Talk:List of military occupations/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Move

Im moving this back, that requires discussion and is unnecessary (and screwed up the subpage archives). nableezy - 14:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss. Only military occupations since 1907 are eligible for listing in the article, but there have been military occupations before then and anyone reading the article should be forewarned that only occupations since 1907 are going to be covered there. I'm not sure what the subpage archive issues might be, please advise. BobKilcoyne (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I see where the otherwise arbitrary 1907 comes from, then again the article Military occupation doesn't specify that they are only going to discuss it from any particular date, instead it says in the article "From the second half of the 18th century onwards, international law has come to distinguish between the occupation of a country and territorial acquisition by invasion and annexation." and gives a short form list of what I would call "modern" occupations starting after WWII (btw Occupied Enemy Territory Administration was an occupation). Anyways, I would prefer ...since World War I or ...modern... or else not to mention any date in the title and just say it in the opening sentence. Selfstudier (talk) 17:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It isnt arbitrary, its based on the date in which the modern concept came in to force. The subpage issue was that the subpages for this talk page werent moved, so the archives of the talk page werent showing up in the talk headers up above. But the disambiguation of since 1907 isnt necessary because the concept is limited to that, not because the list has an arbitrary cutoff. nableezy - 17:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Just so you know that as a pagemove, you shouldn't move something after it was moved, especially if you disputed the original move. You're basically using your advanced permissions to move the page to your preferred page. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Um what? I can revert a move, and I didnt use any advanced permission besides not leaving a redirect. The redirect isnt necessary as an implausible search term. Thats just silly, I cant revert a page move I disagree with because I have a pagemover right? No advanced permission is required to revert a move. nableezy - 02:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that's true. You might want to consult someone, you're also reverting a move you disagree with, which is not a good thing. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Lol what? Im reverting an undiscussed move. That is something every editor can do or request that it be done if technically impossible without pagemover (and this was technically possible without pagemover) and it will be done without discussion. All undiscussed moves that are challenged can be reverted. If youd like to raise this somewhere go right ahead. Youre saying that if an editor has rollback then they cannot undo, not rollback, an edit they disagree with. Thats so silly that it does not even merit a response. nableezy - 02:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Gaza

References

Selfstudier (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

CNN

"The U.N. position

In February 2008, Secretary-General Ban was asked at a media availability whether Gaza is occupied territory. "I am not in a position to say on these legal matters," he responded.

The next day, at a press briefing, a reporter pointed out to a U.N. spokesman that the secretary-general had told Arab League representatives that Gaza was still considered occupied.

"Yes, the U.N. defines Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as Occupied Palestinian Territory. No, that definition hasn't changed," the spokesman replied.

Farhan Haq, spokesman for the secretary-general, told CNN Monday that the official status of Gaza would change only through a decision of the U.N. Security Council." Selfstudier (talk) 09:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This entire list is a mess - constructive solution - Rename Article to "List of territories that have been or are under occupation"

This list was merged with the 1907 list and now I see where the problems stem from:

I removed Munch Agreement and Vienna Award but basically this entire list doesn´t make any sense. I´ve been told above that I can´t even use Wikipedias own definiton of "military occupation" to define what a military occupation is. But going by all the arguments in the discussion on Crimea, Israel and others, can someone explain tome how the Munich Agreement was ever even included here? (No military invasion, de facto and de jure transfer of sovereignity, agreement between two parties (albeit under duress) and the international community).

What are the previous editors going by? "Any transfer of territory made under any amount of duress"? That someone in some source at some point called it so?

For the Munich Agreement there wasn´t even a source? For Gaza both Israel and Hamas and the people of Gaza would disagree that they are under military occupation yet its up there. *Hamas because it would diminish its de Jure recognition, Israel because it would hurt its internatonal standing, the people of Gaza because they resist every and any incursion and its a point of pride* I´ve been here for a day and I feel exhausted ready to give up, and the discussion is a bit toxic. Editors apparently know its been "discussed before" so know each other and are set already. Also Wikipedia seems to value "going by sources" more so than going by its own definitions (that are themselves sourced) which leads to discussions becoming a sort of "fling opposing sources at each other/my source is better than your source".

PROPOSAL: Wouldn´t it be better to go by a set of criteria and then maybe even make a table and see if a country or territory falls under it? I propose a table like this:

Territories that have been or are under de Jure occupation vs Territories that have or are under de Facto occupation

Remove the term "military" as people can´t agree on that.

Add a set of criteria, sourced by academic sources for what "occupation" is.

Start putting territories into that table that fall under that criteria. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You're saying things that are just factually wrong. Hamas and the people of Gaza do not say that Gaza is not occupied. Israel does, and we include that they dispute it. Youre just making things up here, please stop doing that. "Military occupation" does not mean what you think it means, sorry. There is no such thing as de jure and de facto occupation. Again, you are just making things up here. This is not a amateur course on international law. nableezy - 06:55, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Example source on Gaza: Forced Migration Review: Under the Disengagement Plan, Israel retains absolute authority over Gaza’s airspace and territorial sea. It is manifestly exercising governmental authority in these areas. When we also take into account the views that have been expressed on control of the territory from the air, it is clear that Israeli withdrawal of land forces did not terminate occupation. This view is only reinforced by the ease with which Israeli land forces re-entered Gaza in June 2006.

There is indeed a serious dispute about the status of Gaza, so we include that dispute. But WP:NPOV requires the inclusion of all significant POVs, and the view that Gaza is occupied, shared by the UN, Amnesty International (and other human rights organizations), and numerous scholars is indeed a significant POV and needs to be included. nableezy - 07:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Gazan people have literally resisted every incursion into Gaza since Israel withdrew after the Oslo accords. What source do you have that Hamas considers Gaza to be occupied?

And what is your definition of military occupation if not the definition of Wikipedia that says: "is provisional control by a ruling power over a territory, without a claim of formal sovereignty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

To me there can be no doubt that Israel exercises no provisional or otherwise control over Gazan territory. With the exception of some portons of its sea perhaps. But its hard to say that the fish are under military occupatioin.

The book and chapter cited for all these modern examples is this one: The Legality of Economic Administratio in Occupied Territories But it is completely misunderstood.

It says that many occupations are "prolonged today" because the occupying state chooses to keep territories in prolonged occupation so as to not the opprobrium of the international community. It effectively states that those occupations are a disguise for effective annexations. And thus are not occupations. It continues: "In the West Bank, Israel pays lip service to the notion of a temporary occupation that is to be brought to an end by negotiation but in practice it has de facto annexed large portions of the territory". Meaning that ANNEXATION is different from and separate from OCCUPATION and that the ANNEXING power (Israel) seeks to disguise its DE FACTO ANNEXATION through a "lip service" of OCCUPATION. The authors here obviously try to make the claim that annexation is more vile or at least more condemnable than occupation. But most of you editors who have been editing this article don´t understand this. So you use the source as if all the "...cases today..." of annexation are in reality occupations: "...however, the occupying power has formally annexed the territory in question. This is illustrated by the cases of Israel’s annexations of East Jerusalem and the Golan, Morocco’s annexation of Western Sahara and Russia’s annexation of the Crimea. Alternatively, the occupying power has established a puppet regime that claims to be the TRNC, Abkhazia and South Ossetia." You have completely misunderstood the only viable source used to justify putting West Sahara, TRNC, Abhkazia, Crimea, etc on this list.

More so, there is not even a source for Gaza under military occupation but just occupation, thus my proposition to remove military from the article titlehead. Even so Hamas can´t be a government not in exile and claim that the territory it effectively governs is occupied. Here´s a source that disputes what you´re saying "This article explores the definition of “occupied territory” under international law and contends that the term “occupied territory” no longer applies to Gaza after Israel’s disengagement. Although the United Nations still maintains that Gaza is occupied, under both the literal and interpreted applications of the definition of occupation— characterized by what is termed “effective control”—Gaza is not occupied territory pursuant to the standards set forth in international law and doctrine." IS GAZA OCCUPIED?: REDEFINING THE STATUS OF GAZA UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW . I am not making things up, dont stoop to that level please. I am talking about realities on the ground, you´re talking about lofty judicial principles. Israel exercises control over imports and exports to and from Gaza and the movement of its people outside of the territory. It has effectively put it under blockade, not occupation. For all the other instances as mentioned above, the one sourced used is misunderstood. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 07:15, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that to resist foreign occupation means to deny it exists? Here is a Hamas spokesman decrying the Israeli occupation. Here is another. See where it says we are an occupied people? Again, please review WP:OR. Everytime you get the urge to say thus here, remind yourself that your view is unimportant and that the sources are what matter here. As far as removing "military" from the title, military occupation and belligerent occupation are synonyms and military occupation is the WP:COMMONNAME for the topic. Your misunderstanding of the meaning of the term isnt all that important. And yes, I already said that There is indeed a serious dispute about the status of Gaza, so we include that dispute. And yes, that source is an example of the serious dispute about the status of Gaza. When there is a dispute among sources we include all significant views. The view that Gaza is not occupied is likewise significant, and it is included. I dont care what you think the reality on the ground is, military occupation is an international law topic. So yes, we discuss the legal status. nableezy - 07:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

First article he says "the zionist occupation", it does not refer to Gaza. You know that Hamas sees all of Israel as Palestine. And even if it didn´t it obviously sees the West Bank as occupied. The spokesman later goes on to clarify that "he called for the international community to pressure the Israeli occupation to stop its violations and attacks on Palestinians, as well as to lift its oppressive siege on Gaza."

These are two different things. You can´t have a siege and at the same time be occupying what you´re sieging.

You can´t have an annexation and at the same time occupy what you´ve annexed.

How could I convince you of this basic folly that to me is so apparent and that I feel you´re blinded from seeing simply due to your probably well intentioned political bias/care? I feel like you´re not understanding your own sources.

Did you review my points on the article concerning Crimea et la? Do you agree or disagree with that?

But even beyond that, what about my original proposal?

That we set up a Criteria for What is OCCUPIED de Facto and de Jure respectively. That the "fight" if you wish be over sources defining this, not each separate entry? 83.252.116.25 (talk) 07:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The first article is about an OCHA oPt report on the siege of Gaza, and the Hamas response was "This report is considered a new UN document added to a series of previous documents that monitors the crimes and violations of the Zionist occupation." But you say it does not refer to Gaza? And then you want me not to say you are making things up? The problem with your de facto and de jure criteria is that they are made up. Occupation is a legal concept. What do you not get about that? You can´t have a siege and at the same time be occupying what you´re sieging. is based on what exactly? Youre just making these bald assertions without any basis for them. Im sorry, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Have you read WP:OR yet? nableezy - 07:59, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What do you even mean by "occupation is a legal concept" , as opposed to what? You can feel that you´re under occupation even if you´re not legally recognized as such. And international bodies can tell you that you´re an occupier even if everyone under you cries out for your rule. Where does it say that "occupation is a legal concept?" Who has decided this? Are people not occupied until some legal scholar decides they are? Again what about the right to revolt? I mentioned the Zapatistas earlier. Are they occupiers because they aren´t a recognised power? Please define your legal criteria then. To me, the Wikipedia article defines it perfectly in that one sentence, in a fair and neutral, sourced way. Whether its a "legal concept" or not, I dont know. And I dont care that much.

What´s wrong with the definition we have already? I keep bringing this up, and you keep ignoring it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

"Military or belligerent occupation, often simply occupation, is provisional control by a ruling power over a territory, without a claim of formal sovereignty.".

Now about your source. I don´t know if you´re playing a game with me or not. If you can please link to the report. All I know is that he clearly separates the Siege of Gaza from the "Zionist occupation" by adding "as well as". If we can´t agree on the meaning of "as well as" denoting something else than the thing mentioned before it then we together with this Hamas rep might have to go learn English again - preferably at the same place.

If you disagree with me and think he meant that Gaza is under siege while being occupied then please explain to me how that can be possible. To play the devils advocate a bit the only way I see it is that he considers Gaza to be inseparable from Palestine as a whole. But that is irrelevant to our discussion and more a reflection of his political ambitions. Because what we´re dealing with are 5 separate entries for various Arab territories not Gaza as part of a whole Palestine.

So you´re the one making the assertion that something can be occupied and under siege at the same time. These terms are colloquially understood as being mutually exclusive as to occupy something you need to hold it and to siege something your enemy needs to hold it.

I´ll be fair and say that your second article is far less clear. But if you´re being honest you´d admit that you´re primarily motived in this discussion not because of your care of the "legal terminology" of "occupation" but for Palestinian people. You´re passionate about that one one struggle as you keep ignoring my review of the source for all other examples. But if you´re passionate about the Palestinian struggle you should know that the term "The Occupation" is used as a political slogan. I could start scouring the internet for sources that support me in this assertion and you could keep posting your scholarly legal opines and would be stuck in arguing who has the best sources. You also ignored the one source I posted from the Americas Court of Human Rights opposing your assertion that Gaza is occupied.

What I would rather do is, whether or not you agree with two lists (de Facto and de Jure) that we agree on a common definition of "occupation" or "military occupation" if that has the same meaning to and Wikipedians in general. Rather than arguing each case.

So do you have a good definition of "occupation" that goes beyond the triple-sourced one I cited from the Wikipedia article above which you´d rather use? 83.252.116.25 (talk) 08:19, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I´ll do this as a separate reply. Overall I Think we should have a definition for what military occupied is.

But I see you´ve been arguing this issue since 2018 (browsing archives atm). I Would have for example gladly have used the European Court of Human Rights definition as opposed to the Wikipedian one. But even then you argue that Israel somehow militarily occupies Gaza from the outside.

I would counter this by asking you if you could define the difference between blockade and occupation. But I think you´d be disingenuous or you´d ignore me. I hope I´m proven wrong about all of this and you do come up with good answers.

The problem is here that your passion about the Palestinian issue is creating a clusterfuck of a situation for every other issue. So barring the resolution of the above here´s a secondary proposal:

If I email Hamas in Gaza and/or the Palestinian Embassy here in Sweden with the following questions:

"

Esteemed sir/madam

We are having some trouble on the English Wikipedia on the issue of Military Occupations. One of the problems to reaching a consensus is the Palestinian situation.

As you may know, Wikipedia is often the entry point for people researching the subject for personal, academic or media related reasons and we would love to have an official position on this from you.

Many contend that Israel uses the terminology "occupation" to denote what is otherwise an effectively annexation.

Question 1 and 2:

What are you official positions on Occupation vs Annexation - or in other words: Is Area C of the West Bank occupied or annexed by the Israeli´s?

What if any is the difference between Occupation and Annexation?

Question 3 and 4:

A further point of contention is Gaza.

For example, I contend that Gaza is not under occupation but under a blockade and from time to time under a siege.

Others contend that Gaza is under occupation while being under a blockade and from time to time under a siege.

What is your official standpoint? Is Gaza under occupation or under a blockade and from time to time under a siege?

Or is it simultaneously under a blockade and under an occupation?

How would you define Occupation and Blockade as it relates to Gaza?

With Kind Regards XYZ and the Wikipedian community.

"

Feel free to suggest changes.

Would this suffice to move on from the Palestine/Israel issue?

Should I also email it to Israel?

Maybe we could have a "disputed" section if they answered differently?

Cheers. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that most modern occupations breach the rules in one way or another, what with politicos and courts playing games. What constitutes occupation has varied over time and I don't see any need to have a discussion about that in a List article, we simply point to Military occupation and that's that. We don't use any "definition", we go by what reliable sources say, so if a majority of respectable RS say Gaza is occupied, we report that (as well as a minority opinion if it is significant). Ditto any others. Selfstudier (talk) 09:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a fair view and I welcome the first objective posting on this whole issue (both those support and opposing my previous post have been kinda subjective).

But the issue is far worse than that:

1. In relation to Crimea, Northern Cyprus, Akbhkazia, etc: The One source used is not understood well. See first reply in this thread. The editors used a source that INVALIDATES their position rather than VALIDATING it. They sadly do not comprehend what they have read.

I.E: The Source CRITICIZES Israel for obscuring ANNEXATION with notions of OCCUPATION and mentions several instances of OCCUPATIONS becoming ANNEXATIONS. An ANNEXATION cannot be an OCCUPATION. YOU cannot OCCUPY what YOU have ANNEXED.

2. In regards to Gaza: Similarly a BLOCKADE and SIEGE cannot happen over something that is OCCUPIED by YOU. Has a king ever BESIEGED his OWN town? Has this ever happened in history? Is there anything even remotely similar to this?

3. Perhaps I am not well versed in Wiki-bureaucracy but how can there be a sourced definition (x3) of what a "Military Occupation" is, and then in an article detailing current and old military occupations there are DOZENS of instances that do not fall under that very same definition? Aren´t we in effect all EDITORS? Don´t we have to have some kind of consistent editorial policy?

Are you saying that this is acceptable and good practice:

We as Wikipedians have defined A as B because sources XYZ list A as B even though B is defined and sourced as C and C is completely incompatible with A?

Why not just have B defined as C and then see if A fits into B per C? Im completely open to changing the definition of B or adding "more definitions/variations" but am not open to holding two opposing thoughts in my head as true at the same time. As editors we must take a stand and be consistent. It would even be better to change B to fit A than continue like this. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 09:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

An ANNEXATION cannot be an OCCUPATION. YOU cannot OCCUPY what YOU have ANNEXED. There is an informal term in use that sadly has not gained much traction, occu-annex. It's easier to think about it as two different legal systems, so eg In Israeli law, they have annexed (67+80) East Jerusalem so as far as Israel is concerned it is not occupied. In international law (ie as far as the world/UN is concerned) the law is nullified (of no legal effect) and the area remains occupied (then Geneva IV/Laws of war continue to apply). As well there are resolutions covering "Jerusalem" (character cannot be changed, no such changes will be accepted, no legal effect etc etc). Selfstudier (talk) 10:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I haven't really looked hard at the Military occupation article, it's quite possible that there are errors of one sort and another. In general, if there are conflicting sources, then the need is to try and resolve that by further investigation, new/better sourcing and so on, if not resolved then one can always include the contradictory sources and just say something like "sources disagree..." Selfstudier (talk) 10:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

This is what I´ve been asking for. I want this guy nableezy to define what a military occupation is.

But in my opinion its wrong to start changing the definition of the the term to fit a single case rather than removing the case. Still even that would be better, than having such a conflict. It doesn´t take long. You can look here "Military or belligerent occupation, often simply occupation, is provisional control by a ruling power over a territory, without a claim of formal sovereignty. The territory is then known as the occupied territory and the ruling power the occupant. Occupation is distinguished from annexation and colonialism by its intended temporary duration."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

It has been defined by several sources as being DIRECTLY DISTINCT from Annexation. Nothing else makes sense. I dont even know why this is an issue for him, I feel like Russia or Israel commits a bigger "crime" if it annexes Ukranians or Palestinians than occupies them.

In regards to Gaza its not in direct conflict with the source because the source deals with annexations and not blockades. But again, I ask you or him or I could even send an request to what ever organization or embassy to define if they want how a blockade and siege could happen of something you already occupy. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Also why do you feel its "sad" that "occu-annex" hasn´t gained more traction?

Why do you feel the need to have a word that denotes two different things?

That is literally the problem we´re having here. Why is "illegal" or "unrecnogized" or "violent" annexation not enough? Why do you need "occupied annexation" that I dont even understand. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I like "occu-annex" because it concisely demonstrates that the two things can and do co-exist while avoiding pointless discussions. Not certain, I think it was Michael Lynk that coined the expression here.

I think this convo has reached a conclusion tbh, I can only reiterate that in WP we go by the sources so it's not for Nableezy or me or anyone else to define what a military occupation is (or an annex). Selfstudier (talk) 11:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

But you just said that if the sources conflict with the very definition as sourced by academics and accepted by Wikipedia then something needs to be done about it?

And again, the source used for everything except Gaza is directly invalidating the position that its occupied and supporting my contention that nations use occupation to obfuscate annexations.

Maybe Im bad at expressing myself here?

I am saying that the majority of the list that I dispute is contradicted by its own source, with the except of Gaza that simply is contractionary in nature. There is the middle ground "Occupation" and then we have two extremes: Blockade ------- Occupation -----Annexation. Three distinct terms. Occupation and Annexation are clearly sourced to be mutually exclusive in the politicalsense. I just need people to agree with this (how do I start a formal process?) as per the source used. Blockade and Occupation are also mutually exclusive but I dont have a source for that beyond logical deduction and simple semantics. That should be enough but maybe it isn´t. Im content with leaving Gaza as I honestly cant bother caring enough but the rest are directly contradicted by the source they use. (Crimea, Akbhazia, Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara, etc).

83.252.116.25 (talk) 11:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Then find better sources/tag the problem areas so that they can be fixed. Or apply a global article tag if appropriate. This will bring more eyes to the article. Selfstudier (talk) 11:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No I mean like, I browsed the archive and Ive seen some discussions turned into "votes" or what ever you guys call it.

So how do I start a vote on a proposal.

I realise this was too broad. Plus I see in the archives that someone tried to have the same proposal as I did in like 2018...to create two separate lists.

Instead I would propose that Annexation be mutually exclusive with Military Occupation in the political sense. So that if a territory becomes "Annexed" it is no longer "Occupied".

I would like to do the same with Blockade vs Occupation. But Maybe thats asking too much. I would obviously support my contention with the very source that is used here now + sources used in the article on "Military Occupation" found here and maybe some others: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation . EDIT: Ive asked my question in help instead, this can be moved to the archived if you guys want and then Ill form a more refined proposal once I know the process. Thanks for the advice so far. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 11:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You refer to WP:RFC, the instructions are there. Although you might like to do this and I cannot prevent you from doing so, I can virtually guarantee that "..propose that Annexation be mutually exclusive with Military Occupation in the political sense. So that if a territory becomes "Annexed" it is no longer "Occupied"." will fail to garner consensus. For the second "Blockade vs Occupation" that is not so clear but would likely fail as well for lack of specificity if for no other reason. Although you may comment about Gaza/Palestine matters here on the talk page, you should also know that IP/unqualified editors are not permitted to participate in RFCs dealing with those matters directly, you would need to remain in the abstract. I have added an explanatory note about this to your talk page.Selfstudier (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I might have an old account I´ll check then. But it´s okay if it doesnt qualify. I don´t know why it would fail since it falls under Wikipedias own sourced definition. But if fails to garner consensus it fails to garner consensus, what can I do. I still await you or anyone else to explain to me how it can be Annexed and fall under a "Military Occupation" as defined in that article. And you seemed to even agree that it could be contractionary, yet you may want to keep it and I don´t understand this. Maybe I misunderstand you and you don´t agree. But you could look at the contradictions and then make up your mind. What I dont see is IF YOU AGREE how you could vote against it!

Anyway thanks. I didnt realize that "RPF" is this proposal thing. If I cant find my old account: Do I basically make a RPF but then I cant participate in the discussion? 83.252.116.25 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:RFC, RFC not RPF. You may participate in it but you may not refer to Gaza/Palestine/AI conflict matters directly. So if you want to speak about blockade/siege and so on, you can but not in the specific context I just mentioned.

I still await you or anyone else to explain to me how it can be Annexed and fall under a "Military Occupation" as defined in that article.

I might try to answer this question if it were more specific, please explain exactly what you are asking for. Selfstudier (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Lol I dont know how I read RFC RPF. Long day I guess staring at a screen. I dont really understand how I can reference it without speaking about it as one of the sources I will be using directly references it? And that is the source used in this very article?

I dont now how I can be more specific. Historic events defined as "occupations" even have a table in this very article that asks "Subsequently annexed?"

As per the above WIKI-article, and as per the source I cited and as per basic semantic structure of A coming after B and A being thus distinct from B (B = Occupation subsequently turned into A = Annexation) how can A = B. If you can refute both the above quoted Wikipedia articles 2 sentence long introductionary paragraph together with the previously cited sourced in regards to Israels obfuscation of what is actually "Annexation" through its liberal use of "Occupation" and the logical deduction above. But overall they are all the same. A=/=B because A is distinct from, follows or is obfuscated by B. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 12:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@83.252.116.25: The terms "military occupation" and "occupation" are synonyms. There's no formal difference between the two concepts; you've just made up your own difference based on your own interpretation. Furthermore, a territory can be both militarily occupied and claimed as a sovereign state's de jure territory at the same time. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The Wikipedia article's own definition of the concept up until a few days ago, citing "no claim of sovereignty", was inaccurate. The claim of sovereignty has no fundamental bearing on whether a military occupation can be classified as such. It seems that someone (not myself) has amended the definition to be more accurate recently. It is indeed more important that a territory actually be under effective control to be classified as under military occupation (rather than to be de jure'' annexed, which is actually mostly irrelevant). This makes the Gaza Strip a very interesting case since Israel doesn't really exercise absolute control over the territory, although the territory is effectively under a permanent blockade by both Israel and Egypt, and it is practically a vassal state of Israel at the present time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If I can indulge in a little bit of OR re Gaza, take a look at the UN statement down below, it's very carefully phrased. First, the UN passed a resolution a while ago, I forget the number, that declared Gaza to be an integral part of the oPt (and SoP includes it as well). So I put the question, if an occupier were to invade London or New York, would one argue that the rest of the UK or USA is not occupied? Or to make it even more pointy, if an invader were to occupy England but not Northern Ireland would we say that Northern Ireland was unoccupied or would we just say that the UK was occupied? It is deliberate Israeli policy to maintain the fiction that Gaza is a completely separate entity. Selfstudier (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It's not really an Israeli fiction that the Gaza Strip is separate from Palestine. Geographically, the Gaza Strip is quite clearly separate from the West Bank. The territorial situation is similar to modern-day United States (re Alaska), Azerbaijan (re Nakhchivan), and historical Pakistan (re Bangladesh). Politically speaking, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank are supposed to be one unit, but in reality, they are not really governed as a single unit, largely due to the geographical limitations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:02, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I did say "completely separate entity", I appreciate it is geographically separate and the governance is distinct but legally they are not separate any more than 2 "states" in the US are separate just because of geography and governance. It is convenient for Israel to consider them as distinct, that's why they do it. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM applies to all of us, not just the IP. If youd like to have a general discussion please do it somewhere else. nableezy - 14:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break for ease of editing

I still await you or anyone else to explain to me how it can be Annexed and fall under a "Military Occupation" as defined in that article. I like precision, for instance, what is "it" and please state which "definition" you are referring to. (I should have mentioned earlier the procedure for changing article titles, that's WP:RM, again the instructions are there.) Selfstudier (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I´d say "it" is anything that isn´t a ghost-town or an unoccupied territory with some form of civilization/government.

We could use this list of things that I will cite now, but the rhetorical question could be posed on how this article has survived without your keen senses of precision being alerted before. Why am I the one who has to define it? Should we have a definition of "it" to begin with?

Anyway:

". There is no requirement on strictly delimited borders or minimum size of the land, but artificial installations and uninhabitable territories cannot be considered as territories sufficient for statehood. The term 'permanent population' defines the community that has the intention to inhabit the territory permanently and is capable to support the superstructure of the State, though there is no requirement of a minimum population. The government must be capable of exercising effective control over a territory and population (the requirement known in legal theory as 'effective control test') and guarantee the protection of basic human rights by legal methods and policies. The 'capacity to enter into relations with other states' reflects the entity's degree of independence."

If you have an other definition, feel free to use it or propose it. My frustration comes with that there is none.

The "definition" of Military Occupation has already been cited 10 times by me, I keep asking myself how you keep misunderstanding my posts. Im sorry if Im being passive aggressive but here are my citations of the definition and they all say the same thing:

So Ill list you 6 of the 10 examples where I have mentioned this "precise" definition. And please don´t ask me again if you still don´t understand it.

1:We don´t have an agreed upon definition of what a miltary occupation is, despite having an article on what a military occupation is (how that works I don´t understand either). See my last post for a proposal. 2:The only modern true military occupations on this list are the Syrian ones, the Ukranian ones beyond Donbass area, and maybe the Golan Heights. Thats going by Wikipedias own definition.

3:Why does it matter if someone recognizes it or not? The definition is: "without a claim of formal sovereignty".

Not "without a RECOGNIZED claim of formal sovereignty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation'

4You can look here "Military or belligerent occupation, often simply occupation, is provisional control by a ruling power over a territory, without a claim of formal sovereignty. The territory is then known as the occupied territory and the ruling power the occupant. Occupation is distinguished from annexation and colonialism by its intended temporary duration."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

5how it can be Annexed and fall under a "Military Occupation" as defined in that article

6As per the above WIKI-article, 83.252.116.25 (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

For the love of anything you hold holy, please read WP:OR. This is a complete and utter waste of time, we dont edit according to some definition on some other Wikipedia page. A place is occupied when reliable sources say it is. Please also see WP:V and WP:TRUTH. nableezy - 15:23, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Well thats your opinion. Please avoid "weasle words", trying to make you sound bigger than you are. That is what the RFC will determine I guess. If its a waste of time, please stop participating. I feel that you´re being quite rude to me when Im editing in good faith and doing my best. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What weasel word and what opinion. The waste of time is yours, because none of this will lead to any change in the article. I dont actually give half a shit how much you write here, it has zero validity according to our policies. Also, you may not start or participate in an RFC here, as IPs and editors with fewer than 500 edits are prohibited from formal discussions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area. nableezy - 15:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't realized that you hadn't a specific example in mind when I asked my question, in which case I cannot answer your question, sorry bout that. Selfstudier (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The Weasle Word that when you say "we dont edit according to some definition on some other Wikipedia page" you mean you dont. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 22:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No, thats we, as in we at Wikipedia. WP:WPNOTRS. Other WP articles arent reliable sources. nableezy - 22:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Well I gotta admit that´s a policy. For someone that defended Wikipedia during my masterclass and brought up a lot of sources to my professors that cite it as a reliable source in many cases; The fact that you/we as a collective have decided that this encyclopedia is "absoslutely not a reliable source" is fucking depressing. Man, despite all this toxicity here, and a full wasted day on this....It was just an issue I had stumbled on. Now IM actually sad. I disagree of course but yeah its apparently policy. Goddamnit 83.252.116.25 (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Its a volunteer project with nameless editors that literally anybody can change. How could that ever be a reliable source for an encyclopedia? nableezy - 23:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

My formatting is messed up, the text below was the first one. But I thiink I got you! Catch 22. Or something.

WHAT IF I FIND RELIABLE SOURCES that say that WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES are RELIABLE? :D

GET FUCKED MAN... I could but I cant bother. I give up now. Enjoy your sandbox. Im just one guy and this fight is so much bigger than this one article now. But im tellnig you.Its sad when you crap on your own work. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 23:17, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You can find lots of idiots on the internet. Might even meet some on Wikipedia ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ nableezy - 23:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Because collective wisdom matters, because all these regulations and bureaucratic neologisms that you´ve invented and that confuse the shiit out of new people like me and create an elitist little club...all that should have some meaning. Some value. Why are you even here then? Its supposed to be a repository of human knowledge, a democratically governed editorial body producing as good articles as any hierarchical such. And in many cases it does produce fantastic articles. But you shit on yourselves here. Fucking hell. I managed to convince several professors to accept Wikipedia articles as sources (computer science here) but had they seen this policy...had I seen this policy...had any of the people I cited seen this policy. If you dont belive in your own projects ability to create something reliable. Why do you care at all?83.252.116.25 (talk) 23:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I think youre missing a few important points. Nearly every WP article can be changed at any time for any reason by any person. Wikipedia is completely volunteer written and administered, and most people are using pseudonyms. You dont know if I am some world class scholar of international law, a meth dealer, or somewhere in between. Something written by non-experts without any strict editorial control and no method of fact-checking cannot be taken as a reliable source. Does it contribute to society? I sure hope so, otherwise Ive wasted a lot of time. My motivation, and Im assuming a lot of people's motivation, is to help spread knowledge freely and widely. But does that mean that any source that is "volunteer written by anonymous people without any fact-checking" should be treated as a reliable source? No, of course not. But this is veering widely off the intended purpose of this page, which is to discuss the article List of military occupations and potential changes to that article. Because like Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it is also not a forum for general discussion. nableezy - 23:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn´t matter if it can be changed every time. For every person that changes something, there are dozens that monitor the article. It takes very little time finding problems, especially in popular articles. Vandalism while an issue is not pervasive. Every little thing is contested. Just see our discussion here. It may not be a forum but I could as I said use your owns words against you and find plenty of articles that say Wikipedia is reliable. But it doesn´t matter what I say to you. I dont know what takes precedence; Wikipedia policy or Reliable Sources. I dont think you do. I dont think anyone does. It would just be one more discussion to fight with even more experienced users who are even more entrenched in their ways than you. But I think its sad that after all the effort you finding sources to support your inclusion here of Gaza as occupied - you would follow or think it´s credible to say that some kid somewhere or some journalist elsewhere shouldn´t be using that for their article. I just find that extremely depressing. But like I said, I kinda give up. I dont know, you could let me have the last word, or you could continue breaking your own policy that this isnt a forum. I dont care. Im so angry at myself and you and Wikipedia right now Im gonna express it. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

@Nableezy: While we are mentioning Original research read the actual definition on the article page here for military occupation. This won't change anything or what should or should be listed here since thats all based on Wikipedia policy, but please just indulge me for a second. Read the content and review the sources. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats not a good definition either, Id just use Military occupation is the effective military control of a territory outside of a country's sovereign territory, cite this ICRC paper or Ferraro, Tristan (2012). "Determining the beginning and end of an occupation under international humanitarian law". International Review of the Red Cross. 94 (885). Cambridge University Press (CUP): 133–163. doi:10.1017/s181638311200063x. ISSN 1816-3831. or Bracka, J. (2021). Transitional Justice for Israel/Palestine: Truth-Telling and Empathy in Ongoing Conflict. Springer series in transitional justice. Springer International Publishing AG. ISBN 978-3-030-89435-1. Today, the widely accepted definition of occupation is 'the effective control of a power ... over a territory to which that power has no sovereign title, without the volition of the sovereign of that territory' nableezy - 16:44, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Not Nableezy but still. I think there is an issue there as regards annexation, the note refers to de jure annexation and does not mention the interplay between occupation and de facto annexation (an occupier cannot legally annex but what if they do it anyway?) I would understand "de jure" to just mean "legal" but a defacto annex may or may not be "legal", it depends. Also worth mentioning is that "temporary" is an odd description for say the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and the "rules" don't specify a time limit but modern scholarship would suggest that if there is evidence of no intention to end an occupation, then that occupation becomes illegal (it is for all practical purposes, an annex minus the bother of the paperwork). See Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine. Let me see what else I can dig up. Selfstudier (talk) 16:28, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I just assumed you would respond. I was to lazy to ping you. The main thing here is the definition isn't great, which I think is what often leads to the disruption here, like what we see now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ill change it as per the citations above. nableezy - 17:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So you´ll literally amend the definition that "doesn´t matter because we dont edit this article based on that definition" so that you can push your sources that now are in conflict with the definition? Like do you even care about the truth or is this a political arena of sorts for you ?83.252.116.25 (talk) 22:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

No, the content of the article matters. But a Wikipedia article is not a reliable source. We base it off of reliable sources. The definition given previously was poorly written and poorly sourced and meandered in to other directions. So I found better sources giving a straightforward definition. That doesnt have anything to do with whether or not we can use that definition to on our own determine what meets it. We still depend on the sources for that. I care about the content of our articles and their fidelity to our policies. I do not care, even a little, about what you think is the truth. nableezy - 22:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

"Poorly written and poorly sourced." There´s like 5+ sources in a 2 sentence paragraph, all reliable. K Yeah. So you say. Because "Id not use that definition, id use some other one"...that fits your purposes. Like I could ask you whats bad about them and if you bothered you could probably stitch up some answer and there we could be, flinginig sources at each other. But I shouldn´t need to be asking you. You should be explaining it in your first introductionary sentence when you say "Thats not a good definition". It naturally should be followed by why it isnt a good deifniton. Like basic 101 academia. Maybe Wikipedians in some sections dont find Wikipedia reliable because they are like you. And they know that their opponents are the same, just with different POVs. And so they can never trust them because they can never trust themselves. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 00:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The original sentence was Military occupation is a type of effective control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign, and provisional in nature. The poorly written bit is what type of effective control, and the answer is, per several sources, effective military control. The next bit, provisional in nature, is correct in how the law of occupation is intended to limit an occupation, but as Roberts, the source cited, shows that is not the case in practice. What he says is:

An important, but implicit, assumption of much of the law on occupations is that military occupation is a provisional state of affairs, which may end as the fortunes of war change, or else will be transformed into some other status through negotiations conducted at or soon after the end of the war. However, many episodes during this century have called into question the assumption that occupations are of short duration. ... In the period since the Second World War, there has been no shortage of cases of prolonged occupation, many of which have raised complex questions about the applicability and utility of international rules

Which should have been obvious just from the title of the article, he is discussing prolonged occupations. The other source cited is Eyal Benvenisti. The problem there is that Benvenisti is whats cited in my quote above, he directly supports what I changed the article to, almost verbatim. The next bit was the line on annexation: 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. We just covered why intended temporary nature is not accurate in many cases, but as to the rest. The view that annexation nullifies occupation is disputed in several sources. See for example Amnesty International: "“Annexation” is acquiring territory by force and is a flagrant violation of international law. As such it can have no effect on the legal status of the territory, which remains de jure occupied." Or again Benvenisti on page 113:

For the purposes of the law of occupation, it is sufficient to note, without getting into the details of the arguments that have been presented concerning the weight of Israel’s claim to East Jerusalem, that under Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 (GCIV), the law of occupation continues to apply even if the annexation was legally effective. Even if an occupant asserts a reasonable—albeit contested—claim for sovereignty, it is not allowed to use its effective control for its claim to prevail. A different view would undermine the entire structure that the law of occupation establishes for the protection of occupied communities.

Those sources clearly say that annexation does not nullify occupation, so the attempt to mark the point when one transforms in to the other when both can be simultaneously true is flawed from the get go. nableezy - 01:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely, simplicity per Nableezy is right, leave the issue of annexation out of it. Selfstudier (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

So you, despite agreeing with me that this is a problematic editorial issue and that you would review it as it stands now that I´ve given you the "precise" definition of something you never cared about before I brought it up, you will not actually care about it either, eh? 83.252.116.25 (talk) 22:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I did ask which "definition", I didn't get an answer. If there is an issue with the definition at military occupation, then the place to raise that is at that article, the definition now given here is straightforward and inarguable. Selfstudier (talk) 07:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave you the definition 6 times, quoting it verbatim. The only thing is that I took it from that article. What does it matter where I get it from? How can you say that you didn´t get an answer? Are you fucking kidding me? I gave you the answer 6 times. What is wrong with you?83.252.116.25 (talk) 09:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Now that I think about it I could have just copied that definition into this article, using the same sources. Then it wouldn´t be "quoting Wikipedia" but quoting those sources. You people and your technicalities. Small minded people. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

modified. nableezy - 17:56, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's to simple.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian occupations

The occupations of parts of Ukraine has been split into sections, as far as I can tell. These include oblasts, annexed territories (Crimea), and quasi-states (Luhansk and Donetsk, which are also oblasts), as well as the distinctive Snake Island.

I've noticed that among the occupations, there isn't an entry for the Russian occupation of Kyiv Oblast and Chernihiv Oblast, nor the Capture of Chernobyl (inside of Kyiv, but it's a nuclear exclusion zone). The Kyiv Oblast and Chernihiv Oblast occupations were only temporary, but they were nonetheless occupations during their brief durations. Also, the Sumy Oblast occupation was about equally as long as those two. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

So add them to the historical section.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't think they have separate articles. So, they can only be added as a comment at the present time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:36, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

We don´t have an agreed upon definition of what a miltary occupation is, despite having an article on what a military occupation is (how that works I don´t understand either). See my last post for a proposal.

For example I´d disagree that the capital region was ever under "military occupation". Occupation implies some kind of military administration. There was none. Territory got taken, territory got lost. If you´re Ukranian i´d fight this as a matter of pride/principle. I.e. the Russians never occupied Kiev/Kyiv or its region. Its the way when the Nazi´s never established their Reichscommisarriat Moscau. Some areas around Moscow were taken for a short while but no "occupation" was established.

An other example would be, the Americans didn´t occupy Iraq until it was "occupied". I.e. until the conclusion of operations and the implementation of a military governorship.

But again, all this stems from that this article has no definition of military occupation as a criteria and then nothing to check against. So its a, excuse my language, fucking free-for-all. I think -Serialjoepsycho- makes this worse by telling you "just add it then" instead of asking you to think/argue your point first. This is why this entire list is "a mess" and filled with every form of territorial change imaginable. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 06:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You think I just make it worse? I don't damn give what you think. Do not ping me. What you don't like is called WP:BRD. @Jargo Nautilus: a separate article isn't required. At one point most of these were not linked to another article. The only requirement is that it be, in the position of reliable sources, occupied.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Im allowed to ping you if I want as you´re relevant.I´ll have to contact an admin on this, it doesn´t make sense to me that you can have a definition of "Military Occupation" that conflicts with additions in the article "List of Military Occupations" and that this is acceptable. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

You can contact an admin all you like. The evidence here is that most of the disruptive activity in this talk page can be attributed to you yourself and not anybody else. You probably should have contacted an administrator very early on if you were truly interested in making concrete changes to this article. At this point, there's not much of a case in your favour anymore. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I would classify any military incursion with the intent to occupy as a military occupation, even if it only lasts for a single day. The Russian occupation of Kyiv Oblast and Chernihiv Oblast only lasted for 1-2 months, but it was still an occupation nonetheless. Indeed, you are actually contradicting yourself here, because I recall seeing in another comment that you've written on this page that "military occupations are supposed to be provisional/temporary, and if an annexation occurs, then they are permanent and no longer an occupation" (paraphrased). So, if you are saying that military occupations are by definition temporary, then doesn't that mean that the Russian occupation of parts of northern Ukraine, despite lasting only less than 2 months, fits within the definition? Or was the Russian occupation of Ukraine "too temporary" to be considered a true occupation? So, you are saying that an occupation can be neither too short nor too long to be considered an occupation? Pick a story and stick with it, mate. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As for this statement Occupation implies some kind of military administration, can you please provide a source for this? Because, as far as I'm aware, this theory is complete nonsense. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

(Replying to myself...) If anything, I would classify "having a military administration" as the second stage of a military occupation, rather than the definition of a military occupation itself. The first stage of a military occupation would be the invasion part and the initial control of the territory, before a proper military administration has been established. The third stage of a military occupation would be the annexation part. So, there you go. Simple theory, no sources, but to me it makes sense, and we'll see if anyone else agrees or not.

1) Country "A" invades and takes control of a piece of land belonging to Country "B".

2) Country "A" establishes a military administration in order to maintain a permanent albeit non-official occupation of the territory.

3) Country "A" officially annexes the occupied territory into its own sovereign territory, although Country "B" (and likely much of the international community and the United Nations) considers the territory to still belong to Country "B" and to merely be under the continued occupation of Country "A", despite Country "A"'s official annexation of the territory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

By this definition that I've provided above, the following territories can be classified as militarily occupied (note: I use the descriptor "militarily" because the word "occupation" has other meanings, e.g. it can mean "a person's career").

1) Northern territories of Ukraine, i.e. Kyiv Oblast, Chernihiv Oblast, and others, which were occupied by Russia for several weeks. --> These were between stages 1 and 2 of the above theory prior to being restored to Ukrainian rule.

2) Crimean Peninsula, previously belonging to Ukraine, which was illegally annexed by Russia in a blatant land grab over the course of just a few weeks in 2014. --> This is in stage 3 of the above theory.

3) Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic, two territories previously belong to Ukraine, which were illegally occupied and propped up as puppet states by Russia over the course of several weeks-to-months in 2014. --> These are currently between stages 2 and 3 of the above theory, as Russia very likely intends to officially annex them at some indeterminate point in the near future. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 11:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I don´t know why this community of editors is somehow so different and so separate from the one editing the article on military occupation itself. But again, I keep coming back to that article because its clear as daylight and very well sourced. And if you think "Wikipedia isnt a reliable source" then just use the sources this quote comes from:

"Military or belligerent occupation, often simply occupation, is the effective military control by a ruling power over a territory that is outside of that power's sovereign territory." Just this one sentence has 4 sources. Its the first sentence in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

Look at the sources, again, if you dont think that cross-referencing Wkipedia articles is a valid approach.

You dont need to guess, you dont need to make things up, you dont need to find new sources. It says "effective military control by a ruling power". Maybe that´s not quite "military administration". But it certainly isnt lightning columns of Russian troops that have no effective control over the territory either. Its not some simple incursion. I would for example say that the invasion of Panama with the removal of Noriega is an invasion but not an occupation, by following this definition. In fact, all original civil administrative functions remained to my knowledge. Russias incursion in the north was somewhere inbetween, its a grayzone I think. I dont mind it beinig called a military occupation but I do not understand the total hostility here.83.252.116.25 (talk) 08:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Which I might add, is the reason why the Invasion of Panama is never described as a "military occupation" or" occupation" anywhere in the article. So everywhere else, from The Munich Agrement article to the Military Occupation article to the Invasion of Panama article, people seem closer to me in agreement, everywhere except here. I think that is because this article is some kind of political battlefield between different factions vying for recognition of their struggles or what ever. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Crimea is not under miilitary occupation and neither are many others

Whatever your political stance, it is formally annexed and thus under "formal claim of Sovereignty". Neither is Jerusalem and West Sahara. Especially the latter, as there is maybe some slight ambiguity on whether or not Jerusalem truly is annexed.

All these "armed group" examples are stretching it too. I don´t think unrecognised republics constitute "armed groups". I mean international law is and has always been the bullies playground, where a newcomer isn´t allowed to play. But even so, they have to start somewhere. If there is clear intention to make its current status permanent then something like Northern Cyprus can´t possibly be under military occupation.

The only modern true military occupations on this list are the Syrian ones, the Ukranian ones beyond Donbass area, and maybe the Golan Heights. Thats going by Wikipedias own definition. edit: You could argue the West Bank is partially under military occupation too. Gaza Strip makes 0% sense since the withdrawl of Israel and the Oslo Accords. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 06:31, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

We've discussed this many times. You can add Gaza to the list as well, since it is not under military occupation, but for whatever reason, it is included here because the definition is stretched so as to make it included. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:12, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The reason that these cases are considered to be "occupations" is that the international community or some other major body (e.g. the United Nations) has not recognised the act of annexation. Western Sahara is considered by the UN and the African Union to be a non-self-governing territory, regardless of how much of the territory has been annexed by Morocco. Meanwhile, Jerusalem's eastern side is considered to be a separate territory from the western side, but Israel has annexed the entire city and is claiming it as the Israeli capital; this is again widely unrecognised. Russia's annexation of Crimea is further unrecognised since it was a blatant land grab that was conducted entirely outside of the norms of international law. As for "armed groups" while that descriptor may be a bit strange, it is still true that most breakaway states are supported by a "patron state" for their military defence. E.g. Northern Cyprus is supported by Turkey, whereas Donetsk and Luhansk PRs are supported by Russia. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Why does it matter if someone recognizes it or not? The definition is: "without a claim of formal sovereignty".

Not "without a RECOGNIZED claim of formal sovereignty."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation 83.252.116.25 (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

What matters is what the sources say. Sources continue to say Crimea is occupied territory. See for example the Washington Post 5 days ago: Mikhail Razvozhayev, the governor of Sevastopol in Russian-occupied Crimea. It is incredibly easy to find sources that discuss Crimea, in the present tense, as occupied by Russia. Why does recognition matter? Well for our purposes it doesnt really, what matters is what the sources say, but the sources say this because without recognition ones borders done just change. The international community largely recognizes Crimea to remain legally part of Ukraine and outside of Russia's sovereign territory. As they exercise effective military control over territory outside its borders, they occupy that territory. nableezy - 04:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The sources refer to de jure recognition, not realities on the ground. A military occupation is not a legal term, it is a reality on the ground. Otherwise Wikipedia becomes a political battleground, which it already is. But this is insane.

So then if the international community never recognizes Crimean annexation and we don´t have a world war 3, Crimea will forever be under military occupation? Its Orwellian to think about it in that way. The Washington Post is in part engaged in a propaganda war on behalf of that countries establishment. Russia illegally annexed Crimea, it is however absolutely not under military occupation because it has a civil government AND because it is de facto annexed, 83.252.116.25 (talk) 04:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

That is complete nonsense. Military occupation is a status in international law. Please review WP:OR before continuing to misuse this talk page. nableezy - 06:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As for Donbas, I can't fathom how you think that situation is not a military occupation. The two republics were created through brutal military force. Not just a seizure of power by the Russians and the Ukrainians peacefully walking away, but by the wholesale slaughter of the Ukrainian resistance by the pro-Russian separatists and their Russian supporters. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Article wise, there is no reason in principle why there cannot be two articles if desired, one for an annex and another for an occupation in the same space if that is the determination in sources. So in the case of East Jerusalem, you have Annexation of East Jerusalem and at the same time you have Israeli occupation of the West Bank (which includes East Jerusalem) and then there is Status of Jerusalem for Jerusalem. There will be variations case by case that need close examination. Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation is or should be the annex and details of that and then there is Political status of Crimea where it says "the majority of the international community continue to regard Crimea as occupied Ukrainian territory." Selfstudier (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The major detail that I've noticed is that there doesn't really seem to be an article about "list of annexations". It's just not a topic that is frequently brought up, at least not to the degree that military occupations are. Essentially, the way that this article works at the moment is that it's a catchall for both military occupations and annexations. Annexations are often a type of military occupation, rather than a separate thing. The only way that an annexation wouldn't also be a military occupation is when the annexation has been mutually carried out by two consenting parties. For example, the PRC's annexation of Hong Kong was an example of a peaceful annexation process, whereas the PRC's annexation (incorporation) of Tibet was not peaceful. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

There is Annexation which is an article but mostly written like a list divided as unresolved, subsequently withdrawn and subsequently legalized Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

It's far from an exhaustive list though. I have doubts that such a short list covers every single annexation in history since the founding of the United Nations. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

For example, I've noticed that the Republic of China's annexation of Taiwan (previously held by Japan), which occurred only one day after the establishment of the United Nations, is not on the list. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

^(Amending what I've said above...) Another situation where an annexation would not be a military occupation is in the case of a terra nullius, wherein a sovereign state annexes a piece of territory that is not claimed by any other party, including indigenous peoples. I.e. a land that is completely uninhabited by humans, e.g. the Falkland Islands before modern history. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Sovereignty is not simply claimed, if it is not recognized it does not exist. Military occupation is the effective military control of territory outside of a states sovereign territory. That is true for Jerusalem, Gaza, Northern Cyprus and so on. Beyond that, it is a basic OR violation to claim that some Wikipedia definition isnt met so Wikipedia shouldnt include, as well as a failure to understand Wikipedia is not a reliable source. A place is occupied for Wikipedia's purposes if reliable sources largely consider that territory occupied. Sir Joseph is right that this has been discussed (for Israel) at least, but wrong in the result. The definition was not stretched, he just argued against the definition and was refuted over and over and over. nableezy - 13:59, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

"Military occupation is a type of effective control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign, and provisional in nature. 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." does not apply to Gaza. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 02:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you lost this argument before. Maybe dont make us repeat it when nothing has changed? nableezy - 02:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

De Facto Soveregnity exists. Countries like Sweden have the official position that De-Facto control is what should constitute recognition. But they don´t really follow it. It doesn´t really matter though. De-Facto refers to "the actual circumstances", i.e. reality. If a people "de-facto" live under a civil administration then even if the whole world doesn´t recognize it de-jure, they"in the actual circumstances" live under a civil administration.

Now it gets a little bit tough when this administration has no popular support, thus is propped up by a military force - as say by an unwanted dictator. But even then we must go back to the intention of the "occupier". Essentially a military occupation is by its own definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation a state of impermanence. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impermanence).

The only state that exists that wishes to keep a part of its holdings under some degree of military occupation without a formal claim to annexation is Israel, due to its ethno-political considerations. So many tens of thousands of Palestinians live under some form of military rule in a state of impermanent permanence. Every other military occupation is only such until there is some kind of permanent (civil) rule - recognized or not.

Or would you say that Zapatista territory, Burmese Rohingya controlled terrtory and basically every other territory controlled by an indingenious or rebellious faction is under military occupation simply because its not recognized? That would be preposterous. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 04:20, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to demonstrate just how off the wall this post is. You raise Sweden. Here is Sweden's Foreign Ministry saying East Jerusalem is occupied.They also require Golan wine to note that it is made in occupied Syrian territory. What was that about "de-facto control"? Oh yeah, something already implied by occupation, because one must be in control to occupy. Beyond that, again, made up nonsense. nableezy - 07:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you so hostile? The opposite is usually the case, that which one cannot argue against one stays silent about, rather than accepting they may have been wrong.

The fact that Sweden is a country subject to international considerations is a reality unto itself from which it cannot escape. Why is this so hard for you to understand? This is also why you´re wrong when you say that Military Occupation is WP:COMMON with Occupation.

The Golan Heights is de Facto occupied by Israel as a geographical entity but it is neither de Facto nor de Jure under military occupation (maybe some exceptions exist for the Arab towns in the north I dont know). It is politically speaking annexed by Israel. Do you want me to ask the Swedish FM? Like are you really interested in learning something new or will you just argue with me even if they send an email showing you´re wrong? Basically im 99% sure that this is Swedens position: "The territory of the Golan Heights is occupied Syrian land, annexed by Israel, under a civil Israeli administration - it is not under miilitary occupaton" - Possible exception for Arab villages in the north, I really dont know about this and will have to check. Now I ask you again; do you want me to confirm this with the Swedish FM or not and if I do will it be enough for you to start changing your stance here in general?

Swedens position (which it does, as mentioned, not follow in practice all the time) is that a state that has the effective means to act as a state is de facto a state. That does not make it a de jure state. But this is the same principle that was used in the Hague Tribunal when dealing with human rights abuses by Serb paramilitaries in unrecognized states. You can´t hide behind it afterwards, "you had the functions of a state, a military, a police" etc. You had effective control over your territory, so you´re responsible what happens to your people there. See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitration_Commission_of_the_Peace_Conference_on_Yugoslavia

Are you disputing that de Facto recognition of states is a thing or what is your position? I feel you´re obfuscating on purpose. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 10:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thats going by Wikipedias own definition. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. However it's not hard to find reliable sources that view Crimea as occupied and that hold that illegal or unrecognized annexations are still military occupations. Further that annexation is generally considered illegal. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That "source" is literally a propaganda piece. Are you for real?

Read this instead: https://www.jstor.org/stable/42864794

Crimea is by most accounts indeed not de-jure recognized because it as this source would phrase it "ought not to be recognized" because as your article claims, it came about through an aggressive act by a foreign state.

But it de-facto became its own state, as it possessed all the aspects of Sovereignty and had full and total control over its territory when it declared its independence and subsequently petitioned to joined Russia and thus became annexed.

This is the definition of sovereignty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

Under it we find that someone or something is sovereign if "In political theory, sovereignty is a substantive term designating supreme legitimate authority over some polity.".

Russia now holds "supreme legitimate authority" of the people of Crimea.

Legitimate in this case means that it is not contested, i.e. there are now two powers feuding in Crimea right now over control of the polity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

All of this is of course de facto. De jure Ukraine still administers Crimea from Kiev. But it is irrelevant to whether or not something is under military occupation because military occupation is defined by the occupier and their intentions (thus the reality on the ground). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_occupation

Otherwise, as I explained elsewhere in this thread, every single unrecognized resistance movement would be keeping the territory it controls under "military occupation", an Orwellian and impossible to navigate term then that would lose all its meaning. For a people may be yearning for freedom from a sovereign, may achieve that freedom through military rebellion, may establish all the functions of a state in that territory and would then still by us be noted to living under a "military occupation" of their own doing. All this because the international community may find it politically sensitive to recognize their new state. In other words, transforming the term "military occupation" from a term dealing with realities on the ground to a legal term would risk denying the reality of the supposedly occupied people, in favour of that of some politician thousands of miles away. I would just add that you can still be critical of an annexation that results on a military-dominated government. It would then be called a "military dictatorship/junta" but not a "military occupation". 83.252.116.25 (talk) 04:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Youre using a 1932 journal article to argue that Crimea, occupied since 2014, is not occupied? Sorry, that isnt how any of this works. Again, please review WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a place for you to present novel theories and demand that they be published. You can do that on a blog. nableezy - 06:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The one source used to support the contention is completely misunderstood, a 1932 source trumps no source. Stop blogging yourself man. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

European Pravda is a reliable source. Here is a source by Pål Wrange a study conducted for the EU Parliament, states third parties such as the EU are under no obligation to recognize illegal annexation. This was also what Lauri Mälksoo was discussing in "Illegal Annexation and State Continuity". Don't even have to go that avenue. The position of the states that make up the Group of 7 view Crimea as an occupation. In fact its not hard to find sources at all that the international view is Crimea is occupied.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a reliable source but Im sure that you´ve already had this discussion here on the Wikipedia.

I also don´t know why you are citing a policy document of the European Union, a party to the conflict, engaging in an economic and information war with Russia and directly involved in financially and militarily supporting the defending side. Would citing an official Russian government policy document be any different? I imaginie for you it will. The document is absolute trash. It has absolutely no citations in the text of anything. It states things as a matter of fact and it doesn´t even define what "Occupation" means. It also mixes "Occupation" with "Occupied Territory" very freely. Those are two different things and blurring the line is not good. Crimea is obviously occupied territory. But the people obviously aren´t under a military occupation (not even your document says it). By using the word "Occupation" rather than "Military Occupation" (a regime) or "Occupied Territory" ( a reality of who controls the territory ) the line is again, blurred.

Let´s use this one if we must use a policy document rather than an academic study:

https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4094.pdf

"In addition, Article 47 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 is relevant to the question of how an occupation ends. It takes account inter alia of two possibilities, the first being an occupation in which the authorities of the occupied territory remain in post, and the second being an attempted annexation by the occupant of the whole or part of the occupied territory."

So what it says is: An occupation ends if A or B has been done. But for the purposes of the Fourth Geneva Convention a power that has "Occupied" and other country cannot rid themselves of their responsibilities by Annexing that country. So it goes on: "The article specifies that in neither case can such changes deprive protected persons of the benefits of the Convention.".

Meaning, even if the occupation ends through annexation, the duties of the power that annexes are not null and void under the convention 83.252.116.25 (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The EU policy document is a reliable source. It's a peer reviewed study by Pål Wrange conducted on be half of the EU. Wrange is Professor of Public International Law. Director of doctoral studies. Director, Stockholm Center for International Law and Justice. Further, Why wouldn't I cite the position of the European Union? Per WP:WEIGHT The EU would at the very least be a significant minority POV. Britanica A reliable tertiary source says Annexation based on the illegal use of force is condemned in the Charter of the United Nations. The UN mentions the UN charter strictly prohibits the acquisition of territory by force. Let's again go back to Pål Wrange and Lauri Mälksoo. The Institute for Middle East Understanding Occupied land if annexed remains Occupied land under article 47 of the IV Geneva convention. Amnesty international shares this view. Robin Geiß How the use of force to annex makes the annexation null and void. He discusses annexation inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war. He discusses multiple occupations and even that Crimea is one. And no the lines not blurred when they say occupation instead of military occupation. You can't argue ignorance when the definition of occupation is military occupation.This would be a clear and direct case of WP:COMPETENCE is required.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Why did you ignore the ICRC document while telling me to consider your EU policy one? How can you people even function in this environment, its just "source wars". Nobody actually seems to care. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 22:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not telling you to consider anything. I am providing you with a reliable source. You do not have to like it. I haven't ignored your source. I have ignored your synthesis of it and provided additional sources. Actually the amnesty international source discusses article 47 of the IV Geneva convention and use it as a justification to say that annexation is illegal under international, null and void, and with out international effect.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Its interesting to note, you tell that guy to be "bold" as per Wiki standards and add that entry. Fine.

But when I removed 2 entries that were not sourced as occupations, indeed had no source, and within those articles "occupation" isn´t mentioned: then you made it personal, insinuating Im a fan of appeasement and reverted them. So I wasnt to be bold but he was.

You biases shine through you, I hate people like you and you just say things to win arguments, changing your cape after the wind as they say in Sweden. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 06:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, if you take just a moment to read you wouldn't have these misunderstandingS. WP:BRD means not just bold but also revert and discuss, WHEN NECESSARY. You were bold however you were wrong so I reverted and then I opened a discussion where it could be discussed. I did not insinuate that you were a fan of appeasement but that your argument was grounded in appeasement. I even explained after that appeasement was referring to Neville Chamberlain's Appeasement of the Nazi's thru agreements such as the Munich agreement. I already even discussed nullification. Your response is this childish horseshit.This conversation is over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 13:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you behaving with such arrogance as if you´re above me? "This conversation is over" "your reply is childish nonsense".

The Munich Agreement WAS appeasement, as an alternative to war. How can my argument be "grounded in appeasement"? I had no argument. I removed it because it WAS appeasement. Or are you saying that I am as "wrong" as Neville Chamberlaine was? Then that is precisely claiming that Im a fan of appeasment. It doesn´t matter what my stance on appeasment is or if it in this instance or ever is the right tactic. It was clearly the opposite of military action. There was no source indicating the Munich Agreement was a military occupation. In 1938 everyone thought it was the opposite, a peaceful transfer of territory for the sake of "peace in our time". Obviously Hitler lied, obviously he wanted a war and just wanted as much territory as he could get before it.But none of that matters.

I was "WRONG" you say. But you don´t say why. The two articles had NO SOURCE supporting that they were military occupatioins when they happened. The articles themselves had no mention of occupatioin. The word OCCUPATION is not mentioned ONCE in the article on the Munich Agreement that´s very large. Im sure that you now, POST DISCUSSION, can google yourself some source that says that some legitimate scholar or international convention considers is POST-FACTO an occupation. But in 1938 NOBODY did and in that article NOBODY had written it was an occupation. Yet you UNILATERALLY removed it before gloating about it in the talk chat here.You added the talk page entry n 15.39 and you re-added the entries in an effort to engage in an edit war with me in 15.17 without ever adding a source. But yeah, just go google a source and add it and you win, jippie, even though it won´t be mentioned in any of the 100 sources already in the article. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 08:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I refer you to my prior comment, "This conversation is over." Your argument here is simply WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. There are sufficient sources in the linked articles for Czechoslovakia to be here. There's no need to google anything but there's also nothing wrong with using it to find sources. For instance you could find Measuring Implicit British Perceptions of German Intentions in 1938–1939 published by Political Psychology Journal which is a peer reviewed academic journal. Or what about German Citizenship versus Protectorate Membership in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia (1939 - 1945) published in the peer reviewed Journal on European History of Law? It's actually easy to source Czechoslovakia being military occupation by the Nazi's, but what we can't do is source your original research, that because of the Munich Agreement there was no occupation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Czechoslovakia World War 2

Interesting, so you think appeasement gives your argument weight.You are ignoring the Allied repudiation of the Munich Agreement and the international nullification of the Vienna award.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:39, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Dude you cant change history by nullifying something later. Look im "original researching" now, right? But you aren´t when you just stated that you can do EVERYTHING by the book and then repudiate it and change it after the fact. No source from you. No source that the Munich agreement was an occupation when it happened either. But I have to source my removal? Proof for absence of proof? Go fuck yourself, I dont care anymore. Just Re-add it. Re-add my terrible 2 edits. DO it. I suck.83.252.116.25 (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Im probably some Israeli-nazi-appeasing-greekorussian-nationalist sockpuppeting from Gothenburg. Im a terrible person. You´re a great person. You do great stuff. Ok83.252.116.25 (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Appeasement refers to the Munich agreement and other policies related contextually to Neville Chamberlains Appeasement of the Nazi's. Edvard Beneš, Czechoslovakia president, Lead a successful government in exile that lead the allies to repudiate the Munich Agreement. Nullification isn't original research, it's recorded history. It's actually discussed in the article on the Munich agreement and the article on the vienna award.. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

The treaty was nullified meaning the land was returned to Czechoslovakia - or rather it was from that moment on returned to its previous state before the treaty. It doesn´t mean that the previous treaty didn´t exist. It doesn´t mean that what people agreed to never happened. It doesn´t mean that the Munich Agreement was a military occupation. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Your argument lacks substance. Ignore the effect of nullification, Benes' effective government in exile, and the effect of success of Czech units during WW2. You can continue grasping at straws but the simple fact of the matter is a variety of reliable sources show the view that Czechoslovakia was under military occupation during World War 2. Some of which are in other discussion on this very talk page. Some are in the various articles linked to this list. The policy on original research is to not use it, which you can read at WP:NOR. In Volume 11 of The Public Opinion Quarterly released in 1947 discussed the creation of the Czechoslovak Institute of Public Opinion in the article Polls come to Czechoslovakia. The idea for the institute was created during German Occupation of Czechoslovakia. The Idea was from Joseph Kopta who they say in the article survived the German occupation and Vladislav Vančura. Film as Diplomat: The Politics of Postwar Screenings at Czechoslovak Foreign Embassies. from the Indiana Journal Press discusses talks about how the Munich agreement, the establishment of the protectorate, and the military occupation changed the international position and role of it's foreign service. In History and Memory Journal from the Indiana University Press Troublesome Sainthood: Nicholas Winton and the Contested History of Child Rescue in Prague, 1938–1940 it talks history during "Nazi occupation of the Sudetenland after the Munich Agreement" of refugee workers. I could keep going and I've not even expended any effort. There is no need to even expend effort because the position that Czechoslovakia was occupied is so pervasive and your original research that didn't even exist as a thought before July is not. This conversation is over.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Occupation if anything started in 1939 with the literal invasion of the country and the imposition of the Protectorate. Not in 1938 and the Munich Agreement. You keep saying that the country was considered occupied. Im not disputing it. Learn to know the difference and learn some nuance. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 07:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The simple thing to do here would be to provide RS that specify this is considered an occupation. Without that I would support removing it. nableezy - 16:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

There have been a variety of sources provided above. In addition read the actual Munich pact, which lays out the stages of the occupation. And if all of the sources here aren't enough let me know, I'll continue my half ass effort.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The actual wikilink Occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) is suggestive. Mar 2022 RM.Selfstudier (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources that directly state that this was a military occupation. Im not saying they do not exist, but wikilinks and the pact are not sufficient. The inclusion has been challenged, and per WP:V that means an inline citation to a reliable secondary source that directly supports the material is now required. nableezy - 18:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

How about "The four countries agreed to the German occupation of the Sudetenland between 1 and 10 October. German troops occupy the Sudetenland."? Selfstudier (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think a news source is the best thing to use for an occupation in the 1930-40s. nableezy - 18:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Administration of Countries under German Control: II. Austria, Sudetenland, Poland, and Luxembourg

Bulletin of International News, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Jan. 11, 1941), pp. 3-10 Royal Institute of International Affairs http://www.jstor.org/stable/25642941 p.6

"Sudetenland. The Sudeten area of Czechoslovakia, occupied between Oct. 1 and Oct. 10, 1938, was at once incorporated in the territory

of the Third Reich. On Oct. 8, before the occupation was complete, Henlein announced that the Sudetenland would not be a single administrative unit, ...." Selfstudier (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Peter J. Beck (1999) Searching for peace in Munich, not Geneva: The British government, the league of nations and the Sudetenland question, Diplomacy & Statecraft, 10:2-3, 236-257, DOI:10.1080/09592299908406131 p.236

"At 1400 hours on 1 October 1938 German troops entered the first area of the Czech Sudetenland to be occupied in accordance with the

recently concluded four power Munich agreement." Selfstudier (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This is going to be the last thing I say in this talk page, so if you actually care about understanding the problem you´ll do well to listen.

1. Almost anything, within reason, can be "sourced" today. Some reputable source is going to have called A X and an other will have called A Y and a third will have called A Z. I think that this is a problem with Wikipedia, that sources are all that matter. That we don´t have to agree on a definition to begin with. I dont know how to solve it. Especially since the same word can have different meanings to different people at different times. This is a huge issue in my profession that´s an amalgamet of many others but I imagine it can be an issue elsewhere too.

2. You´re absolutely right: "https://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/munich1.asp" says: "The occupation by stages of the predominantly German territory by German troops will begin on 1st October. The four territories marked on the attached map will be occupied by German troops in the following order:" To me this means that German troops walked into Czechoslovakia and "occupied" territory. Took possession of territory as a first step. But do you honestly think that any of the signatories, at that time, when writing this, entailed to mean that this would result in a kind of military occupation? What Im trying to say is that it´s not that simple, as has been claimed elsewhere here, that occupation means the same to everything nor that occupying something is automatically creating an occupation.

3. I have been arguing, supported by sources in the Wikipedia article itself and others that Military Occupation constitutes something bigger, something more substantial than military troops taking possession of a territory. If in the end, what you mean by military occupation aka "occupation" herein is in line with what the writers of the Munich Agreement meant then I concede everything I have ever been arguing in this article. Then the Russian incursion in the Kiev region is a military occupation, then the Munich Agreement is one, then Crimea is one, Western Sahara...well everything except Gaza (im sorry Nableezy - but thats a separate issue anyway). But then, to me and to every other reader, the meaning of "occupation", especially "military occupation" is diluted. It stop being this abhorrent form of temporary totalitarian control over a territory and its people and becomes an euphemism for "moving a military force into a territory to take possession of it". That should then be reflected in the "military occupation" article. But thats a minor point. I hope you try to understand what Im saying here. Think about what you´re doing. And I guess, good job on winning the internets. 83.252.116.25 (talk) 12:34, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Same for everyone, if everything can be sourced, find sources saying it is not an occupation and we'll go from there. Selfstudier (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify, not that something isn´t something. That´s far more difficult. But that something is something else.

Such as a "transfer of territory" for the purpose of "peace" which was the official French and British position, precisely precisely to avoid "occupation" of Czechoslovakia which Hitler was planning (Both the French and British leadership believed that peace could be saved only by the transfer of the Sudeten German areas from Czechoslovakia. so as to avoid the plan for the occupation of Czechoslovakia. that Hitler and his generals were drawing up ) https://www.britannica.com/event/Munich-Agreement

I dont want to fight you on this and I am sorry for replying again. I am just trying to leave in an amicable way so that you at least understand what my point was as I hope I have understood what you wanted. I hope you understand me now, you dont have to agree with me. The worst part of this, was that the source was so easy to find. It takes only a second 83.252.116.25 (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic Cleansing, Communism, and Environmental Devastation in Czechoslovakia's Borderlands, 1945–1989 Eagle Glassheim Quote "North Bohemia made up 19 percent of the land area of the former Sudetenland, the region occupied by Nazi Germany from 1938 to 1945." -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Add your strongest to the article and call it a day. In general there is too much trying to prove something on this talk page. The only proof needed is a reliable source directly supporting th material. If some other source is brought that directly disputes it then we can start talking about due weight and balance of sources. But if somebody challenges something the way to deal with that challenge is not to prove them wrong, it is to cite a source. nableezy - 19:34, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Generally, the root article ought to contain these citations and then just copy them over, there's quite a few without cites. Selfstudier (talk) 19:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

only challenged material technically requires an inline citation. nableezy - 20:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

While you are correct. Right now might be a good time to watch and see what happens next. See where the goalpost moves.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Even if it does, absent a source challenging it then there isnt a reason to spend the energy or effort responding. nableezy - 20:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Good plan.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If I may interject here, it is actually original research for us Wikipedia editors to come up with our own definition of a military occupation. As far as I can tell, the second that foreign troops land in a certain territory, that marks the beginning of a potential military occupation. It's going to be pretty difficult to come up with a definition for what makes it a "prolonged" occupation as opposed to merely a "military activity". As such, the best solution to this problem is to simply do nothing and let it be. In any case, most prolonged military occupations end up in either official or undeclared annexation (i.e. in the case of Israel versus Palestine). So, I'm not even sure that prolonged military occupations without the intent of annexation are that common these days. I suppose the United States' invasions of various countries around the Middle East qualify as prolonged military occupations since the US usually only intends to instigate regime change, rather than to actually take foreign territory under its direct sovereignty. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

We basically just have to go with what the reliable sources say, because I doubt that any one of us can profess to be an expert in what exactly constitutes a military occupation. We can really only include examples in here that are backed up by academic discourse, because this is such an academically-inclined topic. Each and every case of a military occupation is unique, and attempting to create a catch-all for all of these cases is futile. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Essentially the definition is here simply to provide a definition. Even with an entire separate article on Military occupation it's just important that a small description of what it means here. But the list itself is and should be based on Wikipedia policy. And yes, foreign policy,a affairs, etc are dynamic and not static.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

References

No Guantanamo Bay Cuba?

172.58.203.222 (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Provide sources and justification for inclusion. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

South China Sea

Territorial disputes in the South China Sea should be add on the Contemporary occupations list which is led by China - Jjpachano (talk)

The islands are not recognised as a part of any country, let alone China, which makes this a grey zone. Furthermore, some of the "islands" have been made by China artificially, so they aren't even technically recognised as land. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Wa State

Should the Wa State be added as occupied by China? Ajhuheu (talk) 13:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Should the Chagos occupation by the UK, leased to the USA be added?

By all accounts it seems to qualify, although I wouldn't know which date should be considered as the start of the occupation. 86.114.251.210 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What parts of Vietnam did the British occupy?

It says some parts were occupied, but which? It doesn’t give a deep description. 36.37.140.114 (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I think I have fixed this, although you might want to check my edit for formatting adjustments StevoLaker (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Azerbaijan occupied lands

Shouldn't the azerbaijan entries be moved into the historical section considering the recent war? 2A01:4B00:8786:D00:50B8:6ACD:74D7:CB4C (talk) 03:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Artsakh de facto no longer exists. StevoLaker (talk) 10:32, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Ankoko Island in Guyana

Hello. Shouldn't Ankoko Island be added to the list? It is an island in South America that has been under military occupation since 1966. The island is divided in two, with the western side belonging to Venezuela and the eastern side belonging to Guyana. Venezuela seized control of the entire island. The border was agreed upon in 1905 between the two countries. 66.97.31.2 (talk) 22:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC - Is Operation Al-Aqsa Flood a military occupation

Plain and simple discussion: Does Operation Al-Aqsa Flood, part of the 2023 Israel–Hamas war count for a military occupation (which would have lasted for 3 days) for the list? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

• Yes – Several towns and military bases were captured during the 3-days that Hamas controlled multiple parts of the Souther District of Israel. The resulting battles: Battle of Re'im (military base), Be'eri massacre (town), Battle of Sderot (Town and police garrison), Battle of Sufa (town), Battle of Zikim (military base), Netiv HaAsara attack (town), and several others without Wikipedia articles were completely captured or battled for by Hamas. This map: shows the farthest extent of Hamas captured territory during the operation. It is larger than the Gaza Strip in land area, and Hamas fully captured that and held it for a while. A user originally classified the linking of Wikipedia articles original research, however, I do not feel like linking the 70+ sources from those articles I linked to here. So it should be added. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• No and no source has been provided saying that it is. Capturing is not the same as placing under your military authority. We have rules on original research, you cant say Hamas captured these villages and held them for up to three days and because they did this it was occupied territory. Hamas never, as far as I can tell, asserted any authority over the governance of these places, and, again as far as I can tell, there is not a single reliable source claiming it held them under military occupation. Absent a source, this is a pointless question. No source = no inclusion the end. nableezy - 02:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Being blunt, the controlling power of the Gaza Strip took over several military bases and towns, killing hundreds of people and you say they didn't have control over the territory or people? You my friend don't understand war. Sources were provided in the wiki-links above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A bit presumptuous of you to think you understand what I do or do not understand. Please provide a single reliable source that Hamas held any territory in Israel under military occupation. A source that directly says that. nableezy - 02:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

BBC, Times of Israel, & WSJ are three sources. Hamas 100% controlled several towns and military bases. (Joke comment, don't take seriously - Wow! I learned something new today! If you own a house and use/live in a house, you don't occupy the house! Who knew! You can live in a house you don't occupy!) The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:44, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Where do any of them directly say Hamas occupied any territory? BBC does not say occupied or occupy anywhere, nor does WSJ. At least TOI calls it an occupied kibbutz once, but that’s the closest you come and even then that does not directly support what you want to include. nableezy - 03:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia's own definition of military occupation does not require that they setup a government.

All it states, on our own page on military occupation is this: ""Military occupation... is the effective military control by a ruling power over a territory that is outside of that power's sovereign territory. The territory is then known as the occupied territory and the ruling power the occupant... While an occupant may set up a formal military government in the occupied territory to facilitate its administration, it is not a necessary precondition for occupation." Military occupation

There is no requirement, as you've stated, that they "assert any authority over the governance of these places". That is NOT in the definition of military occupation. It literally is just that they have effective military control over a territory outside their sovereign territory. That happened. It even says that while they MAY set up some type of military government, it is NOT a necessary precondition for occupation. It can't get much clearer than that. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user

Wikipedia isn’t a reliable source and I have zero interest in arguing about any of this. Do you or does anybody else have a single reliable source that directly says Hamas held any territory under military occupation? One source directly supporting that claim please. Otherwise please stop wasting my time. nableezy - 03:21, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Marriam Webster Dictionary is a reliable source and it says, "control and possession of hostile territory that enables an invading nation to establish military government against an enemy or martial law against rebels or insurrectionists in its own territory" is the definition of military occupation. No requirement of a government to be established. You said you do not wish to argue/discuss it, which is your prerogative, but just know that your definition-reason is invalid. Cheers! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Continuing with the misplaced presumptuousness I guess. Still waiting on sources that actually support Hamas occupied that territory. And read that definition again lol. Control that allows for the establishment of a military government. Hamas did all that? Must have missed the news. nableezy - 03:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

If you're not interested in arguing or debating, then might I ask what the point of your participation here is? Chuckstablers (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user

That debate that he was discussing is long settled. Wikipedia isn't a reliable source Wikipedia:USERGENERATED.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I think you're misreading the chain of comments. I specifically laid out why, under international law, this was a military occupation. I didn't want to have to cite the multiple sources that the (excellent) wikipedia article outlining what a military occupation is on their own, because that's kind of a waste of my time when it's all already there. I'm not citing WIKIPEDIA on it's own; I'm citing the information from the sources that were used to make that wikipedia article.

You're talking about the map? If that's what the issue is, then why isn't the RFC about the map? I think we already reached consensus on that.

@Nableezy, if you're still waiting on those sources please see the comment at the bottom which lists them. I think we're up to 8. It's clear there's multiple sources which refer to hamas "militants" "occupying" "Israeli territory". Chuckstablers (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user

I'm going to post this one more time.

International law DEFINES military occupation. Specifically, it is the Hague Convention of 1907 that define a military occupation. I'll quote from Regulations, Article 42:

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

The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised."

Pretty clear to me. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user

• No Other than WeatherWriter's personal view there's nothing saying that Hamas held Israel Territory as an occupying power or under military occupation. Simple work of the backspace key erasing their opinion typed here on this talk page destroys the only source of this opinion. Wikipedia editors are not reliable sources and are barred from using original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Noting that this user recently said they did not comment about the map above in this edit, so the map above is evidence to Hamas controlled territory and this user does not disagree with that statement. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The Map does not say that Hamas held Israel territory in a state of military occupation. The map also isn't a reliable source but a user generated map based on reliable sources, but specifically doesn't back your original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• No not a military occupation. More like occupy wall street. A disorderly attack, like anarchists. A military occupation is a very specific, formal definition. Andre🚐 02:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• No. I can't find any sources that describe Hamas' presence in Israel as an occupation. BilledMammal (talk) 03:17, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't "occupation", "capture", and "control" be synonyms? Thesaurus.com says "occupation" and "capture" are synonyms. That opens a lot of sources up, including ones linked above. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sufficiently close synonyms for us to use one to mean the other in a context like this; occupation usually is in reference to not just taking control (ie, capturing), but holding over the medium to long term. BilledMammal (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

"https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-rockets-airstrikes-tel-aviv-11fb98655c256d54ecb5329284fc37d2"

"Militants occupied a police station in a third town, where Israeli forces struggled until Sunday morning to finally reclaim the building."

Sure sounds like an occupation to me. Especially since the Hague Convention of 1907 specifically lays out what a military occupation is. And this is manifestly the case. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:50, 17 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user

That source would support listing here, as would the TOI source. However, I don't think two provide sufficient weight to add this to the list; if you can find a few more that use the word "occupation" then that would change things. BilledMammal (talk) 04:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - Source List (Add to it any sources saying Hamas captured or Hamas occupied territory of Israel): (The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:47, 17 October 2023 (UTC))

  "https://apnews.com/article/israel-palestinians-gaza-hamas-rockets-airstrikes-tel-aviv-11fb98655c256d54ecb5329284fc37d2"

  "Militants occupied a police station in a third town, where Israeli forces struggled until Sunday morning to finally reclaim the building."

  They SPECIFICALLY use the term "occupied a police station". Militants occupied a police station. Militants. Military. Occupation. Chuckstablers (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user

• TOI - "Hamas appears to have singled out Be’eri as a symbol when it let a film crew make a journalistic broadcast from the occupied kibbutz, creating an unprecedented image of victory that resonated for many hours in Israeli social media and beyond."
• The Guardian - "It was 7.30am. Boni would not survive. Zikim was one of 11 military bases to come under attack that morning, four of which were overrun." (Overrun = captured = occupied by Hamas)
• Al Jazeera - 3 military bases captured/occupied by Hamas & "By late evening [October 7], Israeli troops were still working to clear communities overrun by Hamas fighters." (Overrun = captured by Hamas)
• Palestine Chronicle - "This is How Al-Qassam’s Navel Units Stormed Zakim’s Fortified Military Base"
• TOI - "The Israel Defense Forces has regained control of the Re’im military base in southern Israel, which houses the Gaza Division, from Hamas"
• BBC - "A "significant number" of Israeli civilians and soldiers are being held hostage by Palestinian militant group Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli military says." & "In Kibbutz Be'eri, hostages who were being held in a dining room were rescued after 18 hours" (aka 18 hours captured and under Hamas control) & "A video verified by the BBC shows militants in Be'eri leading barefooted people along a street." (Hamas control of town confirmed by RS)
• Reuters - "Hamas gunmen backed by rocket barrages entered towns and villages by the border." & "Be'eri kibbutz, where there were reports of 50 Israelis held hostage by Hamas"
• J Post - "IDF regains control over Sderot police station" (Meaning they lost control of it to Hamas, who controlled it) & "Israeli authorities re-gained control over the Sderot police station early Sunday morning after Hamas militants seized the property, according to reports by Israeli media."

• Mixed. You can't use the map itself as proof of occupation. We might've agreed to use it generally, but it's user generated and not proof of anything. The citations themselves are proof of an occupation though. In addition, international law makes it very clear that what happened here counts as a military occupation. The Hague Convention of 1907 states that "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army". Some editors have erroneously claimed that you'd have to set up some type of military government for this to be a military occupation. That's not the case as dictated clearly by the Hague Convention, which determines under international law what an occupation is and when it begins. There is no requirement under the Hague Convention that a military government be established, or any type of government be established, only that they have effective military control over the the territory.

That being said, we don't seem to have a reliable source directly saying that this was a "military occupation" by Hamas. It is obviously a military occupation under international law, but it'd be a false equivalence if we're talking about putting it on the "list of military occupations". All of those would have multiple reliable sources directly calling them military occupations, and this does not resemble any of this in length, scope, power wielded, governance, and general character. I'd be hard pressed to support including it on that list if that's what we're discussing. Chuckstablers (talk) 04:31, 17 October 2023 (UTC)non-ec user

Actually, you may not participate in this discussion at all, as it is covered by ARBPIA. But no, all these "militants" + "occupied" = "military occupied" OR efforts are just that, OR. Unless the sources say Hamas held territory under military occupation then Wikipedia cannot say they held territory under military occupation. But Im striking your comments as non extended confirmed and ask that you refrain from participating in discussions you are barred from until you reach 500 edits. nableezy - 04:43, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I’m going to go ahead and WP:COAL out since myself and Nableezy have to agree to disagree now that some (definitely not all) sources have been presented in the discussion. Other editors that are EC are welcome to add more sources to the source list above. Note, even though the AP News source was stated by Chuckstablers (not eligible for this discussion), I would have re-added it to the list had that comment been struck, so consider that source in the source-list. Cheers y’all! The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 05:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

• Question for WeatherWriter, do any sources describe Hamas as the "occupying power", or do they describe Hamas presence as a "military occupation" (those exact words)? VR _talk 06:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• Not sure this makes sense as a list at all given the vagueness of the topic, but if it is a list it surely has to differentiate between quick troop movements and an established occupation. Including Kargil district seems a bit much as well. CMD (talk) 06:57, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• No' Doesn't meet the requirements for a military occupation and sources don't refer to it as one.Selfstudier (talk) 13:13, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• No Nonsensical RfC by WeatherWriter in an attempt to justify synthesis. Ecrusized (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• No What is happening across the Wikipedia? I have seen a couple of nonsense RFCs about the war. RFC is not to evade discussion, rather it should be used when discussion is done and a certain dispute needs to be resolved. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

A certain dispute needed to be resolved and it was used appropriately. I did it in good faith and all I get from you (an admin) and others is that it was nonsense. Being blunt, seems that I received a lot of people assuming bad faith instead of assuming good faith, which is what this RfC was in the middle of a content dispute on the article. Really? I tried to WP:COAL out as I stated my case and I personally feel it was good, but when re-checking it, several people are assuming bad faith against me and saying this is “nonsense”. Really y’all? Some of y’all (myself included here) need a wiki-break from the war, given that several editors (I have been guilty of this as well in a different discussion) are starting to assume bad faith. Now even an admin is saying a good-faith RfC is “nonsense”. Gee wiz. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

@WeatherWriter: There's clearly an edit war as the history indicates. But I see zero attempt on the talk page aimed at building consensus. Please take a look at BRD. Also, per WP:ONUS, "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." BTw, I am not an admin here and there's no bad faith against you, from my side. --Mhhossein ^talk 19:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

• No (brought here by Feedback Request Service) We'd need RS that describe it as such, and I'm not certain "overrun" or "seized" is a coherent synonym for "military occupation" in the list provided. Chetsford (talk) 23:04, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
• No (also brought here by Feedback Request Service). A clear case of WP:SYNTH, which I suspect is also based on a misunderstanding of what military occupation actually is (the captured territory was never placed under the military authority of Hamas). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:47, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
• Withdrawn — Withdrawing on WP:SNOW grounds. Note, I still disagree with the majority consensus, but I won’t keep this open since the majority consensus is against it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 14:26, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Kosovo

Hello. Shouldn't Kosovo be added to the list. The mother state considers it occupied pushing to sucede 2A02:587:7246:A000:11DF:EE05:9E58:51B3 (talk) 00:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC)