Talk:Military occupation

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military occupation article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 91 days

Military history: Technology

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force

International relations: Law High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as Mid-importance).

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing the parts of the page related to the contentious topic:

You must be logged-in and extended-confirmed to edit or discuss this topic on any page (except for making edit requests, provided they are not disruptive)
You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on any edits related to this topic

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

If it is unclear which parts of the page are related to this contentious topic, the content in question should be marked within the wiki text by an invisible comment. If no comment is present, please ask an administrator for assistance. If in doubt it is better to assume that the content is covered.

Further information

The exceptions to the extended confirmed restriction are:

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided they are not disruptive.
Non-extended-confirmed editors may not create new articles, but administrators may exercise discretion when deciding how to enforce this remedy on article creations. Deletion of new articles created by non-extended-confirmed editors is permitted but not required.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction. Also, reverts made solely to enforce the extended confirmed restriction are not considered edit warring.
Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence.

After being warned, contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topic sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.
Editors may report violations of these restrictions to the Arbitration enforcement noticeboard.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. When in doubt, don't revert!

Tibet

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

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

@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]