Jump to content

Talk:Military occupation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tibet

[edit]

Tibet is included in both the occupations and disputed occupations lists, I removed it from the occupations list because of the reason stated at the top of this page. Say1988 02:33, 25 March 2005 (UTC)

Language of lede

[edit]

The lede is a real brain-teaser and tongue twister. For example, take the phrase "with the ruling power being the occupant".

  • There are two ruling powers involved in such situations: that of occupied and that of occupant. I am pretty much sure there are internationally accepted definitions and wikipedia does not have to invent their own weird language (not found in sources, by the way; e.g., the first footnote says simply "a power <...> that power has no sovereign title").
  • "outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory" - This circumlocution sounds dubious: For example, for Nazi Germany, Reichsgau Wartheland was quite nicely within Nazi-defined legal boundaries. And it is only clarified a bit after reading below: "to keep in place only temporarily". Again, General Government indeed was "only temporarily", intended to be taken care of later.
  • " military government <...> though this is not a necessary precondition for occupation to take place" - this cannot be described as "precondition" but rather "characteristic", "attribute", etc.. Not to say that "necessary precondition" is a tautology.

And so on. I am not a native speaker so I dont dare to rewrite the lede (beyond one simplification), but I urge y'all to make it mode digestable. Now it looks to me like a text of a limited warranty :-) (What??? a redlink? :-) - Altenmann >talk 18:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann: In response to your first and third points, I've made two edits (1 & 2) to simplify the wording of the lede.
Your second point, about occupied territory having to be outside of the occupant's sovereign territory, prevents such a definition from being applied to a nation seizing its own territory. For example, if Ukraine seized Crimea from Russia, few would consider Crimea as territory occupied by Ukraine. The current wording addresses this, while avoiding mention of territorial disputes that can arise in such contexts. (In the same paragraph, you seem to draw a connection between the geographic boundaries of the territory and the temporary nature of the occupation. I'm unsure of what change you're suggesting here.) Dotyoyo (talk) 04:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Distinction based on duration

[edit]

@John Abbe: The sentence "Occupation's intended temporary nature distinguishes it from annexation and colonialism." distinguishes military occupation from other types of territorial control of different durations which can be confused with it. Military occupation made permanent becomes annexation. Military occupation made permanent---or otherwise extended in duration---does not by that change in duration become apartheid. While apartheid can follow occupation, it is not part of a distinction that is the point of this sentence, which is why it isn't mentioned either here or the sources cited.

If you wish to add a "See also" section with a link to the article on Apartheid, you are free to do so.

Dotyoyo (talk) 06:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Heights and East Jerusalem

[edit]

The Israeli military does not control those areas (Israel itself does, like Tel Aviv). As such, there is no claim to these areas being occupied militarily. A3811 (talk) 07:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To quote this page itself, "Military occupation... is temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over a sovereign territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory" A3811 (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's WP:OR. M.Bitton (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also noticed that despite the fact that WeatherWriter listed some RS in a related discussion that prove that your OR cannot contradict what is sourced (Sean.hoyland also didn't agree with you), you still went ahead with the change on this article. M.Bitton (talk) 21:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]