Talk:List of military occupations/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RE:not really true and the article is about occupations, not annexations

@ImTheIP: Can you expand upon [1]? What are you saying is untrue and that the sources did not cover? Further, nothing in the removed text made the article about annexation. while arguably that information is less important in a more modern context (illegal annexations being occupations), certainly in a more historical context it would be worth mentioning. PreWWII?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In common parlance "annexation" means "the occupying state declared the territory as its own." Western Sahara was annexed by Morocco in 1975, East Jerusalem by Israel in 1980 and so on. These annexations are unlawful, illegal and invalid and not of the "legal under IL" kind that the sentence I removed discusses. One can try and distinguish between these two kinds of annexation types, but why bother? No purported annexations in modern times that I know of have been legal under IL.

As was brought up by another editor, the sentence made the article internally inconsistent. If annexation is distinguished from occupation and Israel successfully (whether by legal or illegal means) has annexed territory then that territory cannot be occupied. So I thought the sentence made the article more confusing but restore it if you want. ImTheIP (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

In common parlance certainly you are correct. However we aren't discussing common parlance, we are discussing international law. In international law there is a distinction between the two. If people would stop trying to distinguish between the two WP:OR that issue would go away. Anyway, the reason I ask is because this has been the long term consensus version since at least 2015. It merits discussion. Anyway lets see if anyone else ways in.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:22, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

International acceptance is different from the situation on the ground, and we should distinguish between the two. As for success of annexation in modern times, well - Tibet, Annexation of Goa, Western New Guinea, South Vietnam, South Yemen (well - in as much as anything in Yemen can be called a success) - There have also been several smaller transfers of territory, by treaty, between states - e.g. India–Bangladesh enclaves. If and when the international community accepts a move (with or without a bilateral agreement) - what was commonly called illegal under international law becomes legal. Icewhiz (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, Annexation is a defined legal concept. Crucially it is "a unilateral act". New Guinea was ceded not annexed, Vietnam and Yemen were bilateral unifications. Tibet was similar, with a legitimacy dispute similar to the New Guinea one. These were not annexations, and legal sources do not refer to them as such. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

To SJP's original question, I think the "Military occupation is distinguished from annexation..." piece should not have been removed (it's crucial for readers of this article, given the annexation column in the tables). However, it could and should be improved to reflect the point now sourced to DG-EXPO re occupations ongoing. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

I slightly disagree. But if it has to remain, it should be rewritten so that it is clear that occupation is distinguished from legal "recognized" annexation. ImTheIP (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

A rewrite for clarity and that is in line with the sources would be good. The over all effort, represented elsewhere, to make everything fit in a little box for the sake of consistency is however foolish. Many come here with two eyes and they see their special interest listed and then they don't see anything else. There are inconsistencies thru out this article. The type of annexations used by Nazi Germany would have been legal during the time. In fact many of the international laws regarding annexations directly after WWII were codified in response to that. Should we remove the Occupation of Polish territory then? No. Because this is original research. The sources say Poland was occupied from etc to etc. Clarity, I support it. Original research, no thanks.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If we're going to follow historical precedent, we should not consider whether an annexation is legal according to the international norms of the day, but merely whether it is effective, demilitarized, and locally legal. De facto trumps de jure for the purposes of documenting what really happened. When a territory is no longer forcibly occupied, and a civilian administration is in place, it has been effectively annexed. Certainly many countries and observers will not recognize the annexation: we should explain who recognizes it or not, but per the article's title we should not call "military occupation" any functioning regime that is no longer militarily dominated. — JFG ^talk 18:51, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

If we are going to follow Wikipedia precedent we should base it on what the sources say and avoid original research. What you are proposing is original research. And offtopic, is anyone experiencing any type of bug when clicking the Tildes below for signing your posts in the editing window?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

We can describe the status of affected territories without resorting to original research: how we choose to represent the situation on the ground is a matter of editorial judgment. There are sources for every conceivable POV, so that we must pick a reasonable stance and explain any deviations from it due to particular circumstances. Given the article title, I believe we should use as a baseline the military nature of any occupation. — JFG ^talk 02:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with that line of thinking Im sorry to say. NPOV requires to represent POVs proportionally, not according to some ill-defined "editorial judgment". If the preponderance of the best quality sources say something, then we are required to include it with its due weight. Re "De facto trumps de jure for the purposes of documenting what really happened", maybe if you are writing a travel guide, but not an encyclopedia article on an international law topic. Editorial judgment does not in any way allow us to skip around WP:NPOV. Your argument that per the article's title we should not call "military occupation" any functioning regime that is no longer militarily dominated does just that. It imposes your own view over what the majority of reliable sources say. And beyond that, it distorts the meaning of the title of the article. "Military occupation" is not dependent on a functioning regime that is militarily dominated. Military occupation is dependent on a. a state having effective military control over a territory b. the territory is outside that states sovereign territory. The end. It does not matter if it is civilian police forces or uniformed military patrolling the streets. nableezy - 05:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with providing more information. Editorial discretion, in the frame work of wikipedia policy, is also important and I would suggest has long been practiced here. However removing territory because some one wants to argue historical precedent, when the sources suggest that in the view the international community there is an occupation is not editorial discretion. Editorial discretion is removing Kashmir because collectively we have been unable to paint a clear picture with the sources of what the situation is, much less an occupation. The arguments for inclusion of Kashmir are generally that by not including it is unfair to Israel. With little actual discussion of Kashmir, rarely any sources, and primarily discussion of Israel. WP:IDHT would perhaps describe such disccussions very well. In context both the Majority POV and the minority POV here are represented by the international community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Crimea

Crimea was removed via a now archived talk page consensus by JFG towards the end of July. Consensus maintained since until added back about a week ago. Removed since multiple times to maintain the prior consensus by multiple users. In order to cease the slow motion edit war I'm opening this discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:14, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Related to the discussion above. Clearly under civilian administration (annexed/incorporated into Russia as Federal Subject) - however the vast majority (minor exceptions) does not recognize the annexation and sees the territory as illegally occupied (and part of the same position is that the rules of military occupation should apply to the territory). In my view, this should be (along with other annexations opposed by most of the world) in a separate sub-heading than "Ongoing military occupations". Icewhiz (talk) 09:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

To be clear I argued against the prior removal and I do think it should be in the article. I've reviewed (in the distant past) a number of sources that indicate the international position that it is an occupation. Here's a more recent one from the US . My understanding of the sources I've viewed is that the International community views Crimea as a Military Occupation. I'm not aware of where, even with swapping camo for police uniforms, the international community has changed its position.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

We are back to discussing whether a territory is more or less annexed depending on the level of international recognition of said annexation. The Crimea situation is similar to the Anschluss, in that the occupied territory has been formally incorporated into the occupying power's territory, legal and administrative structures, the local population welcomes the move, and nationality of the occupier is conferred upon them. Of course lots of nations did not recognize the Anschluss then, and lots of nations do not recognize Russian Crimea now, nevertheless Crimea is just as much annexed to Russia now as Austria was annexed to the German Reich in 1938. A war ensued, Germany lost, its territory was in turn occupied by the winning powers (from 1945 to 1949 for East and West Germany, until 1955 for Austria, until 1957 for Saar and until 1990 for West Berlin), and finally new independent states were created there, including the modern Austrian republic in 1955. Had Germany prevailed in World War II, there would be no discussion about Austria having been annexed and being an integral part of the German Reich since 1938. As post-war history unfolded, the territory of Austria remained under foreign occupation for longer under the Allies than under the Reich! With Crimea, nobody knows whether it will be eventually recognized (à la Tibet) or whether the opponents will go to war with Russia to restore prior Ukrainian territory. In the meantime, it is fully annexed to Russia, notwithstanding the protestations of Ukraine, EU, USA et al. In the immediate aftermath of the annexation, the UN General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution with 100 votes for, 11 against and 58 abstentions, so that is far from unanimous rejection. A 2016 vote on the "situation of human rights in Ukraine" gathered even less support, at 70 votes for, 26 against and 77 abstentions. In comparison, the annexation of East Jerusalem in 1980 was rebuked quasi-unanimously by the UN Security Council in Resolution 478 with 14 votes for and 1 abstention. A UNSC resolution is legally binding. This state of affairs at the highest international body pleads for keeping East Jerusalem in the current occupations while leaving Crimea in the "occupied and subsequently annexed" table. — JFG ^talk 16:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Note also that international recognition can take decades, e.g. Tibet was only recognized in 2008 by the EU and 2014 by the US. Was it occupied or annexed before those external powers said so? We'll find myriads of well-sourced POVs for both sides, so that we are, as encyclopedists, compelled to reflect facts on the ground and disagreements among players. — JFG ^talk 16:49, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

And yes, we are discussing this again. Above there is yet another conversation on EJ. In light of the slow motion edit war it would seem advisable. Yes you are correct, per WP:CRYSTALBALL, that we can not divine if in the future events. Away from wikipedia policy, there is no scientific evidence of any psychic gift. We do lack unanimous rejection but we do have a majority POV and a minority POV. Based on which wikipedia policy do we ignore that? Or another wikiedpia policy that would over ride the NPOV policy? I do not oppose editorial desecration, but I do think such discretion should be based in wikipedia policy. Regarding Tibet, as I've said elsewhere, where as they lack international legitimacy, per WP:GEVAL we would stand to unduly legitimize them (Tibet GIE) here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

As the article stands it shows the bias, we have Crimea listed as past occupation, while Gaza which is under the control of Hamas is listed as a current occupation and the Golan which was annexed by Israel is listed as ongoing, even though it should be similar to Crimea, listed as past, with subsequent annexation of Yes. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 19:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Joseph, and this (or similar) position has been reiterated by the majority of editors on this talk page. I'm almost finished with my proposal for the makeup and definitions of the list, which I will add here. In the mean time, I urge Serialjoepsycho to stop removing the POV tag. 13zmz13 (talk) 21:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

(continued below at #Golan and Gaza, redux – let's keep this thread about Crimea please) — JFG ^talk 23:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Imo, Crimea definitely should be added back to the ongoing occupations list. Because that is in line with statements produced by the European Parliament, other EU organs and the UN. I can understand that some editors thinks it is hypocritical that EJ is in the ongoing list, but Crimea isn't. ImTheIP (talk) 22:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: I think that's the second best option. But there's still a significant fallacy in your reasoning; this question has not been adequately answered: What is the definition of military occupation, and who defines it? The only way to definitively answer that question in the article is to go by the definition of the Hague and Geneva Conventions, as reiterated in the lede (de facto characteristics), and adjust the list accordingly. 13zmz13 (talk) 22:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

The answer is that we follow what reputable sources say. Reputable sources claim that GS, EJ, GH and Crimea are occupied, so we write that. Afaict, that is the consensus opinion here. ImTheIP (talk) 00:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

The argument that it is hypocritical is a meaningless argument that amounts to WP:JDLI. "Reputable sources claim that Crimea are occupied." is an actual argument. The solitary source that I have offered really doesn't make the case here. People can continue to rant about their personal preferences but it would be quite helpful if at some point we could start discussing and reviewing the sources.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This is the reason why scholars and colleges don't take Wikipedia seriously. We have EJ, Gaza and Golan listed as occupied, but Crimea isn't. It's pure hypocrisy. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

No, that is the reasons why wikipedia isn't taken seriously. When asked to provide sources, discuss the sources, and review the sources, you do everything but that. It is hypocrisy to not include X Y Z WP:JDLI and not "Crimea should be included based on A B C source because...."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Crimea being occupied was already well sourced. I am not aware any serious sources which dispute this. This content should be restored. I do not see why Wiki should legitimize the Russian claims.Jonney2000 (talk) 23:33, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems clear there is a consensus as well. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

And another source Jonney2000 (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that discuss UNGA resolutions 68/262, 71/205, or 72/190? UNIAN Discuss these resolutions in regard to Crimea being an Occupation. This paints a clear picture of Crimea as an occupation in the view of the majority of the international community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

The source from Robin Geiß discuss resolution 68/262. He is an International Law professor so he is more interested in International law then UN resolutions.Jonney2000 (talk) 21:42, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources

Golan and Gaza, redux

This nonsense about the Golan and Gaza ignore what the sources say, which is they continue to be occupied due to Israel exercising effective military control over them and they being outside of Israel's sovereign territory. We had an RFC over Gaza, no consensus to remove. We should of course include the Israeli position on both, but NPOV requires they be listed as currently occupied because the majority of reliable sources say as such. Yall can keep making OR arguments like its going to make a difference here, but the sources are what count. Not what you wish they said, but what they actually do. Crimea is a more complicated topic mostly due to Russia being a permanent member of the UNSC, so there is no resolution formally declaring that annexation null and void. nableezy - 21:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Israel could have easily gained UNSC veto rights in 1966 had it opened up its nuclear arsenal to inspections by the IAEA. But the determination was made that the UNSC wasn't relevant enough for such a relatively small sacrifice. The same holds true today. We can't base the status of territories merely on UNSC resolutions; they hold no weight in the real world. We must base it on the de facto characteristics per the sources' information, as it's by far the most objective & relevant measurement technique. Either the de facto status of a territory meets the definition of a military occupation by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, or it doesn't. 13zmz13 (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Lol, thats nice. Incredibly imaginative. Israel doesnt even garner enough support for a rotating seat on the security council, but easily could have become a permanent member you say. Anyway, your argument is entirely OR. Any argument based on "meeting the definition" is invalid on Wikipedia. We base our articles on what reliable sources say, and they say East Jerusalem is occupied territory. I provided 4 above. You continue to provide OR, that beyond being invalid as an argument here, is factually wrong anyway. Because EJ, and the Golan, meet the definition. Israel exercises effective military control over both. Both are located beyond Israel's soveriegn territory. So, by the definition, it is occupied territory. But, again, that being OR, we need sources. As have been provided. nableezy - 22:43, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

That is simply incorrect. You have not provided one single WP:RS stating that the regime which applies in EJ & GH is that of a military nature, nor that Israel doesn't permanently claim those territories, not that their residents aren't eligible for Israeli citizenship. If you can provide me with another well-sourced definition of military occupation, I'll be happy to read it.

Well, Israel technically made it in time for the NPT, so it's not really that far off. :)

As for the "effective military control" argument: Canada exercises effective military control over Ontario. Does that mean it's under military occupation? 13zmz13 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Um, Ontario is within Canada's sovereign territory. East Jerusalem and the Golan are not in Israel's. And again, we do not do WP:OR here. I emphatically do not need to provide any reliable sources that say the regime which applies in EJ & GH is that of a military nature. I need to provide reliable sources that say both are held under military occupation. That has been done, in spades. You disliking what the sources say does not allow you to reject them. You may not, at least on Wikipedia, argue that the sources are wrong or that the definition you wish to apply is not met. That is, again OR, an invalid argument. You are free to make the argument on a blog if you wish. Here, if the preponderance of reliable sources say flat out East Jerusalem is occupied territory then on Wikipedia it is a fact that East Jerusalem is occupied territory. The end. nableezy - 23:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Nope, it's just the beginning. I know some countries that deny Tel Aviv is within Israel's sovereign territory, but that doesn't make it true, now does it? The fact is that excactly the same jurisdiction and laws that apply to Tel Aviv also apply to EJ & GH. You can't have one stated definition of military occupation, and then randomly add territories which do not fit that definition based on a small number of selected sources. And it's not the definition I "wish to apply". It's the definition which is currently applied to the ledes of both this article and the military occupation article, and perhaps more importantly, it's the only definition which is compatible with the provisions of the Hague and Geneva Conventions. 13zmz13 (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, none of what you wrote has anything to do with what our article should say. What matters is what do reliable sources say. They say Tel Aviv is in Israel. They do not say it is held under occupation. They however say EJ is not in Israel and is held under occupation. I gave you several such sources again. Nothing you have written has been backed up by any source. So, on Wikipedia, it is a worthless argument. Whereas my position is explicitly backed up by reliable sources. NPOV demands that EJ the rest of the West Bank and Gaza and the Golan be listed as occupied. nableezy - 02:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'd say more here but Nableezy seems to covered all of the bases, though I have only taken a cursory look at this conversation. And I've said alot of it elsewhere. Nonsensical arguments in the hypothetical about Canadian Occupation don't really change the fact that the sources show that EJ, Gaza, and Golan are under Military occupation. They also don't change the policy on original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Gaza is a special case. As for EJ and Golan - both have been effectively annexed and are adminstered by the Israeli civilian government, and not the military. Most of the world considers this illegal - but there is no actual military government in place. As Crimea, they should be listed separately.Icewhiz (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, entirely OR and unsourced. Reliable sources say for both EJ and the Golan they are held under military occupation. So to then does Wikipedia. That trumps any OR argument you and anybody else wants to parrot. nableezy - 08:08, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

@Nableezy: This article is about military occupations. According to the WP:RS in the ledes of both this article and the military occupation article, the definition of military occupation is based on de facto characteristics. Thus, we can not add sources which merely claim that territories X, Y, and Z are under military occupation, unless they also fit the stated definition of such a regime. Anything else is contradictory, and the POV tag will stay for as long as this article remains in that condition. If you wish to create new article(s) about List of de jure military occupations and/or De jure military occupation, there is nobody standing in your way. 13zmz13 (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

According to WP:OR we can not use your original research. According to WP:OR we can not use your original research. And by the way, According to WP:OR we can not use your original research. What this means is we can't use your original research. Even if your original research actually had some merit (it doesn't by the way. It's of an extremely poor quality.) we couldn't use it because its original research. So to be clear, According to WP:OR we can not use your original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm just referring to the current sources (which btw someone else added before this discussion even started). 13zmz13 (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I am also referring the the current sources and mentioning that those sources don't actually say that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:26, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

You have created here a new type of status. The Status of De facto occupations. And you want to continue pushing that utter nonsense. That is original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:40, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

If anyone is engaging in WP:OR, it's you who try to change the definitions without providing any WP:RS.
Wikipedia's definition of de facto: In law and government, de facto describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally recognised by official laws.
Wikipedia's definition of military occupation: Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population.
You can thank me later. :) 13zmz13 (talk) 12:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Why would I thank you for continuing to argue from ignorance? I would actually thank you if you would stop. First East Jerusalem should be removed because it was a de facto annexation but now it should be removed because its not a de facto occupation. Hatay should be included because it's a de facto occupation yet you can't source that. You keep throwing bullshit at the wall and watching to see what sticks. Your original research doesn't even offer a level of quality. And as far as trying to change the definition without sources, wow.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct. The status of East Jerusalem meets the conditions of an annexation, not military occupation; that's why it should be removed. As for Hatay, that was just for the sake of consistency (had we gone with the "non-cession condition" as you first proposed but then selectively changed your mind about for certain territories).
Ah, so now you're a stalker, too? The definition is actually well-sourced, I'm just not finished with certain details of the list yet. 13zmz13 (talk) 13:34, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

East Jerusalem meets the standard of an illegal annexation. The UNSC declared it null and void. The international community continue to regard it as as occupied. There have been multiple consensus discussions, one above and others in the archives to retain it. With Hatay you were arguing from ignorance as you continue to do. I never proposed a cession route. I've pointed out details about Hatay because you were to lazy to even bother reading about it. Those details are lost on you however. Most of this discussion is lost on you. Am I a stalker? Are you accusing me of a crime? Or do you mean WP:FOLLOWING? And no your version is poorly sourced original research that is pure POVpushing. So very likely, multiple people will have to once again point out WP:OR to you as multiple people already have.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't care if the Supreme Leader of Iran declares the laws of physics to be null and void. They are still very much active and in force. Of course we should include the international positions on annexed territories, but we can't call them militarily occupied when they're not. (Sidenote: The UNSC used the word "occupied" as in foreign control, but they never claimed it was militarily occupied after the 1967 de facto annexation. Also, this is a decades-old resolution, with several countries having changed their positions since then.)
Please stop obsessing over Hatay. It was nothing but a demonstration of how weak your definitions are.
Yes, I am accusing you of stalking me. Though you have not necessarily committed a criminal offence (or a civil wrong, for that matter). Of course, that depends on where you live. Perhaps North Korea will sentence you to life in gulag. 13zmz13 (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

When you post that you will post your proposal soon provides a collegial justification for me or any other editor to review edit history to view that proposal, specially in the face of your sole reliance on original research. Finding and reviewing this future proposal, unsurprisingly it's original research. You should tone down your rhetoric. Such a bad faith accusation doesn't improve your non argument.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody cares. Again, no sources, no service. Ive given sources for EJ being occupied territory. Same for the Golan. Your entire argument, in fact every argument made for removing them, is entirely OR. So I for one am not going to continue to answer the same bogus argument explaining why its bogus each time you use it. EJ is occupied because reliable sources say so. The Golan is occupied because reliable sources say so. You are not a reliable source, your arguments are devoid of any value. nableezy - 16:56, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Did Israel occupy Mandatory Palestine in 1967?

@JFG: The edit wasn't goofed up - I reverted it, so please self-revert to not run afoul of the 1RR rule. I very much object to listing Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) and Mandatory Palestine as occupied by Israel since 1967. Icewhiz inserted it in the list without discussing the matter. ImTheIP (talk) 21:44, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, both of those, besides making little sense, are entirely unsourced based on nothing but a belief of a Wikipedia editor. If Icewhiz can provide anything resembling a reliable source saying that either Mandatory Palestine or the Corpus Separatum were occupied by Israel then perhaps they can be included. Also, the "annexed by Israel" bit is not the entire story, if you want to include that then the word effectively should be included, especially for the Golan as Israel very specifically did not use the word annex in the application of civil law there, as there is way less of a dispute that they doing so would be patently illegal (the whole terra nullius argument fails entirely wrt the Golan). For that matter the Jerusalem Law doesnt say annex either, mostly because it would have made the jiujitsu of well we didnt technically annex the territory for international audiences (the US) but its ours forever for domestic audiences that much more complicated. nableezy - 22:18, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I was editing something else while this happened, and I was referring to myself when stating "goofed up". Indeed, Corpus separatum (Jerusalem) and Mandatory Palestine make no sense in the time frame of the 1967 war; I have removed them and attempted to further simplify the display. Let me know what you think. — JFG ^talk 22:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

About the "annexed" wording, a rose by any other name… Perhaps we can solve this by stating "de facto annexed"? I have added the relevant Israeli administrative divisions in the "Declared state" column. — JFG ^talk 22:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The new additions dont solve anything. Something was occupied from Egypt in 67, but it was not the Gaza Strip. Egypt never made any claim to the Gaza Strip, putting it there makes no sense. For those I suggest just saying Palestinian territories for that column. Yes, it isnt a state, but it does not have to be, and that fits with the various UN resolutions on the matter. nableezy - 22:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

That is correct; I have replaced Egypt by Palestinian territories for the initial period, then Palestine since the 1988 declaration of independence. Jordan remains in place concerning the West Bank and East Jerusalem, because these territories had been annexed in 1948. — JFG ^talk 22:36, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

There has already been a completely mind-boggling massive discussion about annexation vs occupation on this page not longer than a day ago. The consensus (which I disagreed with, mind you) was that annexation should only refer to "legal" internationally recognized annexations. Hence Israel's purported annexation of EJ and GH should not be referred to as "de facto" annexed. The same goes for Jordan whose annexation of the West Bank was not recognized. Since it wasn't recognized it shouldn't be listed in the "Occupied state" column. Same goes for listing "Palestinian territories" in the "Occupied state" column because "Palestinian territories" isn't a state. ImTheIP (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the finery of the consensus as you cite them. With in the definition of Military occupation where it refers to the distinction of annexations from military occupations it is only discussing legal annexations.

De facto in the sense of "de facto annexation" does not imply legal. The lead doesn't imply that a "de facto annexation" shouldn't be in the list. Whether we call it a de facto annexation or not doesn't stop it from being a de facto annexation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:12, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I can live with that. But then one wonders why the West Bank shouldn't also be listed as de facto annexed? The answer can't be because Israel has declared EJ and GH to be annexed, because declarations can't have any impact on de facto facts on the ground. ImTheIP (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

My understanding is that Israel never took, under their law, any action to officially annexed either territory. But the character of the actions, with regard to the Golan and Jerusalem laws, and the incorporation of Israeli law into these areas. In fact, but not legally so, Israel has Annexed these two locations. However and without regard to that, discourse about these locations are often in regard to de facto annexation. "The Significance of Israel's partial annexation of East Jerusalem" Terry Rempel discusses it as such. Actually I could ramble on about sources but honestly you could simply find 1000's more in a google search yourself. As now however you can't find the same for the West Bank. Israel's illegal settlements have not been regarded as a De facto annexation. For EJ and Golan the matter can be sourced but the West Bank. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:45, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• Jordan renounced all claims to the West Bank in 88. It doesn't belong.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Israel occupied, in 1967, territories that were illegally occupied by Jordan and Egypt in 1948, which were mandate areas (without a formed state). It did not occupy the non-existant state of Palestine (which per itself only existed from 1988 - international recognition being partial today, and building up over the years). It did not occupy Jordan - unless you accept the distinct minority view (around 3 countries) that the Jordanian annexation was legal. That the underlying occupied entity in Jerusalem is the Corpus Separtum is spelled out in a number sources, e.g. - see for instance Cattan, Henry. "The Status of Jerusalem under International Law and United Nations Resolutions." Journal of Palestine Studies 10.3 (1981): 3-15.. Icewhiz (talk) 05:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Im sorry, illegally occupied? Citation needed. nableezy - 19:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Not a number of sources - only one. Henry Cattan's opinion therein expressed is fringe. According to him the last legally sanctioned change of Palestine was the partition plan in 1947. The implication is that all territory Israel captured outside the boundaries of the Jewish state now currently occupied. Including, for example, West Jerusalem. A not dissimilar argument by a law professor which I have forgotten the name of is that since the mandate hasn't been dissolved, the British Mandate of Palestine is still in effect, leading to the conclusion that of Israel is occupied territory. Both these arguments are fringe and doesn't represent the mainstream view. ImTheIP (talk) 05:51, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

One matter remains very clear. The West Bank including East Jerusalem and Gaza are considered to be occupied. Beyond that there is much clarity. The last actual sovereign of these territories was the Ottoman Empire. The mandate system was a type of trusteeship which is uniquely different than sovereignty. It did not later transfer to UN Trusteeship. Egypt annexed, officially or unofficially, Gaza. Jordan annexed the West Bank. At some point by some means both Egypt and Jordan renounced their claims, claims that lacked any major recognition, and claims, again, they have renounced and specifically they no longer hold. To list either Egypt or Jordan as the countries occupied it would require some damn good sources, of which there will likely be none.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Henry Cattan's (Palestinian, by the way) published work on the international status of Jerusalem is not fringe, and there are a multitude of other sources discussing CS. The occupation (or disputed annexation for EJ) by Israel is not in doubt. The previous occupier (in 1967) was Jordan and Egypt - the country this was seized from is obviously relevant. The status of the occupied territories - as of 1967 - is tied to the status they held in 1948 when they were occupied by Jordan/Egypt. Subsequent developments (e.g. the evolving state of Palestine) - are subsequent developments - beginning at the very least some 21 years (1988) after the start of occupation. Icewhiz (talk) 08:15, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

There are many nuances here. Considering that no one, including Jordan, currently see's the West Bank as a part of Jordan, it's not appropriate that we list Jordan as an occupied state. But again, many nuances, some of them are better left addressed to the more detailed articles on them, but there is some things to consider. Footnote b could be altered based on the sources to mention that the territories were in the hands of Egypt and Jordan respectively upon occupation in 67. However, as Jordan is not occupied, again there's no reason to list that it is. The Palestinian territories are not a state? Then change the category to Occupied territory or occupied state/territory. Don't add a non-occupied state. Jerusalem is not a state either notably. Declared state/territory perhaps?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The current or recent situation certainly is relevant - but we should also describe the situation as it was in 1967 and afterwards. As this is a fairly long occupation (or - per many - the longest lasting one), coupled with a rather complex legal situation (on many fronts - including this being an occupation of land that was occupied by a previous occupier from 1948) - the description here doesn't boil down to a single entity or word. Icewhiz (talk) 13:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So a change to the footnote to post this info?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the situation is very complicated, but listing Jordan doesn't solve anything. Remember that in 1967 most states didn't recognize Jordan's claim to the WB. An occupier can't itself be occupied when the territory held is being occupied by another state. Consider what would happen if Syria finally manages to reconquer the GH from Israel. Would we list the GH as Israeli territory under belligerent occupation? Probably not because, just like with Jordan in 1967, most states doesn't recognize Israel's claim to the GH. ImTheIP (talk) 22:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

We have a consensus essentially not to include Jordan as an occupied entity. However, and correct me if I'm wrong, Icewhiz is suggesting that we should provide further detail than "East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been occupied by Israel since 1967." The manner is how. We can offer, in a more succinct manner, that the West Bank including EJ was under Jordanian control and that Gaza was under Egyptian control at the time of the initial occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. The question is how to do that in a way that isn't wrong in some way. We have the same problem with West Sahara which at the time of Morocco's occupation wasn't part of a sovereign state. Spain had already withdrawn its claim to the territory. ImTheIP (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Moved to [2].-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The column, as I understand it, is for the state in the occupied territory that today enjoys recognition. So SoP for the Palestinian territories. Note that SoP is in a similar boat to Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic which was declared in 1976, one year after the Moroccan occupation that begun in 1975. ImTheIP (talk) 22:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@ImTheIP: In my understanding, the "occupied state" column represents the state whose sovereignty was violated on the day the occupation started. Otherwise our whole article would make no sense at all. Of course, the territories assigned to Palestine under the 1948 partition plan were never administered by a Palestinian state until the 1998 declaration. Jordan did annex the West Bank and East Jerusalem (a fact we are documenting under "former occupations"), and Israel took them militarily from Jordan and has occupied them since 1967. — JFG ^talk 19:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• The British Mandate for Palestine officially ended in 1948. The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were conquered by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, in a war of aggression, with the former being annexed with recognition by only three states, and the latter being militarily occupied. When Israel conquered the territories in 1967, they did not belong to any sovereign state. Hence, the only logical conclusion is to leave the "Occupied state" column N/A. Perhaps the 1988 State of Palestine with limited recognition can be included in a footnote. 13zmz13 (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

lulz, a war of aggression. Your contributions here have been entirely original research, and besides being factually wrong, on that basis merit no response. nableezy - 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, thanks for obsessing over the least relevant part of my comment. It doesn't matter. Even if it would've been a purely defensive war, it still wouldn't make the territories Jordanian/Egyptian. 13zmz13 (talk) 09:22, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, lulz. That was a response of your entire comment. Again, please read and internalize WP:OR. Thank you. nableezy - 17:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So which state are you claiming the territories belonged to when Israel conquered them? You still haven't given a clear answer.

Also, the term "lulz" died in like the early 2010s. What are you, a fucking 9gag user? 🤔 13zmz13 (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No, Im somebody who has sources for his arguments. You must be somebody else. I already said it should say Palestinian territories there, in line with what the various UN resolutions have said over the years. nableezy - 21:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Since when did the "Palestinian territories" cease being a description for a geographical area and start being a state? 13zmz13 (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you read what your interlocutor wrote. nableezy - 18:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Military occupations

Can anyone provide a WP:RS stating that East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Western Sahara, or Crimea is held in military occupation? Some of the current sources describe them as being "annexed" with limited or no recognition, and some describe them as also being "occupied". But this article is exclusively about occupations of a military nature, hence its name List of military occupations. 13zmz13 (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Quite obviously, they aren't presently military occupied. For Crimea, being a recent event, it is actually quite easy to find sources stating that the military occupation occurred in past tense. Kyiv Post does claim a present military occupation, but other than that - RFE/RL (not sympathetic to Russia...) "two years after Russia seized control of the peninsula following a military occupation and a referendum denounced as illegitimate by at least 100 countries", BBC - "Crimea was annexed by Russia after a majority of its mostly ethnic Russian population voted to secede in an unrecognised referendum on self-determination, held under military occupation." - so the little green men phase in Crimea is viewed as a military occupation, but the subsequent civil rule - seems not to be viewed as a such by most sources (who still see it as illegal/illegitimate). Icewhiz (talk) 15:09, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• The Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory (the West Bank including East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip) is in its fifth decade and the undercurrent of violence and inherent abuses of fundamental human rights and disregard for international law inherent in any long-standing military occupation is presented by both sides.
• Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. 84 (1). American Society of International Law: 85–86. doi:10.2307/2203016. Although East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been brought directly under Israeli law, by acts that amount to annexation, both of these areas continue to be viewed by the international community as occupied, and their status as regards the applicability of international rules is in most respects identical to that of the West Bank and Gaza.

nableezy - 19:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, the entire premise of your argument, this article is exclusively about occupations of a military nature, is based on nothing. Nothing at all. Military occupation is an international law concept. It is not defined by there being "troops on the ground". "Occupied", "belligerent occupation", "military occupation" all mean the same thing. nableezy - 19:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

And for good measure, since you keep harping on what states say, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 58/292: Affirms that the status of the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, remains one of military occupation. 140-6 with 11 abstentions. nableezy - 19:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, I keep "harping" on what states say. To be a Majority point of view it would need to be the perspective of the international community. It is in their hands that effective action can be taken. For the same reason they represent the minority point of view. There is an important question here presented at WP:GEVAL, Are we unduly legitimizing a listing here? In the case here, it's clear we aren't.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

That was directed to 13zmz13 as he or she keeps arguing the only thing that matters is what do states say. Well, they say EJ is held under military occupation. nableezy - 21:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes I'm aware. I just thought it might help to reiterate my oft held position here along with the policy basis behind it as they are now trying to use it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

So you only have one source for "military occupation", and it's a non-binding UNGA resolution. Great. And btw, your claim that "occupation" is synonymous to "military occupation" is WP:OR. 13zmz13 (talk) 03:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's synonymous, That's not original research. That's 5th grade level intelligence. Use a dictionary. It's only a nonbinding resolution? Oh my. It's also a source that shows that this is the Majority POV of the international community.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Um, the Roberts source is titled Prolonged Military Occupation. The HRW source likewise directly supports "military occupation". Literally every comment youve made on this topic is OR. nableezy - 04:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Occupation and military occupation are not the same - per Merriam Webster (a source you cited - Serialjoepsycho) - while occupation can refer to "military occupation", it may also refer to ": the act or process of taking possession of a place or area : SEIZURE" (3a) which is a different meaning from ": the holding and control of an area by a foreign military force" (3b). Absent the source being clear that in "occupation" it is refering to "military occupation" as opposed to a different type of seizure - inferring that the meaning is 3b and not 3a is WP:OR. Icewhiz (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I dont understand the relevance of any of that, but in any event the sources provided should satisfy this rather pedantic objection. Roberts is very clearly discussing "military occupation". Beyond that, when a source says that GCIV applies, they are likewise very obviously saying it is held under military occupation. nableezy - 17:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

It's quite funny how you keep accusing others of original research, yet you keep writing stuff like "when sources say X, they obviously mean Y". 13zmz13 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

GCIV concerns protection of civilians under military occupation. See eg: Dinstein, Y.; Tabory, M. (1994). Israel Yearbook on Human Rights: 1993. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights. Springer Netherlands. p. 41. ISBN 978-0-7923-2581-9. Retrieved 2018-12-06. Belligerent military occupations are regulated by the Hague Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, Annexed to Hague Conventions, 1899 (No. II), 1907 (No. IV) (hereinafter: Hague Regulations), and the 1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (hereinafter: Geneva Convention). {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) nableezy - 21:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

A semantic argument and a boring one. No that wouldn't be original research. If you lack the ability to read words and discern their context in the manner they are used, you might want to move on to another aspect of this discussion as WP:CIR. The argument that we can't add it because someone is confused by the dictionary meaning of a word falls into the ability to read sources and assess their reliability.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

So let me get this straight... You have no evidence of military occupation occurring in these territories, and you want us to accept sources that don't even contain the word "military"? Their reliability is irrelevant so long as they're WP:UNDUE. I could add reliable sources for the general theory of relativity, but wtf does that have to do with this article? 13zmz13 (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm questioning if you can get anything straight here. You can continue to argue for ignorance. You are saying that you can not contextually decipher a words meaning in the context it's written. This is a basic reading ability. Prolonged Military Occupation terms it as occupation but oh it doesn't say military and he could absolutely mean something else. Bullshit. WP:OR is not a policy that requires an editor to become a complete and utter moron. Again, If you lack the ability to read words and discern their context in the manner they are used, you might want to move on to another aspect of this discussion per WP:CIR. The argument that we can't add it because someone is confused by the dictionary meaning of a word falls into their lack the ability to read sources and assess their reliability. The whole reading part goes along with the reliability part. Occupation is synonymous with military occupation so much so that it's in the definition of the word.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:24, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

As Icewhiz pointed out, your own source differentiates between "military occupation" and just "occupation" (the act or process of taking possession of a place or area; not necessarily of a military nature). And even if it didn't, you still can't justify original research by "muh competence". Your claim that the ability to read sources includes the ability to guess what the sources mean is just more original research, and thus you're entering into a paradox. Please realise when you have lost an argument & WP:MOVEON! 13zmz13 (talk) 08:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Per Merriam Webster - "Military occupation" is not synonymous with "occupation" - but is rather one possible meaning. Also in the narrow geo-politic meaning, Merriam Webster distinguishes between a "military occupation" (3b, 3c) meaning and an "occupation" meaning (3a). Icewhiz (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No. I'm not asking you to guess what a source means. I'm asking you to move to something else if you can not discern what this word means in the context of its usage. This is basic reading skill. How many other words in the English language with multiple meanings should we feign ignorance with? None, including this one as Competence is required, again per the guideline on disruptive behavior WP:CIR. Lost? Was some game here? What was the grand prize? If it was money then just dang!-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:37, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz, you are arguing that it's not synonymous but your exact argument is that it is in fact synonymous.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

No, in one possible use it is synonymous, in others not (including a geopilitical occupation which is not military).Icewhiz (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Synonymous- having the same or nearly the same meaning as another word or phrase in the same language. It wasn't claimed that the word doesn't have other definitions. I've occupied my time with various things including an occupation that pays for the house I occupy. Feel free to bring sources on Geopolitical occupation, it's existence in international law, it's definition, and it's distinctions. Also sources that show that the situation is a geopolitical occupation as a number of sources have described it specifically as a military occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

<sarcasm>But maybe Roberts is using "occupation" in the sense of "the principal business of one's life".</sarcasm> All you need is to read him: There is no single authoritative exegesis of the various purposes served by that part of the laws of war relating to military occupations—what is called here the "law on occupations." Thereby contradicting the claims of both Icewhiz and 13zmz13. Zero^talk 10:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Roberts who? I was referring to the UNSC resolutions that some editors apparently regard so very highly... Well, contrary to some non-binding UNGA resolutions, they never used the term military occupation. For good reasons. 13zmz13 (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Roberts who, indeed. Which shows classic WP:IDHT behavior. The consensus hasn't changed by your arguments and ignoring the conversation where you just don't like it also doesn't change the consensus. At this point this conversation has shifted to WP:STONEWALL if at any point it was anything but. This is a violation of WP:ARBPIA and I would urge you to change track. I refuse to continue with your stonewalling. There is a consensus to have this information in the article and based on the sources.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 12:05, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

There have been several sources that support EJ being held under military occupation. Roberts likewise supports the Golan. Beyond that, the unsupported premise of this argument, that this article is exclusively about occupations of a military nature, remains unsupported, and in any event has already been satisfied. And finally, again, there was an RFC on the inclusion of East Jerusalem in this list. There is explicit consensus for it. Absent any indication that something has changed, and that something not being some new person on the internet discovering Wikipedia and deciding defending the good name of Israel is what they want to do with their life, there is no reason to continue to go back to this. We had a discussion about this, there is an explicit consensus for its inclusion. Icewhiz on another article argues that RFCs that end in "no consensus" mean that there should be no further discussion, but somehow thinks that an RFC that ends with a consensus should continually be revisited? Funny how that is. nableezy - 16:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The Occupied Palestinian territories prior to 1967

Moving the discussion from [3]. There is the position that we should provide further detail on the situation prior to 1967. This shouldn't really be controversial. In an attempt to do that to so Jordan was added as an occupied state but as Jordan is not occupied this is improper. The discussion ceased with the question of how do we do this. I propose modifying footnote [b] to , which adds The West Bank (including East Jerusalem) was occupied by Jordan and the Gaza Strip was occupied by Egypt from 1948 until the 1967 occupation by Israel. to the footnote. This information is contained in the source beside it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The prior occupations should be the first sentence. For the West Bank, and East Jerusalem, we should further note that Jordan annexed these (recognized by a handful of states, notably the UK), that it did not relinquish its claim until 1988, and that the Palestinian residents held Jordanian citizenship (also after 1967 - and still to an extent today - Jordanian nationality law#Revocation of citizenship from Jordanian citizens of Palestinian origin).Icewhiz (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I changed the first sentence, in the example, so the Egypt and Jordan occupations are listed first.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You'd really need to explain a justification for the other material. Jordanian citizenship issues aren't important here. Even the prior annexation isn't important here. It lacked recognition and since the claim was renounced it lacks legal character. A more thorough back history is available elsewhere. We could add, See also Jordanian annexation of the West Bank as a ref.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The prior Jordanian annexation (very limited recognition) had profound consequnces on the ground - Jordan continued (to this day - the sole entry/exit point for Palestinians in international travel) to allow Palestinians (then all Jordanian citizens) via the Allenby Bridge crossing and from there onward to international destinations (travelling with Jordanian documents). Israel, while not recognizing the validity of the Jordanian annexation, recognized Jordanian law as applying to the terrritory. The PA also recognizes prior law - Jordanian law - and it is incorporated into Palestinian law. There are also international law ramifications.Icewhiz (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I do not see that information as relevant to this article. I've added two changes to the above reference. Links the articles related to the prior occupations by Egypt and Jordan. Please review.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:06, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Even though this all started due to a sockpuppet it's been genuinely fruitful. Thanks alot Icewhiz, this definitely betters the article and I don't think this issue would have ever been considered without you. Putting the above change in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources

conflict tab

Prior to this diff the conflict listed the war or other military related campaign related to the listing that existed as a wikipedia article. It's been missed up til now but this tab does not reflect the information contained in it's section.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm considering changing it to 'see also'. Awaiting further discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

If you're talking about the column called "Conflict", it's true that it sometimes points to a military conflict, and in other cases it points to the article describing the occupation. I would simply call this column "Event". Some entries may need to list both the occupation article and a sub-conflict article. — JFG ^talk 17:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

That's certainly better than see also.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:17, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Benvenisti cite

The Benvenisti cite is to page xvi, which as far as I can tell is the "This page is intentionally left blank" page between the list of abbreviations page and the beginning of the Table of Cases. nableezy - 08:48, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me see if I can stop by the local library in the coming week. I'll get back to you accordingly. If not when I can catch a second I'll look up when it was added and see if the contributor might have more to offer.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:09, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Italy vs Austria-Hungary in World War I

@Greyshark09: I have reverted your addition because I can't see any occupation of Northern Italy by Austria-Hungary during World War I. Conversely, there was an occupation by Italy of parts of Tirol and Dalmatia at the end of the war, which lasted until 1920, after the outcome of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference was implemented. Is this what you had in mind, or am I missing a historical fact? — JFG ^talk 11:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Something went wrong, i tried to add the Occupied Enemy Territory Administration in the Middle East.GreyShark (dibra) 11:47, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Oh, good one. Can I help with the formatting? These tables are a bit daunting at first glance… — JFG ^talk 12:00, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

The occupation of a ghost town

@JFG: I'd like to strike up an academic conversation regarding [4] but not contest the removal. Your position is that to include the occupation of a Ghost town would be undue, as I understand it. I would have to suggest that it's not a matter of whether the area is populated but a matter of whether the area is actually under occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Serialjoepsycho: Sorry for the late reply. I understand the sentiment; I believe it's hard to judge whether such isolated pockets can actually be called occupied, as understood by the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Do the usual reference sources mention them? — JFG ^talk 12:47, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Nice4What who added those territories on 24 January.[5] — JFG ^talk 12:54, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

To say it again, This is not to contest the removal. I'm unaware of what the sources say. My "sentiment" to be clear is that your justification is a bullshit use of the undue policy. The justification that it is unpopulated therefor an inclusion is undue. In my simple search of La Guera I found a 1988 piece by Robert E. Handloff, http://countrystudies.us/mauritania/22.htm. At a cursory view this would be a reliable source. If this was 1990 I'd even argue that it justifies inclusion. It's 2019 though, and I'm not interested at the moment in learning more about whether a ghost town is occupied and looking for further sourcing. I'm feel assured that someone else will before the deadline, if it is occupied. But again, I digress, the purpose of me starting this was solely to discuss your justification for removal. There very likely a number of justifications for removal, of which I have no interest in going into. In any case, I'm in a period of mourning, I saw your ping and wanted to reply before I forgot. Good day to you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Understood. Sorry for your loss. — JFG ^talk 17:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Sikkim

Because Gotitbro (talk · contribs) has started an edit war over Sikkim in this list of military occupations, I'd like to discuss Sikkim with Gotitbro and other editors (pinging @Number 57: the original creator of 1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum; @Zanhe: whose redirect was called a "POV redirect" by Gotitbro; @CaptainEek: (diff), @Amartyabag: (diff), @Micraboy: (diff), @De728631: (diff), and @Bless sins: (diff) who were active in Annexation#Sikkim).

@Gotitbro: First, I kind of understand your feelings, because Sikkim reminds me of what happened in Crimea in 2014 (see Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and 2014 Crimean status referendum). However, it's not an excuse to remove the content based on reliable sources. Your "POV this, POV that" doesn't explain anything at all. If you have better sources than the U.S. Congressional Research Service and the Federal Research Division (quote: "the Indian annexation of Sikkim in 1975"), provide them, please. Because it seems clear to me, after checking in with various sources, that the Indian occupation of the Kingdom of Sikkim took place at some point between 1949 and 1975. In this case, only dates remain debatable.

Some scholars, like American political scientist Stephen P. Cohen, date the Indian occupation of Sikkim back to 1949, when Indian troops entered the kingdom owing to a local uprising, eventually limiting the power of the king after the Indo-Sikkimese Treaty (1950) was signed. Others, like the Congressional Research Service of the United States Congress, date it back to 1965: "The Indian Army occupied Sikkim (an Indian protectorate) in 1965 in response to a Chinese threat during the second Indo-Pakistan war, and India formally incorporated the kingdom as an Indian state in 1975."

The term "annexation" is frequently used to describe the 1975 events in Sikkim in publications by international scholars. You can find this term in the U.S. Federal Research Division's India: A Country Study (1996; edited by James Heitzman and Robert Worden), American Dr. Andrew Scobell's chapter of the Strategic Studies Institute's South Asia in 2020 (2002; edited by Michael Chambers), Australian academic Susan Banki's chapter of Protracted Displacement in Asia: No Place to Call Home (2016; edited by Howard Adelman), Indian academic Radha Kumar's chapter of the Centre for European Policy Studies' Who Is a Normative Foreign Policy Actor? (2008; edited by Nathalie Tocci), Nepalese foreign policy analyst M.R. Josse's chapter of Security and Cooperation in South Asia (2003; edited by Deepak Gajurel), The Energy Superpower (2006) by Russian political scientist Konstantin Simonov, Personal and National Destinies in Independent India (2016) by Indian Dr. Rositta Joseph Valiyamattam, Contemporary India (2010) by British Prof. Katharine Adeney and Dr. Andrew Wyatt, Uncertain Futures: Challenges for Decision-Makers (1979) by American economist Robert Ayres, Blue Annals of Bhutan (1997) by Bhutanese Dr. C.T. Dorji, Smash and Grab: Annexation of Sikkim (1984) by Indian historian Sunanda K. Datta-Ray, The Pragmatic Dragon (2015) by American academic Eric Hyer, The Next Great Clash: China and Russia Vs. the United States (2008) by American scholar Michael L. Levin, the Norwegian Peacebuilding Resources Centre's policy brief (2014) by Varun Sahni, Indian Prof. Ranju R. Dhamala's chapter of Making of the Indian Union (2007; edited by Sajal Nag, Tejmala Garung and Abhijit Choudhury), International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications article (2012) by Indian scholar Dhanraj Rai of Sikkim University, American Prof. Sam Sonntag's article in Language Policies in Education: Critical Issues (2002; edited by James Tollefson), French scholar Brigitte Steinmann's chapter of Pilgrimage in Tibet (2013; edited by Alex McKay), Check List scientific article (2017) by Indian scientists Barkha Subba, Neelavara Ananthram Aravind and Gudasalamani Ravikanth, the Belgian Institut de Sociologie de l'Université de Bruxelles's journal article (1973) by British academic Victor Bulmer-Thomas, the World Mountain Symposium's paper (2001) by Indian Prof. Maitreyee Choudhury, the Indian Institute of Management Calcutta's scientific article (2008) by Indian Prof. Sushil Khanna, ASIEN: The German Journal of Contemporary Asia's scientific article (2018) by Monja Sauvagerd, Dutch Prof. of Modern Asian History Willem van Schendel's afterword of Geographies of Difference (2018; edited by Mélanie Vandenhelsken, Meenaxi Barkataki-Ruscheweyh and Bengt Karlsson), Polish Political Science Review scientific article (2018) by Deepjyoti Chand, British Dr. Richard W. Whitecross' chapter of Spatializing Law (2016; edited by Franz von Benda-Beckmann and Keebet von Benda-Beckmann), Sanasam Sandhyarani Devi's history book Indo-Nepalese Relations in Ancient and Medieval Times (2011; published in India), Indian Dr. Veena Bhasin's article in the Journal of Biodiversity (2012), Dutch scholar George van Driem's chapter of the Encyclopedia of the World's Endangered Languages (2007; edited by Christopher Mosely), South Korean Yonsei Law Journal article (2018) by American Prof. of Law and Political Science David S. Law, Finnish scholar Juha Yliniemi's chapter of Evidential Systems of Tibetan Languages (2017), and so on. As you can notice, even Indian sources describe it as an annexation.

Furthermore, even without considering that the Indian Army controlled the kingdom's communications and so forth, it's quite clear that the Indian military was directly involved in the 1975 events in Sikkim, see 1975 Sikkimese monarchy referendum#Background: "On 9 April Indian troops entered the country, disarmed the palace guard (killing one of them and injuring four others) and surrounded the palace, putting the king under house-arrest. On 10 April 1975 the Sikkimese Parliament with the support of Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, unanimously voted to abolish the monarchy and merge with India in order to obtain full Indian statehood. A referendum on this issue was set for 14 April." The Encyclopedia of the Stateless Nations describes it in the same vein, adding that the king protested the annexation of Sikkim; later, in response to "the continuing Sikkimese opposition, the Indian government sponsored the migration of Indians from the lowlands to the newly annexed region". It's worth mentioning that the Sikkimese eventually became a minority in Sikkim.

It seems to me that the use of foreign military to silent your political opponents and put their leaders under "house arrest" isn't what's called a democratic referendum. The oppossion definitely had the right to run their campaign, but they were deprived of it. The king protested and eventually was put under "house arrest". Later, his son and the heir to the throne, Wangchuk Namgyal, called it an illegal annexation. Prime Minister of India Morarji Desai also used the term "annexation" in 1978.

References
References

Given the above, I suggest to keep the Kingdom of Sikkim in this list of military occupations, although the dates can be revised if needed.--Russian Rocky (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The redirect is POV since you are not linking to the directly to the article. In the wall of text you have posted above nothing proves a continuous military occupation for more than 25 years, most of it hinges it on the annexation part and an offhanded quotes of "occupation". Sikkim was an Indian protectorate and an Indian military presence did not just start in 1948 if we're using that year for some weird reason it was there from the British era. By the logic of "occupation" we are going with here might as well add Bhutan here since it has a similar relationship with India. And a movement of forces to a palace does not prove a military occupation of a whole state as well. Gotitbro (talk) 08:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single source, but dare to say the United States Congressional Research Service and the Federal Research Division aren't reliable sources and "nothing proves a continuous military occupation". Are you serious? Again, I ask you to provide your sources that are better than the U.S. government think tanks. Stop saying "POV this, POV that", it's groundless. Also, even if we follow your "logic", it means there was no Russian occupation during the 2014 annexation of Crimea. The Russian troops had been stationed in Crimea legally, but actively participated in threatening pro-Ukrainian opponents and helped to "provide security" during the referendum. Well, it seems we have different understanding of what an abuse of military power is.

I ask Wikipedia administrators to take a decision on the matter, because it seems Gotitbro doesn't hear me. Thanks in advance.--Russian Rocky (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Your mind numbing wall of text reads more like WP:SYNTHESIS. You have one source that says India Occupied Sikkim in 1949. Then you spend forever arguing that Sikkim was annexed by India in 1975. I agree Sikkim was annexed by India in 1975. However none of your sources suggest that Sikkim was occupied from 1949 to 1975. There aren't even any sources that show a continual occupation. Some of your sources contradict your synthesis. India did occupy Sikkim in 1949 but that ended with a treaty in 1950. Did you read about that treaty? Sikkim via treaty became an Indian Protectorate. But regardless this is to much conversation for bad research. Show that India was in fact occupied continuously from 1949 until the 1975 occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's not a synthesis of several sources, I used only one source for the occupation of India's protectorate Sikkim between 1965 and 1975 (it's the U.S. Congress think tank's study). The problem is Gotitbro denies the annexation of Sikkim ever took place; he isn't satisfied with any date, even 1975 (diff). That's why I needed the above sources to back it, otherwise it would be just my word against his. But I didn't use these sources to synthesize the date. To be honest, I'm fine with any date, but it should be based on reliable sources.

With regard to alleged contradictions, I did mentioned 1949, but I don't consider it a starting point. Though other occupation happened in 1949, I think one author isn't enough to back it. This occupation resulted in the 1950 treaty, but I'm interested in the 1975 annexation of Sikkim. That's why I rely on the 1978 study by the Congressional Research Service: "The Indian Army occupied Sikkim (an Indian protectorate) in 1965 in response to a Chinese threat during the second Indo-Pakistan war, and India formally incorporated the kingdom as an Indian state in 1975." (The United States, India, and South Asia: Interests, Trends, and Issues for Congressional Concern, pp. 23–24). The statement "The Indian Army occupied Sikkim (an Indian protectorate) in 1965" refers to India's dispatch of about 25,000 troops to Sikkim in 1965. These troops have been permanently stationed in Sikkim since 1965: "[...] the Indians moved in a military force of some 25,000, who remained in the kingdom on permanent duty." (Russell Brines "What India Sees in Sikkim," Christian Science Monitor, May 16, 1975). "What India Sees in Sikkim" was cited on page 24, which means the Congress study considers it a reliable source. Given this, 1965 serves as a starting point.--Russian Rocky (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Alleged contradictions? Your favorite sources contradict your views of the sources. Sikkim was a protectorate of India due to a 1950 treaty between the two. The treaty gave India control over defense, foreign affairs and internal communications of Sikkim. Brines, in the source you provided, makes it clear that at request of the Ruler of Sikkim 25k troops were brought in. The question here would be if the US CRS is saying that Sikkim was under military occupation or if the Indian Army simply went into and filled up space with soldiers as legally obligated. Brines, unless I missed it doesn't mention an occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware of the treaty. The problem is a protectorate doesn't mean no military occupation is possible. Korea became a protectorate in 1905 and was subsequently annexed by Japan in 1910 after three treaties, but it's still considered an occupied state in this list of military occupations. Besides, a protectorate virtually means that the protector's troops are stationed on a permanent basis. Hence, it's hard to interpret "The Indian Army occupied Sikkim (an Indian protectorate) in 1965" as "the Indian Army simply went into and filled up space with soldiers as legally obligated". The Indian Army had already been stationed in Sikkim, turning it into a tautology.

By the way, I have a question for you. Do you mind if we use 1975 by default? We both agree that the annexation of Sikkim took place in 1975 and it's backed by reliable sources.--Russian Rocky (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd say you should look for more sources because the source from the Congressional research Service lacks alot of context and the Brine source offers zero context. And you are correct, being a protectorate doesn't preclude a military occupation, I'd note the Nazi Bohemian protectorate. But it wouldn't at the same time not necessarily include a protectorate. Reading the Brine source, in context it doesn't suggest a military occupation. The Brine source is used by the CRS. Reliability depends on context.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

How about the 2015 article by Indian scholar S.M. Arif? "During the fifth general elections in January 1973, Sikkim’s pro-Indian parties suffered a complete defeat and pro-Chogyal (The Chogyal was the title of the King of Sikkim. It is a Tibetan word and its literal meaning is King of religion) parties won a victory. The Chogyal’s advocacy for Sikkim’s independence further concerned the Indian government. After this general election, with the support of the Indian government, the opposition parties of Sikkim launched a country-wide agitation against the Chogyal of Sikkim and demanded that participation in Indian economic and political institutions. With the pretext of maintaining political stability, the Indian government sent its army to take over the responsibility of maintaining law and order in Sikkim. And Sikkim’s administration was also taken over by the Indian Political Officer in Gangtok. In September 1974, the Indian government made Sikkim an associate state of India by its Thirty-Sixth Constitutional Amendment. Finally, the Indian government formally announced Sikkim as its 22nd state on April 23, 1975 and completed the process of annexing Sikkim.--Russian Rocky (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Arif does talk and specifically name a number of things occupations directly, just not Sikkkim. Further it provides no context to the CRS source. Further what are you even trying to say? That now there was an occupation but it started in 73?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't think it's reasonable to determine the exact dates of an occupation without Wikipedia's article about the annexation. I suggest keeping 1975 temporarily to prevent slipping into original research. Arif's article just gives a glimpse of why the annexation was initiated. It's now known that India's electoral interference in Sikkim indeed took place. Anti-Chogyal (anti-monarchist) parties' leaders - president of the Sikkim National Congress Kazi Lhendup Dorjee and general secretary of the Sikkim Janata Congress S.K. Rai - had collaborated with Indian Intelligence, the Research and Analysis Wing (Sikkim: Dawn of Democracy (2018) by R&AW officer G.B.S. Sidhu, see also a review in The Hindu). In 1973, the monarchist Sikkim National Party won 9 seats out of 18 in the Sikkimese general election, triggering protests from the opposition parties, the Sikkim National Congress and the Sikkim Janata Congress. This led to the new 1974 Sikkimese general election under the supervision of India, where the opposition won 31 seats out of 32. Eventually, it resulted in the "house arrest" of the Chogyal (King) and the annexation of Sikkim.

Honestly, it's a complicated and controversial subject. As far as I know, neighbouring countries such as Nepal, China and Pakistan refused to recognise Sikkim's new status and "there was considerable international criticism". China regarded Sikkim as being occupied by India until 2003, when it was formally recognized as an Indian state in exchange of India's recognition of Tibet as part of China. All of this information is in a note added to Sikkim in this list of military occupations. But I doubt the absence of Wikipedia's article on the annexation is an excuse for removing Sikkim from the list. At the very least, not every military occupation of the list has its separate article on Wikipedia. The current note and references should be enough. If you have a better solution, let me know please.--Russian Rocky (talk) 22:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You can drop the back and forth on annexation. No one disagrees that an annexation took place. What is or is not in the annexation or should or should not be in the article annexation is better left for the actual article on annexation. You don't think its reasonable to determine the exact date? How about the exact year. The Brines source shows specifically that the congressional research service source lacks any context, which again calls into question its reliability. The Arif article doesn't do anything and its not worth discussing. The daily pioneer doesn't have anything to say about any supposed occupation. Most of what I'm seeing is original research. I question if it needs to be in the article at all.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I get the sense you don't want to see Sikkim in this list even with 1949 ([6], [7]). Correct me if I'm wrong. If I suggest 1949–1950 (the treaty was signed in December 1950), will you call it original research too? Though, I assume you can say it was just an extension of the British protectorate or something similar.--Russian Rocky (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Am I a shill for India then? Go ahead and save that horseshit for someone else. In The Politics of Imagining Asia, it says that India effected a military occupation. What in the fucking non-standard and broken ass English is he trying to say? Did they effect it by preventing a Chinese occupation? I really don't actually care to speculate and it's simple enough to stop right there and call out a bad source for what it is. 1949? What about 1949? Above you said it's not a starting point, is it now? Are we moving the Goal post? Is it 1949 to 1975 now or do you want to move it to 2003 when the Chinese granted recognition? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Please, stop using profanity (f***ing) and stick to WP:Civility. You can call yourself whatever you want, but don't put your words in my mouth. Above I said it's not a starting point of the 1975 annexation. Why should I repeat it? I suggested 1949–1950, because you can't say something like "But the Treaty" again. That's all. Don't tell me that Stephen P. Cohen is a "bad source". Also, the second source is a book published by Harvard University Press. Of course, you can ridicule the author's English, but it's just a quibble.--Russian Rocky (talk) 00:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Quibble? Did you even read the source? "India effected a military occupation." Instead of discussing the actual content, you feel the need to mention its Published by Harvard Press. The Author by the way doesn't actually speak English. This book wasn't written in English. The section of the book you are sharing was translated by Zhang Yongle. Did you even read the source? Did you even read the Cohen source or just the little clip from Google? I don't have a problem with the Cohen source. Why would I? You drop WP:CIVILITY? Well Sir, Just like the sources you have been promoting you should actually read WP:CIVILITY before posting it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Please, get a hold of yourself. It's acceptable to argue, but you shouldn't go too far. I've the pages that I need, but your questions are irrelevant, because they're aimed at me, rather than at the source. It's not an interrogation. Anyway, it's fine that you don't have a problem, at least, with the Cohen source. With regard to the second source, you're mixing things up. The mentioned section of the book was translated by Theodore Hunters. Zhang Yongle translated the section "Okinawa and Two Dramatic Changes to the Regional Order." Also, what you're quoting isn't related to 1949–1950, i.e. the subject. Concentrate on the subject instead of accusing me of "promoting" something. My goal is to add every military occupation (since 1907) in this list. It doesn't matter what those occupying states are (Russia, US, India, China, etc). Though I don't know your goal. That's regrettable if it's different from mine.

In short, if you don't have anything constructive to say (i.e. "I disagree with Stephen P. Cohen. The military occupation of Sikkim isn't a military occupation, because... "), it's better to end our discussion. I don't want to go off topic discussing irrelevant matters.

Furthermore, what really concerns me is the methodology used for this list, because belligerent and non-belligerent occupations are mixed together. The so-called "interventions by invitation", which resulted in non-belligerent occupations, are also included in this list (for example, Soviet war in Afghanistan, 1956 Soviet intervention in Hungary, foreign intervention in the Second Congo War, Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War, etc). I've nothing against it, but it should be explained why foreign military interventions "by invitation" in other countries' civil conflicts (coups d'état, uprisings, civil wars, etc), which resulted in non-belligerent occupations, are deemed military occupations. In my opinion, it's also inappropriate to consider separatist entities as "occupying states" (see Free Lebanon State in the list) unless they are puppet states.--Russian Rocky (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Get a hold of myself? Lol. Your position was that The Politics of Imagining Asia was a good source for this. I pointed out it was not because of its unintelligible use of English. But your argument was that it was published by the Harvard Press and it was just quibbling to make fun of his English. And because of that I asked did you read the source? The translation is a piss poor translation and its actual meaning is not discernible. But now its 1949-1950? I've read the limited clip of the Cohen source. It does seem to suggest there was a military occupation, which I already said I don't a problem with the Cohen source.

If you have anything to discuss beyond simply India and Sikkim, Please feel free to start a new topic.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:52, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, there is a whole text below, see [show]. And yes, I've got a few ideas for the new topic. I'll come back when I'm ready.--Russian Rocky (talk) 03:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Gaza Again

I know we speak about Gaza often, and the lunacy of having Gaza listed as a current military occupied territory despite it not being occupied by any military due to the UN being a "RS". I want to bring actual RS showing that it's not occupied. Firstly, the UN is not a RS at all. Secondly, the European Court of Justice ruled in 2005 that in order for a territory to be called militarily occupied, it actually has to be militarily occupied. Here is the full court case that deals with it and then the article that explains the case: [8], [9] I really do hope we can at least in this article not show the world the bias of Wikipedia. Let us also not show the contradiction within the same article, as the lead of the article contradicts having Gaza (and East Jerusalem and the Golan) listed, since Israel annexed the Golan which means it's not applicable to this article as those who live there now get citizenship. We don't want to confuse the readers. After all,

"Military occupation is distinguished from annexation[a] by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population."

<--- that's the lead, means you contradict yourself by including East Jerusalem due to the Jerusalem Law and the Golan Heights due to the annexation of the Golan. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 22:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Except the European Court very much did not decide that any of those are not occupied? The court ruled on Azerbaijan and Armenia, not Israel and Gaza or the Golan or East Jerusalem. And in fact the EU very specifically says that EJ and Golan items must be labelled as coming from occupied territory. nableezy - 22:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure enough, the ruling doesnt say one word on Israel, Gaza or the Golan. Huh. nableezy - 22:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, right, but they ruled an occupation needs to have a military presence. This article is titled MILITARY occupation. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Im sorry, but Israel exercises effective military control over the West Bank, including EJ, Gaza and the Golan. We've gone through this several times. The controversy over whether or not Gaza really is occupied or not is included in the article. But sources continue to say that it is, and as such NPOV requires that we include that viewpoint. For the Golan and EJ there is nearly no controversy about its status at all, and the sources are clear on this point. nableezy - 23:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Military occupation is distinguished from annexation[a] by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population."

Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The annexations of EJ and the Golan have been ruled null and void by the UN Security Council. You can keep pretending that does not matter, but the reliable sources on the matter disagree with you. One more time. The overwhelming majority of reliable sources say that the Golan and EJ remain occupied territory. A significant portion of reliable sources say that Gaza remains occupied, though that has a non-trivial amount of opposition in sources. So for Gaza we include that some sources dispute that it remains occupied. No such dispute exists for the Golan and EJ. Attempts to prove the sources wrong through are all totally and completely pointless because, hello, we still have an WP:OR policy. The sources say EJ and the Golan are occupied, the end. nableezy - 23:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, the UN Security Council is not a body of law, that is first thing, they are a body made up of governments. The same governments that you wouldn't include as a RS in articles. In addition, the lead of this article says that we only include those territories that are under military occupation and lays out what is a military occupation. So, we got past the hypocrisy of Gaza, how is the Golan included when Israel annexed it, granted citizenship,claimed permanent sovereignty etc.? AS PER THE LEAD of this article? Same as Jerusalem, Israel has granted citizenship to those who want it, passed the Jerusalem Law, so under the terms of the lead of this article, it is contradictory to include it. Unless you specifically call out that Israel is special, include one or two sentences in the lead that just like everything else in the UN, this article has special rules for Israel, and we will include the Golan and EJ, even though there is no military occupation under the terms of this article or the Hague Convention, etc. then that will be fine. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 23:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please read and internalize WP:OR. Please read and internalize WP:NPOV. We are obliged to include the super-majority view that these territories are held under belligerent military occupation. Your personal opinion on the Golan is irrelevant here. What is relevant is that sources say that the Golan is considered to be Syrian territory held under Israeli occupation. I do not intend to repeat the same merry-go-round you had us ride the last time you decided that your opinion trumps the sources on this page. We had an RFC about it then I recall. There is nothing special about Israel here. Israel exercises effective military control over territory outside its sovereign borders. Namely the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, as well as (according to a significant percentage of sources) the Gaza Strip. That is what the sources say. They say those territories are occupied. You are not a reliable source. Your opinion that but but but it really isnt true simply does not matter here. nableezy - 00:14, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Nableezy, As I'm sure you recall, the RFC ended with no consensus for one. I'm just pointing out the contradiction and hypocrisy. Nothing I'm saying is OR. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 01:29, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on EJ, not on Gaza. The line in the lead has a note. That note says Annexation refers to de jure annexation or annexation as defined under international law. There is no contradiction, and certainly no hypocrisy. nableezy - 01:51, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that the Jordanian annex is included in the list (how can an annex be subsequently annexed??). Also an annex that has no UN resolution nullifying the effect of it (as is the case with East Jerusalem) is a contradiction in terms because annex is civilian rule not a military occupation. I think we need to add some notes or something to clarify what's going on here.Selfstudier (talk) 11:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

== Czech Republic ==

Poland just occupied, "by mistake", a corner of the Czech republic. "The Polish military has admitted it accidentally invaded the Czech Republic last month, but it insists its brief occupation of a small part of the country was simply a "misunderstanding."[10]. "You'd be forgiven for not knowing that the Polish military recently invaded and briefly occupied territory in the Czech Republic. Seems like headline news, sure — but it appears that even the Polish troops didn't know what they were doing."[11] — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoaringLL (talk • contribs) 03:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/יניב_הורון

Invasion of the Kuril Islands

I was surprised not to see the Invasion of the Kuril Islands on here. Is there any reason for that? Onceinawhile (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Probably poorly sourced article. Beshogur (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive behaviour by @Nice4What:

Can you exactly tell when Sofulu, Barxudarlı, Yukhari Askipara, and Karki are returned to Azerbaijan? Plus BBC doesn't mention anything either. Beshogur (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

@CuriousGolden: and @Solavirum: opinions on his last edit? Beshogur (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

None of the exclaves have been returned to Azerbaijan and aren't planned so as far as I know. This all stems from a false rumour that spread when the ceasefire was first signed. — CuriousGolden (T·C) 08:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

They were not returned, but they are rumours on them returning in the future. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 09:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: thanks for doing that, apologies for my words. Beshogur (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

@Beshogur: My mistake, no worries. Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I guess the initial reports about the ceasefire were misleading. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 19:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Links to annexation law articles

@Nice4What: I have struggled to understand your rationale for removing these – they appear to provide additive and helpful clarity for readers. I also have a pet peeve with people misquoting WP:ONUS – that is about verifiability, which is not in question here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:22, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Also I believe you crossed the 1RR restriction with your second removal of the text – perhaps best to self revert. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:23, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

If they are annexed, then it should be stated under the "Status" section (where it is in fact, already stated). You will see the my most recent edit was actually substantive and not a revert... it fixes inconsistencies, such as italics and how different subdivisions are listed. If you want to cite 1RR for the sake of argument's sake, sure, I can self-revert my first edit that removed the annexation listings. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 22:26, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Outdated/Incorrect map?

Hi, the map Military_Occupations.png is outdated or incorrect.

It highlights and labels the Gaza Strip as being occupied. However, Israel has disengaged from the Gaza Strip all the way back in 2005. Thus, listing it as a 'current' or 'contemporary' occupation is no longer accurate; especially not whilst the map is labeled as 'as of 2018'.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Xland44 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Israel doesn't consider Gaza to be still occupied but much of the world does. There are citations at Gaza Strip. Zero^talk 09:01, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

I think there are also sources here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Eligibility for inclusion.

On this article, occupations of Syrian territory by the United States and Turkey are included. However, the inclusion criteria for List of states with limited recognition: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_limited_recognition#Excluded_entities, excludes entities "[...] undergoing current civil wars and other situations with problems over government succession, regardless of temporary alignment with the inclusion criteria (e.g. by receiving recognition as state or legitimate government), where the conflict is still in its active phase [...]".

I understand this is a separate page, dealing with a separate issue, but I believe the inclusion criteria there to at least partially correspond with the inclusion criteria of this page. To that end, I believe the Syrian occupations by the United States and Turkey should be removed from this page, as both began and continue only under the pretext of the ongoing Syrian civil war. In contrast, Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights began before the civil war, so it should not be removed.

I also believe that this inclusion criteria is necessary to prevent constant edits to this page, which don't really benefit it. For example, if we'd like to include every single piece of Ukrainian territory occupied by Russia during the war, we'll have to update this page everyday. I don't believe that's useful since the information is then quickly out-of-date, and the context of this occupation is not the same as the others, as it's part of an ongoing war.

Anyway, I'm just a new user of Wikipedia who doesn't know what I'm doing, so if you disagree with this, feel free to explain to me why so I can maybe learn something. This is also why I'd rather post this here than edit the page without any warning or explanation. Thanks to all editors of this page for working on it. I particularly enjoy the pleasing colours of the map, so thank you to Onceinawhile for that! I'm looking forward to seeing what responses I'll get to this

XA1dUXvugi (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

A occupation is an occupation, whether it's going on during a civil war or Oktoberfest, and the presence such isn't a justification to remove them. Not only are these separate pages but separate issues. You are seeing issues that don't exist. You mention Ukraine and is in a constant state of Flux. Great then slow down. WP:NOTNEWS wikipedia is not a news paper. No we won't have to update this page everyday. There's no reason to do so, stop anyone who wants to from doing so, or to artificially create a circumstance to prevent anyone from doing so. Look at the exclusions you are talking about on the unrelated page. Either the subjects don't claim any independence such as the listed Rebel Groups mentioned or they are the Micronations, internationally unrecognized goverments in exile, or irredentist movements. Recognizing them as a matter weight in WP:UNDUE. This undue weight stands to legitimize (see WP:GEVAL) these groups but without the existence they should be able to legitimize themselves. With Wikipedia we wouldn't legitimize them but create a false balance. If you to create some inclusion or exclusion criteria there's need be a good justification for them. Really it's better to deal with stuff here case by case. If you got a local consensus here to arbitrarily prevent Ukraine listing because of how often you feel it should be adjusted, you couldn't use that override someone editing the article based on more broadly used and well established criteria such as the multitude of wikipedia policy, some of which I linked and others of which exist.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:20, 3 June 2022 (UTC)