before making the change. NickCT (talk) 15:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
First of all, "good source" is one that is both scholarly and reliable. Second, salmonella and salmonellosis are noticeably related, as salmonellosis comes from salmonella. However, in the case of the relationship between Israeli-occupied territories and this article, a "good source" would be needed to prove that the popular definition of "occupied territories" are those occupied. Third, I also concur with BilCat and Graeme that this article title should be singular and that the hatnote be one to the disambiguation page, which would be entitled "Occupied territories". My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey Lauri, I appreciate your point. If I could pose a hypothetical; suppose term X can refern article A, B, C or D, where A is the technical meaning of the term, ,B is what the term is overidingly used to mean, and C&D are rarely used meanings of the term. I think I previously felt that searching term X should give you A with a hatnote to B. Rexamining this though I think my opinion has fallen in line with WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Searching term X should give the DAB page.
Admins, please unlock, we are near consensus. NickCT (talk) 04:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, an admin will have to do the page moves also, for technical reasons, since pages exist at both titles already. This enables the page histories to be moved along witht he rest of the article. Moves vie "cut-and-paste" break up the article's history, so are not allowed. That's jsut the way the wiki-software is set up. I don't think we'll need to have a formal move discussion first, but that will be up to the reviewing admin. - BilCat (talk) 04:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

And again[edit]

I know this is an old conversation, but I think there should be a link either to the Occupied Palestinian Territories or to a disambiguation page. Organisations which refer to Palestine as Occupied Territories, either as 'the Occupied Territories' or 'Israel and the Occupied Territories' or 'the Occupied Palestinian Territories' include:

The US State Department, as 'Israel and the Occupied Territories' "1" The ICRC, ditto "2" Human Rights Watch, ditto "3" B'Tselem, as 'the Occupied Territories' "4"

Most of the above organisations are international, and therefore, their reference to the Occupied Territories, without 'Palestinian' suggest that it's the common reference point. The page links to some album nobody's ever heard of, so why not to the OPTs? ( (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

I see no reason not to challenge the longstanding consensus. Basic Google search result comparison shows that OPT is the most "popular" occupied territory in the world. Thus, I'm adding the link to the {{about}} template, let's see if it holds. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Page protection[edit]

I have protected the page for a month because AFAICT there is no agreement in the section above this one (#Israeli-Occupied Territories Link) and there is a slow revert war going on. I suggest that NickCT and Shuki (as the editors chiefly engaged both on the talk page and reverting, follow the Wikipedia dispute resolution procedure and reach a consensus on this issue. -- PBS (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip, I don't know how to tell you this but it is very 'weenie' and like the 3RR I opened on Nick - stale. The edit war is over, in fact the article has not been touched in two days. The page protection is unwarranted and suspect. I've suggested pages for protection in the past that were being actively vandalized and was turned down since the admins are committed to using it as a last resort. --Shuki (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree w/ Shuki (surpringly enough). This edit war has turned sorta into a cold war. Not sure about the protection being "suspect" though. NickCT (talk) 01:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll take the page protection off if Shuki and NickCT either both agree to the hatnote as it is, or agree to use the wp:dispute resolution processes and promise not to revert to their preferred version of a hatnote until the dispute is resolved. -- PBS (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I promise I'll be a good boy. NickCT (talk) 13:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Of course you promise. The page is already in your preferred version. It's a lose-lose situation for Shuki. He can either disagree and keep it protected, meaning it stays in its current state, or agree but not be able to revert, meaning it stays in its current state. Sad. Breein1007 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Wow Breein, you seem mighty pro-Shuki. Is there a reason for this? You guys pals? Do me a favor next time and read my comments before make your baseless assertions. As you'll notice from my earlier post in section above, I've basicly conceded to removing the link that Shuki was disputing.
At least Shuki attempts to disguise his POV pushing with some form of debate. Breein seems content to just point fingers and make accusations. Not helpful Breein. Beyond sad. NickCT (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
NickCT your last posting to this section would have been more positive if you had simply said "Not so, because I've basicly conceded to removing the link that Shuki was disputing.", because phrasing it as you did you are inviting Breein to comment on your opinions of him/her rather than the substance of your concession to the content of this page. --PBS (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

When Shuki agrees not to revert the hatnote I'll remove the protection and I'll make it possible for anyone to move the page (using the move tab) to occupied territory. -- PBS (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

PBS - Breein1007 is a naughty blighter who needs spankings! I appreciate your attempts to preserve a civil tone; however, if no one points out to trollish little POV pushers that they are trollish little POV pushers they begin to think their opinions matter! But perhaps you're right. Perhaps I will try to be more positive in future. Breein1007 - let's work together to figure out something we can all agree on.
Justifying you actions with another personal comment is not helpful. -- PBS (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Regarding unlocking - PBS - I think we are agreed that once the page is shifted to occupied territory the hatnote can be removed! As I was the one arguing it should be there in the first place, I think we have reached consensus that the hatnote can be reverted. Can you unlock now? NickCT (talk) 15:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
unlocked and occupied territory has one edit in the history -- PBS (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm glad that we have this lovely record of comments to refer back to in the future when we need to find evidence to judge a person's conduct and general attitude to dealing with other editors on Wikipedia. It will definitely come in handy. As for the article, the solution is acceptable. Thanks, PBS. Good work. Breein1007 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Breein1007 - I'm glad that we have this lovely record to remind us of why we're ignoring you. NickCT (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

:::::Do me a favour and hold to that. I'd be happy to not have to interact with you anymore if this is how it's going to be. So ignore away! In terms of "we", I would suggest that you either speak for yourself, or ask your doctor for an increase in dose of your meds; seems like your multiple personalities are acting up. Breein1007 (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm striking this out to be the bigger man. I'll just note that NickCT's attack against me is as of now still in tact above. Breein1007 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Philip, I don't understand why I had to promise anything, the edit war was over when someone violated 3RR and then became 'stale'. Anyway, you moved fast. I guess I admire they way the issue was handled and maybe you could be on call for other issues/conflicts? :-) As for the dab page, that should be a hatnote here, and / or a 'list of occupied'. --Shuki (talk) 23:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

If the edit war was stale then promising not to do something that you had no intention of doing is not a burden and if it helped solve the problem, then it did no harm. As to whether the edit war was over, I noticed that you waited more than 24 hours to revert a similar edit (to that made by made NickCT) at 03:54 on 11 December by, and have you considered what would have happened if on 17th someone had reverted to your preferred version? Please do not answer that question here, if you want to, then do so on my talk page as this conversation has moved beyond development of this article onto judgement calls, and that is something better discussed on a user's talk page.-- PBS (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Page merge[edit]

Now that the page has been renamed Occupied territory we should consider whether the distinction between Military occupation and Occupied territory justifies having two articles or if they are a content fork of the same information. Opinions? -- PBS (talk) 11:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Good catch. That's definitely a fork... the pages should be merged. Occupied territory is just territory under military occupation. No reason that the two articles would have different information that doesn't apply to the other page, and therefore there's no reason that both need to exist. Breein1007 (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
To me, Occupied territory should deal with the ramifications to the territory itself, while Military occupation whould deal with the specifics of the occupying force. There would naturally be some overlap, but I think we can sustain two distinct articles. More than likely, they have both been edited by people unaware of the existance of the other page. If we find we can't sustain both article separately, then I'd support a merge. - BilCat (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I concur with Bilcat. NickCT (talk) 20:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with BilCat's proposal, as it just seems to make more sense to me than simply merging the two article together. My regards, Laurinavicius (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Surly there are no ramifications to the territory itself, the ramifications are to the population of the territory, and that is mixed up with the policies and behaviour of the occupying force. See the "list of military occupations" pick at random one of the occupations between the world wars and then explain to me what it is that would be in this article and what would be in the military occupation article. -- PBS (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh. I had assumed the population of the occupied territory could be discussed on theOccupied territory page. And I still do, as those issues are not always related to the occupation itself. Anyway, the merge is definitely contested, so we ought to start a formaal merge process, with merge tags on the articles. - BilCat (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
I still concur with Bilcat. I think there are fundemental differences between the terms "Military occupation" and "Occupied Territories" that justify seperate articles. For instance, thinking of Irag and/or Afghanistan; They are under "military occupation", but couldn't really accurately be called "occupied territories". If you think a distinction like this one is valid, than it follows that there should be seperate articles. NickCT (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
What makes you think that Iraq is under occupation? Didn't the occupation of Iraq ended with Resolution 1546? And aren't the NATO forces assisting the widely recognised government and not occupying the country? Do you have any examples of occupied territories which are not under physical military occupation or where the occupier can deploy troops into the territory whenever it needs to enforce its dictates (see the hostages trial)? -- PBS (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Resolution 1546 seems a curiously technical way of defining when the Iraqi military occupation ended. Whenever a foreign power has significant numbers of armed forces in a country who operate essentially outside the governance of that country's government, the country is de facto "occupied". I'm sure you'd accept that whether or not a country is truely occupied is often POV?
As the article makes clear the term "occupied territory" is a legal one, so it is not a curiously technical way of defining when the Iraqi military occupation ended. The simplest way to define when an occupation starts and ends is with Security Council resolutions -- or other internationally recognised bodies -- and why those occupations that do not involve internationally recognised bodies (such as "occupation" of parts of the old Soviet Union are difficult to decide). Without the UN as a yardstick we end up in the Alice in Wonderland situation were places like Northern Ireland may be a militarily occupied province of Ireland (see Talk:Military occupation#Northern Ireland), and the sovereignty of many UN member states is open to question. Take a look at the Eritrean–Ethiopian War who occupies/occupied Badme? It is easiest to emphasise the judgement of the Permanent Court of Arbitration to present a NPOV without having to go into every detail (see Liancourt Rocks dispute for where the NPOV for territorial disputes can end up). -- PBS (talk) 19:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
But regardless, the terms "occupied territories" and "military occupation" also denote differences in scale. Whole countries are usually subject to military occupation, while in general "occupied territories" refer to lands that arn't distinct or entire countries. This might sound like POV but I think I can back this up if you give me a moment to research. NickCT (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Hey PBS. Adding to this line of thought. Would you call WWII German occupied Czechislovakia an "occupied territory"? How about when the Russians moved in? Was it an "occupied territory" then? To me, the current definition of "occupied territory" doesn't usually apply to whole countries. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I think you have forgotten that the article has been move to "Occupied territory". A state has to have territory by definition, so yes when the Germans occupied Czechoslovakia, the territory of Czechislovakia was occupied. I find your distinction difficult to follow when you write "'occupied territories' and 'military occupation' also denote differences in scale". When the Argentinians invaded South Georgia and the Falkland Islands wasn't what immediately followed a military occupation of British territory? I think the answer is yes so do you have a number of sources that makes the distinction you are making? -- PBS (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I understand Nick's logic - occupied territory is for a plot of land, but military occupation is for an entire country. But I agree with Philip and that we try to avoid editing here based on 'it seems to me'. --Shuki (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
PBS - The falklands were absolutely an example of "occupied territory" post-invasion. Note, the falklands aren't an entire country or even a significant portion of a country. This fact in my mind makes them simply "occupied territories".
Shuki - Thanks for the "understanding". It's nice to see we can agree on something. Now that we are on the same side of the argument, let me ask you the same question I asked you earlier. How do we find reliable sources that makes this kind of distinction? I contend that for nuances between terminology of this nature, it is virtually impossilbe to dig up RS that explicitly supports your position. I challenge you to find something that spells out what 'seems to us' to be the case.
PBS&Shuki - I think it's fair to ask "can you provide "a number of sources that makes the distinction" between "occupied territory" and "military occupation"". But, at the same time I think it's equally fair to say "can you provide a number of sources that says the two terms are the same?". I think as PBS is suggesting a change from the historical norm, the onus of proof is on him.
One final point (apologies for overly long posts); PBS keep in mind that there are undoubtly "legal" definitions for both these terms, but there are also definitions that exist in the public phsyci. Wikipedia should try address both of these. NickCT (talk) 13:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Nick, you misunderstood me. I understand what you are trying to say but certainly I do not agree with you on this since you are the one trying to make what 'seems to you' stick here and I challenge you to prove what you are trying to push here. There are two issues here: WP:V and consensus. V is preferred, but many times consensus is accepted as well. --Shuki (talk) 23:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

<--Outdent Nick, do you have any sources, that justify keeping two articles along the lines you are suggesting? The Falklands were under military occupation and the territory was occupied (they mean one and the same thing). Do you have any sources to back up your assertion that they are different in the way you have described? You may wish to look for articles that concentrate on the difference as defined by Article 6 of GCIV. "The present Convention shall apply ... In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation," but that has nothing to do with whether a whole country is occupied or not, and unless we can construct a clear distinction between occupations of under one year and over one year, and have enough different material to justify two articles, then it is better that all the information is contained within one article. -- PBS (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

PBS - Why do you continue to insist the onus is on me to demonstrate/provide proof that the definition for the terms are different? You are suggesting a change here. The onus is on you to demostrate/prove the terms are the same.
I do understand your point. I do accept that often times "military occupation" and "occupied territories" are terms that go hand-in-hand. My contention is that the nuances surrounding how the terms are used justify seperate pages. If you can find for me some source stating that "all occupied territories involve military occupation" and "all military occupations create occupied territories" I'll join your effort. However, lacking this I think you will have to achieve consensus for your arguement that the pages ought to be merged.
Re Article 6 of GCIV - Again, I think perhaps you are being a little to legalistic regarding your definitions. Remember that terms like "Murder"/"execution"/"occupied territory"/"crime against humanity" have legal definitions, and definitions in the popular psychi defined outside law. Starting from a legalistic definition is a good idea, but we shouldn't be entirely focused on that definition. I think a useful way to go about looking at the popular psychi is by examining news articles, and seeing how they treat the terms.
Shuki - Consensus on something that is not verifiable is simply the majority of 'seems to me'. I think you realize that in discussing definitions of terminology WP:V is often difficult/impossible. Furthermore, I'm simply stating the opinion that "It seems to me the terms are different." and asking PBS to verify otherwise. I think the only option here will ultimately be to seek consensus.
I guess I'm interested really in the larger question, which is, when dealing with terms of this nature is there anyway of really arriving at definitions besides consensus? I think not. I also think there a huge morass of pages & articles where we could have simliar disputes. NickCT (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
NickCT you ask "PBS - Why do you continue to insist the onus is on me to demonstrate/provide proof that the definition for the terms are different?". Because you stated "But regardless, the terms "occupied territories" and "military occupation" also denote differences in scale. Whole countries are usually subject to military occupation, while in general "occupied territories" refer to lands that arn't distinct or entire countries. This might sound like POV but I think I can back this up if you give me a moment to research." and you have yet to provide any proof that they are. The Wikipedia article Military occupation#Military occupation and the laws of war backs up my interpretation with a definition from Hague:
Art. 42. 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.
If you consider this quote from a primary source to be confusing, then my position is explained in great detail in the ICRC commentaries on the IV Geneva Convention see specifically Part I : General provisions, and Article 47. There are plenty of sources which explain what occupied territory is and they mostly make reference to Hague and GCIV. -- PBS (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
1) Apologies for not looking up examples yet. I should do so, give me a little more time.
2) Re Art 42; note that it doesn't say "Territory is considered occupied when it is under military occupation". It also doesn't say "Military occupation is defined as any situation where occuppied territory is involved" I still see nothing that explicity links the term "military occupation" with "occupied territory".
3) You rely very heavily on legal definitions. I admit looking to the legal sphere when trying to define terminology is a good place to start, and I think your point is valid. But I ask you to remember that terms have meanings outside law, and users of wikipedia maybe interested in all meanings.
4) Let me pose you another question; if marshall law is declared in New York City for some reason and Obama calls in the army to maintain the peace, I think one might use the term "military occupation" in that case, even though there would be no "hostile" army involved. I think we can both agree that New York under marshall law would not be "occuppied territory". As long as one can legimately point to places where the two terms aren't synonomus like this, I think it justifies seperate pages.
5) I suggest two potential immediate resolutions for this conflict (a. we call for opinions from other editors and agree to yield to majority opinion, b. we put hatlinks on the "military occupation" and "occupied territories" article pointing to each other). Are either of these acceptable? NickCT (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Had time to read the sources yet? You have not yet produced one source that says that occupied territory refers to anything other than territory under belligerent military occupation, or territory as defined under section 47 of the GCIV. To go through your points one at a time. (1) How long do you need? (2) It say it is occupied when under the authority of a hostile army which is military occupation! (3) You have yet to produce one reliable source, to back up your assertion, at the moment you do not have enough to include it under "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."(WP:DUE) let alone have a separate article. (4) It would not be "occupied territory" because it would not be a hostile army doing the occupation. It only becomes occupied territory if a state of civil war exists and the rebels are belligerents. (5) Consensus has to be built around policies and guidelines, come up with some sources that start to justify two articles and we can develop a consensus. -- PBS (talk) 11:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Quick response here - If you concede point 4, that New York would be under "military occupation" but would not be an "occupied territory"; doesn't that mean the terms are different? NickCT (talk) 12:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No what states do internally with their own military (placing areas under military law) has nothing to do with (belligerent) military occupation and occupied territory (No one claims that Fort Bragg is under military occupation or is occupied territory). You wrote above "But regardless, the terms "occupied territories" and "military occupation" also denote differences in scale. Whole countries are usually subject to military occupation, while in general "occupied territories" refer to lands that arn't distinct or entire countries. This might sound like POV but I think I can back this up if you give me a moment to research." Do you still think you can back up the statement if so why haven't you? -- PBS (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ok PBS. I don't think you're going to like this, but here you go. I went to google. Typed in either "occupied territory" or "military occupation" and looked for news articles. I grabbed the first 10 articles that used those terms and determined which regions was being reffered to by the term. Here's the results -
Military Occupation
Okra Region of Pakistan
Occupied Territory
Lands siezed from Eritria by Ethopia
Tskhinvali region
This sorta supports my point. The term "Occupied Territory" is rarely used in relation to occupations that involve larger regions or whole countries. Please don't call this OR (i could reference each source if it makes you feel better). I think this is a fair, randomized test of how the terms are commonly used in media.
Additionally, I think you'll note that there is an important distinction between "military occupation" and "belligerent military occupation". I think the current military occupation article is a little flawed in that it seems to assume all military occupation is belligerent. This complicates things...... NickCT (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

<--outdent. I am interested to see if the sources you are quoting are authoritative, but the list you give is meaningless without the Google searches you did and links to the articles. Please provide articles that make the distinction that you are making. Also when someone writes the "Germany occupied Norway" it is a short hand for "the belligerent military occupation by the German armed forces of the sovereign territory of Norway" it is assumed that the reader understands that that is what is implied by the shorter phrase. If it were not then most of the treaties that cover this issue would be meaningless. -- PBS (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Google news search - "Military Occupation"
3.Israel Palestine
4. Isreal Palestine
5. Okra region of pakistan
[1] 6. Isreal Palestine]
10.Isreal Palestine
Google news search - "Occupied Territories"
1.Isreal Palestine
2.Isreal Palestine
3.Isreal Palestine
4.Eritrean lands siezed by Ethopia
5.Isreal Palestine
6.Israel Palestine
7.Isreal Palestine
8.Isreal Palestine
9.Dispute Sino-Indian Territories
10.Tskhinvali region
Some of the sources are "authoritative". Some are second rate news organizations. Remember however that I'm focusing on how the terms are commonly used, not who is using them.
On the second point; obviously if you say "The german occupation of Norway" people would understand you were talking about "belligerent military occupation". But if I said "the military occupation of New York city", I might just be referring the national guard being called in. Interestingly, one of the references I gave you (5. Okra region of pakistan), uses "military occupation" in this sense (i.e. non-belligerent military occupation). NickCT (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

<-- Afaict not one of those articles is authoritative, and most of them are using the terms to make a political points not to present a scholarly definition. Take for example the first and the one you highlight "our military occupation of another country" which scors a political point which calling the deployment by its official name the "Mentoring and Reconstruction Task Force" does not. The Ausis have about 1,500 men in Afganistan,[2] which is hardly enough to occupy the whole of Afghanistan which is what you contend is the meaning of "military occupaition". As for the one you highlight please! it is not an reliable source and I can find you dozens of such statements about British forces in NI during the troubles, but that is a political point of view and like the first one above uses those terms for political not legal or academic purposes. Have you any legal or academic sources that support you contention "But regardless, the terms "occupied territories" and "military occupation" also denote differences in scale. Whole countries are usually subject to military occupation, while in general "occupied territories" refer to lands that arn't distinct or entire countries"? because unless you do there is no justification for having separate articles.-- PBS (talk) 03:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

"Belligerent occupation" is a term of art in Law. "Occupied territories" refers to the legal status of territories under belligerent occupation but it has also a broader meaning in political and diplomatic discourse. "Military occupation", although it usually refers to belligerent occupation, it could refer hypotetically to situations not governed by international humanitarian law, such as invited forces, internal police or security operations, failed states, or low level violence that does not trigger the applicability of IHL. From this point of view, perhaps the best solution would be to retain the 2 articles, but with different scopes. One on Belligerent occupation, on the legal rights and obligations of the occupaing power and the population (problably changing the current tittle and moving out the concrete examples), and another one on occupied territories, dealing with the concrete situations were there has been (or it has been claimed to be) an occupation. -- Bonifacius 13:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Re "Afaict not one of those articles is authoritative," - As I'd said, I picked out the ten most recent stories from a google news search. I specificly pointed out I wasn't claiming the stories were RS. I wasn't interested in getting facts from them. I was interested in seeing how the terms are used in media (authoritative or otherwise).
Re "any legal or academic sources that support" - Again, as I've said, terms of the nature we're discussing have meanings outside purely legal contexts. This fact seems to escape you. A whole series of terms "murder, homicide, kidnap, under the influence" mean one thing in the legal sphere, and another in the public phsyci.
Re "? because unless you do there is no justification for having separate articles.-- " - Again, as I've said, I don't see why the onus is on me provide something explicitly stating the terms are different. Please provide legal or academic sources which explicitly state that the terms are the same.
Thanks for your input. I think creating yet another article (i.e. Belligerent Occupation) might be unecessarily complex. But it might be viable. Let's see what PBS thinks. NickCT (talk) 17:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I´m not suggesting creating a new article. I´m just suggesting reverting Military occupation to its original tittle and scope. The tittle was changed in 2005-06 to use the more common (journalistic?) formulation, (see Talk:Military occupation#Belligerent occupation → Military occupation ) at the price of lossing clarity and bringing in a host of political problems. Now, if you were to separate the legal norms from the factual situations, both articles would win precision and clarity.
There is yet another posibility: merging (belligerent) Military occupation and Occupied territory, to deal with the whole legal regime in sigle place, and moving out all the material on the specific situations to Occupied Territories (in the plural). It should be noted that the plural is already used to refer to the specific cases. Now, if this is what PBS meant in his proposal, I'm in favor. -- Bonifacius 11:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I strongly oppose this , military occupation is very general on one side yet includes things that aren't related to the legal status og territories under whatever political agreements. This essentially implies that disputed territories after a certain time frame and exclusive agreemtns are under the process of conquest , this might sound a little off but remember that the typical wikipedia reader often doesn't allocate much time and is often in an age\educational level where he has to learn about such things first hand. merging\linking de jure definitions with conquest will make both articles unreadable let alone will give in the mainstream politics that wikiedia tries to distance itself from (or any politics) via the no POV pushing pillar it stands on and will give a stamp of aproval to political decisions that have nothing to do with wikipedia while angering others which will lead to more edit wars and more drag. why is akhazia and south osetia under a state of tactical conquest by russia? the UN and other political organizations would like to say it is and would very like this little stamp from the worlds biggest popular encyclopedia, or israel . There are many editors who dedicate their time here to pushing their agenda in subtle or less subtle ways and deleting the presentation\slurs\facts of others because "it's not neutral" we all know who they are from their own userboxes. the IJC is a political body with an automatic majority on certain things restrained only by whatever miiimal responsibility it has to be credible in the future. there are infact no classic scenarios of 20th century law occupation and other scenarios are not legaly discussed (due to power politics) that's why there is a need for separate articles that aren't going to get any smaller anyway. the decision to merge is destructive and obstructive of the information that could be derived in the current state Shiftadot (talk) 22:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't make head or tail of Shiftadot's comment. I can see no striking differences between these two terms and think they should be merged. Occupied territory is a area under military occupation. The two are the same. Chesdovi (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)


The section on A&SO is not NPOV, as it only includes opinion, of sorts, of Georgia. In opposition to the Georgian POV it only mentions that Russia recognises the two states as independent. It does not mention that only Georgia and Lithuania regards A&SO as being occupied - and the US de facto does due to their statements from the State Deparment. But it doesn't mention counter-claims to Georgia's claims that it is occupied territory. It is the opinion of the RF that A&SO are independent states, and that relations between RF and A&SO are built on international norms (and they cite plenty of international laws and precedents when doing so). This section also quotes Venice Commission report on the law that Georgia passed. As their report states "The question of the legal status of South Ossetia (Georgia) and Abkhazia (Georgia) is not subject of the present opinion; the Preamble as well as Article 1 and 2 will therefore not be commented upon." The existence of the opinion of this commission in this article is quite vague, as they aren't commenting on whether A&SO are occupied territories, but are opining only on the Georgian law, as evidenced in their conclusion - only opinions on aspects of the law are offered, nothing on the legal question of A&SO is provided. This section needs to be expanded and NPOV'ed before the POV dispute tags can be removed. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Russian rationale of its recognition of Georgian territories belong to the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia not here. It's suffice to mention Russia's recognition here. And you claims regarding vagueness of the latter part of the passage are rather vague as the article clearly says that Georgia based its claims regarding the Russian military occupation on a special law and the Venice commission opined on the law. Yes, the section needs to be expanded, but this is not a reason to put NPOV tag here just because you are anaphylactic to anything that is not in line with the Kremlin's propaganda. --KoberTalk 05:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, kindly stop removing dispute tags when there is a dispute here. It is not suffice to mention Russia's recognition here, as Georgia has made the claim that Russia is occupying the independent states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia based on the fact that Russian troops are present on the territory of those countries. It is Russia's position that this is absurd, as any their troops are stationed in those countries based upon inter-governmental agreements and treaties which conform with international law. This is completely different to the recognition of these two states. Additionally, the Venice Commission report is not opining on whether these territories are occupied or not, it is opining only on the Georgian law. And the question is being asked, why is that not not being made clear in this article, and why has only that quote been selectively chosen for placement in this article? (Mind you, the quote chosen is actually critical of the law in the context of their report). Until such time as all major POVs are put into the section, the POV tag needs to remain. If you doubt this, you are welcome to welcome to seek a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 12:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, I'm waiting for sources for "Russia's position that this is absurd, as any their troops are stationed in those countries based upon inter-governmental agreements and treaties which conform with international law." Second, does any part of the article say that the Venice Commission report is opining on the actual status of Georgian territories? Third, please provide the passage from the Report which, in your opinion, would eliminate the vagueness of the current version. Otherwise I will have to assume that you have no aim other than disrupting the article. --KoberTalk 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is Kosovo not included? -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the discussion of Kosovo on this page. That does not make clear which outside country, or outside force, the writer thinks is occupying Kosovo. Kosovo seems to qualify as a state with limited recognition, and is included on that page. But if it is going to be included on this page, there should be an explanation of who is occupying it and how.

Most of the examples on this page are ridiculous. Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. are not cases of military occupation; they are secessionist statelets. When "occupied" is used in these cases, it's just a partisan way of saying "those people have control over our territory and we don't like it, so we will call them illegitimate despots". The only truly relevant examples on this page are the Israeli-occupied territories, which are frequently called "occupied territories" by scholars, media, and many legal documents, and have sources which discuss the use of the term in relation to those territories. They are the only reason we could have an article named "occupied territory" separate from military occupation and List of military occupations, but as it stands, this article is a mess of synthesis and would probably be better redirected to military occupation. Shrigley (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)