Wikipedia

Talk:List of military occupations/Archive 4

< Talk:List of military occupations
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Nagualdesign in topic Occupation of Northern Ireland
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

RfC: Including East Jerusalem and Golan Heights

Latest comment: 8 years ago66 comments19 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus for including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights. The majority opinion cites WP:RS or follows its logic. That in the majority of sources East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are described as occupied. That the lede does not trump WP:RS and that if anything needs changing, its the lede, though no consensus exists for what that change may be. AlbinoFerret 18:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Should East Jerusalem and Golan Heights be included in the list based on the criteria specified in the article lead? I'm not going to edit the article but I want to point out the hypocrisy here: The article states as follows:

"Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] 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."

Therefore, if a country annexes a territory AND grants citizenship, that territory should NOT be placed in this list. (That does NOT mean it's not occupied, but it is NOT military occupation.) East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights have been annexed by Israel and the residents have been granted FULL citizenship by Israel. Therefore, based on what the list criteria is, should not be included in the list. Yossiea (talk) 19:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but I don't think there is such a thing as a non-military occupation. While in practice these territories are not under martial law or patrolled by troops, their status under international law is still that of being under military occupation. I do think it's important to differentiate between the de faco status and the de jure status. While a territory can de facto be annexed and incorporated into another state for all intents and purposes, the de jure status would still be one of military occupation. Instead of removing entries from the list, I would propose that this difference be explained, both in the the context of individual entries and the list as a whole. – Zntrip 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
But again, that could be for the Gaza Strip, but EJ and the Golan Heights, have been annexed and the residents have full citizenship, should they want it. The lead of the article says, this list does not include territories annexed. So EJ and GH should not be included. Gaza shouldn't be included either, but that is a different story which I'm not going to fight about today. What I'm interested in is consistency with the lead and the list. Yossiea (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - There are a lot of fairly mainstream sources that refer to East Jerusalem as "occupied" (for example [1], [2], [3]). I think we just have to look to the sources here and reflect how it's reported. I'm not really sure what the difference between an "occupation" and a "military occupation" is (is there even such thing as a non-military occupation?), but since it probably wouldn't be appropriate to list East Jerusalem under List of Occupations, it seems right that it be listed here. NickCT (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
But how do you then reconcile that with the lead of the article? East Jerusalem is annexed by Israel, has claims for permanent sovereignty, citizenship rights, etc.? Yossiea (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Yossiea~enwiki: - I'm not sure we have to reconcile it. If a reasonable number of mainstream RS call it occupied, it is occupied. If the lead doesn't seem to fit that, then we should probably be adjusting the lead. NickCT (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Based on the lead, and the references, and then military occupation itself. Then, once that's done, I'd love to hear how Gaza is occupied by Israel, when Israel has no military presence, and if you say it has an effective blockade, will you then agree that Egypt's blockade is also an occupation? Yossiea (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@Yossiea~enwiki: - I appreciate your position, but honestly I don't care what the situation on the ground is. Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. The reason I know East Jeuresulum is occupied is b/c I see a lot of sources which say it is. If I didn't see sources which say it is, then I wouldn't think it was occupied. NickCT (talk) 12:42, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment The list Criteria is as follows, "This article presents a list of military occupations. Only military occupations since the customary laws of belligerent military occupation were first clarified and supplemented by the Hague Convention of 1907 are included In this article."

Yossiea~enwiki case rests on a definition of military occupation that is a part of the lead but not list criteria. The language then moves to reconciling the lead. It does not tak into account though the international position that the annexation of both were illegal and as such null and void. This RFC asks for undue weight, that only the Israel position be considered. There happens to be no contradiction and nothing to reconcile unless you only focus on the Israeli position.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, that makes no sense. The second sentence in the lead is explaining what a military occupation is. The list below that fails to match what the lead says a military occupation is. Yossiea (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't see how it's a problem since a situation can be both a de facto annexation and a de jure occupation. – Zntrip 00:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It makes perfect sense it just doesn't support your view point. This definition extends some editorial discretion, it does not extend any right to original research, and this editorial discretion must be based on common sense.
While the de facto effect has been annexation, no de jure annexation has taken place in East Jerusalem or the Golan Heights. This definition that you want to focus on is discussing De Jure annexation. You are flat out ignoring anything but a Pro-Israeli stance and you are encouraging others to do so. This is flat out partisan behavior and an argument for undue weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
but the fact is that the lead does not state that. It says that a military occupation is not one that is annexes, etc. Yossiea (talk) 01:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The lead does not need to say that. Obvious common sense things are generally left to common sense. Why would we need to say, "illegal and unrecognized annexation has no bearing on this list"?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
as opposed to legal annexation and occupation? You can't assume. Israel annexed ej and gh. The lead says that ej and gh should not be on the list. Yossiea (talk) 02:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Assume what? That the annexation was illegal? This is not my assumption. This is the predominant view of reliable sources.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I never said it's not, but the lead and the linked annexation even includes EJ and GH, as examples of annexed territories. This list therefore can't by virtue then include EJ and GH. "Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature" Yossiea (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like you arguing that by virtue of it being in one article it shouldn't be in another. It's certainly not an argument to consider for removal of content. It can be sourced as an example of annexation. It can be sourced as an example of military occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Except annexations are not to be included in this list. That is my whole point. Yossiea (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
So then show definitively where there is no military occupation and where there is definitively is a legal annexation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The annexation page included in the lead includes EJ and GH. They were annexed by Israel. The lead on this page says it does not include those territories annexed. You can't have it both ways. Yossiea (talk) 04:02, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The page says annexation and implies annexation under international law or as I've said before legal annexation. You could even use the words de jure annexation. Your argument is a straw man. It's so blatantly partisan that it's simply not worth responding to.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Just because you say it, doesn't make it true. Here's the second sentence in the lead, explaining what a military occupation is, " Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign." that excludes annexation, explicitly (as mentioned) and implicitly as well. Yossiea (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

What are you saying that I've said that isn't true. It really sounds like you are using loaded language in place of an actual argument, which is a waste of time to respond to. Perhaps you might want to clarify?

Israel has the effective provisional control of a certain power over both East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, neither of which is under it's formal sovereignty. It does so with out the volition or exercise of will of the actual sovereign. This definition excludes annexation, that is annexations as recognized by international law. Your argument is original research that's presents undue weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), " regardless, as you are most likely aware, I left a message at military history for a request for comment. Israel annexed EJ and GH, not WB and GS. Therefore, as for Military occupation, as per the description of the lead itself, annexation is not to be included in this list. Yossiea (talk) 05:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
You want to go back and change your message there to a more neutral message and quit campaigning? You have also just repeated yourself. This purposeless to continue until such time as you raise another point or actually address the points I've made. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes - This nothing more than the typical petty partisanship any editor will find when editing in WP:ARBPIA articles. The suggestion here is that we ignore the position of the sources that East Jerusalem is under military occupation. The reason is that somehow a international law definition of military occupation wouldn't imply an international law definition of annexation. That we should ignore the sources that put forth that the annexation was null and void. We should not consider wp:due. That wikipedia should pick and choose a side in this conflict. That we ignore our policies with no common sense reason to so. Wikipedia is not here to right the great wrongs, not for Pro-Israeli partisans and not for Pro-Palestinian partisans.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Comment You need to stop with your constant not AGF and calling partisanship when someone posts something you don't like. I am going based on what this article's lead states. This article's lead states that the list will only contain those not annexed. EJ and GH are annexed by Israel. a) it's irrelevant if you feel it's illegal. b) the wikiliked article on annexation includes EJ and GH in the list of annexations so even if you feel annexations are illegal, it mentions it there so it should sooth your concerns. Sir Joseph (talk) 06:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
WP:ANI is that way.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Tere's also WP:ARE-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Note to closerYossiea~enwiki has changed their name to Sir Joseph. This is not to suggest any impropriety, just to point out before it gets lost in the mix that these users names represent one individual.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:16, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Unequivocal yes - this is nonsense, there are countless sources of the highest quality that flat out state that East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are occupied territory. There are some sources that dispute this, especially regarding East Jerusalem, and the article includes both per WP:WEIGHT. It is obscene that it is even suggested to remove those entries. nableezy - 07:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes per the above. Most, if not all, reliable sources routinely describe East Jerusalem and Golan Heights as being "occupied" by Israel when the topic comes up. Even the CIA uses the term [4] for the Golan Heights. Nick-D (talk) 07:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes, Zntrip is right. Unilateral action by the occupier against the wishes of the occupied and/or the UN is based on the original crime, which hasn't been purged. Opposition to this by compromised sources like the perpetrators of the crime and the BBC, should be ignored. Please also note that there isn't an "Arab-Israeli conflict", it is a zionist occupation. Keith-264 (talk) 07:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Yes per WP:RS. Any source that is not biased towards a pro-settler agenda—even the "compromised" BBC, Keith-264!—refers to East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as occupied territories. That Israel has passed laws annexing them is neither here nor there. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
The zionist colony's laws are part of de facto not de jure, since they are fruit of the poisoned tree (obviously). Two wrongs don't make a right.Keith-264 (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
It's refreshing to actually be in agreement with you for once, Keith—and on two counts! That Israel occupies the aforementioned territories and that two wrongs don't make a right. I hope you're well as we approach Advent. Cheers, —  Cliftonian (talk)  11:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Again You all seem to miss the point. Thank you for reminding me then, that when Israel is concerned, or Zionist entity, as some of you call it, we can ignore the actual text of the article and just do as we wish. It is irrelevant if the annexation is legal or not, there is an annexation, it is long term, it is intended to be permanent, it is a change of sovereignty, etc. Therefore, as per the lead of this article, it should not be included. If you want it to be included, then change the lead. Have the lead re-worded to say "This does not include annexations, except those performed by the criminal Zionists." That I will agree with, because then it will be consistent. But as it stands now, it is not consistent with the text of the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Not if the alleged annexation is not recognised by the competent legal authorities, only the zionist colonialists and the BBC. (This always happens when people on Wiki try to write the truth about the occupation of Palestine or the moral deliquescence of the BBC.) Keith-264 (talk) 14:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
What does the legality of the annexation have to do with the fact that EJ and GH are in fact annexed? The annexation page discusses the annexation of EJ and GH, but the lead of this article clearly spells out the criteria of what is not supposed to be on the list, and based on the list, EJ and GH should not be on the list. And based on your comments, it seems to be that you don't even think that Israel is a valid country and has no right to exist. You need to take your bias out of the equation and look a the facts, the lead of this article does not match the article. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Set me a contrary example (preferably without starting a sentence with a conjunction) and I'll consider following it. As for you brushing aside legality, well you would write that, wouldn't you?Keith-264 (talk) 15:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Tibet , perhaps? AND, again, I don't have to include anything, the lead of THIS article is contradicted by the inclusion of GH and EJ. It has nothing to do with the legality of the annexation. On the annexation page, it makes mention of your claims of the illegality of the annexation, but on this page, it only lists those territories not annexed, not suited for long term settlement, not for long term, not giving rights, etc. all of which DO NOT APPLY to EJ and GH. The fact that you are trying to bring in the legality of the annexation has no bearing on the fact that 1) EH and GH are in fact annexed under fact, regardless of law, and 2) under the terms of the LEAD of WIKIPEDIA, not the UN and not your opinion, it should not be included. If you want EJ and GH to be included, then suggest a re-write of the lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:01, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is you who misses the point. Reliable sources are what are used for article content. Reliable sources say that EJ and Gaza and the Golan are occupied by Israel. Reliable sources say that the "annexation" (which wasnt even formally used for the Golan) of each EJ and GH was declared null and void and without international legal effect by the UNSC. Reliable sources, not what some random person on the internet thinks, are what determine article content here. nableezy - 16:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
And who are these international bodies or countries that consider Tibet to be illegally annexed and under military occupation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:17, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No again, I am not talking about whether or not it's occupied. But the lead in this article says that annexed territory is not included in this list. East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights are annexed. That is a fact. Whether it's military occupied or not is a dispute for a later time, but if you are going to say that you want EJ and GH to stay on this page, then you need to re-write this lead. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That annexation, which was not even formerly called that by Israel, was ruled null and void by the UNSC. The annexation page also includes Iraq claiming to annex Kuwait. It includes claims of territorial acquisition, but that does not mean that the claim by itself ends the status of being occupied. Whatever Israel says goes is not how we write articles here. nableezy - 16:15, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Then re-write the lead, because based on the lead's criteria, it should not be included. And that is my point. And I hope you don't mind I am starting a sentence with a preposition. If you do, I don't care. But if you don't, we should work on re-doing the lead to make sure it is consistent with the rest of the article. And I will also include Tibet, because I am surprised it is not there, even with a disputed tag. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
That's the problem there isn't it? You need to get a consensus before you attempt to change the lead.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
But you guys are talking about occupation, and I'm talking about the criteria of the lead, based on the lead as it is now, the things can't be in the list. So if you want EJ and GH to be in the list, change the criteria. Here is the criteria, and I can't understand, in simple English how based on the criteria of the below text, that it does not apply to EJ and GH:

"Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign.[2][3][4] 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."

--Sir Joseph (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

And the song remains the same. It's discussing legal annexation. An international law definition of military occupation implies an international law definition of annexation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't a legal annexation confer citizenship rights to the subjugated population? You seem to be tone-deaf if you're listening to the same song I am. The lead is clearly excluding EJ and and GH. Sir Joseph (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
And we go from here to a conversation where thru original research is argued that there was an illegal annexation. And thus you have once again ignored the points of the argument and thus have also repeated a position that has not been supported thus far.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment, If the source says that it's occupied, then put what the source says. It's that simple. Sandenig (talk) 01:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The source also says that annexed territories are not included in this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Firstly, the RfC is not neutral and it is unclear what exactly it is asking, and is thus worthless. Secondly, the confusion comes from a simple fact, the territories in question are occupied and de facto annexed, but the annexation is not accepted by anybody else. Hence, it is perfectly fine to call them "military occupation". The case of Tibet is wide off the mark, no country on Earth considers Tibet to be anything else than a part of China. This is irrelevant to the actual situation of minorities, political repression etc. All these attempts to interpret international law by Wikipedia editors is inadmissible. There are hundreds of sources which describe East Jerusalem as occupied, see this for just one example to remove the irrelevance of the trolling about the BBC. Kingsindian ♝♚ 07:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes It should certainly be included. There are many great sources that say the territories are occupied by Israel and this is also the view of the international community. They are not wrong just because one criteria happens to be used in this Wikipedia article. Now that critiera doesn't really matter but as Nableezy have mentioned here and others have mentioned several times in different pages, it was not a formal annexation and the residents only got the possibility to apply for citizenship. Read for example Ian Lustick's article "Has Israel Annexed East Jerusalem?". Daniel Seidemann, seen as a Jerusalem expert, has also many times mentioned the status and options for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem. This can actually be found in newspapers too but many of them are just repeating what they have mistakenly written before. But once again, this doesn't matter to the question if the territory is occupied or not, which is why East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights, Crimea, Western Sahara etc. is viewed as occupied. It is easy to understand why the occupying power can't decide to grab what it likes and make the rest of the world accept the claim. --IRISZOOM (talk) 20:37, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Support All of Israel is occupied territory against the Palestinians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.171.123.72 (talk) 00:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC) — 166.171.123.72 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. Those of you who know me will be surprised by this vote. So let me clarify: I consider East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights as unquestionably occupied territories. Israel's claims of sovereignty over those areas is null and void, and a clear violation of international law.

Then why no? Because the lead of the article offers what pretends to be an objective set of criteria for inclusion in the list of military occupations, and the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem do not meet most of those criteria, to wit:

  • "effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign": This criterion met.
  • "intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty)": not met.
  • "citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population": partially met (residents of the Golan are offered citizenship. A path to citizenship for residents of East Jerusalem exists in theory, but in practice citizenship is a virtual impossibility for Arab residents).

Since these territories do not meet all of the criteria defined in the beginning of the article, the territories cannot be included in the list.

On the other hand, none of the other entries in the list meet these criteria, either. In fact, the "occupied" status of every one of these entries is disputed. I will not make an exhaustive list, but here are some examples:

  • Northern Cyprus: The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus does not consider itself a temporary occupation. The Turkish military presence in Northern Cyprus has never been explicitly condemned by the UN, which has vaguely referred to the "withdrawal without delay from the Republic of Cyprus of foreign military personnel" including both Greek and Turkish. The majority of the residents of Northern Cyprus are Turkish-speaking, and probably approve of the current arrangement.
  • Western Sahara: Who exactly is occupying whom here? Morocco? The Polisario? There is certainly no international agreement that Western Sahara is occupied.
  • Crimea: Aside from the fact that Russia does not consider its annexation of Crimea to be a temporary situation, there is no international agreement that Crimea is in a state of military occupation. While there is a UN resolution urging the preservation of Ukrainian territorial integrity, the resolution is nonbinding. Most of the population of Crimea is Russian speaking, and most of the residents probably prefer being part of Russia than part of Ukraine (though the referendum on the matter in 2014 is considered illegal and invalid by most of the international community).

I have opinions about all of these cases, and my opinion is shared by much or perhaps most of the international community: I think Crimea is occupied, and that northern Cyprus is occupied, and the Western Sahara is not occupied. But my opinion counts for nothing here: what is important is that not a single one of the entries in the list is undisputed, or meets any objective set of criteria as to what is an occupied territory.

Then why does the list exist at all? I have answered that question in my post below: because there are editors who have strong opinions and who want those opinions presented as documented facts in Wikipedia. There are editors who hate the Turkish presence in Northern Cyprus, and who despise the Moroccan domination of Western Sahara, and who hate the Russians for the way they have bullied Ukraine. And as for the West Bank - need I even mention this?

This entire list is simply a platform for editors to promote their own views about specific military and political situations; as an objective presentation of military occupations, it is completely bogus.

The entire list should be deleted. --Ravpapa (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Ravpapa, I have found you to be one of the smarter and more thoughtful people who on occasion edit in this topic area. And I dont necessarily disagree with the very last line you wrote, that the list should be deleted. But if it exists, then what? The lead of the article, if it is inaccurate, should be corrected. But if we are going to have such a list, then the listing should include EJ and the Golan because they are widely considered to be held under belligerent occupation. If you were to nominate the list for deletion then I dont see how I would oppose the cogent analysis above that argues for it to be removed. But until it is removed I find the repeated attempts to remove anything that Israel disputes as being occupied on the basis that Israel disputes it to be more than a tad irritating. nableezy - 19:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Did you read the lead of this article? Sir Joseph (talk) 03:44, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and frankly I think that should be changed as well. However Israël didn't annex the Golan hights. It just declared that Israeli law is valid there. A deliberate use of vague language so to speak. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Summoned by bot First of all, this RfC is flawed. To be truly useful and to accurately determine consensus, an RfC should be neutrally worded; this one is not. Personally, I feel that given the definition, Golan heights/East jerusalem do not belong; if only because if we are to included annexed territories, then there are a lot more to add to the list. Of course, adding them all would be an equally acceptable solution, as would creating another list for annexed territories, and pointing a hatnote there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current military occupations intro

Latest comment: 8 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

@Oncenawhile:, I'm looking at the intro but honestly it strikes me as undue. This being the longest occupation in history seems trivial as we have the dates listed. It's placement as well. Maybe as foot note or something but still that seems very trivial to me. Needless to say this also leans rather pro-Palestinian. The Golan Heights was occupied at roughly the same time so it would seem that it is also one of the longest occupations. I'm curious of your logic for the change.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I see no reason to list that, the list already has the dates. It's sorted by date, so you see the dates. Adding that seems to me just trying to insert a POV into the article. If anything, it should be added to the past section, since there it's not readily noticeable which was the longest, but even that is WP:TRIVIA and not necessary and I reverted. If you're going to put it in the current section to show how Israel is occupying, and with all those notes, then you most certainly need to put in the past section as well, but again, it's trivia and not what this list is about. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Information about the longest military occupation should go in the past section even though the longest occupation is actual current and on going? I don't really see any sense to that. If anything the lead would be he preferred location though again it is trivial for this list and my essentially cause undue weight. Perhaps the better place for it would be in the article about the Palestinian occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant if you're going to include a note on longest occupation, then it should go on the past section since that section is harder to decipher which one was the longest.Sir Joseph (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
The text has been widely discussed and has stable consensus on a number of other articles. It is not considered to lean either way, as it is a factual description of the position of the international community.
The text and sources benefit this article because it is consistent with and substantiates a key conclusion of our tables. In other words, it helps to underpin any potential future accessions of WP:SYNTH against the tables.
Is there something in the drafting which was jarring in any way?
Oncenawhile (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Sir Joseph, I see no reason what so ever to stick it in the past section. Oceanawhile, I wouldn't question the effects of the over all balance of this in an article about that subject directly. The subject is not the occupation of Palestine. It's military occupation overall. Your addition is Palestinian focused. Golan Heights has again been occupied by Israel just as long. The placement as well also concerns me. Perhaps in the status section by the listings or (in the case of a stand alone list) in the lead. But again this seems highly trivial. I'm not going to list the shortest or the median occupation either. This is also not a key position of the international community. This is a fact that the international community mention. This does nothing to guard the table from a case of WP:SYNTH. An RFC or similar maybe called for.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is that if any section is going to have a mention of longest occupation, it should be the past section, since that section is impossible to easily calculate by sorting the longest occupation. The current section is sortable. You just sort and see what is still under occupation. I don't think we need any mention anyway since it's trivia, but if you are going to put a mention then put a mention in the past section, putting a mention in the current section seems to be a POV to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
What I mean is that I see no reason what so ever to stick it in the past section. None.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Listing the beginning and the ending kind of already covers that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but we can make the list more comprehensive by adding the duration column and this should also satisfy Sir Joseph without any detriment to the article. I'm only seeing some positives without any negatives. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Duration would be doable for the past occupations but I don't know if it's possible for current occupations, but I don't think we need it for current ones since we have the From and the To for the current ones. I think if you want to add duration for the Past I'm OK with it, I don't think we need it, but it will add another sortable option to that list. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Problem = solved then, yes? I'll do the maths later but I agree that duration probably isn't best for current occupations (both as a short list and needing yearly updates). Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm OK with it, but now that I think of it, we do have an issue, we don't know when the occupations started as far as months, so something could start in December, and another occupation could start in January and that SHOULD throw off the calculation, but we don't have the month of occupation, just the year. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
It's doable and utterly pointless. The reader isn't stupid. "It started in 1940 and lasted until 1945, gee I sure wish there was a section that told me the duration." -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
You mean you don't want to know what the longest, finished occupation is? I am frankly shocked. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 03:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
What is Namibia, Alex?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Drcrazy102: I think the duration column would be interesting to the reader. We have a sortable table, so we should provide data that would be interesting to sort. Oncenawhile (talk) 13:04, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Great, interesting to the reader. So if we are going to do this feel free to start collecting the dates or at least months for each occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

ARBPIA Sanctions

Latest comment: 8 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

It does not make sense for this article to be under sanctions. People editing this article don't necessarily know, and just because this article mentions the word "Israel" doesn't mean that it should fall under sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Seriously? It's not because it mentions the word Israel that this falls under ARBPIA. It's incredulous that you would even suggest that. It covers content directly related to the Arab and Israel conflict. Not just the word Israel but also words that cover military occupations that are within the bounds of ARBPIA.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The article itself is not about the IP area and should not be under 1RR sanctions. It's very easy to violate 1RR, and there's no reason to be so incredulous. Not every article needs to be under sanctions. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Wikilawyer at AE.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
you just don't know how to be civil, do you? Sir Joseph (talk) 23:12, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
WP:AE-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: The article deals with aspects of the Israel-Arab conflict and, because of that, is covered by ArbCom sanctions whether you agree with the sanctions or not. If you don't agree with the sanctions, then you can go to the ArbCom and ask for the sanctions to be reined in to articles directly related to, or discussing, the conflict - which will still include this article/list since it directly mentions the Arab-Israel conflict; or you could ask at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement about whether this article/list is covered by sanctions.
As for the "IP area"; what are you talking about? If you mean the IP editors contributing to this "area/article/list", then they are typically blocked from doing so because they typically don't have a clue about Wiki policies and guidelines which makes working with them almost impossible if they have any bias or opinions about the conflict; just look at how you and Serialjoepsycho have been 'working together', and I say that not as a criticism but to highlight that even experienced editors should be cautious about editing articles such as these because of any potential bias they may have that can fester into an "us vs. them" mentality.
If you mean the "Israel-Palestine area", then you are sorely mistaken and I really don't know how to make it any clearer than what is already in the ArbCom sanctions template: All articles related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, are under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related. (Emphasis added) This article/list is easily construed to be within the subject area since it directly mentions and makes reference to the Arab-Israel conflict.
Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:51, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The portions of the article that deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict are without question covered under the ARBPIA2/3 sanctions. nableezy - 01:58, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

And what about the parts that have nothing to do with the conflict? Say I want to edit war about Tibet or Crimea, I'm entitled to 3RR not 1RR. Last I read on ARBCOM, we didn't need the template on the page, it's the edits that make the sanction so this page doesn't need the template. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Well I have absolutely no problem if you want to take it to WP:AE and ask them to remove it because ARBCOM says the template isn't necessary to apply sanctions. I see the template as necessary because he majority of edit warring is due to ARBPIA related material. As far as wanting to edit war in etc and etc you should read the policy again. The prohibition is on edit warring. 3RR is not an entitlement. You can be banned after 1 revert. As a general rule, an unwritten one, use common sense. If it doesn't apply to ARBPIA then ARBPIA doesn't apply. Though a user who has or is arguing that Tibet should be included because East Jerusalem is included is in my view violating ARBPIA.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
You can add those tag's if you so desire. Since people come here to edit war over Israel-Palestine conflict that was put up. With or without those tags sanctions apply.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of military occupations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:31, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Somaliland occupying other regions of Somalia.

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article suggests so.

How's about adding that to the list? 78.150.77.129 (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

So we should put here that part of Somalia is occupying another part of Somalia?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Darn, you're right. Thats actually a real toughie considering Somaliland is just a region of Somalia. Oh well. 78.147.208.205 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

All-Palastine

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

All-Palestine was a partially recognized client state of Egypt that's effective jurisdiction was limited to Gaza. It's a reasonable question if the West Bank from 1948-1967 should be listed as apart of All-Palestine on this list.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

based on the article it looks like it should. It was created for WB as well, but jurisdiction was only in Gaza. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Kuril Islands/South Sakhalin

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The article currently lists the Kuril Islands and South Sakhalin as under military occupation. However, these islands were lost by Japan in World War II and Japan renounced their claims in the Treaty of San Francisco. Thus, I do not believe it should qualify as a military occupation. LoneWolf1992 (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks like a border dispute rather than a military occupation. Sepsis II (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The Kuril Island dispute is a rather complex situation. It is a territorial dispute but us labeling it a military occupation would be bordering to closely to original research. It's not the position of wikipedia to decide this dispute either way. Including it here would be doing so. TLDR: Agreed -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Northern Ireland

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I removed Northern Ireland[5]. Discretionary sanctions are in play via WP:TROUBLES. Northern Ireland is a recognized part of the United Kingdom and that is recognized by the Republic of Ireland. Noting the language used to add Northern Ireland, namely Northern Six Counties, an article that doesn't exist, suggests that this is politically motivated. You can't get a United Ireland by making a post on wikipedia. The Good Friday Agreement is the current agreed upon method of doing so. If you would like to promote an Irish Nationalist cause then start a blog.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Note the very extensive discussion on this topic at Template talk:British colonial campaigns recently. —  Cliftonian (talk)  14:44, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Similar but different. Colonialism vs Military Occupation under international law. Promotion of Irish Nationalism and both under the troubles sanctions.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:53, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Turkish occupation of Northern Syria

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Adding Turkish occupation to ongoing.GreyShark (dibra) 14:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Annexations

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I am adding a column to show whether the occupied territory was subsequently annexed. I propose to keep this to just one word (yes or no), as readers who want further detail can read the underlying articles or go to List of annexations. Oncenawhile (talk) 06:56, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Kosovo

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I propose to remove Kosovo from the list of current occupations. As far as I understand the Republic of Serbia does not have an army in Kosovo. The NATO KFOR is still there, and is transferring powers to the Kosovo Security Forces (who are planning to upgrade into an army themselves). Oncenawhile (talk) 09:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Striking the above. I read the article too quickly, which is talking about "Kosovo" (really NATO) occupying Serbian territory. So the question then becomes whether we consider a NATO peacekeeping force a "military occupation". Other views on this would be appreciated. Oncenawhile (talk) 09:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
@Oncenawhile: I feel this is a hard question because while NATO's KFOR is still present and is involved in parts of Kosovo's internal security, the Kosovo Police and Kosovo Security Force (their military), have control of most of the country along with the civilian government of Kosovo. So are we going to say that NATO is occupying Serbian territory, that NATO is occupying Kosovo, that Kosovo is occupying Serbia, or something else? I don't think we can say that NATO is occupying Kosovo because it is carrying out essentially the duties that a lot of UN peacekeeping forces carry out across the globe and they aren't considered military occupations. I also don't believe we can say that Kosovo is militarily occupying Serbian territory because it doesn't fit the definition set by the article "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." Kosovo may be a partially recognized state but is not a something temporary and there is a claim for permanent sovereignty, there are citizenship rights conferred on all citizens of Kosovo (i.e. Serbs included alongside Albanians and others), and for the most part there is civilian security control across the country and not NATO military control. Overall I honestly believe that we should remove Kosovo completely. - SantiLak (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Hi SantiLak, I share your mixed feelings on the topic. It would be great to get more views in order to achieve a consensus. Oncenawhile (talk) 22:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of military occupations. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Pakistani Kashmir

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

An anon IP has proposed adding Azad Kashmir and Gilgit Baltistan into the list of current (ongoing) military occupations at [6]. The sources given do not support the idea that the formal status of these territories is military occupation. It also does not fit with the scholarly definition of how military occupation ends (see below as an example), because the local governments of these two regions accepted Pakistani control many decades ago.

  • Omer Faruk Direk (7 August 2015). Security Detention in International Territorial Administrations: Kosovo, East Timor, and Iraq. BRILL. p. 113. ISBN 978-90-04-30298-3. There are three basic processes that can lead to the termination of an occupation: military withdrawal, a major resumption of fighting, and the continued presence of occupying forces with a change in their status… Under this third option, the local government and the occupying power may enter into a security agreement whereby the former can explicitly consent to the continued presence of the latter in the occupied territory. This in turn will result in an effective change in the status of the foreign forces. The key factor in determining the legal validity of such a security treaty is whether the local government possessed independent decision-making capacity when the treaty was concluded. In other words, the local government or authorities should not have been pressured by the occupying power to enter into the agreement. Otherwise, the law of occupation will be applicable by virtue of Article 3(b) of API, which is now recognised as part of customary international law.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:32, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

The local government of this region did not accept Pakistani control. The local administration (the J & K state) was occupied. The current administration was created post occupation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.137.97.114 (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

This needs sources.
If by local government, you mean Hari Singh, that's not the local government. Local government was people such as Muhammad Ibrahim Khan, who at the time was a member of the state Legislative Assembly representing a part of what is now Azad Kashmir.
Today these regions have regular elections, in which Pakistani parties consistently receive the majority vote. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Badme

Latest comment: 7 years ago19 comments4 people in discussion

I propose to remove Badme from the list of current military occupations. It is a town on the border of two countries, which was claimed by both after the war ended. The population votes in the Ethiopian elections. It is part of Ethiopia, and depending who you believe, was either always part of Ethiopia or was incorrectly annexed from Eritrea. But "military occupation" is not a correct description. Oncenawhile (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. According to sources, Badme is an Eritrean town being occupied ("administered" is a euphemism) by Ethiopia. The occupation as shown by various sources is a military occupation. Population votes in Ethiopian elections does not take away from the military occupation of the town.Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
By the way, "occupied" in the way you have used it above, and journalists may use in common language, is a euphemism for "illegally or unjustly controlled". On the other hand, "administered" is a factual statement and has no point of view attached to it, apart from what it is not saying. It's like saying Tibet is "occupied" by China, or the Ogaden is "occupied" by Ethiopia. Badme is rightly placed at List of territorial disputes, but should not be in this article. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Application of equal civil rights (such as voting, civilian courts etc) is the critical component separating annexation from military occupation. The sources in the military occupation article attest to this. Badme today is administered no differently from Addis Ababa.
The situation is similar to that of Crimea, which should be moved to former occupations and into List of annexations.
Onceinawhile (talk) 08:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
We have no verifiable record that the people living in occupied Badme are the original inhabitants or transplants from the Tigray region. Go to Talk:Badme where I put an RfC for Badme's location. The use of "voting data" from Ethiopia is problematic as it's "democratic elections" are debatable more so than any other countries that have "elections". Placing military and their civilian counterparts in a territory that doesn't belong to you is military occupation if a state of war still exists.Authorityofwiki (talk) 17:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Algiers Agreement (2000) states: "As of that date, Ethiopia had not withdrawn its troops from those positions on the Eritrean side of the demarcated border.[3]" Maintaining 120,000 + soldiers in a demarcated territory by International entities illegally is military occupation of the Eritrean town of Badme and other territories of Eritrea.Authorityofwiki (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Having reviewed the major sources on this and discussed at Talk:Badme, I now know enough to be certain that "military occupation" is an inappropriate description for Badme, and not one that is used by any of the sources - for good reason:

  • Irrespective of the historical Italian borders, Badme has been continually administered by Ethiopia ever since Eritrea's independence, apart from the short Eritrean "invasion" in 1998/99. (I put invasion in inverted commas because Eritrea claims that it was their land, but historical right or not, they definitely moved their military into an area which has previously been administered by Ethiopia). This can perhaps be seen as similar to the Falklands War.
  • The EEBC (at the Permanent Court of Arbitration) adjuicated the area to be part of Eritrea (albeit there is some confusion around this, given the possible existance of multiple locations for Badme)
  • Ethiopia continues to dispute the ruling, and continues to administer Badme. Badme's residents continue to vote in Ethiopian elections, and apparently have a representative at the House of Peoples' Representatives (although I have yet to find primary confirmation of this)
  • Badme is governed like any other town in Ethiopia. Although there are military troops in the area, these are not to govern Badme (as is required to define something as military occupation), but for defence against another Eritrean "invasion"
  • It therefore cannot be "military occupation" as the term is used in this article, as the military are not involved in governance and control of the people.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

By the definition of this article, "Military occupation is effective provisional control of a certain power over a territory which is not under the formal sovereignty of that entity, without the volition of the actual sovereign". In this case the actual sovereign(Eritrea)'s territory(Badme) is under the "effective provisional control of a certain power(Ethiopia) which does not have formal sovereignty(no International/UN recognition) of that entity(Badme). This qualifies Badme as a militarily occupied territory. Authorityofwiki (talk) 00:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a hasty generalization, as you provided just the first part of the definition of Military occupation. The second sentence is "Military occupation is distinguished from annexation[5] 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". Badme does not qualify as a military occupation, as it has no "temporary nature" (Ethiopia claims permanent sovereignty - even if that claim is weak), there is no military governance, and citizenship rights are conferred.
Onceinawhile (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Ethiopia's occupation is with military means and not UN/Internationally recognized formal soveriegnty of Badme, hence it is an occupation. Again moving transplants from other areas into Badme and claiming the territory using civilians does not take away from the military occupation of the town Badme. Go see the RfC in Badme where user scope creep explains Ethiopia's occupation of Badme.Authorityofwiki (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Using the same logic then we should remove Golan Heights as citizens there enjoy full rights including voting in elections--Shrike (talk) 07:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, majority of the Current List of Military Occupations could be removed using Onceinawhile's Logic.Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:02, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Some, not majority, and they should be moved to List of annexations.
Using Authorityofwiki's logic, most of the List of territorial disputes would be moved here, making the current list ten times longer. Onceinawhile (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

However, Badme does not fit the definition of Annexation because international entities (ie UN) have not formally recognized the "military occupation" of Badme by Ethiopia as being lawful. Again Ethiopia's moving of Ethiopian citizens into Badme, Eritrea does not make it any less a Military Occupation, this is similar to Israel's use of Israeli settlements as frontier citizen occupiers, those civilians wouldn't move into that area if it was not for a military that occupies the non-Israeli territories. In this case, Ethiopia's military occupies Eritrean territory and places Ethiopian civilians to give an "image of annexation".Authorityofwiki (talk) 06:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

That is incorrect. Most annexations, such as those at List of annexations, are not recognised by the UN. This was discussed at a recent move discussion here. Onceinawhile (talk) 08:18, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

From Annexation: "annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state and legitimized via general recognition by the other international bodies (i.e. countries and intergovernmental organisations)" Badme is recognized as Eritrean territory but is under current Ethiopian Military Occupation. The movement of Ethiopian civilians into Badme(Eritrean territory) alongside the military present there does not qualify as "annexation" by the definition above. Apparently, the Eritrean Badme residents were Deported with the 10s of thousands Eritreans during the Badme War. Badme(Eritrea) is under the Military occupation of Ethiopia because No Other International orgs or countries recognizes Ethiopia's military occupation as an Annexation.Authorityofwiki (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

That Wiki definition does not follow the sources. There are two sources used to support it. The second includes "Unlike cession, whereby territory is given or sold through treaty, annexation is a unilateral act made effective by actual possession and legitimized by general recognition". It is saying that annexation is unlike cession because it is an "a unilateral act made effective by actual possession" and [if it is legitimized] this is done through "general recognition" rather than "through treaty".
We can be sure of this because both Britannica articles provide multiples examples of annexations which were never legitimized through general recognition.
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Would you agree to remove Golan heights too if no how its differnt?--Shrike (talk) 08:18, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Shrike, I have yet to see Onceinawhile's response to your question. Onceinawhile, what is your response to Shrike's question?Authorityofwiki (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

"Elections/Administration"?equals? "annexation"vs "military occupation"

Latest comment: 7 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion

I have seen this argument used to justify removing certain "current military occupations" entries out of this article. Why is this reason of "elections/administration" being used as the distinguishing factor for whether a territory is "militarily occupied" or it is "annexed"?Authorityofwiki (talk) 00:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Because whether you use the legal definition of termination of occupation (above) or the layman's version, the answer is the same. From a layman's perspective, one needs to consider why "military occupation" is a defined term; it is because there are a set of internaional conventions (Hague, Geneva) designed to protect people under military government. This is the entire reason that the distinction between military occupation and annexation exists; the concept of military occupation was developed together with these conventions. So from a layman's perspective, the common sense test of whether a place is "militarily occupied" or not is based on whether the people living there are being held under duress and their rights need to be protected by these international conventions.
Onceinawhile (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
What if the people [1] were exiled from their territory and the territory was occupied by a military power[2] and that military power[2] put its own citizens(people[2]) on territory that doesn't legally belong to those people[2]?Authorityofwiki (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Good question. That is a grey area. Which examples are you thinking of? Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Badme, Eritrea currently occupied militarily by Ethiopia.Authorityofwiki (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Did they kick all (or most of) the people out? Doesn't make sense to me. It has always been administered by Ethiopia, except for the short period of Eritrean military presence during the war. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Ethiopia deported about 75,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin from Ethiopia (urban, rural) all throughout Ethiopia during the Badme war. Even so, the people living in Badme currently are Ethiopian and the Eritrean residents of Badme were evicted over 2 million Eritreans became refugees within Eritrea because of Ethiopia's military occupation of Eritrean territories, Badme being one of them. The idea that "Ethiopia administered Badme" gives the impression that "Ethiopia didn't Administer the entire Eritrea" in the 1950s, remember the Annexation of Eritrea in the 1950s meant that Ethiopia began to administer all parts of Eritrea, including Badme. The EEBC(UN) and mapping systems has placed Badme in Eritrea and the Eritrean residents of Badme were evicted from their homes and replaced by Tigrayan Ethiopians during the Badme war. Human rights watch and Amnesty international has reports on this deportation and eviction of 75,000 Eritreans and 2 million plus internal Eritrean refugees as result of Ethiopia's occupation.Authorityofwiki (talk) 17:43, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree with respect to the wider conflict. But regarding Badme itself, what you are implying contradicts three sources used at our Badme article: "Badme residents voted in Ethiopian elections ever since the Eritrean independence in 1991.[4][5][6]". If they voted in Ethiopian elections AFTER Eritrean independence in 1991 but BEFORE the war in 1998, then the people of the area considered themselves Ethiopian prior to the war. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Other sources say that Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean Origin that had Ethiopian citizenship also voted in Ethiopian elections After Eritrea's Independence. The startup to Badme War is much earlier than Eritrea's Independence 1991, the EPLF and TPLF had held off on dealing with the border issue til after defeating the Dergue(Military Junta) in Ethiopia. Here is the problem, Eritrea recognized dual citizenship for Eritreans and Ethiopians while Ethiopia did not hence why Badme War was used as pretext to deport 75,000 Eritreans(with Ethiopian citizenships) out of Ethiopia including Badme, Eritrea. The current administration of Ethiopian citizens in Badme, Eritrea is nothing but a form of military occupation with a civilian face.[7] The Ethiopian military does occupy Badme and Badme is internationally recognized as Eritrean territory, therefore Badme is an Eritrean town occupied by the military of Ethiopia.Authorityofwiki (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

The people of Badme are Tigrinya-speaking people, as are millions of Ethiopians and Eritreans either side of the border. This is not "ethnic cleansing" or similar, as the ethnicities are the same on both sides of this subregion. This is just a question of allegiance, whether desired or enforced; your phrase "Ethiopians of Eritrean Origin" is completely meaningless in the context of Badme, an isolated border village with limited cultural connections to either Asmara or Addis. And I don't believe you can source your suggestion that most of the population of Badme was deported (can you?).

If you can answer just one question here, can you provide a source showing that the people of Badme care either way? My guess is that it is a border town in every way, such that the people have mixed allegiences, and aren't particularly passionate either way (except for peace), a common feeling in border towns the world over.

Onceinawhile (talk) 07:19, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Human Rights Watch has documented that 75,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin were deported from Ethiopia. Also your claim that "Tigrinya-speaking" people are the same "ethnic group" on both side of the border is obviously contested. You seem to apply a broad brush here of "they all speak the same language" and "look the same" hence must be the "same people", are the British and the Australians, the same people? obviously No. So Eritreans and Ethiopians aren't the same people. If 75,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin(majority who didn't identify as Eritrean) were deported to Eritrea, explain to me, how you can conclude that "Badme", the flashpoint town was somehow allowed to keep the Eritrean population? Authorityofwiki (talk) 09:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so I think we are agreed there are no sources confirming either way regarding Badme and its inhabitants. Without sources, this is all WP:OR, and we are not going to get anywhere.
As an aside, my point on the language was that border regions are often neutral. Many Alsatians feel Franco-German, and many Crimeans feel and felt both Ukranian and Russian. Olivenza is another interesting parallel. "Nationality" is not black and white like so many zealots would like it to be.
Anyway, without a reliable source explicitly stating that Badme is under "military occupation", it cannot be on this list.
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Pretty easy to find sources [8] and [9]--Shrike (talk) 11:59, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
More sources [10] "The War Report: Armed Conflict in 2013 edited by Stuart Casey-Maslen: Military Occupation of Eritrea by Ethiopia in 2013". [11] 2014 Both sources have stated that Eritrea(Badme) is militarily occupied by Ethiopia.Authorityofwiki (talk) 03:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Shrike's first source (FPJ) is a non-RS blog. All the other sources are the same. Which is not to discount the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, but we should be clear that this is just one source. On the basis of this source, I agree that Badme should stay in this list. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Armenian and Azeri exclaves

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Having been challenged on another page by PBS, I have been searching for evidence that the three Azeri and one Armenia (exc N-K) are militarily occupied. There are very few, if any, true WP:RS which cover the subject of these four tiny enclaves, because they held little population and were of little significance to the wider war. What is clear is that they all had their populations expelled p.156, and they are all administered by the acquring power under their normal provinces in a manner no different to the rest of their territories. So this appears to be a de facto annexation, not a military occupation, but I cannot find a single WP:RS which covers this matter in appropriate depth or technical language to source it directly. Better remove it from here until (if) sources are found. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Albania and Carpatho-Ukraine

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hungary

The Carpatho-Ukraine was part of Hungary until 1944. (The sentence from the article "Carpatho-Ukraine annexed by Hungary" and of this Picture is Carpatho-Ukraine clear part of Hungary)

Albania

The Kingdom of Albania was an Italian protectorate and dependency, governed by the King of Italy, and was governed by a regional offshoot of the Fascist Party

Braganza (talk) 07:55, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why they were listed in this table. However, the last column is meant to indicate (parts of) territories that have become permanently annexed. Those two cases do not qualify. — JFG talk 09:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Czechoslovakia was connected just as long and not even the whole (Slovak Republic) Braganza (talk) 12:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

ROC vs Japan

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The 1940–1959 table has an entry listing an occupation of Japan by the Republic of China from 1945 to 1952, purportedly followed by an annexation. This looks really odd, and is not documented in the target article History of Taiwan since 1945. What I see is that the island of Taiwan, which had been formerly annexed by Japan (see Taiwan under Japanese rule, 1895–1945), was handed over to the Republic of China after the capitulation of Japan (see Occupation of Japan). That is a transfer of sovereignty which imho cannot be considered a military occupation or annexation of Japan by the ROC. At best, it's a post-war occupation of the Taiwan island by the ROC pending formalization of a peace treaty. The source of the 1952 date seems to be the formal relinquishment of territorial sovereignty by Japan following the Treaty of San Francisco and Treaty of Taipei. Can somebody shed more light on the meaning of this entry, and perhaps correct it, or remove it entirely? — JFG talk 09:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: I think that is why it's listed. From 1945 until the official 1952 handover it was held by the ROC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, the ROC administered Taiwan for 7 years before Japan officially returned it. However, this situation was rather China regaining a territory formerly occupied by Japan, not China suddenly going to militarily occupy a part of Japan. Similarly, when France regained the Alsace-Lorraine territories in 1918 that Germany had captured in 1871, we are not saying that France occupied Germany on its own former (French) territory. — JFG talk 03:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
If you wish to pull it out then pull it out. I'm not seeing any complaints. I didn't pull it out based on that (months ago). I was simply answering your question. cheers.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
The entry is supported by a reliable source so I think it should not be removed. As explained in the source, the 1945 "hand over" was just a hand over of jurisdiction rather than sovereignty. Since Japan gained the sovereignty of Taiwan (island) in 1895, Taiwan became part of Japan so it's not appropriate to say that Japan occupied Taiwan. And Japan didn't "return" Taiwan to any country in 1952 because Japan merely "renounced" the sovereignty without explicitly stating to whom it renounced the sovereignty. --Matt Smith (talk) 16:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
  Settled – After reading History of Taiwan since 1945 more thoroughly, I understand why we should keep things as they are. Taiwan was an integral part of the Empire of Japan from 1895 to 1945, and the Republic of China was a more recent entity, established in 1912, so we cannot say the ROC recovered any of its own "lost" territory, because that territory had been ceded to Japan by the Qing dynasty China. I have clarified the entry by linking "Japan (mainland)" to the geography article about Japan's principal islands, just like "Taiwan" was linked to the article about the eponymous island. Thanks! — JFG talk 22:09, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

ISIS

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This inclusion is highly dubious.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Why? It's been a major ongoing event for the last few years. Of course ISIS is not a formally recognized state, but neither are/were several other entities engaging in military occupation. — JFG talk 22:27, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
It specifically annexed these lands and there is no intention on their part for this to be temporary. It's not exclusively a foreign contingent as it is in some part made of Syrian belligerents. Is there a reputable source that views them as a military occupation under international law? I've not found any. while there are entities engaging in Military occupations that are not recognized states, as far as I'm aware these non-recognized states Military occupations are directly tied with a recognized state who is viewed as the occupying power. An example being Russia in Transnistria and in this example it was Russian intervention and its continued presence that leads the international community to label it an Occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Gaza, again

Latest comment: 6 years ago17 comments3 people in discussion

I want to revisit Gaza, since while the UN may consider the Gaza occupied, it is not military occupation according to the Hague Convention. It is quite ludicrous to say Israel has effective control over day to day operation within Gaza when there are no Israeli soldiers inside of Gaza. Having a blockade does not make it an occupation, it makes it a blockade. Furthermore, the UN is not a law making body, the lead of this article says we are only including those military occupations under the Hague Convention. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Sir Joseph: per the banner above, this article is subject to ARBPIA. Please self revert your violation of the 24-hour-rule, ideally until this discussion is resolved. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
At the time of writing the article you posted, Elizabeth Samson was a 31 year old lawyer who “wanted to go to law school to help the Jewish community, to help Israel” and had worked for the propaganda outfit The David Project. She is therefore highly suspect as a reliable source.[12]
More recent and untainted sources give a much clearer picture:
  • Sanger, Andrew (2011). M.N. Schmitt; Louise Arimatsu; Tim McCormack (eds.). "The Contemporary Law of Blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2010. 13. Springer Science & Business Media: 429. doi:10.1007/978-90-6704-811-8_14. ISBN 9789067048118. Israel claims it no longer occupies the Gaza Strip, maintaining that it is neither a Stale nor a territory occupied or controlled by Israel, but rather it has 'sui generis' status. Pursuant to the Disengagement Plan, Israel dismantled all military institutions and settlements in Gaza and there is no longer a permanent Israeli military or civilian presence in the territory. However the Plan also provided that Israel will guard and monitor the external land perimeter of the Gaza Strip, will continue to maintain exclusive authority in Gaza air space, and will continue to exercise security activity in the sea off the coast of the Gaza Strip as well as maintaining an Israeli military presence on the Egyptian-Gaza border. and reserving the right to reenter Gaza at will.
    Israel continues to control six of Gaza's seven land crossings, its maritime borders and airspace and the movement of goods and persons in and out of the territory. Egypt controls one of Gaza's land crossings. Troops from the Israeli Defence Force regularly enter pans of the territory and/or deploy missile attacks, drones and sonic bombs into Gaza. Israel has declared a no-go buffer zone that stretches deep into Gaza: if Gazans enter this zone they are shot on sight. Gaza is also dependent on israel for inter alia electricity, currency, telephone networks, issuing IDs, and permits to enter and leave the territory. Israel also has sole control of the Palestinian Population Registry through which the Israeli Army regulates who is classified as a Palestinian and who is a Gazan or West Banker. Since 2000 aside from a limited number of exceptions Israel has refused to add people to the Palestinian Population Registry.
    It is this direct external control over Gaza and indirect control over life within Gaza that has led the United Nations, the UN General Assembly, the UN Fact Finding Mission to Gaza, International human rights organisations, US Government websites, the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office and a significant number of legal commentators, to reject the argument that Gaza is no longer occupied.
  • Scobbie, Iain (2012). Elizabeth Wilmshurst (ed.). International Law and the Classification of Conflicts. Oxford University Press. p. 295. ISBN 9780199657759. Even after the accession to power of Hamas, Israel's claim that it no longer occupies Gaza has not been accepted by UN bodies, most States, nor the majority of academic commentators because of its exclusive control of its border with Gaza and crossing points including the effective control it exerted over the Rafah crossing until at least May 2011, its control of Gaza's maritime zones and airspace which constitute what Aronson terms the 'security envelope' around Gaza, as well as its ability to intervene forcibly at will in Gaza.
  • Gawerc, Michelle (2012). Prefiguring Peace: Israeli-Palestinian Peacebuilding Partnerships. Lexington Books. p. 44. ISBN 9780739166109. While Israel withdrew from the immediate territory, Israel still controlled all access to and from Gaza through the border crossings, as well as through the coastline and the airspace. ln addition, Gaza was dependent upon Israel for water electricity sewage communication networks and for its trade (Gisha 2007. Dowty 2008). ln other words, while Israel maintained that its occupation of Gaza ended with its unilateral disengagement Palestinians – as well as many human right organizations and international bodies – argued that Gaza was by all intents and purposes still occupied.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:45, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
You are confusing a blockade with an occupation. Nobody is arguing that Israel doesn't blockade Gaza, as does Egypt. But a blockade does not equal occupation. Look at the lead of this article, that is the definition we are using here and Gaza is not under Israeli occupation. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
The sources and quotes above address your concern explicitly. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:13, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
So again, why is Egypt not considered as occupying Gaza? It's ludicrous that a country not occupying another country is considered occupying that merely because it's Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
And on top of all that, this article is called Military Occupations. And it has strict criteria for inclusion, even if it's about Israel. Sir Joseph (talk) 14:27, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Who is that comment directed at? The sources speak for themselves.
We should be discussing the sources, not our own views or interpretations.
Onceinawhile (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Which of the sources say that Gaza is under military occupation? Sir Joseph (talk) 20:05, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The quotes above are crystal clear. If you are referring to the fact that they don’t say the word “military”, you are wasting your time. Acadamic literature on the subject frequently uses “occupation” as shorthand for “military occupation” as there is no other similar type of occupation which could cause confusion. See for example footnotes 1, 2, 3 and 11 at the article Annexation (I added most of these sources earlier this year - they reflect some of the central works in the field of international law).
I am not inclined to continue this discussion if you insist on engaging on frivolous tangents. Either bring high quality sources that counteract the above, or come back when the situation has changed.
Onceinawhile (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Which part of the below exists in Gaza?
"Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention on Land Warfare specify that "[t]erritory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army." The form of administration by which an occupying power exercises government authority over occupied territory is called "military government." Neither the Hague Conventions nor the Geneva Conventions specifically define or distinguish an act of "invasion". The terminology of "occupation" is used exclusively."

Sir Joseph (talk) 23:56, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

You can ask Onceinawhile for original research and you can provide your own original research but it can't be used here. Multiple sources provide the international view that this is still a military occupation. Israel's position that it is not a military occupation is also represented.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
And yet he reverted a RS I put into the note that specified that it's not a military occupation. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Because reliable source guarantee inclusion... Diakonia IHL Resource Centre holds that the Hague convention applies because of the Israeli control of Air, sea, and borders in addition to administrative measures[1]. Your position that the hague convention does not apply is based off the fact that your source argues that Israel lacks effective control. Yet it's the UN's position that Israel does have effective control of Gaza[2]. For some reason you have opted to put Miss Samson's position into wikipedia voice. This of course is without even considering the weight of her minority point of view which is already represented in Israel's position. But oh me, you have a reliable source.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:16, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
And yet you don't include Egypt as an occupying power? They have the same control over Gaza as does Israel. The double standard is getting old. Sir Joseph (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
When there is a prohibition against original research why would I apply my own? That's what you are arguing by placing me in here. Why don't I include Israel as an occupying power? Have I now become the King of the World? Are you calling up to my throne asking for a ruling? There is no Majority POV and no significant minority POV that holds Egypt is currently an occupying power of Gaza. This is the important detail here. You are arguing that because of A then B. Egypt doesn't maintain any authority of the airspace or the Sea space of Gaza. They maintain their border with Gaza in Egyptian territory. In a DMZ with a peacekeeping force. Their force is limited by accord with Israel as are their responsibilities. But before you go off on a tangent, that whole part that no Major or significant POV holds that Egypt is an occupying power is the relevant part. There's that whole no original research thing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Have we concluded this conversation for this year?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Current map

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

I really like the map and I think it really helps. But at the same time its like trying to make out a bandaid on an elephants ass. One centered around these common geophraphic locations would make it more view able.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Russia occopied? By whom? Russians?~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.192.157.95 (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I took it out.47.192.157.95 (talk) 23:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't show that Russia is occupied. It shows that Russia is the occupier.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

This discussion on my talk page may be relevant. BytEfLUSh Talk 23:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

@BytEfLUSh: Thank you. Your opinion is actually very helpful. I was suggesting above that we get a map that is more zoomed in but either removing the occupiers or adding a map key may be needed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. While I did say I'm not really interested in this, in my opinion - if we really need a map - perhaps the occupying countries should be displayed in lighter colors (even lighter then current ones), and occupied areas darker? That way, the subject of the article would be made more visible. Adding a map key would also help, even in that case. BytEfLUSh Talk 00:09, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Great ideas. We could have only two colors on the whole map - one for the occupiers and one for the occupied. We don’t need a rainbow. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
We can also crop the map:
  • Atlantic ocean on the far left
  • Ural mountains on the far right
  • Ethiopia on the bottom
Outside of that zone there are no ongoing occupations. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
@GodsPlaaaaan: what do you think of these proposed amendments to your map? Onceinawhile (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
We'll need to look for a way to create such a map ourselves it seems.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

The Rykuru Islands

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

More information should be researched on the effects of the Treaty of San Francisco. From the treaty until the return were these islands Japanese sovereign territory. It seems that the occupation may have actually ended in Japan outright in 1952 but reviewing more detailed sources will be needed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Scratch that. The treaty of San Francisco was one of those complicated and interesting chapters in the history of Military occupations.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An anonymous editor tried to add Hong Kong 1997 a few times without a source. If the editor sees this, please explain your rationale here. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Later Annexed Tab Section

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think we are brushing with a broad stroke with this tab in the past military occupations that may detract from the neutrality. There some details in most of cases that are being labeled annexations that a yes simply doesn't cover. Southwest Africa doesn't was a very unique annexation if you want to call it that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:39, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Improving the map

Latest comment: 6 years ago31 comments8 people in discussion

I have removed the map of current occupations as misleading, because it strongly gives the impression that large countries are occupied, and several readers have already complained about this issue. In prior discussions, suggestions were made to improve it, and I have a few extra ideas. Let's recap:

  1. Do not show the entire globe, but focus on regions where ongoing occupations need to be displayed, roughly from West Africa to the Urals, and only in the Northern hemisphere from the equator to the 60th parallel.
  2. Use strong colors for the occupied territories, not for the occupying powers.
  3. Use very light colors for the occupiers, or perhaps only draw a line from the occupying power to the occupied zone.
  4. Add names of occupying and occupied territories, either locally or as a map key.

Unfortunately, nobody took the time to create an improved version yet. Pinging @GodsPlaaaaan, Nice4What, and Wikiemirati: as contributors to the map, @BytEfLUSh, Onceinawhile, and Serialjoepsycho: as participants in prior discussions, and @Nagualdesign: as a talented illustrator who may wish to jump in. Please refrain from adding the map back to the article before we have a better version. — JFG talk 14:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I was waiting for further discussion, but myself was planing on removing the map as well. A map would be a great idea, not simply for current but for former occupations, such as WWII France. The prior complaint is given credibility due to the fact the map is so unwieldy. While in honesty you can tell that the map doesn't suggest that Russia is occupied, you can't however tell that with out close examination of the map and the article. I support the removal.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Mapping all occupations during World War II is certainly interesting, but a difficult exercise. Tackling current pockets of occupied territories is an easier start. Walk before you run, as they say. — JFG talk 16:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
At first I think someone should create map of ongoing occupations rather than occupations from the past. The perfect example is File:Crimea crisis map (alternate color for Russia).PNG (I like that they used "smooth" color rather than red or orange). Hddty. (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added a more focused version of the map which I think addresses the comments above. It boils down to just four occupying powers today - Russia, Turkey, Israel and Morocco. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it's more legible than the full globe. However, it still gives the impression that large countries are occupied; we do need to apply some of the other suggestions above. — JFG talk 21:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, Crimea is now considered annexed, not militarily occupied. The annexation itself is disputed, but disputed de facto annexations are not listed as "ongoing occupations" in this article. — JFG talk 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Then again, only "military occupations" are listed here yet Gaza which is not under any occupation other than what the UN says is included.... Sir Joseph (talk) 21:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Per Gaza Strip: "Despite the 2005 Israeli disengagement from Gaza,[22] the United Nations, international human rights organisations, and the majority of governments and legal commentators consider the territory to be still occupied by Israel". Onceinawhile (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, read the lead of this article. This only has military occupations and only those that are not in agreement with the territory. That does not include Gaza. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:28, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Your cropped version is incorrect though. The Turkish occupation zone has expanded since January 2018 and Badme was recently given back to Eritrea. Also, using a .png makes it harder for future editing as opposed to an .svg. I propose just changing the colors or adding a legend so there is no confusion anymore. It's hard to believe that most users would see the map and believe the entirety of Russia is under foreign military occupation. Nice4What (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nice4What: are you editing the image as an svg or png? If svg, could you upload it as a new file? That will make it possible for others to edit too. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps change the occupying countries to a lighter color, while occupied territories should be darker (that is, switch the occupier/occupied colors)? The occupied territories are the topic of this list, so they should probably be more prominent in the map. Otherwise, great work! I won't go into whether something is a military occupation or not - I really have nothing to add to that topic. byteflush Talk 23:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking about doing along with adding a legend. Nice4What (talk) 23:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Is there anyway to set this or the future map so there's a little more ability to zoom in. Also it might not be necessary to color the occupying countries. Russia is kind of a well known place where as Transnistria isn't so much.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 
Labelled map

I've flipped the colors, labelled all the territories, color-coded the table on the article, and the image is cropped. Nice4What (talk) 00:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

A good start, thanks! My suggestions to improve further:
  • Use even lighter shades for the occupying countries, especially Turkey looks too strong;
  • Use a much larger font size for names, add lines in cluttered zones to display the name at a palatable distance;
  • Write the names of occupying countries as well;
  • Place Crimea in Russian territory (annexed, even if disputed, is not occupied).
Given the cluster of occupations in the Caucasus and Levant regions, I would try producing a map that focuses only on those, and document the Morocco / Western Sahara situation on a separate map. — JFG talk 00:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Great idea to have added color legends to the table, by the way! — JFG talk 00:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Nice4What (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It's quite time consuming to edit the .svg and then remake it into a .png and remake all the labels. Also, how come Crimea shouldn't be colored if it's annexed as opposed to Israeli annexed territories? Nice4What (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Because Crimea has been formally incorporated into Russia, whereas none of the occupied Palestinian territories have been formally incorporated into Israel. — JFG talk 00:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
(continued in #Occupations vs annexations thread below) — JFG talk 14:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

New map

 
Current military occupations and their occupying powers

I've taken the liberty of uploading a new version of the map. It's larger, covers a wider area (can easily be cropped), I've swapped the oranges and yellows (the oranges were difficult to distinguish from the reds), desaturated/lightened the colours of the occupying countries, made the borders slightly thicker, and made the labels larger/used colour text. I didn't add arrows since the labels are directly adjacent to the occupied areas. I didn't label the occupying countries as Israel isn't large enough for any text. Let me know what you think. I'd be happy to make any changes. nagualdesign 20:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

It might look better if I un-bold the text labels. The yellow text isn't particularly clear, so perhaps another colour would be better (purple?). Thought I'd ask before making more changes. nagualdesign 20:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Your version is very legible, thanks. Agree that purple would probably look better than yellow. Or perhaps try yellow for Turkey and red for Armenia? (using a stronger color for a smaller country for readability)
Spelling corrections: "Aleppo" not "Allepo", and "Western Sahara" not "West Sahara" (per our article title). Also, as long as our table does not list Crimea as an ongoing military occupation, I think it should be drawn like the rest of Russia (see other thread). But because its status is still hotly disputed, perhaps we could show it with stripes of light and dark green? — JFG talk 20:59, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
It was actually the colour of the Nagorno-Karabakh label that I found difficult to read (consider MOS:ACCESS). I'll try purple. Sorry about the spelling, I just copied the previous map verbatim. (I think!) Watch this space... nagualdesign 21:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  Done - Yellow → purple, bold → normal, removed Crimea, corrected spelling mistakes (my bad), plus minor tweaks. Howzat? nagualdesign 21:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Looks great to me. Many thanks for your help! — JFG talk 21:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Bold text was more legible on small devices. Could you restore that? — JFG talk 22:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Also, could you list the color codes of the dark shades, so that we can update the legends in the table and related articles? — JFG talk 22:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
All done. nagualdesign 22:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Occupation of Northern Ireland

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

It is striking that many do refer to British control of Ireland and specifically of Northern Ireland as military occupation, but not a word in the article. The English language Wikipedia article is of course biased towards UK role in the early modern world history as the largest extending occupation power, which has held lands and still executes belligerent territorial control on various lands, including Northern Ireland, Gibraltar and other places. Well, UK did grant citizenship in those places, but The Troubles emphasized the military nature of UK control of the Northern Ireland [13]. English literature refrain from the word "occupation", but in the academic world we do find inclusion of Northern Ireland in the list of occupations [14], and so by non-UK institutes [15].GreyShark (dibra) 12:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

”Occupation” is often used loosely. In a legal sense it is not applicable to Ireland (including Northern Ireland), which joined to Britian with the Acts of Union 1800. Onceinawhile (talk) 13:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
The pervasive view of the international community is that Norther Ireland is not under Military occupation. Neither the Northern Irish or the Irish hold the view that it is.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
This is why I don't bother editing articles of a political nature. The short answer is that this article is about current, military occupations. The first link you provided talks about the British soldiers having pulled out of their Bessbrook Mill base, South Armagh, for the last time 11 years ago. The second link talks about the period from 1969–98. The third from 1969-73. The past is the past. Nobody is trying to whitewash history here. Please do not try to use Wikipedia for 'righting great wrongs'. nagualdesign 02:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
..My mistake, the list covers more than just current occupations. My apologies. nagualdesign 02:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://www.diakonia.se/en/IHL/Occupied-Palestinian-Territory/IL--oPT/Applicability-of-IHL-in-the-oPT/
  2. ^ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/07/02/does-israel-actually-occupy-the-gaza-strip/?utm_term=.943ae9c79847
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_military_occupations/Archive_4&oldid=1089099287"