Talk:Military occupation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Military occupation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | You are an administrator, so you may disregard the message below You are seeing this because of the limitations of {{If extended confirmed}} and {{If admin}}
You can hide this message box by adding the following to a new line of your common.css page: .ECR-edit-request-warning {
display: none;
}
Stop: Parts of this page are restricted Parts of this article are related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, which is subject to the extended-confirmed restriction. You are not an extended-confirmed user, so you must not edit or discuss this topic anywhere on Wikipedia except to make an edit request. (Additional details are in the message box just below this one.) |
| Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. Parts of this article relate to the Arab–Israeli conflict.The following restrictions apply to everyone editing this article:
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. If it is unclear which parts of the page are covered, 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. |
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)
Self-defence section
The section on Self-defence doesn't mention military occupation. Either it should be deleted or, preferably, re-written to specifically address self-defense in international law in one or more military occupation scenarios. Dotyoyo (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
Edit request 4 December 2025
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Description of suggested change:
Diff:
| − | "Military occupation, also called belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over | + | "Military occupation, also called belligerent occupation or simply occupation, is temporary hostile control exerted by a ruling power's military apparatus over territory that is outside of the legal boundaries of that ruling power's own sovereign territory.[1][2][3][4]" |
The change involves removing the word "sovereign" as a qualifier of the occupied territory. That word does not appear to be supported in the references cited (1,2,3,4) to the extent that I can see them (one at least is inaccessible without payment or licence). It seems that it is sufficient for the occupied territory to be outside the sovereign territory of the occupier for it to be called occupation. The intrusive qualifier invites game-playing or obfuscation over definitions of 'sovereign'. The propriety of 'sovereignty' of the occupied territory in order for it to qualify as occupied should either be shown clearly with proper quotes from the un-seeable references, and also shown consistent with its application by the United Nations (which for example calls the territories beyond Israel's 'Green Line' border (which is not a real border but that is another matter) 'occupied'), OR the word should be removed from the definition line and the definition corrected.
I don't mind being shown to be incorrect. But the definition should be correct, and it should rely on openly-viewable sources, and non-openly-viewable sources should not be relied on without sufficient quotes (in the references section if not in the main text) to show fully and completely what they say on the point.
Thank you.
P.S. I am not certain I have completed this page properly. I could only enter matter in the left-hand panel here; the right-hand seems to populate itself with this matter on 'reload'. I will welcome advice on how to use this page properly, if I have not. Antillarum (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2025 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. NotJamestack (✉️|📝) 16:27, 4 December 2025 (UTC)- @Antillarum: Content in the lead doesn't rely on the references in that section (see MOS:LEAD). Rather, it's meant to be a concise, properly-weighted summary of the content in the body of the article.
- The first few articles in authoritative definitions of military occupation (as opposed to being summaries of the definition presented in other documents) present the scope of the document, which includes some form of sovereignty.
- While I agree with NotJamestack that you are able to edit the page yourself, I suggest you read through the article to get a better understanding of military occupation before changing the definition in the lead.
- Dotyoyo (talk) 12:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)
