Talk:Occupied territory

message: I know this is an old conversation, but I think there should be a link either to the Occupied Palestinian Territories or to a disambiguation page. Organisations which refer to Palestine as Occupied Territories, either as 'the Occupied Territories' or 'Israel and the Occupied Territories' or 'the Occupied Palestinian Territories' include:
The US State Department, as 'Israel and the Occupied Territories' "1"
The ICRC, ditto "2"
Human Rights Watch, ditto "3"
B'Tselem, as 'the Occupied Territories' "4"
Most of the above organisations are international, and therefore, their reference to the Occupied Territories, without 'Palestinian' suggest that it's the common reference point. The page links to some album nobody's ever heard of, so why not to the OPTs? (85.113.113.230 (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see no reason not to challenge the longstanding consensus. Basic Google search result comparison shows that OPT is the most "popular" occupied territory in the world. Thus, I'm adding the link to the  template, let's see if it holds. --ElComandanteChe (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: And again

message: The section on A&SO is not NPOV, as it only includes opinion, of sorts, of Georgia. In opposition to the Georgian POV it only mentions that Russia recognises the two states as independent. It does not mention that only Georgia and Lithuania regards A&SO as being occupied - and the US de facto does due to their statements from the State Deparment. But it doesn't mention counter-claims to Georgia's claims that it is occupied territory. It is the opinion of the RF that A&SO are independent states, and that relations between RF and A&SO are built on international norms (and they cite plenty of international laws and precedents when doing so). This section also quotes Venice Commission report on the law that Georgia passed. As their report states "The question of the legal status of South Ossetia (Georgia) and Abkhazia (Georgia) is not subject of the present opinion; the Preamble as well as Article 1 and 2 will therefore not be commented upon." The existence of the opinion of this commission in this article is quite vague, as they aren't commenting on whether A&SO are occupied territories, but are opining only on the Georgian law, as evidenced in their conclusion - only opinions on aspects of the law are offered, nothing on the legal question of A&SO is provided. This section needs to be expanded and NPOV'ed before the POV dispute tags can be removed. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 06:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Russian rationale of its recognition of Georgian territories belong to the International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia not here. It's suffice to mention Russia's recognition here. And you claims regarding vagueness of the latter part of the passage are rather vague as the article clearly says that Georgia based its claims regarding the Russian military occupation on a special law and the Venice commission opined on the law. Yes, the section needs to be expanded, but this is not a reason to put NPOV tag here just because you are anaphylactic to anything that is not in line with the Kremlin's propaganda.  --KoberTalk 05:11, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, kindly stop removing dispute tags when there is a dispute here. It is not suffice to mention Russia's recognition here, as Georgia has made the claim that Russia is occupying the independent states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia based on the fact that Russian troops are present on the territory of those countries. It is Russia's position that this is absurd, as any their troops are stationed in those countries based upon inter-governmental agreements and treaties which conform with international law. This is completely different to the recognition of these two states. Additionally, the Venice Commission report is not opining on whether these territories are occupied or not, it is opining only on the Georgian law. And the question is being asked, why is that not not being made clear in this article, and why has only that quote been selectively chosen for placement in this article? (Mind you, the quote chosen is actually critical of the law in the context of their report). Until such time as all major POVs are put into the section, the POV tag needs to remain. If you doubt this, you are welcome to welcome to seek a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. --Russavia I'm chanting as we speak 12:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, I'm waiting for sources for "Russia's position that this is absurd, as any their troops are stationed in those countries based upon inter-governmental agreements and treaties which conform with international law." Second, does any part of the article say that the Venice Commission report is opining on the actual status of Georgian territories? Third, please provide the passage from the Report which, in your opinion, would eliminate the vagueness of the current version. Otherwise I will have to assume that you have no aim other than disrupting the article. --KoberTalk 12:13, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Most of the examples on this page are ridiculous. Kosovo, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh, etc. are not cases of military occupation; they are secessionist statelets. When "occupied" is used in these cases, it's just a partisan way of saying "those people have control over our territory and we don't like it, so we will call them illegitimate despots". The only truly relevant examples on this page are the Israeli-occupied territories, which are frequently called "occupied territories" by scholars, media, and many legal documents, and have sources which discuss the use of the term in relation to those territories. They are the only reason we could have an article named "occupied territory" separate from military occupation and List of military occupations, but as it stands, this article is a mess of synthesis and would probably be better redirected to military occupation. Shrigley (talk) 19:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  A&SO