Talk:Military occupation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Most of the additional examples of belligerent occupation recently added are not considered such under international law. For example the Chinese occupation of Tibet. Tibet signed away its sovereignty years ago, however much they may regret doing so now and however unjust the situation may be. Fred Bauder 18:51, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

The heads of the Baltic states were pressured to concede their sovereignty to USSR in 1940s. By your logic that made 50 years of occupation legal? Ask them. ←Humus sapiens←Talk 19:26, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Northern Ireland

The definition given at the top of the page is:

Belligerent or military occupation occurs when one nation's military garrisons all or part of a foreign nation during an invasion or after a war.

That definition does not seem to apply to Northern Ireland.
Bobblewik  (talk) 20:02, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Britain invaded Ireland. It withdrew its garrisons to the northeast of the island in 1922. It still maintains those garrisons.

Lapsed Pacifist 02:25, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • What is Britain and when did Britain invade Ireland?
  • Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and is recognised as such by the international community including the Republic of Ireland. Philip Baird Shearer 11:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Replying to LP's editorial comment - then it should be on a list of most militarized areas. "Occupation" has an accepted and defined meaning in international law, that in part - how it ends - depends on the state of international law at the time. In classical international law, there was a right of conquest, and a conqueror could proclaim that it owned a territory just because it had conquered it, and everybody else would accept it. That is what happened in Ireland. It couldn't happen now because this "right" no longer is recognized, and every state on Earth consents to treaties - the UN charter among others - that deny this "right." You might have a case that for the short time between English conquest and proclamation that it annexed Ireland, that it was occupied according to the standards of the time, but not more than that.--John Z 01:14, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)


The British army has bases in Ireland that the people who live near don't want there. They have had to continually reinforce these bases over the past thirty years to protect them and the lives of the soldiers who are based in them. People who live near the bases have launched scores of bomb and mortar attacks on them, and have killed hundreds of those British soldiers. No-one is arguing that the international community does'nt consider Northern Ireland part of the United Kingdom. What's pertinent here is whether the British military presence in Ireland amounts to occupation or not. Given the violent and sustained opposition to it, I believe it does.

Lapsed Pacifist 4 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)

I have not seen a source which argues that the situation in NI meets the criteria for belligerent military occupation. You say "I believe it does", but have you any disinterested credible sources which says that it is a belligerent military occupation? Philip Baird Shearer 4 July 2005 18:15 (UTC)


The best. The troops' own operations and tactics, and their behaviour towards the people who live in the areas they occupy. In certain places it is too dangerous for them to travel by road, forcing them to rely on helicopters. Without the force of arms, the British government would be unable to extend its writ to many areas it currently can.

Lapsed Pacifist 4 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

Even pre-1995 when the situation was similar to that which you discribe, when minority of people in NI activly fought or resisted the army, it was never an internal military occupation (as martial law was not declared). The definition and the examples consists of "Belligerent military occupations" which NI is not. Philip Baird Shearer 5 July 2005 08:27 (UTC)


I find it hard to swallow that the conditions in which the British army went about its duties does not constitute military occupation. They base themselves in areas where the local population consider them an occupying force, even those who have'nt tried to kill any of them. That's good enough for me.

Lapsed Pacifist 5 July 2005 08:48 (UTC)

Not every bad thing is an occupation. It's fine to call it tantamount to occupation, or as bad as an occupation, but without confusing words and people you cannot call it an occupation. There have been many (tyrannical) governments in the past century that treated (some or practically all) their own people in ways as bad or even worse, but were still the recognized authority, who no one said was "occupying" their nation. You might have a good case for there being British occupation of Ireland during the Anglo-Irish War, because there was martial law in a real, recognized shooting war that ended up with the rebels becoming a government. This points up to how the word is used. You cannot have an occupation without a war. No war, no occupation. Would you call what is happening now or recently a war?--John Z 5 July 2005 09:37 (UTC)


The recent conflict was not much different in ferocity than the Anglo-Irish War. I don't agree that an ongoing war is necessary for military occupation, it's the size and nature of the presence that would decide that. The "authority" of the British government in Northern Ireland may be recognised internationally, but it is not recognised as legitimate by hundreds of thousands of people who live there, and who consider the British army an army of occupation.

Lapsed Pacifist 5 July 2005 09:52 (UTC)

But then you are just using a different definition of occupation from the one that is universally used in international law and in this article. For there to be an occupation, legitimacy or the size and nature of the presence, or even recognition is not important. That there must have been an actual war is. Occupation is a de facto term - it says nothing about who is right or wrong, who is behaving badly, whether the occupation is justified or not. It just means there is or was a war, and now there is military control (and no clear and definite end to the military control by a recognized peace treaty). If hundreds of thousands of people felt that they were really at war, and behaved like they were, your case would be better. I have no particular problem with anybody calling the British army an army of occupation as long as they don't say it fits under the usual definition or think that such a statement belongs in an encyclopedia that uses the usual definition. - --John Z 5 July 2005 10:21 (UTC)


So for you it comes down to whether or not the conflict there was a war? Republican paramilitary groups (and their supporters) contend there was, as this increases their legitimacy. The British government deny it, for the opposite reason. I don't agree that the size of the military presence and the tactics and behaviour of the troops (i.e. that they act just like an army of occupation) should not be taken into account. That would be like an article on war crimes that only considered those who were brought to book.

Lapsed Pacifist 5 July 2005 10:44 (UTC)


I must say I'm at a loss. Is there a war on the Kurils I've completely missed? Is there currently martial law in Northern Cyprus?

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

See Cyprus#Reunification, Cyprus dispute#Invasion and Division, 1974 and the section in this article called "Military occupation and the laws of war" GCIV Articles 6,47,48.
See Kuril Islands dispute. Personally if I was making up the list I would probably not include them because although they are held by Russia as a result of a military attack which took place after the United Nations was founded, it happened before GCIV (1949). But the situation is a legal mess and is not as clear cut as it is in Cyprus.
I am supprised that you did not use "Chechnya recognised internationally as part of Russia" as an example because it is a better fit to the situation in NI. I think it ought to be deleted, althought it differs from NI in the scale of the conflict (which I think most would describe as a war) and the severity of the damage [1][2]. Operation Motorman is in no way comparable to the Russians attack on Grozny which suffered an artillery attack simlar to those of World War II Philip Baird Shearer 6 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)


"Personally if I was making up the list..." You are. You and I both. I am already familiar with the two scenarios I mentioned. The point I was making is that every situation is different. Since it was already obvious from the section title that use of the term "military occupation" is disputed, I saw no reason not to revert it.

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 18:45 (UTC)

I am not making the list up, I've been removing things from the list on this page for about 6 months! Philip Baird Shearer 6 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)


When I first came to this article, I put Northern Ireland under "Disputed to be a military occupation by local population", as this seemed the most appropriate section to me at the time. I moved it to the next section when you expressed your dissatisfaction with that. To my mind either is appropriate.

Lapsed Pacifist 6 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

I still haven't seen where it meets the definition of a military occupation; where was the war? Jayjg (talk) 6 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

All of the others are associated with wars. In addition, and this is an important test of whether things belong on such a list, is that there are organizations and their lawyers who say such and such is a military occupation. If you can find a legal reference that presents an argument that NI is a case of military occupation, I'll stop objecting - and then put it in with the reference. That's the way WIkipedia does things. I'd really like to see the argument though. In contentious matters like these, people come up with remarkable and strained arguments, but there is a limit, and I think no legal expert would say something like that - it just doesn't jibe with the legal mind.--John Z 7 July 2005 08:02 (UTC)

See http://www.32csm.netfirms.com/unsubmission.html.

Lapsed Pacifist 7 July 2005 14:22 (UTC)

There's no argument there for it being a military occupation. They just use the word loosely, not as a legal term, as you are doing. What is more, it is clear that they do not think it fits in the strict definition of a military occupation used here, otherwise they would be referring to violations of the Hague and Geneva conventions. In addition, by referring to the military occupation of Ireland in times when there was a recognized right of conquest, they again make it clear that they are using the word loosely. Again, this says nothing about the merits of the case of Ireland vs Britain, it just says that if one is being strict, one should not put it in this classification - as the writers of this document make clear as they do not even mention the law of belligerent occupation. --John Z 7 July 2005 21:14 (UTC)


There's no reason not to distinguish between de jure and de facto occupations in the article itself. As long as it's made clear that whether or not a conflict exists, the occupations referred to are not considered such in a strict legal sense, I don't see the problem.

Lapsed Pacifist 7 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)

The web site you gave contains an article by the 32 County Sovereignty Committee which is not a disinterested party! And as John Z has pointed out "There's no argument there for it being a military occupation". Do you have a credible source from a disinterested party which states that in 2005 the situation in Northern Ireland is a "belligerent military occupation" by the British Army, or that NI is under "military occupation" by the British Army? Philip Baird Shearer 8 July 2005 14:24 (UTC)


No-one claimed they were disinterested. There is still a strong argument for it being a military occupation, but obviously since the Republic changed its territorial claim the constitutional side of the argument has weakened. I'll state it again, the British army's methods in much of the region make it clear they are an occupying force. This is as plain as day, for anyone willing to research it.

Lapsed Pacifist 8 July 2005 19:18 (UTC)

Northern Ireland is not under military occupation. Northern Ireland is democratic British territory (ARK 2004 survey). British troops are currently stationed in regions of Northern Ireland known to be terrorist (particularly IRA)strongholds, such as south Armagh. They are there due to the perceived terrorist threat from those areas.
Troop numbers in Northern Ireland have been reduced dramatically in recent years - many see this as appeasment by the British government to Sinn Fein (the IRA's political wing) in order to encourage the IRA to disband. The withdrawals of British troops continue, despite the fact that the IRA still has not disbanded, nor has been seen to transparently decommision its weapons fully, has been linked to major spying operations, linked to training Colombian rebels, money laundering, and involved in major robberys (most notable being the £26m Northern Bank). British troops used to line border controls between Northern Ireland an the Republic of Ireland, but in recent times these are practically non-existant. At the height of the Northern Ireland 'troubles' in the 1970s British troops were present in an attempt to keep the peace and try to stabilise the poor security situation - Lapsed Pacifist will most likely reply to this with something different such as "collusion" with Loyalists etc., but should most likely be ignored.
Lapsed Pacifist (Special:Contributions/Lapsed_Pacifist) is begining to build a reputation for himself as a zealous Irish republican who likes to spread IRA propaganda. He has notably contributed to many articles, including biographies of IRA volunteers. (This may be personal, but I feel it is needed). All references to Northern Ireland should be deleted immediately. I do not know enough about the Chechnya/Russia situation so cannot commment on that issue.
Jonto 19:55, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


You're helping my argument. The British army has a presence in "IRA strongholds" which amounts to a de facto military occupation of those areas. The British government would be unable to extend its writ to these areas without the military presence. They still man the border, I believe The Parachute Regiment is currently there.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense. These "IRA strongholds" are small areas of perceived IRA terrorist threat to the security of Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole. They cannot be classified as "occupying" these areas because their main presence is in the form of watchtowers - they do not cordon off the entire area of south Armagh and prevent innocent people from entering or leaving the area, or prevent people going about their daily business. The troops are there to uphold security - this does not constitute a "military occupation". I do not deny there may be still some troops on the border, but it is very rare to ever be stopped when crossing nowadays, and having troops on border controls is hardly uncommon throughout the world.

Jonto 20:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


South Armagh is half of a whole county, and it's only one of the areas concerned. I'm not convinced there would be much of a threat from there to the security of the United Kingdom were the British army to up sticks and leave, and I believe their definition of "innocent people" tends to be rather narrow. Nor am I convinced that they don't often prevent people going about their daily business. I'm sure accounts of life there are available online. Soldiers at border controls are not a notable feature in most of Western Europe.

Lapsed Pacifist 20:57, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Again, LP, the onus is on you to prove your case, which I don't think you have done, or will ever do. The reason why there are no armed border controls throughout most of western Europe is due to something called the Schengen Treaty, which neither the UK or Republic Ireland are a part of. Try crossing the border from Canada to the US and I'm sure you'll find a very different story. Jonto 21:11, 16 July 2005 (UTC)


I don't believe it is. Have you researched any accounts of life in South Armagh?

Lapsed Pacifist 17:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Warning sarcasm follows) OOOOOohhh those poor people of South Armagh - they're treated soo badly by those big bad British. Those big bad watchtowers emit all that bad radiation and kill all our sheep and prevent us form sleeping at night (Believe it or not this is one of the most recent ridiculous excuses of victimhood to come from the area as reported by the BBC). We love going down to the dole office and claiming all our benefits that the big bad British taxpayer gives us though.

No, and no I am not going to research South Armagh. You have not proven your case and will not do so because it is widely accepted that you do not have one. Jonto 21:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

LP - I know what "de facto" means - I am not stupid. The term "de facto military occupation" does NOT apply to Northern Ireland. Jonto 21:51, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

If someone insists on Northern Ireland as a Military Occupation I'm going to add some other occupations: "United States" (wrested from the native Americans by military force) "England" (bloodily conquered by the Normans and never returned) and a whole pile of others. DJ Clayworth 21:53, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Um, Texas was annexed quite peacefully by the United States fifteen years before the War of Northern Aggression. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 15:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
And don't forget Ireland, conquered by the Gaels. Jayjg (talk) 22:04, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
And the most egregious of all, the occupation of the Conch Republic, by Florida. Long live the Republic!!!--JW1805 22:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)


Indeed. All of these arguments are interesting, but when was the last time a U.S. soldier was killed by a Native American brave or a Mexican soldier, or a Norman knight by a Saxon one? I'm afraid my knowledge of the Gaelic invasion and the Floridian occupation are a bit hazy, so I'll reserve comment on those. Jonto, the term does not apply to all of the six counties, hence my qualification.

Lapsed Pacifist 22:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Surely a compromise could be reached in this apparent revert war about Northern Ireland/Ulster/Six Counties/North of Ireland or whatever. Maybe it could be mentioned that some of the Republican minority in Northern Ireland consider British rule to be a military occupation and this part of the population considered the IRA resistance fighters, but this is not the position of the Unionist majority, or the British or Irish governments. It could then be mentioned that Northern Ireland is considered by the UN to be part of the United Kingdom.

I'm not a Nationalist and, since I live in England, I detest the Provisional IRA, especially for deliberately massacring civilians up and down the country. However it seems pretty obvious England originally invaded, occupied and colonised Ireland centries ago, creating the horrible, sectarian mess which led to the 1970-98 guerrilla war or "Troubles".

On the subject of South Armargh/Crossmaglen I read a book about the South Armargh Brigade and have come to the conclusion that South Armargh should have been made part of the Republic of Ireland, since almost everyone in that region seemed to detest British rule. It would have spared the lives of all sides: British soldiers, RUC officers, Catholic and Protestant civilians and IRA guerrillas. Although part of the premise of the book was that South Armagh had historically resisted all outside authority and not just the Brits per se, surely the South Armagh Brigade wouldn't have declared war on the Gardai (Irish police).

Maybe a compromise could be made on Chechnya, although in constrast to Northern Ireland I would have thought a majority of Chechens would support independence from Russia, or at least a lot of the population, and historically support for independence has been strong ever since tsarist Russia invaded. Unless they've forgiven the Kremlin for destroying Grozny a few times and Stalin for deporting the entire population. (BTW, in case your wondering, I do support the Chechan separatists). Kingal86 13:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that a compromise is the corrct thing to do here. If credible disinterested sources can be supplied that the territories of Northern Ireland or Chechnya are under current belligerent military occupation, then they should be included here. But without sourcese they should not. Philip Baird Shearer 10:30, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


If those sources were available, then the separate section would not be necessary.

Lapsed Pacifist 11:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

This report from the BBC regional analyst Tom de Waal on Friday, October 22, 1999 , states that Grozny was under Russian military occupation in 1996 which ended some time before the article was written. But it implies that that ended and given the age of the report does not it does not make clear if the area is currently under RMO.
In This 2004 BBC report that Chechen figures like Aslan Maskhadov (who has since died) have "at various times in the past, he has hinted that he might moderate Chechnya's demands for independence if the Russians ended their military occupation." However the BBC in this report: Q&A: The Chechen conflict and Timeline: Chechnya do not themselves use the term "military occupation" for the situation during the second Chechnya war.
Given the traditional U.S. ambivalence over N.I. is there any equivelent in the heavy weight US news media which suggests that at any time over the 35 years that NI was under military occupation and that it is still is under military occupation? Philip Baird Shearer 13:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


I doubt it. Certainly not all of it. No reason that should constrain us, though.

Lapsed Pacifist 14:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

There's obviously a large amount of Chechen opinion that their situation amounted to an occupation, and a significant amount of Irish republican opinion, as put forward by Lapsed Pacifist, that British rule in Northern Ireland ammounted to an occupation. This could be mentioned without claiming there actually is or was an occupation. Kingal86 20:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

User: GDD 0143, 2nd August 2005

The political borders in Ireland have all been set by treaty.

Firstly by agreement between The 'Provisonal' Dail in 1921, the 'Government of Ireland Act 1922, then by the Treaty of Rome in 1949.

The 1972 Border referendum held in Northern Ireland had an overwhelming majority voting to remain part of the UK.

The Good Friday Agreement (voted on by both the North and South)allowed the entire island to say that the people of Northern Ireland had the right to 'self-determination' with regards to the border.

The activities of 'anti-treaty' forces, the IRA, the Provisional IRA and offshoots have been by a minority who were not prepared to accept democracy. Their stated ambition is to form an 'Irish Democratic Socialist (Marxist) government,' not to free the people of the North from the imaginary 'yoke of slavery' put forward by propaganda. Unfortunately too many people believe that if you hear something often enough it is true. In this case it patently isn't. The British Army is in Northern Ireland at the request of the Northern Ireland people, in support of the police force.

Now that the Provisional IRA have surrendered the British Government (with Stormont temporarily prorogued) have announced that the use of troops to support the police will be wound down, eventually finishing on 1st August 2007.

Henceforth the argument of 'occupation' is a redundant one - in 'any' case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.41.187.103 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] West Bank and Gaza strip

If my memory serves me correct, these areas were part of Jordan and Egypt by the treaties establishing Israel. Therefore they should not be named as a military occupation by these nations until Israel occupied them, but vice versa.

Probably it doesn't. The UN 181 resolution called for an establishment of an independent Palestinian state in these territories (and others, which Isreal occupied in the 1948 war). Gadykozma 17:29, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

After the first Israeli-Arab war Palestinian leaders declared the independence of an all-Palestinian government. While the West Bank and Gaza were held by Arab armies (essentially Egypt and [Trans-] Jordan), these were nevertheless not recognised by anyone as being part of those countries. trans-Jordan then annexed the West Bank, becoming 'Jordan', and extended citizenship to all Palestinians and effectively ending occupation, but Egypt never made any claims to either annex Gaza, or establish a Palestinian state there. The Gaza strip was administred by Egyptian millitary until 1967. Therefore we can talk about 'occupation' in a legal sense in the context of Gaza from 1948 until 2005 (Israeli withdrawal) and in the case of the West Bank from 1948 until 1955 (correct me if the second date is wrong) and from 1967 onwards. The situation now becomes more complicated as Israel is de-facto back in the West Bank but has hinted that it will withdraw from most of the West Bank. If Israel would withdraw, and would annex the large settlement blocks near the Green line, this would (so many Israelis would argue) the end of the Israeli occupation.

As a note - effectively this end off occupation would then change the Occupied Terrirories from 'Occupied' to 'neo-colonial', but this is another Wiki-article... 81.170.3.208 19:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guantanamo Bay

I believe Guantanamo Bay is leased not occupied? Palestine-info 09:57, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I moved it to the first "disputed" section. Gadykozma 13:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I never heard anyone claim that Guantanamo Bay is occupied. :) Who claims that? I'm curious. Otherwise I think it should be removed. Palestine-info 21:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I heard Guantanamo Bay was leased indefinently to Batista's US-backed regime for a miniscule ammount of money considering it's size, but Castro's regime doesn't want them there and claims they never cash America's cheques. Therefore it could be considered at least a disputed occupation. I think I put it there, I can't remember. Kingal86 12:09, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Guantanamo Bay is leased. United States Military Government in Cuba ended on May 20, 1902. Hmortar 09:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Disputed by both sides"

I removed this section — it doesn't make sense since if it fits under "Disputed to be an occupation by local population" then it would definitely also be disputed by the occupier, so in effect this category is redundant. I don't know enough about the Korean conflict so I left it under "other" until somebody who does fixes this.

Jayjg, the notrious occupation pages are historic so I moved them there. The west bank and Gaza already existed as "undisputed", please don't add duplicate entries, and please don't move it — Israel admits that they are occupied (otherwise, it would annex them). Gadykozma 13:19, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

When did Israel make this admission? Jayjg 19:12, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Actually, this was Israel's outspoken policy for at least the first 10 years of the occupation. Nowadays they don't use the term occupation, but they don't deny it (officially) either. Correct me if I'm wrong — an official quote that actively denies it will suffice (but one that just avoids using the term would not ;-)) Gadykozma 19:54, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Wow, I missed your reply, sorry for not responding. How about an official statement from the Israeli Ministry of Foreign affairs? "The West Bank and Gaza Strip are disputed territories whose status can only be determined through negotiations. Occupied territories are territories captured in war from an established and recognized sovereign. As the West Bank and Gaza Strip were not under the legitimate and recognized sovereignty of any state prior to the Six Day War, they should not be considered occupied territories." [3] Jayjg (talk)
I am not sure I should thank you for digging up this link — it really makes me want to give back my citizenship. I moved it to the disputed section. Gadykozma 16:07, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Not sure if they're right there, Gadykozma, after all (at least for the West Bank) the territory WAS annexed to Jordan before being occupied by Israel in 1967. The fact that Jordan renounced any claims in 1988 changes very little about this fact.

I know that it is the official Israeli position that these territories are 'disputed' and not 'occupied' - but does that change anythig about the falling under the conceptual definition of an occupation?! If you want them to be included under disputed rather than under occupied, could you please expend on what exactly you refer to by disputed?! Is the land disputed, the people, or is it rather their status which is disputed? Personally, I would almost agree with your criticism that it is difficult to summ the two up under military occupation, but I don't agree with your conclusion - if you look at Israeli occupational principles in the territories (read Schlomo Gazit - the carrot and the stick on this topic) you might come (or not) to the conclusion that they could just as well be Colonial territories... 195.188.241.124 10:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming

Wouldn't this article be better named Military occupation?

google hits:

  • "Military occupation": 360,000
  • "Belligerent occupation": 6,520
    • that's 55 to 1

It seems from the text that this was in fact the original name of the article, and it was only changed for some obscure reason. --Pharos 07:10, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's been over a month and noone has responded. Does anyone object/agree to moving this article to the overwhelmingly more common term?--Pharos 03:14, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Ryukyu Islands"

  1. Ryūkyū Islands — previously garrisoned by the United States, claimed and administered by Japan

Listed under "Disputed to be an occupation by nation of dominant military forces in area"

Does anyone claim Okinawa to be "occupied"? As far as I know, everyone involved, the Japanese, the Americans, and the Okinawans themslves, agrees that Okinawa is a legitimate part of Japan today.


[edit] Hague Article 42

Does anyone object to changing the definition at the top of the page to fit Hague Convention of 1907 Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV); October 18, 1907

Section III Military Authority over the territory of the hostile State

Art. 42.
Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army.
The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.

-- Philip Baird Shearer 10:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I feel it would be helpful if the issue of "Occupation" in the context of annexation were clarified. As I understand International Law, an annexed territory is no longer "occupied", though the annexation itself may be illegal or disputed. Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

There is no annexation. Annexation is illegal, and is always regarded as such in the post-Napoleonic era. This is why the Republic of China's announced annexation of Taiwan at the Japanese surrender ceremonies on Oct. 25, 1945, (the so-called "Taiwan Retrocession Day") was/is illegal and is not recognized internationally. Hence, the ROC cannot get into the United Nations because it does not have LEGAL TITLE to the areas of "Formosa and the Pescadores." Military occupation is just military occupation, and this is what HR 42 is saying. (The opposite would be to say: "Territory is considered annexed when it is actually palced under the authority of the hostile army." ..... and indeed that was much more the norm in the eras before 1830 or so.) Hmortar 09:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical occupations

This section should be removed as the list could include almost every war in history and as a small selective list is wide open to bias. Here are a few example (all started as occupations althought some morphed into something else):

  • Occupation of parts of Great Britain by Rome, 54 BC
  • Occupation of parts of Great Britain by Rome, 43 AD
  • Norman occupation of England in 1066
  • Occupation of parts of Belgium by France in 1815
  • Occupation of parts of France by the Seventh Coalition in 1815
  • German occupation of Belguim and parts of France in 1914-1918

Does anyone disagree with removing the section? if so why and how can the section be defined to make the list a managable length without bias? --Philip Baird Shearer 11:00, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Which would you consider relevant occupations, only current ones? Jayjg (talk) 00:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just on going ones would be one possibility, or perhaps a definition of since Hague IV (1907) or since GCIV (1949) or since GC Protocol I (1977), or since the founding of the UN (because of its charter changing the rules of war (can not declare war) and the use of UN mandated forces). But the trouble with taking any of these dates is that it is still wide open to bias and one does not need to be a rocket scientist to see why. I think the the best solution would be to replace the list with a short paragraph saying something like:

In most wars some territory is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army, most end with the cessation of hostilities. In some cases the occupied territory is returned and in others the land remains under the control of the occupying power but usually not as military occupied territory. Philip Baird Shearer 11:53, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I added a little to the definition because it rules out a historically very important case of military occupation, that of the South in the US Civil War. The Lieber Code[4] (he had a son fighting in each army by the way) was a, if not the, model of the later European codifications of the laws of war, especially of the laws of belligerent occupation. The part on Syria was also wrong or misleading. The Syrian presence was never recognized by any state or international organization to be a military occupation as it by no stretch of the imagination fit the Hague definition.--John Z 15:46, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Belligerent occupation → Military occupation

"Military occupation" is by far the more common term, per google and common sense--Pharos 19:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC).

Support —Michael Z. 2005-01-28 01:08 Z

  • I think the problem here is that "Belligerent occupation" is the technical term used in International Law, whereas "Military occupation" is the common term. Jayjg (talk) 02:21, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, and I think in titles we should go for common terms over legalese that very few people have ever heard of.--Pharos 07:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Though belligerent once did merely mean those who are "waging war," the connotations of unacceptable levels of inappropriate and aggressive behavior— "belligerence"— are quite consciously being employed here. Raw POV. Please say it again, clearly. --Wetman 00:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    I understand all the words, but... Please say it again, clearly. —Michael Z. 2005-01-29 07:18 Z
IMO One could be under military occupation of a military which was not a belligerent but a neutral power, for example when the UN sets up a demarcation line. One can also be under a belligerent occupation which is not military occupation, for example if there has been an armistices, but no peace treaty, and unilateral annexation had taken place which allows a belligerent to govern without military rule -- (probably de facto not de jure since Geneva IV). Having looked at the article, particularly the examples, I guess that what was meant was "belligerent military occupation" or in the words of Hague: "Military authority over the territory of a hostile state". I'd think that "military occupation" would be a better name as people usually mean Hauge's wording when they use that shorthand. Philip Baird Shearer 10:17, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment "Though belligerent once did merely mean those who are "waging war," the connotations of unacceptable levels of inappropriate and aggressive behavior— "belligerence"— are quite consciously being employed here. Raw POV. Please say it again, clearly." Words fail me. What part of "waging war" do you not understand? Why do you consider the word "merely" to be appropriate here? Why do you not consider warfare to be aggressive behavior? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 01:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: I did not suggest the change for this reason, only becuse "belligerent occupation" is a very uncommon term among non-experts in international law.--Pharos 01:28, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. ADH (t&m) 02:46, Jan 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, though I think the article should make it clear that the technical term is "Belligerent occupation" Jayjg (talk) 00:56, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Don't you mean "Belligerent military occupation" ? Philip Baird Shearer 13:37, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Neutralitytalk 06:40, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Point of reference There is also something called "friendly occupation." That occurs when there is a territorial cession in a peace treaty. When the peace treaty comes into effect, the the military troops of the occupying power have not yet left the area. In fact, they may stay around for years. That was exactly the situation which occurred in Puerto Rico, Guam, the Philippines, and Cuba after the Spanish American War. Cuba is the best example. The peace treaty came into effect on April 11, 1899, bu the end of United States Military Government in Cuba only occurred on May 20, 1902. Hmortar 09:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
    I think in these cases you have to look at post 1949, (GCIV and the annexation clauses), it is usually a UN mandated force which hangs around. Berlin was one example, which remained under military occupation, but there was no peace treaty and when there was one the locals, who had not been allowed to express an opinion before, asked the occupiers to leave. I suppose you could look at Egypt and the Gaza Strip before 1967 but I am not sure if it was a military occupation. For it to be a military occupation there would have to be military law as the supreme law in the territory as it was in Berlin. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gaza Strip

Is the Gaza strip still under military occupation? --Philip Baird Shearer 18:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I did dig up a few sources on this some time ago at the talk page for the Gaza Strip. Feel free to take a look.[5]. Since then, I have not seen any change in use of terminology from parties such as the UN, i.e. they still call both the West Bank and Gaza Strip the Occupied Palestinian Territories (often with "including East Jerusalem"). --Cybbe 21:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


Technically, not since December 2005. Israel however hold ultimate control. Since Israel has reoccupied parts of the Strip, its status remains open to discusison, ultimate peace treaty pending. 81.170.3.208 19:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwan

Taiwan is is currently occupied by the ROC.

[edit] It is suggested that Occupied territories be merged into this article

I have just added a link in the "See Also" section. I believe that that solves the problem. Hmortar 10:02, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iraq

The article has Iraq listed as being annexed by the US. Last time I checked Iraq is not a part of the United States. megarockman 128.135.62.64 23:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Coalition military occupation of Iraq ended, so it should not be listed here. see United Nations Security Council Resolution 1546 and Iraqi Interim Government --Philip Baird Shearer 11:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That the "coalition forces" are belligerently occupying Iraq should not be in question. There are over a hundred thousand troops there, and polling data shows 4/5 of Iraqis oppose them. That is the definition of an occupation. If corporate media in the US are reluctant to use the term "occupation" (although it frequently gets printed anyway), that should have no bearing here. Still, the term "occupation of iraq" (in quotes) returns over 1,400 articles in Google News. If there is some controversy about it, then that controversy could be noted (preferably in a footnote). Organ123 14:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Where is an occupation defined as the presence of foreign troops against the wishes of the population? I would have thought it would be defined as the presence of foreign troops against the wishes of the legitimate government. Hobson 22:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The foreign forces which are in Iraq are there at the invitation of the sovereign Iraq government. That means that they are not a belligerent military occupational force under the laws of war. If you think otherwise then you should find a reliable legal source which says that despite unanimous United Nations Security Council resolutions to the contrary there is a credible argument that the coalition forces represent a belligerent military occupation. IMHO it is additions information based on unsubstantiated points of view like "'coalition forces' are belligerently occupying Iraq should not be in question" causes Wikipedia not to be taken seriously by many commentators.

  • Resolution 1546 (2004) Adopted Unanimously "UN Security Council endorses formation of sovereign interim government in Iraq; welcomes end of occupation by 30 June, democratic elections by January 2005"
  • Resolution 1637 (2005) Extention of the mandate until the end of 2006. "Speaking after the vote, the United States’ representative said he was pleased that the Council had been able to come together quickly and unanimously to respond to the Iraqi Government’s request for continued support. The text responded directly to the request of the Iraqi Government, and notably, the Iraqi Mission had played a visible and substantial role in its negotiation. Substantial progress had already been made in helping to build and train the Iraqi security forces, but with much work remaining, the multinational force would continue to work with the Iraqi Government to maintain security and stability in Iraq. Stressing that the foreign forces in Iraq must maintain their temporary status in the framework of following up the political process, France’s representative said that the future government, at any time, would be able to request that the mandate be renewed or that it end. The mandate was time-limited. Unless a contrary decision was made by the Council, that mandate would expire on 31 December 2006. Moreover, the Council had foreseen that the mandate would be reviewed no later than 15 June 2006. In that time, the multinational force and the Iraqi forces would need to act in compliance with international law."
  • Resolution 1723 (2006)Security Council extends mandate of multinational force in Iraq until 21 December 2007, Unamimously adopting resolution 1723 (2006). Also Calls for Review of Force by 15 June 2007, Earlier termination of mandate if requested by Iraqi Government.

--Philip Baird Shearer 17:40, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

1. Forcing your edits into an entry is a violation of wikipedia:consensus, which is an official policy. If there is disagreement, the original consensus remains until a new consensus can be formed.
2. Wikipedia can't be taken seriously if it exists in a fantasy world where it claims that the "coalition forces" are not occupying Iraq. If a puppet ("sovereign") government invites an occupier to remain against the will of the overwhelming majority of the population, and the UN security council accepts the invitation, that doesn't mean there's no occupation. My argument above uses common sense and simple logic, based on the definition of "occupation" and the simple facts of what is occurring in Iraq. And it's not like this is original research; the term "occupation of Iraq" is used widely around the world.
3. If you like, as a compromise, we can move it into the "disputed occupations" section. But I am not willing to remove it outright. Organ123 19:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first point is that I am forcing my edits on a consensus is amusing. Revision as of 00:41, 2 March 2007 Jamiemock user:Jaiemock has made two edit, the first was this one. Since then you are the only editor adding the entry.

As WP:ATT says "Editors should provide attribution for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." You have yet to produce a reliable attributable source that says it is a belligerent military occupation. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:29, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy to have brought amusement to your life. I would suggest that you consider reading Wikipedia:Civility. Jamiemock's edit lasted nearly a month, and according to Wikipedia:Consensus, "'Silence equals consent' is the ultimate measure of consensus." It's a Wikipedia policy, but for what it's worth, I agree with it.
The source I provided was a mainstream poll printed in the largest newspaper in San Francisco. Here is a huge list of media outlets that use the term.
I'll repeat my offer for a compromise -- would you be willing to put it in the "disputed occupations" section? Organ123 22:14, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It is not a matter of compromise, provide a source which states that it is a belligerent military occupation under the laws of war and we will include it in the section "Significant contemporary belligerent military occupations" to date you have not provided a reliable source that states that it is, instead you have produced a journalistic source which uses the term occupation. The journalist is not an expert in international law and he does not quote a source who is an expert stating that it is a belligerent military occupation. I have provided the UN Security council resolutions which clearly show that it is not a belligerent military occupation. See above it is up to you who whishes to include such an entry to provide an attributable source. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Clearly over 4/5 of Iraqis -- the people who are being occupied -- think that there is an occupation. I provided a source for that. Iraqi opinion counts at least as much as the UN Security Council's. (In fact, I would say that Iraqi opinion is the only opinion that matters, but that's my opinion.) So if there's a dispute, it's not over whether a reputable source thinks there's an occupation. Organ123 23:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The article is talking about a military occupation in the legal sense. It also appears to be talking about belligerent military occupation, although the simple shorter phrase military occupation later appears. The US and UK and Iraq are not belligerents. The current occupation of Iraq does not seem to be an occupation in the legal sense, as the US and UK forces are there at the request of the UN and the agreement of Iraq. Having said all that, I am obviously not an expert on international law and I could be wrong, but the two journalists cited in the article do not appear to be experts either, and neither are anonymous civilians. It's not enough to cite a source that says something (and neither source claims the current situation is a military occupation in international law in any case). It needs to be a source which has some sort of authority - in this case I would have thought a recognised authority in international law. Hobson 00:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If this article is only about occupations in the sense of international law, then I propose that it be renamed "Military occupation (international law)". If we are talking about military occupations in general, then I feel that the voice of 80% of the occupied population should be of prime concern to us as editors. (Also, for the record, Ahmed Chalabi is not a journalist; he was Iraq's deputy prime minister from May 2005 until May 2006.) Organ123 00:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation is not needed so there is no need to re-name the article to "Military occupation (international law)". The definition of what a military occupation is given in the section "Military occupation and the laws of war". The presence of foreign troops in Iraq is not a belligerent military occupation because they are invited to be there by the internationally recognised government of a sovereign state.

If one was to ask the man in the back of the Buenos Aires omnibus if the Malvinas were under military occupation they would probably say yes, but that does not make it true. One would probably get that answer for many areas of the world where there is a territorial dispute, but such answers are subjective and would turn this into a list of disputed territories not an article on military occupation. Using the criteria that you (Organ123) we end up with a very strange situation over the occupation of Iraq. During the invasion of Iraq and initial occupation (when the recognised government of Iraq opposed the occupation and it was a belligerent military occupation), before it went pear shaped, the majority of the Iraqi population were probably in favour of the occupation. So by your new definition that was not a belligerent occupation, it only became one when an opinion pole showed that the majority in Iraq thought the coalition forces should leave even though they are there by the invitation of the legitimate government of Iraq. --Philip Baird Shearer 08:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion Iraq is not occupied. Was Ethopia occupied during the war with Siad Barre's Somalia, when the Soviet Union sent 'advisors' there? No. Is Kosovo occupied by KFOR? No. Afganistan by ISAF? No. The international troops in Iraq are there to help the legal, sovereign government of the country. Whether the international troops are doing that in an efficient way, and whether the government of Iraq is acting in the interests of its people by allowing the troops to stay is a separate issue, and has nothing to do with military occupation. Do list, though, the initial invasion and occupation of Iraq under Hussein, as military occupation - it will be a good example for young readers who are unfamiliar with earlier occupations. --User:Krator (t c) 09:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

It is listed under List of military occupations with an entry of:
I removed Iraq from the list. I stated my reasons in the edit summary, and above, but I feel the necessity to add another reason, because I noticed the last edit summary (of an edit that adds Iraq back in), which states that:
"Cited a columnist and Ahmad Chalabi, as well as the 4/5 opposition figure."
Citing a columnist and Ahmad Chalabi is obviously not enough, as these are people who have an interest in presenting the situation one way or the other, and aren't representing the majority of the Iraqi population.
The opposition figure source reads as follows: "[...] while nearly 4 out of 5 oppose the presence of coalition forces in Iraq." This is not something that shows Iraq is occupied by the US and the UK. I wrote earlier: "Whether the international troops are doing that in an efficient way, and whether the government of Iraq is acting in the interests of its people by allowing the troops to stay is a separate issue, and has nothing to do with military occupation."
--User:Krator (t c) 11:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
1) Since the only definition given is about the "laws of war," a disambiguation is needed. Everyone opposing me here is arguing from a strict perspective of international law, and not based on an "occupation" in a general sense.
2) It seems like Philip Baird Shearer is arguing that 4/5 of Iraqis may think they're occupied, but they're actually wrong because the United Nations Security Council says so. That argument can only work if we adopt an extremely narrow definition of "occupation", which, given the title of this article, it doesn't seem like we're doing.
3) Krator says: "The international troops in Iraq are there to help the legal, sovereign government of the country." That's a lot to assume, since again, if you ask 4/5 of Iraqis, they'll probably disagree, or if they do agree, it'll be because they think the "sovereign government" is a sham. I'm not discussing the "efficiency" here; I'm discussing whether or not the "coalition forces" are there at the request of the Iraqis or not. In a legal sense, by the "sovereign government," they apparently are. However, in a realistic sense, by the overwhelming majority of the occupied population, they are decidedly not.
So I propose that either we rename the page to indicate that we're only talking in narrow legal terms, or we include Iraq. Organ123 15:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is a need to move the page or to include Iraq on this page. Personally I think that using the definitions provided by international humanitarians law and United Nations Security Council resolutions is the better way to go, but I would like you (Organ123) to answer my points on the muddle we would end up in if we followed your idea. Using your definition the initial phases of the invasion and military occupation of Iraq were probably quite popular, so it follows that this was not a military occupation by your definition. As by your definition the military occupation did not start until there was a clear majority against foreign intervention in Iraq, when do you think the military occupation started? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your argument here, but I don't need to respond to those particular points to be correct. Regardless of when the occupation started, and regardless of whether a "muddle" might occur, I don't think what you're saying refutes the fact: when 4/5 of a population opposes the presence of a foreign army in its country, that means a highly relevant segment thinks the presence is a "belligerent occupation" (at least in a non-legal sense of the term); where by belligerent, I mean "in an aggressive or hostile manner, such as engaging in combat," and by "occupation" I mean "one nation's military occupies all or part of the territory of another nation." I don't think this point can be accurately disputed. For that reason, I propose again that either the article title change, or we include Iraq. Organ123 18:03, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to persuade me to agree with you you are going to have to answer the question of when the Iraq occupation started. The definition laid out in Hague IV and described in Military occupation#Military occupation and the laws of war: "42. Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army... Art. 43. The authority of the legitimate power having in fact passed into the hands of the occupant". (My emphasis) Neither of these conditions are met in Iraq today. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll be able to persuade you or anyone else by getting into an argument about when the Iraq occupation started. (If you're curious, my personal opinion is that I've never seen evidence that Iraqi population was clamoring for the US to invade in 2003, so the whole effort has been illegitimate from day one. Early polls showed deep skepticism among Iraqis about the US's intentions, and over time that skepticism has blossomed into the general disgust we see today. The US was not invited into Iraq initially. So I think the occupation started in March, 2003.) My strongest argument at the moment is the one in my above entry. I understand that the narrow definition described above may imply that Iraq is not occupied -- in which case, I'm proposing that if we want to keep Iraq off the list, the title be changed to "Military occupation (international law)" Organ123 19:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
The article already makes it clear that it is defining what consititutes an occupation by reference to military law. Most of the article is a discussion of various conventions and the UN Charter. Hobson 21:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

So in your opinion the invasion and occupation should at first be defined using Hague "The US was not invited into Iraq initially" but then you want to junk Hague and go over to your roll your own definition about public opinion as expressed in opinion polls. I reiterate, the article name is fine and the section "Military occupation and the laws of war" explains to those who do not know what a military occupation is. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

1) Regarding Hobson's comment -- I agree, and that's why I think the article is misnamed.
2) Regarding Philip's comment -- I was referring to being "invited" metaphorically by the general population, not by the puppet government; sorry if I was unclear, but what I meant to get across is consistent with what I've been saying. The general Iraqi population in early 2003, as far as I can tell, was not clamoring for the coalition forces to invade and stick around for four years. I won't indulge the above topic any further because I think it's an irrelevant tangent. I haven't made my own definitions here. I took wikipedia's definitions of "belligerent" and "occupation" and applied them to the situation in Iraq, where over 80% of the civilians oppose "coalition" military presence. Philip is insisting on limiting the definition of "occupation" to a narrow, legal definition, even though the title of this article makes no implication that that's the only definition we can use. Again, this is not my original research, as there are a great deal of recent sources that correctly use the same term ("occupation") to describe the situation. Organ123 02:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Occupation is as disambiguation page which links to this page for "the periods of time following a nation's territory invasion by controlling enemy troops"; and Belligerent says "Belligerency is a term used in international law to indicate the status of two or more entities, generally sovereign states, being engaged in a war." It goes on to talk about an insergency, but in this case the insergency is against an internationally recognised government of a soverign state which has requested the help of other states to aid it against an insergency. So where are the Wikipedia definitions of "belligerent" and "occupation" that you are referring to? --Philip Baird Shearer 09:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Organ123 leaving discussion ... I think I've already put too much energy into this and I can see that as I am outnumbered and we do not seem near to compromise, and I am frustrated with some behavior, I am more or less wasting my time. I am taking this page off my watchlist. For the record, I have not changed my stance at all and I hope someday my views that Iraq is occupied will prevail on this page, as they have in the world at large. But for now I think there are better ways to use my energy. Thank you. Organ123 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] third opinions

[Note: Organ123's original wording has been restored, and his comments were originally in the section above.]

I would like to call attention to Philip Baird Shearer's post on Krator's talk page, asking Krator to make an edit during this dispute knowing that Krator's opinion was similar to his. Soliciting others with similar viewpoints to your own to make edits during disputes is akin to advertising and the spirit of meatpuppet solicitation, and does not support neutrality in articles. I would ask that in the future people do not ask others to make such edits during disputes. Organ123 04:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I made a request for a third opinion as at the time I made the request only you and I were involved in this discussion. Krator was the one who responded to that request so asking Krator to make an edit to stop an edit war was not an unreasonable thing to do. I will say no more about this issue on this page, as this talk page is only meant to be used to discuss the article's development (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). --Philip Baird Shearer 08:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Organ123, please keep it civil please. Philip Baird Shearer asked me to make an edit to follow up on my third opinion, which was a good thing to do - I normally don't edit pages I give a third opinion on, because a third opinion tends to be a tie-breaker, or present new arguments that solve the conflict. This clearly isn't the case here, so I have to ask you to ask for, in order, comments, and then mediation - and leave the page like it is now while awaiting more opinions. --User:Krator (t c) 09:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I encourage Philip Baird Shearer to read the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, where it states: "Never edit someone's words to change their meaning." I'll assume good faith however in his (perhaps accidental) deletion of my words "I would like to call attention to" and his placement of them under a different heading than I intended. I have been nothing but civil in this lengthy debate. Please understand my frustration when I see that the person opposing me has solicited another to make an edit on his behalf. I'm not going to ask for comments and mediation; I'm done with this, I just wanted to call attention to it. Organ123 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

On further thought, if you feel this discussion would be more appropriate on Philip's talk page, then I won't complain if someone moves this text there; still, I have nothing more to say on this. I just wanted to point it out and suggest that it not be repeated. Organ123 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The deletion " I would like to call attention to" was accidental and I apologise for making the mistake. --Philip Baird Shearer 09:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Western Sahara occupied by Morocco

Is Western Sahara occupied by a Moroccan hostile army? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/l/Talk%7EMilitary_occupation_c466.html"