pbs why do you continue to insist the onus is on me to demonstrate provide proof that the definition for the terms are different you are suggesting a change here the onus is on you to demostrate prove the terms are the same i do understand your point i do accept that often times military occupation and occupied territories are terms that go hand in hand my contention is that the nuances surrounding how the terms are used justify seperate pages if you can find for me some source stating that all occupied territories involve military occupation and all military occupations create occupied territories i'll join your effort however lacking this i think you will have to achieve consensus for your arguement that the pages ought to be merged re article of gciv again i think perhaps you are being a little to legalistic regarding your definitions remember that terms like murder execution occupied territory crime against humanity have legal definitions and definitions in the popular psychi defined outside law starting from a legalistic definition is a good idea but we shouldn't be entirely focused on that definition i think a useful way to go about looking at the popular psychi is by examining news articles and seeing how they treat the terms shuki consensus on something that is not verifiable is simply the majority of 'seems to me' i think you realize that in discussing definitions of terminology wp v is often difficult impossible furthermore i'm simply stating the opinion that it seems to me the terms are different and asking pbs to verify otherwise i think the only option here will ultimately be to seek consensus i guess i'm interested really in the larger question which is when dealing with terms of this nature is there anyway of really arriving at definitions besides consensus i think not i also think there a huge morass of pages articles where we could have simliar disputes