Talk:List of military occupations/Archive 3

Israel is occupaying the State of Palestine since 1967?
How can this be possible if the State of Palestine was proclaimed in 1988 and still considered a De-Jure nation with a veto from 3 of the 5 permanent members of the UN security council. And whatever describes the years 1967-1988, the State of Palestine was recognized by half of the UN members only in 1992. The question we need to ask is, "from whom the Israel conquered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip", the answer will be from Jordan and Egypt, but the Jordanian annexed West Bank and the Egyptian millitary government were bearly recognized. Since the land was firstly legaly held by the UK but then the UK relinquished all claims to the land and Egypt and Jordan illegally occupeid the West Bank and the Gaza Strip so the land is an hole at least until 1988 when a state was proclaimed. --&#39;&#39;&#39;Bolter21&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 12:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * read thru the archives.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:38, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What? --Bolter21 20:57, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This already been done. The consensus was against it. Later when you leave someone will come back and do it again and also fail. Go read the archives. Beyond that half of what you have to say is original research. Whether you want to or not recognize the state of Palestine, the land is and has long been recognized as occupied territory. The rest of what you have to say suggests failure to understand League of Nations mandates. By the way, it seems you have already been made aware of WP:ARBPIA, so I will only make you aware that it does apply here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I have read "through the archives" and I did not find anything, there is abviously no consensus. Please, read the Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaimed on 15 November 1988, and the International recognition of Palestine. Yours faithfully --Point by point (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'll go ahead an email Kosovo and tell them they are not a state.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is the consensus, prove that the "State of Palestine" existed in 1967. If you find any evidence, you can write that the State of Israel occupies the State of Palestine. Good day. --Point by point (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought we agreed. Apparently, your respond was a mockery. --Point by point (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was sarcasm. The Republic of Kosovo is recognized by less than the State of Palestine, you linking International recognition of Palestine isn't relevant. The land of Palestine has been under military occupation since 1967. You are aware of this correct?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it sarcasm again? What do you mean by "the land of Palestine"? --Point by point (talk) 14:20, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I mean the occupied Palestinian territory.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is an anachronism: "The term "Palestinian Territory, Occupied" had been utilized by the UN and other international organizations between 1998 to 2013 in order to refer to the Palestinian National Authority; it was replaced by the UN in 2013 by the term State of Palestine"

"Here is the consensus, prove that the "State of Palestine" existed in 1967. If you find any evidence, you can write that the State of Israel occupies the State of Palestine. Good day. --Point by point (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2015 (UTC)" Do you reject the consensus? --Point by point (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * There happens to be no consensus to reject. You lack one. The land of Palestine, The so called occupied Palestinian territories, have been occupied by the Israeli military since 1967. While the State Palestine may not have been declared by the Palestinian people on their land until 1988, this is not a meaningful point. Israel did not cease their occupation upon the Declaration of the Palestinian state. The same occupation that was going on before it continued after it and continues to this day.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there even a proposal on how to change the article? If not, there's no sense having a discussion. – Zntrip 02:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * He want's to remove the State of Palestine flag from all of the Occupied Palestinian territory related occupations. The original person who opened this wanted to remove all the Palestinian related information.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is what I have proposed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_military_occupations&oldid=684807454 --Point by point (talk) 02:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

For the egyptian military occupation of the Gaza Strip from 1948 to 1956 it is simply written "gaza strip". But the matter is gaza strip is not a state. It is also problematic. --Point by point (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok so yeah the Gaza Strip is now removed as the occupied state in past military conflicts.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, so your proposal is clearly inconsistent with the consensus that Palestine is a state. If your only problem is that Palestine did not exist as a state in 1967, we can just add a note that says as much. Something to the effect of "although Israel has occupied the Palestinian territories since 1967, the State of Palestine was not proclaimed until 1988." How does that sound? – Zntrip 05:15, 10 October 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just noticed that Serialjoepsycho already added such a note (great minds think alike!). So is there still a problem? – Zntrip 05:18, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * How could Israel occupy a state that does not even existed in 1967? This is balderdash.--Point by point (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you denying that Israel started occupying the territorial entity Palestine in 1967? -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Please do not use ad hominem attack, I am not denying anything. Territorial entity Palestine is too vague. Israel started occupying the West Bank and the Gaza Strip in 1967.

--Point by point (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not an ad hominem attack, it's a question. Let's not be dramatic. It doesn't seem to vague at all. You seem to understand what it is. But since it is so vague, They started occupying what is now the State of Palestine in 1967.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * the term "Territorial entity Palestine " is void of sense. Before the six day war, Jordan ruled over the West Bank (and renounced its claims in 1988) and Egypt occupied the Gaza Strip [The West Bank and the Gaza Strip is the same as "The Palestinian Territories" (between 1998 to 2013)]. Since 1967 it is under Israeli occupation, The Palestinian National Autority was created in 1994 to administer the Areas A and B. The State of Palestine declared his independance in 1988 and was recognize by the UN in 2012 ( as a non-member observer State without international borders). --Point by point (talk) 03:17, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not actually here for a conversation as Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. If you do not like the territorial entity Palestine then simply do not call it that. This list has Gaza, East Jerusalem, and the West Bank listed separately. Each is mentioned where appropriate they were seized from either Egypt or Jordan. The list also mentions that Palestine did not declare it's Independence until 1988. There aren't two separate occupations. Israel has occupied Palestinian territory since 1967. They did not stop their occupation and the restart it in either 1988 or 2012. They simply continued the one started in 1967. The consensus is that the State of Palestine is a country.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, therefore I'll remind you this previous message. Please answer directly. "I have read "through the archives" and I did not find anything, there is abviously no consensus. Please, read the Palestinian Declaration of Independence proclaimed on 15 November 1988, and the International recognition of Palestine. Yours faithfully --Point by point (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)"

The State of Palestine was recognize by the UN in 2012 as a non-member observer State.

Not in 1967. Therefore there was no State of Palestine in 1967. It is obvious.

You invented the term "territorial entity Palestine", that there existed a State of Palestine in 1967 and that Israel "restart it ['s occupation] in either 1988 or 2012". "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space". Has I have previously said Israel has occupied the West bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967 [The West Bank and the Gaza Strip is the same as "The Palestinian Territories" (between 1998 to 2013)]. --Point by point (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Semantic debate. Not a very good one. Territorial entity is not something I have created. Palestine is not something I have created. I'm not the one who made them one territorial unit. And that isn't even a discussion for this list. Wikipedia is WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. This list does not say that Palestine was a state in 1967 and that it was occupied then as a state. It lists each individual part of the State of Palestine, when they were occupied, and notes "The State of Palestine did not declare its independence until 1988. See Palestinian Declaration of Independence." -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I never accused you of inventing the term Territorial entity and the term Palestine. I did not ask you for a description of the article and of what a wikipedia talk page is. Could you answer directly to my question, please.

If -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) or nobody else makes a specific objection, I will have implicit consensus to restore the version of the 8 October 2015 ( 21:48):. As I have written previously, "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space". Thank you for your understanding and cooperation. --Point by point (talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Regardless of your failure or refusal to get the point, once you make that change you will see the same results. A revert telling you to go get a consensus for your change.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I have exposed you the fact that there was no State of Palestine in 1967. Please answer to this polar question: Could you prove that there was a State of Palestine in 1967? If yes, cite sources. The UN documents referring to " the Israeli occupied territories" or (between 1994 and 2013) as "the Palestinian (occupied) territories".

--Point by point (talk) 21:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The list does not claim that there was a Palestinian state in 1967. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * This is getting ridiculous. The article makes no claim that the State of Palestine existed in 1967. It even explicitly states that the Palestinian declaration of independence was in 1988. No reasonable person reading the article would infer that Palestine existed as a state in 1967. As far as I'm concerned this discussion should be over. – Zntrip 21:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The State of Palestine, is referred as a State occupied by Israel from 1967 untill today, in the actual version. This is incosistent, regarding the fact, that there was no State of Palestine in 1967, therefore it was not an occupied State. --Point by point (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Palestine definitely existed before 1967, and that's what it was when it was part of the British Empire. And currenty, Palestine is also considered a sovereign country. Sandenig (talk) 23:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * No, it was mandatory palestine. As you said it was part of the British empire. It was not a State. it has nothing to do with the actual State of Palestine. Palestine, it's the same name, the name of a region. Please read this . But anyway, that is off topic.--... Point by point ... (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It was still Palestine regardless. Sandenig (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The list header says Occupied State, not Occupied Territory. It needs to be the state that has full jurisdiction. From 48-67, that was Egypt or Jordan. If they then gave up claims, which they did, the article should say that. But Israel is not occupying Palestine territory since no State of Palestine exists, and it certainly didn't exist in 1967. Perhaps there should be two records, one for 67-20?? and another from when they self declared a State. Yossiea (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There's one occupation. There's not two or three separate occupations. It also again, as said above and as repeated above, does not suggest there was a Palestinian state in 1967. And 20??, Why 20?? Because of the UN? The UN having already made clear that they are not an organ for statehood recognition kind of blows that out of the water.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * @-Serialjoepsycho- The International laws, are applicable to states recognized by the UN. Therefore UN State recocgnition matters. The Charter of the United Nations is not a piece of paper to throw away. It is true that the UN implicitly, recognize non-member states as bound to recognize the UN principles. However let's not forget that it is still debated. Obviously, a State declare its independance "independently" and obviously, it does not have to be a member, to exercise its sovereignty over a territory with a permanent population. --... Point by point ... (talk) 11:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually no UN State recognition doesn't matter, not even remotely, not kind of, not sort of, and not even in a round about way because the UN does not have the power to recognize states.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

How should Palestinian statehood be represented in this list?
Israel has occupied the Gaza strip, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem (Palestinian territories) since 1967. Palestine declared it's independence in 1988 which has been recognized by 136 States and the Holy See. Does linking the State of Palestine this list present Undue weight? If not, how should it be listed? Should the list contain multiple listings, one for the occupation before Palestinian statehood and one for after Palestinian Statehood?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - There's no undue weight in listing it here. The majority of all countries in the world have recognized Palestine as a sovereign state. Separate listings would in itself provide undue weight. At no point since the 1988 to any other proposed year of statehood has Israel ceased it's military occupation of the state of Palestine, in short there has only been one occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - "Palestine" is certainly NOT a sovereign state as per international law.121.220.8.74 (talk) 17:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Support linking—I would recommend listing the State of Palestine as we do now with a caveat, either immediately next to it or in a footnote, making clear that though the military occupation goes back to 1967, the State of Palestine that is today recognised by many UN members was only declared in 1988. Serialjoepsycho is right that in short there has been one continuous occupation, so I see no reason to have separate listings for before and after 1988 or any other date. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At the moment beside the Palestinian flag at each listing there is a footnote that says, "The State of Palestine did not declare its independence until. See Palestinian Declaration of Independence."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's almost there in my book, but there seem to be a couple words missing. Besides everything else, the way you have it there it doesn't make grammatical sense in English. All you have to do it say when the State of Palestine did declare its independence, and it works. I would put something like "The State of Palestine declared its independence in 1988, claiming as its territory East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, all of which had been occupied by Israel since 1967. See Palestinian Declaration of Independence." —  Cliftonian   (talk)  18:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The declaration of the State of Palestine did not change the status of the occupation in any way. The ICRC, for instance, refers to the territories as "occupied Palestinian territory" still. As to when the occupation started, it started in 1967. 1988 is not relevant here. The issue which has changed over the years is about the status of the Palestinians - UN 242 referred to them only as refugees. In 1970s the Palestinian national rights began to be recognized in the UN General Assembly. The territory since 1967 was still occupied, whatever the status of the Palestinians. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 19:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel could not possibly occupy State of Palestine, since the alleged occupation occurred at 1967 while the state was not declared until 1988. One can say that territories are occupied, certainly not the de-jure state that claims these territories. Per NPOV it's important to mention that it is disputed by Israel that the territories are occupied. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's more than clear, above and beyond ridiculously clear, that this list does not intend to say that a State of Palestine was occupied in 1967. That whole part where it acknowledges that there was no State of Palestine declared before 1988 takes care of it. One can say the the territories are occupied since they are occupied. I'm not really seeing where NPOV would require that this list mention that the status of Palestine being occupied is in dispute. Sounds like more of a WP:FALSEBALANCE to do so than anything else. It is the position of the international community that Palestine is occupied. Any diplomacy that involved this conflict is based on Palestine being occupied. The position that Palestine is not occupied is simply a "the world is flat" narrative. Except in case of Gaza and as it is currently written this narrative should be ignored.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Which "Palestine" is occupied, Palestine (region) or State of Palestine (that you just wrote could not possibly be occupied) ? Please be precise. West Bank and Gaza, which are often referred to as Palestinian Territories are what is considered by many to be occupied, not any other meaning of "Palestine". These territories may become a part of State of Palestine, but we are not here to predict the future. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WarKosign this is really very silly. That question is not ambiguous in any way. The "Palestinian territories" are the territories claimed by the State of Palestine. You know that, and you know that that is common knowledge. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Claimed by, but (for now) not one and the same. Some people confuse them out of ignorance or out of political motivation, and it's important not to make this mistake. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 21:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Palestine (region)? Seriously? No one is claiming that Israel is occupied. If you want be partisan great but do you really have to go out of your way to show that?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You are the one being partisan, by insisting that State of Palestine is occupied while it never was. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 15:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes and my RFC proves that I'm a partisan. And oh I advertised it neutrally but you know this must be canvassing. I also ride a unicorn to the grocery store.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It's good that you are following wikipedia process, but it doesn't mean you can introduce biased content contradicting available sources. Are there any sources supporting the claim that the State of Palestine is occupied ? As far as I could find, this claim only comes from Palestinian officials or individual opinions, you can't get more partisan than that. There are plenty of sources supporting the statement that Palestinian Territories are considered occupied by many respectable international organizations, but combining this with with the State's claim on the territories is WP:OR or WP:SYN.
 * I stroke out the need to represent Israeli claim on the occupation status as immaterial to this discussion. In this list the side considered the occupier is likely to always dispute the claim. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 20:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Love the moving goal post. Absolutely I'm the partisan (note the sarcasm).-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I will express my admiration of your sarcasm at some other time. I did not know that once I pointed out nonsense (a state being occupied 11 years before it's declared) I'm not allowed to point out violations of WP:RS. I tagged the statement that has no sources with . Please go ahead and prove me wrong, find non-partisan sources that support your position. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 22:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You have pointed out nonsense that isn't even there. You have moved the goal post numerous times. I don't expect there's any chance to have an honest conversation with you and as such it seems our conversation is over. Good day.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer the question of the RfC directly: all the reliable sources say that Palestinian Territories and not State of Palestine is occupied, so this is what must be written in the "occupied state" column. It is acceptable to mention that since 1988 the territory is claimed by State of Palestine. Writing that State of Palestine is occupied is a violation of WP:RS since no reputable source supports this claim. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support linking, just like I support linking Western Sahara to the SADR. This list doesn't push any POV, and linking simply makes it easier for readers to understand the whole picture. This really doesn't need discussion. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * SADR is probably better left for a separate discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Linking the State of Palestine, as an occupied state since 1967. I can't see the whole picture in that. It is misleading for the reason I have indicated in the previous discusion. The State could not be occupied because, it did not exist when the occupation started, because it has no boundaries espacially when the occupation started and because the territory is not regarded and was not regarder as the sovereign territory  by any treaty or UN resolution --... Point by point ... (talk) 07:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that a State of Palestine has been occupied since 1967. This is just straw your grasping at. But if you come up with anything relevant please share it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support linking there is nothing in international jurisprudence that says a state cannot be created in an occupied condition. In fact, there are cases that would support that position. Of course, in 1967, Israel occupied parts of other states, which have since been widely recognised as territory of the Palestinian state. A reasonable reading of the relevant international and international humanitarian law would be that Palestine was "recognised" internationally while in an occupied condition. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel did occupy parts of other states (the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula). The West Bank was annexed by Jordan, but was "widely regarded as illegal and void" and only recognize by the United Kingdom, Iraq and Pakistan. The Gaza Strip was simply under Egyptian occupation. So it is inaccurate to say; that Israel occupied Jordan and Egypt (in the Gaza Strip) after the Six day war. The PLO, in the declaration of independance of (the/a) State (of/in the land of) Palestine. Did not specify borders of the State they proclaimed "in the land of heroic Algeria"(The PLO did not exercise control over any territory). [Note that even if Yasser Arafat would have claime the territory of Jordan or Lebanon for example. Jordan or lebanon would not become in any way, occupying powers of the State of Palestine]. Today, the Palestinian National Autority only claim officially, over the Area A and B. Indeed, Mahmoud Abbas did not rejected the Oslo II Accord. thank you for your response. --... Point by point ... (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not even worth responding to. Not only is it original research it's terrible original research.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have already exposed the reason of my modification on the talk page. I have also proposed you a consensus, that you rejected with no apparent reasons. You shall refrain from reverting blindly. You will have to provide evidence to support your claim. I find your behaviour offensive and somehow inappropriate. Even if you believe that my arguments do not deserve your attention, perhaps you should however make an effort to try to be less provocative and more respective. For example, Saying that something is false without an explanation, is counterproductive. --... Point by point ... (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)(Deleted comment by-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) )--... Point by point ... (talk) 19:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleted comment? Yes you can say that. I deleted it from my personal talk page. I can delete it from my personal talk page. My personal talk page is not there for you to waste my time. Your arguments don't deserve my attention. You are a SPA who fails or refuses to get the point. Before opening this RFC your claims have already been responded to. Beyond that however, anyone with the competence to be here can see all of the major pitfalls of your argument without me responding to them again in this RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

This comment above, by -Serialjoepsycho-, has been moved and modified, therefore the following comments may not be directly answering to it --... Point by point ... (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The comment of ... Point by point ..., has been deleted by user -Serialjoepsycho- because he "wanted it to be deleted" --... Point by point ... (talk) 03:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The comment of Point by Point was actually a comment made by me that I had never posted on this page, wasn't relevant to the discussion here, was modified by point by Point and overall a violation of WP:TALKO. No comments by Point to Point were harmed in the making of any revert on my part.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

This comment above by ... Point by point ... has been deleted by another user, therefore the following comments may not be directly answering to it --... Point by point ... (talk) 06:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No one forcing you to waste your time, good bye. --... Point by point ... (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You cannot delete my comments, especially not by povpsuhing. It was relevant since you decide that my comments were irrelevant and removed it without my consent. The answer I quoted was the answer of the comment that you deleted and asked to move on this talk page. You could have answer that citing your answer was absurd, but you choose to delete my comment. This comment was answering to the first comment you removed! It has to follow the first comment you delete, it was part of the conversation, Struck through or not. The second comment you deleted, was citing an answer you made. It was under my signature. My last comment deleted was innocent, it was a clear vandalism. Also, don't move your answers this way, I was not responding to something you didn't wrote --... Point by point ... (talk) 06:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Why use POVPusherwhen you don't even understand the word and can't use it in the proper context? I don't have to have your consent to remove your comments from my personal talk page. You can not move my comments without my consent and you can not modify them at all. But look if you feel that was vandalism them all means use this convenient link to wp:ani. You are a single purpose user account created solely to promote Israel. Your only material contribution to this article is simply absurd. It's not only original research but terrible original research. Israel lacks a border as well but it has no recognized claim for any territory past the 1967 border. Finally the article does not claim or purport that the State of Palestine was occupied in 1967. This is above and beyond clear. Beyond your horrible original research you have made no material contribution to this discussion. You have only been disruptive.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:13, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Saying that State of Palestine is occupied now is also unacceptable since it contradicts the sources. The article does say that State of Palestine was occupied in 1967, this is what anyone going over the table will see. The note helps a little, but even it lacks the year when the state was declared. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 07:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You've already said that and I've already ignored it. How many places have you entered into this discussion now? It doesn't contradict the sources, it contradicts your POV. There is a difference. And since statehood recognition is retroactive in effect 1988 is a clear year that the state was declared.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's see if I understand you correctly: You own the article, so once you decided that I'm a "partisan", you don't need to be concerned with supporting your claims. Correct ? &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No I didn't say I owned the article. I said I have ignored your argument or rather lack their of. This is not to suggest that I won't except the consensus either way. It is to suggest that since there is no chance of having an honest discussion with you I'm not actually going to bother. First you are arguing for a false consensus. Then your wanting to bring Palestine (region). No telling where the conversation would have went if someone had taken that bait. Then there's some half cocked puff of smoke about there being a state of Palestine but it has no land. Land eventually becomes no border. And now it looks like there's no State of Palestine. Yes there is an assumption of bad faith but it's in the presence of bad faith and our social policies are not a suicide pact. And in case you are wondering the plan is to seek an official close by an uninvolved editor.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since I expect you to assume good faith, I will do the same. So far I made 3 arguments, and one of them (that we should represent Israel's minority POV that the territories are disputed and not occupied) I took back because the same argument probably can be made regarding several other ongoing occupations. My second argument (that it must be clear that the areas had nothing to do with State of Palestine in 1967) should be taken care of by the note (although it can be improved a little). My third argument which you ignored for no apparent reason is that the statement that State of Palestine is occupied needs a source.
 * You wrote "... based on Palestine being occupied" and I asked which of the meanings of the word Palestine you mean - if you mean Palestinian Territories then I agree, but if you mean State of Palestine then as far as I know it's not supported by sources. There are sources supporting the international position that Palestinian Territories are occupied, there are sources proving that State of Palestine claims Palestinian Territories and that this claim has partial international recognition (although the international position is that the exact borders are to be set by negotiations). Combining these sources to produce the fact that State of Palestine is occupied is WP:SYN. Please point to a flaw in my logic, preferably without sarcasm or personal attacks. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 14:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I will not be silenced --... Point by point ... (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Your intimidations has no place on this talk page. I do not accept ad hominem attack.--... Point by point ... (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * But you certainly will be tendentious.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * " When they see thee, they treat thee no otherwise than in mockery". As a matter of fact, I will not answer to any mockery anymore.--... Point by point ... (talk) 07:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support linking — I've already expressed my views in the previous discussion on this talk page. There really is no NPOV reason to not include the link, especially because all ambiguity is cleared up by the note that's included. – Zntrip 20:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I've been bold and added the footnote "The Palestine Liberation Organization declared the independence of the State of Palestine in 1988, claiming as its territory East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, all of which have been occupied by Israel since 1967. See Palestinian Declaration of Independence." Cheers, —  Cliftonian   (talk)  16:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it. Bold editing, or rather reaching a consensus thru editing goes out the window once a discussion to reach a consensus is started.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support linking - As per above, the occupation has been continuous and the accompanying notes clear up any ambiguity.  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Everyone here agrees that there has been a continuous occupation. You don't have evidence that the State of Palestine is occupied from 1967 until the present time. The annotations are useful, but not only 1988 matters. It's more complicatted. The "declaration of independanc", was not the actual declaration of a "State of Palestine" and "the State" (with no sovereignty over people or territory) was not recognize internationaly, it is important to indicate the actual situation of this State. It doesn't explained what was occupied prior this date (1988) and when the hypothetical occupation of the State started.

--... Point by point ... (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "You don't have evidence that the State of Palestine is occupied from 1967 until the present time." Literally no one is saying that. The only claim being made by everyone else is that there has been a continuous occupation and at some point during that occupation the State of Palestine was created. – Zntrip 00:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * None of the above Choose a third way. Human history cannot always be easily stuffed into legal bureaucratic boxes. There are exceptions.  We humanity are too complicated and diverse to fit into simply boxes. This is one of the exceptions. The situation in the various occupied territories doesn't fit neatly into the yes-no dichotomy of "Is this a military occupation?" Is this a fight against an occupying military or a fight for liberation a la Kurdistan or Somaliland?  So the answer is simple: chose one or more third ways.  I would suggest two "third ways": (1) Add a third section.  To the "past" and "current" list add a "related" or "possible" or "debatable" or "other occupations" or use some other term and put Palestine in there either by itself or with others.  And (2) re-write the chart by (a) dropping the use of "state" and use instead "power" since the latter is used in the intro and (b) deleting the entire column of "occupied state" since that is redundant because there is already an "occupied territory" column.  So there would be four columns: "Territory occupied", "Occupying power", "Since", "Status".  If people really want to know more, they can click on a link.  Maybe we should add in a fifth column to make that easier, called "main article" or "see also" or "details at" or.... --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 13:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You can't be nonconformist when there a prohibition against original research and undue weight. We aren't here to unduly legitimize Kurdistan, Somaliland, or Hawaii. The question is if Palestine has already legitimized itself. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 14:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the question is how to list Palestine. The second and third questions above are "...how should it be listed? Should the list contain multiple listings, one for the occupation before Palestinian statehood and one for after Palestinian Statehood?"  I've answered that: stop trying to force the issue.  Palestine's history -- like any history -- is unique. Instead of trying to force Palestine into one of two options, go a different route that reflects the reality and is portrayed by reliable third-party sources.  Choose an option that reflects the debate.  Try to reach a consensus by looking for a different way instead of just butting heads trying to force the issue of Palestine into a legal definition developed over a century ago in a different time and place about different issues.  --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the question does listing Palestine as a state present Undue weight? If it does this is fixed by simply removing it, there's nothing to discuss about. Unique history or otherwise, this list is only about military occupations. Palestine's occupation since 1967 is why it's on he list. The actual link to East Jerusalem discusses the unique history of it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Remove these territories from the list as an internal contradiction/inconsistency. According to this page, it intends to provide a list of military occupations which are "distinguished from annexation". That's fine. However, a Table on the same page tells that Golan Heights and East Jerusalem have been actually annexed by Israel. Military forces of Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, so this is also not an obvious military occupation. And a part of West Bank is currently administered by the Palestinian National Authority (according to the same Table), so this territory is at most only partially occupied by Israel. A disclosure: my knowledge of this subject is rather limited, but the internal contradictions on this page are rather obvious. One could argue that West Bank and Gaza Strip should be placed in another Table ("Past military occupations"), but it seems that the Palestinian state has been partially recognized only recently. Hence this is also something disputable. My very best wishes (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Annexation? Contradictory? Well it would be if there was an annexation. There was a de-facto annexation. There's has no formal annexation and there is no legally recognized annexation. This list is not for legal annexation is what the lead implies.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can agree this Table is internally consistent because it includes Crimea, which is also a de facto, but not de juro (internationally recognized) annexed territory. However, this page tells: Military occupation is distinguished from annexation by its intended temporary nature (i.e. no claim for permanent sovereignty), by its military nature, and by citizenship rights of the controlling power not being conferred upon the subjugated population. This is not the case with regard to many territories included in second Table. My very best wishes (talk) 03:32, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This page gives a sourced definition of what a military occupation is. While there is room for editorial judgement it needs to be used with common sense and based off wikipedia policy. You don't see it as meeting this definition. That is original research. We aren't here to apply this definition. We record the ones that others have applied this definition to based on wikipedia policy. Palestinian territories are widely regarded as occupied. This is the majority POV. You don't see it as meeting the sourced definition provided, original research, is not a reason to exclude it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

West Bank occupied since 1948, and East Jerusalem status
Before the six day war, West Bank and East Jerusalem was occupied by Jordan and partially by Egypt: as far as I know, their invasion violated international law and only very few countries recognized Jordan's later annexation of the land. See here. I don't find it a NPOV view to concentrate this article purely on Israel, split the so called "Palestinian state" into small territories and mark them as all occupied, as if there were no peace processes, no Palestinian Authority, no Palestinian police, no Oslo accords, no Gaza disengagement, no Jordanian occupation before, etc etc.. Unfortunetely, I'm not very active on wikipedia but if my voice has any weight, I support to add the NPOV template before this is resolved.Franp9am (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This article purely concentrates on Israel? I must have missed that somewhere between the Occupations by Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, The German Empire, Austria-Hungary, Ect ect ect. Nope! I didn't miss anything, this article doesn't actually purely focus on Israel. These locations are marked as occupied because it is the position of the international community that these locations are still occupied. Nothing that you have mentioned has changed this. Look at the Gaza disengagement for instance. The international community came out after specifically holding that they see the Gaza Strip as occupied. This is of course discussed in the listing. The only point that you may have is the Jordan is not listed as a former occupying state, though this actually a reason for a NPOV tag. In the case of Jordan, WP:BEBOLD gives an explanation of what to do.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to start a long discussion on all tangential issues, so let me summarize what should be done:
 * If the mainstream opinion here is that there exists something like a "Palestinian state", Gaza and West bank should not be separated: it should be one item "occupied Palestinian territories", classified as "occupied since 1948 by Jordan (1948-1967), Egypt (1948--1967) and Israel (1967--now)", with a footnote explaining that areas A and B are under partial control of the PA. (This includes, by the way, the wast majority of West Bank population.) What's the reason for splitting it?
 * I don't think that Jerusalem should be mentioned here at all. The international law does not uniquely specify the status of Jerusalem, neither West, nor East Jerusalem. According to the 48 plan, it should have been an international body, but that was never accepted and implemented. There is not a law consensus that East Jerusalem is Palestine or West Jerusalem is Israel and where is the border -- which is the reason why there are no embassies in West Jerusalem either. To list East Jerusalem as a territory belonging to "Palestine" and "Under israeli military occupation since 67" is a nonsense. The POV of international law is that the territory is disputed and the border must be a result of peace negotiation. But it is not a "military occupation", no more in East Jerusalem than in the West. Franp9am (talk) 09:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So we should treat Palestine special and completely different from the other listings? That's undue weight. Egypt is already listed as occupying Gaza in the in the Past Military occupation section. If you feel that Jordan should be included WP:BEBOLD and add it to the past military occupation section. The UN and the international community hold that it is a military occupation, Israel and some Pro-Israeli NGO's hold that it is disputed territories. Israel holds that it is also occupied territory and they've used this position in arguing before their courts, really depends on which way the wind blows. The UN considers East Jerusalem to be occupied Palestinian territory.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 16:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) You didn't answer my question: why splitting it to Gaza and West Bank? Why not to keep it as one item, "occupied palestinian territories" or whatever it is? (2) Can you give me a reference that the UN is considering East Jerusalem to be a Palestinian territory occupied by Israel? With the border exactly those of 48--67? Even if you find such reference, there is no consensus on this. But I haven't heard about such (reliable) reference either, so am surprised. I know that UN position on Gaza is that it's occupied but with East Jerusalem (within 48--67 border) it's not so clear. Franp9am (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To answer why East Jerusalem is on the list, you also have to ask why Gaza is on the list. What is going on in Gaza is no military occupation, and if it is, then it is by Egypt as well, since Egypt and Israel both blockade Gaza, with Egypt sometimes being a bit tougher on the blockade. Yossiea (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * @Yossiea Of course it is nonsense and a lie, but as far as I know, UN lawyers really have this opinion when it comes to Gaza. But I'm not sure if there is consensus when it comes to East (or even West) Jerusalem and think it is more open. I'm not talking about reality but about sources that may be acceptable here. Franp9am (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) I did answer your question. It was with another question. "So we should treat Palestine special and completely different from the other listings?" (2) Yes or you could just use Google crazy enough. Here's one denouncing the illegal settlements built in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan. This position is widely known. There's plenty of sources all over, not hard to find. There's actually no point to feigning ignorance here.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what the issue is. East Jerusalem, Gaza, and the West Bank are all administered by Israel to different degrees. This is in fact explained in the "status" column. What purpose would lumping them all together serve? – Zntrip 03:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You could take that question a little further. Why lump them together with prior seperate occupations?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

(1) @Zntrip, @Serialjoepsycho So if the separation is the "status", why not to split it to even more parts, such as A,B,C instead of the general "West Bank"? What's the logic behind this ad hoc splitting? (2) As it comes to East Jerusalem, you provided one link, for the UN position. But the situation is not so clear and there is no consensus, not even out in non-israeli sources.
 * Guardian: Australia won't describe east Jerusalem as 'occupied where this is critizised, and another article in Algemainer where it is stressed that the Australian position is still that final status issues as identified by Oslo—and that includes the status of Jerusalem, borders, right of return—are all amenable only to political negotiations and a political solution.
 * Washington online institute, year 2000, in the first paragraphs it is explained how the US has varied its position on this issue. Similarly, look at East_Jerusalem
 * Other wikipedia pages, for example Positions_on_Jerusalem which starts with the (provable) sentence that Many United Nations (UN) member states formally adhere to the United Nations proposal that Jerusalem should have an international status. If that's the POV of many countries, how can it be a "Palestinian occupied territory"? The position of EU (see the same article), for example is that the annexation is illegal, but it is not that it's automatically Palestinian territory.

The current article version is a combination of the claim that East Jerusalem is a military occupation with the claim that it is Palestinian territory. But there is no even consensus for any of the two issues above. Franp9am (talk) 09:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes I provided one source. I also provide the suggestion that you use google. here's another one. There are many. There not hard to find. Doesn't actually even taken effort since this a widely known and held view. If anything there is a need to add a note about Corpus separatum.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:53, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

As I documented above, there is no consensus on the combination of facts that (1) East Jerusalem is under military occupation, and (2) East Jerusalem is Palestine. Some countries and sources claim or dispute (1), other countries and sources dispute (2). So far, Serialjoepsycho was able to provide only UN resolutions from the 67 session adapted by UN General Assembly and not by the security council, being non-binding in general, and being the most pro-palestinian reference there exists, for his current claim, and was not able to provide anything else. There are immense discussions both on question (1) and question (2). As I outlined before, the US position varies on on item (1), the EU position agrees on (1) but disputes (2). To claim the combination of (1) and (2) as a fact is a violation of NPOV.

Any opinions from other users? Franp9am (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I provided two separate sources and suggested that you could easily find more. The United Nations is the most Pro-Palestinian group that exists? Is that seriously what you are saying? Center of the Storm: A Case Study of Human Rights Abuses in Hebron District 2001 Human Rights Watch page 21, The EU once again reaffirms the application of the fourth Geneva convention in the occupied Palestinian territories including East Jerusalem. It's not hard to find the sources. You could go to google and just about close your eyes and point your finger and find one.There is no Unanimous consensus internationally that East Jerusalem is occupied nor does wikipedia require there to be. It is the majority POV. It's questionable if there is any minority POV to actually give any weight here. Point 2 is valid and the list should changed to include the position of corpus separatum (Seems like I said, "If anything there is a need to add a note about Corpus separatum.")-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed
Gaza is not under military occupation. It's quite as simple as that.Yossiea (talk) 18:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's disputed; It's disputed by Israel. And guess what? That's mentioned.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed the dispute tag from the article. The claim that Gaza is occupied is sourced. – Zntrip 03:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And if I put that it's also occupied by Egypt you won't have a problem with it since Egypt also controls Gaza? I take it you will have a problem with it. You can't just remove a dispute tag. Yossiea (talk) 03:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I have removed Gaza. It's not under occupation. We never came to a consensus last time. Last time, Serialjoepsycho decided we came to a consensus and he ended the discussion. I think we need a full outside RFC and arbitration on this. There is no occupation, unless of course you agree with Abbas, then Hamas is occupying Gaza from the PA, but I doubt you mean that. Yossiea (talk) 03:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yossiea, there was a source for the claim that Gaza is occupied (and an authoritative and credible one too). There is also a legitimate view that Gaza is not occupied. Both viewpoints are explained in a note. Removing it is not constructive. Even if you personally do not agree, there are ample sources (1, 2, 3) for the claim that it is occupied. – Zntrip 03:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And Egypt? Yossiea (talk) 03:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And a source? – Zntrip 04:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * For the blockade? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip you can start here. Yossiea (talk) 04:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not really the point. Is there a source that says that Egypt is an occupying power? – Zntrip 04:10, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If Israel is an occupying power because of the blockade then it stands to reason that Egypt is an occupying power. Otherwise, how exactly is Israel an occupying power? Yossiea (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Multiple credible and reliable sources say that Israel is occupying Gaza and there are no sources that I am aware of that say Egypt is occupying Gaza. That really should be the end of the discussion. The inclusion of the information in the article is not subject to you being convinced that Israel is an occupying power. – Zntrip 04:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

You could probably be more specific and point out where I ended a discussion? You wouldn't mean this The RFC that ran full length and was removed from the RFC queue by the bot? The RFC that I opened a subsection for to discuss the consensus. The subsection that you could have responded to? The subsection I wait 4 days before offering my opinion of the results? That was left open for further comment? You'll have to be clear but it sounds your are trying to blow smoke up someones butt.

And go ahead and note that you lack a legitimate reason for your revert. This content is sourced. You are arguing to retain only if you are allowed to insert your original research. This blatant partisan nonsense and a waste of time.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 November 2015
Restore the article to before this diff. Material was reliably sourced. Removed on the basis of an editor simply not liking it. The editor has offered to allow the material to stand but only if they are allowed to input original research. In it's current form it was achieved via consensus by editing. Prior there's a RFC that this editor took part in about the same subject which resulted in a consensus to that we should keep Israel listed as occupying Gaza.It went unchallenged. The challenge now lacks any actual merit and as such the material should be restored.. If they would like to seek a consensus to have it removed or to add their original research, they can simply start another RFC and make their case.

-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would any other editors like to comment on this? Otherwise I am intending to revert that removal per WP:BRD. As it seems to be long-standing content of this article, it would be up to to get consensus for its removal. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I dont't think that Gaza should be listed. If Israeli sources have any weight, I can add many Israeli sources stating the converse, including the Israeli High Court of Justice. But if UN sources have a bigger weight here, than yes, UN position on the issue is clear. It is somehow against common sense to claim that something is a military occupation if there is not a single Israeli soldier there, not even a single Israeli, and the blockade is applied by both Israel and Egypt. This view is shared by many israeli sources that I can refer to. Franp9am (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Israel has already been given weight. In 2005, Israel disengaged its military forces from the Gaza Strip and no longer considers itself to be occupying the territory, however the United Nations still considers it an occupying power. Gaza's border crossings with Israel and maritime and air space are controlled by Israel. It shares both the minority point of view of Israel and the Majority POV from the UN. Each side given their WP:DUE weight.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a general problem with lists and politically charged categories. By including something in a Table of military occupations you claim something being a military occupation essentially as a fact, rather than a majority view, even if you make a notice that someone disagreed. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Egypt is also occupying Gaza, and Hamas is also occupying Gaza, and more strongly, Hamas is occupying Gaza because they are not recognized as the ruling party by the PA, and they are in de facto control of day to day life of Gaza. And it makes no matter what the UN thinks, keep in mind, that is the same organization that has Saudi Arabia and Cuba as human rights leaders. But I give up. Do what you want. There is a reason Wikipedia is not used as a reliable source. If you drop into Gaza and live there on a daily basis and live and shop in their malls and participate in their Hamas rallies, visit their rocket launch sites, not once will you see an Israeli solider. The claim that Israel is military occupying Gaza is ludicrous. Yossiea (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Uhh multiple noes. Third party reliable sources are what Wikipedia articles are based, not the supposed expertise on international law of random people on the internet. The overwhelming majority view of reliable sources say that Israel is occupying Gaza. They say this because the criteria for whether or not a foreign state holds territory under military occupation is not whether or not there are "soldiers on the ground", it is "effective military control". We write articles based on reliable sources and give weight based on the preponderance of views in those sources. Here we include that Israel disputes that Gaza is occupied as it withdrew its troops and dismantled the settlements, however the majority view continues to hold that Israel is occupying Gaza.  nableezy  - 17:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Like Egypt and Hamas? Yossiea (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * lol no.  nableezy  - 18:28, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So in other words you're not interested in the truth, you're just interested in being anti-Israel. Because if you were interested in the truth, the same truth that set you on the path to say that Israel is occupying Gaza would also set you on the path to say Egypt and Hamas is occupying Gaza. Egypt controls the border of Gaza, they do not let anything in or out without their approval. What is the difference between the border between Israel and Gaza and Egypt and Gaza? Yossiea (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Again, lol no. As far as "truth", see WP:TRUTH. And WP:OR while you're at it. I dont feel the need to debate whats true with you, Ill just say that the view that Egypt has occupied Gaza since 1967 doesnt even qualify as a fringe theory, and the view that Hamas occupies Gaza is likewise a fairly out there view. Reliable sources are what count here, not what you think is the truth. And to be perfectly clear, no, what you wrote is complete nonsense, controlling a border, or even imposing a blockade, is not what makes a state an occupying power.  nableezy  - 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What some editors do not seem to understand is that the inclusion of information is not subject to an explanation of the legal analysis. If there are multiple, reliable sources for a position, that point of view will be reflected in the article. If a position cannot be supported with sources, it will not be included. The position of most states, NGOs, and the UN is that Israel occupies Gaza. The Israeli position is that it does not occupy Gaza. BOTH views were reflected in the article before Gaza was removed completely. There are no sources that say Egypt and Hamas are occupying powers and that is why that isn't mentioned in the article. – Zntrip 18:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Does Egypt control the border of Gaza similar to how Israel controls the border? Yossiea (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This entire discussion is a waste of time unless you provide sources to support your argument that Egypt is an occupying power. Egypt has closed its border with Gaza. Any state can close its border without being an occupying power. Israel has done more than close its border; it also enforces a maritime blockade and controls the airspace. That is essentially what the sources say. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but what the article says should be reflective of what reliable sources say. – Zntrip 19:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Egypt also has a blockade of Gaza. Yossiea (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And if you read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance_of_the_Gaza_Strip you'll see that Hamas was at one point occupying Gaza, even according to International authorities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yossiea~enwiki (talk • contribs)


 * Blockade and occupation are different, just as annexation and occupation are different. I think "occupation" is mostly a political label here. Yes, it has been used in a very large number of sources. However, placing something in a Table/list, i.e. presenting this essentially as a fact is appropriate only for noncontroversial/undisputable items. My very best wishes (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that Israel is blockading Gaza, so is Egypt, but how is Israel occupying Gaza? The claim that they use is that Israel is blockading Gaza, if so why isn't Egypt occupying Gaza? It makes no difference if the UN says they are, the UN also says Saudi Arabia is a decent country as far as human rights is concerned. It's like asking Hillary Clinton if Hillary Clinton is a good candidate. You can't occupy a country if you're not occupying it. Yossiea <sup style="color:Green;">(talk) 21:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * What you guys think isnt relevant, what matters is what the reliable sources say. And they say that Gaza is held under Israeli occupation. I get that you dont like that, but tough, your not liking something is not relevant to the matter at hand. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are no Israeli soldiers in Gaza. Gaza is not occupied. Sources must be outdated. I noticed they date from 2006, 2009. Not that Gaza was occupied then either, but there have been military incursions, in minor wars/large operations. Debresser (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not what the sources say.


 * The original research here is blatant. It's a waste of time for anyone to even respond. One editor's WP:IDHT, pushing for the acceptability of this but only if they can say Egypt is an occupier. They have multiple times been asked for a reliable source to justify it. Instead of doing so they move on continuing IDHT promoting original research. Another editor latches on to that original research. Another editor comes in with original research, ignores what they source used says and then reasons that the sources must be out of date because they don't line up with his original research. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wholeheartedly agreed. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 22:51, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Note to reviewer An inappropriate notification was posted a wikiproject israel in violation of the canvassing policies WP:CANVASS.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Gaza is not occupied. There are no Israeli soldiers in Gaza, no Israelis in Gaza. It is a matter of broad consensus that Gaza is ruled by Hamas. Factually it is clear. When it comes to sources, there are really UN sources that claim that Gaza is still occupied. It is harder to find a source for the claim that "Gaza is not occupied". But that's understood, it is always harder to prove by references that something does not exists. Here Israeli High Court of Justice could be a reference (a highly regarded independent institution that often goes against politicians). Here is an analysis. Further, This is a good reference for the claim of "not being occupied", by professor Yuval Shany. But maybe there should be a general request for comment for the status of Gaza to unite it with other wikipedia articles and solve it globally. If something like this happens, notify me please and I can try to provide sources and arguments. Franp9am (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to analyse consensus here, because it is impossible to judge fairly due to the canvassing. I think the fairest is to revert to the stable version of the article, and require those who want it removed to demonstrate a consensus for that. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:12, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Franp9am There are no global RFC's for content. Each Wiki project is self governing. If you would like to have a RFC for the French Wikipedia or so forth you will need to go there. Feel free to start one here on the English Wikipedia for the English Wikipedia.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit request
Military occupation carries a hatnote for military rank because they are "occupations" which are military. This list article should carry a similar hatnote for the same reasoning.

-- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Done.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 10:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Hawaiʻi
The annexation of Hawaii was illegal under international law. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 14:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No credible source supports you.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aloha 4 All, There are many sources saying that Hawaii has been illegally occupied by the US since 1893. One hundred years later in 1993, the US Congress and US president Bill Clinton acknowledged the annexation was "illegal" and in violation of international law in  Apology Resolution. See, for instance, . Mahalo, Mark Vancouver (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A non-binding resolution of congress carries no legal weight and only express the bodies approval, or in some cases disapproval, of a position. This conversation has no bearing on this article or conversation about Bahrain.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:43, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Aloha again. Point taken, unrelated to Bahrain so moving. However the source - Jon M. Van Dyke book - is credible: published by University of Hawaii Press and scrupulous about using and citing primary sources. However it is just a single example, there is a large amount of sources describing the illegal involvement of the US troops in the conspiracy of overthrowing the the monarchy of Queen Liliuokalani. There was no legal justification for sending in the Marines. I recommend "Nation Within: The History of the American Occupation of Hawai'i" book by Tom Coffman to mainlanders - to get a sense of how disenfranchised many Hawaiians feel about being part of the US. Mahalo, Mark Vancouver (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You refactored the talk page for no reason. This article is List of military occupations of which Hawaii is not. WP:FORUM This is not a forum. Unless you are trying to promote that Hawaii is under military occupation?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hawaii is not occupied? The sources that say otherwise were provided. Mark Vancouver (talk) 23:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A fringe movement, Hawaiian sovereignty movement supports your position. Including it would only serve to unduly legitimize it. This would be a WP:FALSEBALANCE. It would not be NPOV to include this claim.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * List of Hawaiian sovereignty movement groups is irrelevant. There is a controversy about how Hawaii became a part of US, there is nothing fringe about it. We'd need to reflect all points of view in a balanced way. "Hawaiʻi is not occupied" point of view arguments should be presented. Wikipedia is not take side this way or another and is required to stay neutral. However since many academic reliable sources talk of Hawaiʻi occupation so should Wikipedia. Censorship is not the option. Mark Vancouver (talk) 00:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a controversy among certain small groups as to how it became a part of the United States, nevertheless, they aren't occupied right now and Hawaii doesn't meet any of the definitions of being under military occupation listed as criteria for this page. - SantiLak  (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Among certain small group" seems to be unlikely given the political resonance the issue is still enjoying after more than 100 years. "Does not meet the definition", well apparently it does according to sources provided. Mark Vancouver (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

The point is besides this fringe movement who supports this? Where are the states and/or international bodies that support this? France? The UN? The EU? Your position is that under international law Hawaii is occupied by the US. Where's the international practice or the international recognition of this? You are not asking for balance, you are asking for equal validity. Omitting is not censorship as we merely omit such things where including them would unduly legitimize them.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:11, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "Who supports this" question is irrelevant. There is no "undue legitimizing" in balanced reflection of sources. The point is Wikipedia content is determined by academic sources, that's what we should be concerned with. Mark Vancouver (talk) 01:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to open an RFC or take this to some other dispute resolution process to seek a consensus to include Hawaii in the article.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:57, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And to your "sources provided", even they don't say that Hawaii is under military occupation, and even if it did, thats just one source anyway. Also to your point of the political resonance Hawaiian sovereignty it has, that resolution was from over 20 years ago, and the issue of Hawaiian sovereignty by the way, does not mean that Hawaii is under military occupation. - SantiLak  (talk) 02:52, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Tibet
Sir Joseph, Tibet has been removed in the past thru a talk page consensus and thru editing. In the long term since it's removal it has stayed off this list. This has not been challenged in discussion. It's inclusion seems a whole lot like an exercise in WP:point making. That because we include Golan Heights and East Jerusalem we must include Tibet. I already have a consensus to include Golan Heights and East Jerusalem you have to get a consensus to remove them. I've already got a consensus to remove Tibet. You will have to get a consensus to include it. When you were engaged in talk page conversation about Tibet you should have responded instead of responding with a pointy edit .-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I included links to refs, that I found right away. I am sure others can find more links, there is links to Occupation of Tibet on Wikipedia, there is a whole Free Tibet movement. At the very least, I think it should be included and you can include a note on it, similar to Gaza, EJ and GH, because it is a similar situation, with Tibet, South Tibet, India and China all having issues with the occupation. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:19, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And I just looked at the archive and just like I saw earlier above, you seem to be violating WP:OWN. There was no consensus on Tibet. Furthermore, if you look at Archive 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_military_occupations/Archive_1#Tibet, your claim for excluding Tibet flies in face of your claim for including the Palestinian territories. You were the only one in Archie 1 arguing for the exclusion of Tibet, based on the fact that it wasn't a state, which is arguable RS. Rav Papa was arguing for inclusion. I don't know how that becomes a consensus. The same thing is then repeated in Archive 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_military_occupations/Archive_2#Tibet_is_a_part_of_China. So, please tell me where the consensus is. Not only that, at the end of Archive 2, in fact the last bit of the archive, you ask for a discussion on the inclusion of Tibet! Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:32, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You will have to get a consensus for this change. It's a rather simple matter. WP:point making is not a consensus.


 * The presence of Free Hawaii Movement does not justify Hawaii being on the list, the same can be said for Tibet. Where are the UN resolutions acknowledging a Tibetan Military occupation? From the EU? Other international bodies? WP:GEVAL We are not here to unduly legitimize the Tibetan independence movement. Not because you want to be WP:POINTY. Not for the sake of the Tibetan independence advocates. Not at all. They can legitimize themselves.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read YOUR own arguments in the archives and above, we don't care what the UN thinks as far as including things in this list. And as Rav Papa pointed out, we are not determining facts. I suggest you re-read the archives, especially your own arguments. You were the one who reverted my inclusion of Tibet, even though I included references. You do not own this page, contrary to what you think. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 05:06, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm violating WP:OWN? So in other words you do not understand WP:OWN? I engaged in talk page conversation. I made changes based on that conversation. This change was maintained for a significant amount of time. Anyone was free to challenge and take the appropriate location or process. You are free to now. But since is nothing more than an exercise in wp:point making it may be apt for you to drop the stick. The RFC for East Jerusalem and Golan Heights is above. I don't recall arguing that a notable Majority POV is of no consequence, but if you would like to make that argument feel free to post it above.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There were several editors, not even myself, making points about Palestine, and what to do about pre-1980 or so. Furthermore, your continuing calling my putting in Tibet as WP:POINT violates WP:AGF, am I now never able to edit this article? Must I clear everything with you first? You stated this article had a consensus with regards to Tibet, that is blatantly false. I then added Tibet since Tibet has no current dispute. I then added sources. You then reverted and violated Wikipedia policy by failing to assume good faith and failing to discuss what you obviously assumes was a contentious edit on the talk page. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  05:25, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And now you are WP:Canvassing editors to this discussion?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And now you are overreaching. He was involved before you chased him away. I'm still waiting for you to show me where the consensus on Tibet is. You stated there is a consensus on Tibet. Also, there is nothing wrong with posting a message on someone's talkpage, especially if that person was involved with the issue. Stop trying to Wikilawyer. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 05:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Overreaching? I chased them away? What a silly comment. Did I show up at their home with a bat and tell them to leave the conversation and never comeback? Did I steal their keyboard? You are canvassing. That is a simple matter of fact. Period! You have went to someones page who took part in this talk page well over a year ago and invited them here because you saw that they agreed with your position. You did this to forward your position.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Whether or not it was proper to solicit my opinion, it has been solicited, and here I am giving it. In my view the entire section on Current Military Occupations is original research, and exists only for editors to make their own political points. There is not a single footnote (beyond two explanatory notes that give no references) in the entire section. Every one of the entries in that list is a matter of dispute. There is not the slightest suggestion of an objective criterion for deciding whether a foreign military presence in a territory is an occupation, an annexation, or a recovery of territory lost in previous border changes.

Furthermore, there is no academic or encyclopedic reason for the existence of such a list. People who have an academic interest in the law or politics of military occupations already know where such occupations exist, and do not need us to tell them, any more than, for example, anatomists need a Wikipedia list of striated or non-striated muscles. Just because it is possible to make a list of things does not mean that the list is justified as a Wikipedia article; certainly, then, a list which has the flimsiest basis in fact has no place here.

I realize that, because of the dynamics of Wikipedia editing, if I nominate this article for deletion the nomination will fail. There are too many partisans who are interesting in pushing their own points of view that Transnistria or Western Sahara, or, for that matter, the West Bank, are occupied territories. So the article will, perforce, remain, a permanent blight on Wikipedia's escutcheon. --Ravpapa (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I very much sympathise with this, and I especially struggle to see the use of such a list given that any reader familiar with Wikipedia will view it with deep suspicion.
 * Having said that, the case of Tibet seems very clear from the second introductory paragraph. "Military occupation" here excludes cases where sovereignity is claimed or citizenship rights granted by the controlling power. The PRC does claim sovereignty over Tibet and repeatedly presents Tibet as an integral part of China, and confers Chinese citizenship rights on the general population of Tibet. One can argue that China annexed the country of Tibet or that China re-established sovereignty over the region, but not that China intends its control over Tibet to be nothing but a temporary military occupation without sovereignty. NebY (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Would you then comment on the above RFC where I ask for comments based on your exact reason for excluding Tibet, and I ask for excluding East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No thank you. I don't know enough about the relevant aspects of East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, merely enough not to see the situation of either one as straightforwardly equivalent to that of Tibet and to be concerned that attempts to link edits or discussions concerning them could tip and maybe have tipped over into pointy behaviour. NebY (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Disputed (2)
I don't want to go around in circles, so I think we can leave it be, but I will leave the tag up there and it should remain. 1) Gaza, it is not occupied, regardless of what the UN says, there is no military occupation of Gaza by Israel. It is a POV to say that. The fact that Israel controls the border is meaningless. Many states controls borders with other countries and as far as Gaza is concerned, Egypt has a tight blockade with Gaza as well. 2) The lead of this article says that annexed territories are not to be included in this article. East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights do not meet the criteria for inclusion, as per my arguments and as per Rav Papa's arguments. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:06, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not really going to keep the tag simply because of wp:IDHT behavior when discussing Gaza. With Golan Heights and East Jerusalem, that the core of the case you make for it's removal. Either you will get a consensus that there is an actual issue or you won't but there's no reason for the tags.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Go through this talk page, not even the archives, and you'll see people who agree with me. That is the definition of disputed. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 01:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you will be shocked to find the tag removed once this RFC on East Jerusalem and Golan Heights ends.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually be surprised to find the tag removed now.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I forgot you laid a claim of ownership to this page, my apologies, and your revert only mentions Gaza, where's the EJ and GH? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 03:17, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no claim of ownership on my part. There's a claim by you of my ownership. A claim that is essentially either you are allowed your way or there's an issue of ownership. That is actually WP:OWN behavior on your part. The ending of the discussion on Gaza still stands, if you would like to promote that Egypt is occupying Gaza then provide a source. Not your own personal original research. [WP:IDHT|You don't hear that]] but what ever. The RFC above also resolves the issues with Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. Either it will end with a consensus to remove or a consensus to keep. Either way it ends that dispute is resolved.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think disputed makes sense here. I agree with Serialjoepsycho. Disputed would make more sense if the article are largely in dispute, such as say the overall terminology or categorizing conflicts differently or something. Here, there's a few particular entries (or lack thereof) in dispute so it seems excessive. I don't think it's pointy and I think we'd be better served if people actually assumed good faith. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * My "contradicted" template was also removed. And that's the one that is regarding EJ and GH where Rav Papa commented above. Basically, any edit I do, he won't allow. Tibet is a no-no, even though, if you go to the archive, he asks for a discussion on Tibet. And if you go to the Archive, or I think an RFC, I was actually involved in removing Hawaii from this page and involved in an edit war with someone who kept sticking Hawaii in here. But just because he doesn't want Tibet in, or Gaza delisted doesn't mean he gets his way. There is no IDF presence in Gaza so how can it be occupied by Israel? And if the border is controlled by Israel because of the blockade, then Egypt has the same blockade. You can't say Gaza is occupied by Israel because Israel controls the borders but then Egypt doesn't control the borders.Then you can't say you only include non-annexed terriroties when EJ/GH is annexed, it's irrelevant if the UN agrees with it or not, it's de facto annexed and this article's critera are clearly spelled out. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 03:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tibet must go in or East Jerusalem and Golan Heights must go out. This is what you call a false dilemma. This is an argument for giving equal validity and (as has already been said) it stands to unduly legitimize the position Free Tibetan movement. As for Gaza, just provide a source that Egypt is occupying Gaza. If not drop the stick the horse is dead. The list recognizes the Israeli position that Gaza is no longer under occupation. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * When did I say that Tibet has to go in if EJ or GH is in? I just said Tibet is also occupied. You need a source that Gaza is military occupied by Israel. There is no military occupation of Gaza. There is an annexation of EJ and GH, so that contradicts the lead. There is just so much wrong with this article, but you won't let anyone but yourself touch it. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's your argument for placing Tibet in the article. There's already a source for Gaza. There's an RFC opened to discuss just that and it was opened by you. Sounds like you are saying I own it because I won't allow you to own it.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:OR is not a valid cause for a disputed tag. There are sources for Gaza being occupied by Israel, you not liking those sources does not matter, not even a little bit. There are no sources for Egypt occupying Gaza post-1967. Your OR on well Egypt does this so they are occupying it too is not a valid argument on this website. There are no sources for Hamas occupying Gaza either. There are sources for Israel occupying the Golan and EJ, that you dislike that is not a cause for a tag. I understand you feel strongly about that, but you are arguing in direct opposition of the reliable sources, and I for one am out of patience for such foolishness. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Here's a source that outlines the views of the various parties on Gaza:. Yes, Israel disputes that Gaza is occupied, and we need to include that. However, the majority of other states and a number of international organizations such as the ICRC continue to consider Gaza to be held under Israeli occupation. So we need to include that as well. Wikipedia is not an arm of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs, their disputing something is not enough to say it is not true. We go based off reliable sources, and if you dont like that then tough. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 17:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Some even better ones in note 9 here Gaza_Strip. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:52, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference number 8
May I instead suggest a rewrite to reference number 8? I think it seems like there is some agreement above that Israel disputes the assertion. Taking language from Israeli-occupied territories, perhaps it could be rewritten to start with something like "Various organizations including the United Nations, the EU, International Court of Justice and the Palestinian Authority, assert that East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (collectively, the Israeli-occupied territories) have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Israel considers all of Jerusalem its sovereign territory, calls the West Bank "disputed territories" and argues that it is no longer occupying Gaza after its September 2005 disengagement. " I'm not sure what the Palestinian Declaration of Independence is for, did something change in 1988? If the assertion is occupation since 1967, then is it just relevant to the party who is claimed to be the rightful owners? It's protected now so I'm just shooting an idea to see if the concept is at least agreeable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to something to the effect of this. As far as Palestinian declaration of independence, under international law sate recognition is retroactive. 136 states recognize the State of Palestine, the foundation of which is it's declaration of independence. The list claims the State of Palestine is under occupation. The State of Palestine has only existed since 1988, it's not been occupied since 1967 since it had not existed at that time. Only the Palestinian territories have been occupied since 1967. Though this is one continuous occupation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

"Various organizations including the United Nations, the EU, International Court of Justice and the Palestinian Authority, consider East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (collectively, the Israeli-occupied territories) to have been occupied by Israel since 1967. Israel considers all of Jerusalem its sovereign territory, calls the West Bank "disputed territories" and argues that it is no longer occupying Gaza after its September 2005 disengagement. See also Status of territories captured by Israel." Something to the effect of this perhaps?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Palestine Linking
Now that the RFC closed, the link has to be redone. It can't be done the way it is right now, it has to be done in an inline way or it has to be removed. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Palestine is what will have to be removed or sourced. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, that only and not the entire listing.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So apparently you open RFC's for fun? Why don't you see what the RFC came up with at the end? You can't claim Palestine solely since Israel is not occupying Palestine since 1967. That was the end result of the RFC. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 17:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I did see what the RFC close addressed and they even bolded the results, yes, the State of Palestine may be linked They add certain caveats to this but it all refers solely to listing the State of Palestine as it is listed and not the Occupied Palestinian Territories.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 17:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This is not the trump card you were hoping for. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "It therefore requires attributing by means of an inline citation to a reliable source" Just out of curiosity, are you just a single subject account? You should take a break, there's a tons of other subjects out there. Once your orgasm of having Palestine linked is done, see what else you can do. I was looking at my talk page and was reminiscing about how fun Wikipedia used to be to edit, back in the good old days. I think it might even be a good idea for ARBPIA to delete IP related articles, from Wikipedia, everybody knows they're biased anyway, one way or the other, both parties complain so nobody scholarly is using Wikipedia for mideast issues, so why bother other to fight? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You need to save your personal attacks for your Internal monologue. You should consider you own advice of taking a break. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That wasn't a personal attack, I was wondering if you do anything other than focus on Israel, it just seems like you just focus on one area. I don't. And I was thinking that the whole IP area should just be deleted, nobody really takes it that seriously, certainly not academics, the main issue is children and students who look up and then see the bias, but then they go out and see the real world so there's no real danger. You can take a look at my history, it's all over the place, not just focused on one area. While I sometimes feel like Hillel Neuer at the HRC when dealing with Wiki and IP and certain editors, I just leave the IP arena and then deal with other areas. And again, I didn't see any attack there, I just asked a question, because I'm curious, and again, you responded with a wikilink, because that's what you do. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That was a personal attack and your defense of it is asinine. Your focus here is Israel. My focus here is the entire list. You are fighting to add Tibet to promote your removal of West Jerusalem and Golan heights. I have twice completely reformatted the past military occupations section. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I've been here years ago, I fought to remove Hawaii quite a few years back, and you yourself on the bottom of archive 2 said we should discuss adding Tibet to the list. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes you've been here before and for the same purpose as now. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See, now that's a personal attack. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is a statement of fact. One of your prior contributions was to argue that Transnistria should stay in the article if Gaza is in the article. Gaza being in the article is not a justification for anything else being in the article. Not Tibet, not Hawaii, and not Transnistria. That is a false dilemma.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * (RFC closer, clarifying): The central RFC question as I understood it was: "Does linking the State of Palestine [in] this list present undue weight? If not, how should it be listed?"  Insofar as I could determine a consensus, I found that no, linking the State of Palestine in the RFC does not present undue weight.  There a little discussion, within the RfC that I closed, about whether the occupation began in 1967 or 1988, but not enough discussion for me to say one date with great confidence.  For that, we will have to turn to the sources. It may not be possible to give a date when the occupation started.  We may end up with something that says "1967 according to source X, 1988 according to source Y".  If no date can be found in a reliable source then we may even end up having to say "The date when the occupation began is contested".  From past experience with Wikipedia I think it's possible that this may lead to a dispute about which sources are reliable, or which are the most reliable.  These disputes can be a timesink and I would recommend not getting bogged down in them -- you may agree that you want me to come back to this page and adjudicate (and I will be happy to do so), or you may prefer to refer the matter to WP:RSN (which I will also be content with, and it's technically the correct place).  I hope this helps, and I'm sorry for the confusion.  I should have foreseen this question when I closed the RFC, so I feel as if this discussion is my fault.— S Marshall  T/C 18:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that is the issue, there was no Palestine in 1967. Indeed, if you look at the Past table, from 1948-1967, Gaza, West Bank and East Jerusalem are listed but don't have a flag or country listed, yet according to this they should be listed as Palestine. Jordan did not give up territorial claims on the West Bank until the mid 1980's so how can it be part of Palestine. If anything, the West Bank should be listed as part of Jordan from 1967-1988(?) until Jordan gave up claims, and then perhaps Palestine or Palestinian Territories, or whatever. https://books.google.com/books?id=DWhgIe3Hq98C&pg=PA247&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false Jordan, did not give up control and sovereignty until 1988, so why should Palestine be listed? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no claim that in 1988 Palestine was occupied. The claim is that in 1988 the Occupied Palestinian Territories are claimed in the state formed by the PLO in 1988 and since recognized by 136 states. This is my proposed change to the ref in question.


 * "East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip have been occupied by Israel since 1967 . The State of Palestine, which claims these territories, did not declare its independence until 1988. See Palestinian Declaration of Independence. 136 countries recognize the state of Palestine ."-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And in the past occupations, why is there no flag or territory by EJ, GZ or the West Bank? And it does not make sense that the State of Palestine is the occupied territory when it doesn't/didn't exist. You can't put that into an encyclopedia, even if it's Wikipedia.  Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  19:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So no flag and they can't be listed? No surprise to see the goal post move. 136 states recognize it to exist, this is a little over 70% of the world.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not moving any goalpost, just showing your duplicity. Why didn't you put the flag in by the past territorial occupations? And your claim of numbers is meaningless, 70% of the world is run by dictatorial regimes who you wouldn't want to be a part of. We don't play a numbers game on Wikipedia, I'm sure you can find a brackets to link to for that. Bottom line is that Palestine was not a state in 1967, not only that but the West Bank was claimed by Jordan in 1967, so how exactly was territory claimed by Jordan suddenly claimed by Palestine which doesn't exist? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In the end, it makes no difference, you and your gang are going to do what you want anyway, you OWN this article. You're going to add in something, I'm going to revert, your buddy is going to revert and I can't revert because it will be 1RR and you will get your way, so just get it out of the way already and let's move on. You already got rid of half a dozen editors just on this one talk page, I am a bit more stubborn than you are used to no doubt so I am putting up more of a fuss though. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I seem to recall years back how it was split up in the same table cell, in two, and I don't know why it can't be that way now. Look at Iceland. Using your logic, Iceland should only be listed with Denmark, not USA. Why are the Palestinian territories so special that only these territories don't get split? If it's good enough for Iceland, it should be good enough for the West Bank. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I own the page because you are not allowed to own the page? My gang? I don't have a gang. I don't improperly canvass other editors. Do you want to perhaps discuss the article because there's nothing unique about your partisanship? 70% of the world is run by historical regimes that I wouldn't want to be a part of? That's great but would you like to discuss article content? There's no numbers game, there's a NPOV game. WP:GEVAL By including Palestine as a state am I unduly legitimizing them? With 70% of the world recognizing their statehood I can comfortably answer no I am not. The majority of the world also recognizes that the Palestinian territories are occupied. Again there's no undue legitimization there. There's no claim that this state of Palestine that was formed in 1988 was occupied in 1967, just that the territory was occupied in 1967. It's a strawman and not very good one. You support Israel, great, but I just don't like it is not a justification for removal. This is the first time that the suggestion that this be split into like that. What do you want to do? Leave one box blank? List one as the occupied Palestinian territories? Mark up your proposed change.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not very good with the table, but I think something along this line, again, similar to what is like Iceland, would go along way in being a neutral POV, I can't seem to get the flags lined up right.:

The Jordanian claim to sovereignty was never widely recognized and was later renounced by Jordan.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly my point, it was renounced in 1988. Which is why there's room for two boxes. One for Jordan. And while it may not have been widely recognized, it was de facto Jordanian territory, so much so that while the UN guaranteed Jews free access to Jewish holy sites the Jordanians felt at home to say no. And if you wish, you can put a note or citation as well, that the annexation by Jordan was not widely recognized, and then we might even want to put that in from 1948, and not from 1967, since the West Bank has been under Jordanian control from 1948-1967, and then under Israeli from 67 onward, so it won't have to be listed in both tables, just once. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Your point is original research. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * So in other words, only your ideas are OK? Palestine didn't exist in 67, but you link it. Jordan had control of the West Bank, and I want to mention that and that's original research? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In other words, Your original research is unacceptable. The State of Palestine did not exist in 1967 and since the list does not claim it did you are simply beating a strawman to death. Jordan renounced it's claims to sovereignty over the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Renounced as in repudiated. The renounced a position that was never widely recognized in the first place. What was it, 3 states recognized this? Again you argue for equal validity but again per WP:GEVAL by including this view do we unduly legitimize it? The answer is yes. Jordan abandoned this claim, a claim that was again barely recognized in the first place.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible to dial the rhetoric back a notch, please, gentlemen? If either of you would like to offer a citation to a reliable source about this, that would do more to resolve the dispute than any amount of argument.— S Marshall  T/C 22:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A source like this ? It wouldn't help because he's not denying that Jordan renounced it's claim to Palestine. Something like this perhaps? But again he's not denying the limited recognition of the Jordanian annexation.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow. Jordan had control and annexed the West bank, which was recognized by the U.K.and the us, in 1988-they withdrew their claims. All that can be in the table. It certainly makes more sense than a state that didn't exist.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That International Law of Occupation source is really helpful. It appears to be the best academic source I've seen on this topic so far, written by a Professor of Human Rights and published by Princeton University Press. What it actually says, though, is quite nuanced and bears close reading. As far as I can see, it says that in 1967, Israel occupied the West Bank. The status of this territory in 1967 was disputed. Jordan claimed it, but this claim was recognised by few other nations and the true situation was that the occupied territory had no representative government at that time. Would either of you accept this as the truth?— S Marshall  T/C 22:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * that is similar to be what several editors above said, and I think that would be a step in the right direction. With having no state as the claimant.Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 23:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, I agree. Sir Jospeph, your use of a false dilemma has once again arisen. Either we must remove the State of Palestine or we must put in Jordan. These are two separate matters. A consensus for the inclusion of one is not a consensus for the inclusion of the other.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you putting words into my mouth? And with that, good day. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 23:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't let me put words in your mouth. By all means explain why Jordan should be listed. It's a minority point of view that has long been abandoned. Abandoned by Jordan the claimant. How is this not WP:UNDUE weight?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing convenience break
For the moment, please don't talk to each other. Please just talk to me. I'll add a proposal to this page shortly when I've worked out the wikitable syntax.— S Marshall T/C 23:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How's this look?— S Marshall T/C 23:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have the "none", if you look at the historical, on the main page, Gaza has a blank section, without "none." Also, once we're splitting hairs, what do you think about Palestinan Authority, Palestinian Territory, etc, either for the rest? Especially considering that the PA is not a state as per international law, in order to be a "state" they need to be in control of 4 things I need to look up but they match 2 or 3 but they don't meet the full criteria. Just something to throw out there. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 23:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Or is this without the citations yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs)


 * Area B has Palestinian Civil Authority but security control is shared.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You should probably also remove the dates 1967-1988. For the states that don't recognize the State of Palestine but still recognize the 1967 occupation. There's a question of weight. We can't exactly say that Palestine is a state.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm just roughing in without the citations yet. I've amended the table: how does it seem now?— S Marshall  T/C 00:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would still include Jordan and have it cited, especially since the notes say that Israel seized it from Jordan. The US and the UK among others recognized Jordan's annexation, and it de facto annexed and it granted citizenship and had representation in its parliament. If you're not putting it in there, then when Israel conquered it in 1967, it didn't seize it from Jordan, it seized it from blank. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought we'd agreed that Israel didn't seize it from Jordan? According to the source that I thought we'd agreed upon, Israel seized the West Bank from a condition in which the West Bank had no real government.  If that is what we've agreed then we will have to update the list to reflect the sources.— S Marshall  T/C 00:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * This will need to be applied to the other related listings as well. Don't worry to much about the coding. I'll slap it together once we have more of a clear plan. And here's the reference I've produced. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We would also have to add West Bank to the historical section to match Gaza, and I think we're OK. Then I think we should go to the other RFC's once we're done with this. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 00:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Go to the other RFC's? To do what?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please don't talk to each other directly. Please talk to me; that seems to work, and talking to each other directly really isn't going anywhere.  I'm here to help you both resolve this point.  I'm sure there will be other RFCs on this page in future but worry about that then.  What I would welcome now would be userspace drafts of the adjusted versions of this page as you envisage them.— S Marshall  T/C 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think until we resolve this issue, the only thing I would like is on the main talk page then to include West Bank under historical, since it seems to have been missing, I would use the same template as Gaza Strip for Egypt as below: I'll copy the template from Egypt and then add the WB/Jordan request, since it's basically the same thing. And is it possible to get rid of the two Israel's? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 01:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That's not an issue of this conversation. If you want to put that in I don't see that there's any issue. Though note the appropriate location will be by the first listing of Gaza as the list Chronological by year start date. Basically 2 up from where you found that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And S Marshall, this is a conversation about implementing the consensus. It's went in alot of areas except actually implementing the consensus. We've got a blank space now. This came about not from implementing the consensus but from trying to argue Jordan in. Here is my proposed change to implement the consensus, . If we want a blank space, what ever, add the blank space.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What remains to be done?— S Marshall T/C 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The current occupation, with the refs and citations, you were working on it. (BTW, one thing I was thinking but just a thought, if you don't want to include a blank space, then just have one space and from 1988-current, but that might not be good though.) And just a reminder, that while this is for the West Bank, it is also for the Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem since they're the same issue. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 18:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * All that remains to be done is to agree on how to implement it. I don't actually see placing 1988-present as necessary, but as with the blank box, have at it. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so what's on the table is still this:-

Shall I add the Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem?— S Marshall T/C 19:41, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes to Gaza, EJ we might get rid of entirely since EJ is part of the WB. BTW, are you able to make one Israeli flag? Or does it have to be two lines? Also, I would change the date, From 1988, since it is under the current, it is obvious that is is up to Current, so we don't need it to be 88-Current, just to match the others. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's very unlikely we will get rid of East Jerusalem entirely and that's not a matter for the discussion of implementing this consensus. User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox Here's my proposed change to implement the consensus. It is exactly like the current version except Footnote number 8 (footnote number 1 in my sandbox) is changed according to .-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * EJ is part of the WB, so if we have the WB, we don't need EJ. EJ can be part of a ref or cite on the WB one. If you include EJ in the current list, you need to also include it in the historic list, at least until we figure out if we need them both, otherwise that's undue. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This again is a matter that has nothing to do with implementing the current consensus. But since you persist, No, There's no false dilemma here either. East Jerusalem was administered as a part of the West Bank until the illegal annexation. Before you move the goalpost you should allow your RFC to conclude.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * it was part of Jordan's annexation of the wb. It is undue to explicitly lost it at current and not historic. I don't think we need it at either. You can put a ref or cite, but it's not a false balance to include ej on the list of historical since it's currently on the current list. Once we're done here, wet can then decide if we even need to list out ej, but at the very least it should be included in the historical. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 23:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's purposeless to include it in the historic section. It's not undue to exclude it. Until the illegal annexation of it in 1980 there was never any question if it was a part of the West Bank. It's pure nonsense to even go into discussion about including it in the Past Military Occupations section. You creating a false dilemma doesn't actually present an issue to be addressed.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no false dilemma. Then don't include it in the current section, and have it in the cite or reference under the WB. Once you break it out then it's undue. And then you need to include it in the historical section. If it's purposeless, I don't get the harm of including it. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 23:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing more than a false dilemma. To include this we must include that. There is no undue weight by not including it in the Past Military Occupations section. There is a reason to acknowledge it as a separate entity in the current section. That again is because of the illegal annexation of it. There's no reason to make this change. There's no reason to even discuss this at the moment while your other attempt to it is active.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm away from the keyboard for a little while now. Please feel free to copy it into your userspace, play with it and come up with alternatives, though.— S Marshall  T/C 21:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Editing convenience break 2
The decision we reach on East Jerusalem here should be regarded as an interim one pending the close of the RfC above, and I'm anxious not to get stalled on it. Until that RfC does close, and without prejudice to its outcome, I propose that we omit the first line from Serialjoepsycho's table but include the line that says "West Bank (including East Jerusalem)".— S Marshall T/C 18:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with that but East Jerusalem is currently listed in the table, so how would that work?Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Disregard the current table in my sandbox, I had meant for this version to be seen. I should have completely disregarded that conversation when it started. I did not complete the current version there. How would it work? It would work in the extremely obvious way. The combined entity would replace the single listing of East Jerusalem.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What happened to the 1967-1988? I thought we took care of that issue. Your sandbox has it listed as it is now, not how S Marshall had it proposed and how it made more sense, since Palestine did not exist at all until 1988. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * If you will read above and pay attention to the existing conversation that much is already clear. User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox (updated) is my proposed change. Just the reference. There's no need to say that a occupation that is listed under "Current military occupations" is current. The only thing that happened in 1988 was that the State of Palestine was founded. Israel did not start occupying it in 1988. There's only one occupation. So no listing 1988 does not make sense. The footnote makes it clear that the state of Palestine was founded in 1988.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And no we never came to an agreement on that issue. Every time I discussion starts on how to implement the consensus you drift off about East Jerusalem or Jordan or something else that is unrelated to implementing the consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 00:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * we had agreed to have a blank spot. Palestine did not exist so Israel could not have occupied it in 1967, similar to how Iceland had a split occupation during world war two.


 * We have discussed having a blank spot. We have yet to come to any agreement. Noting your partisan criticism I have changed it. User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is it partisan when I want to change something? Why is it always something whenever I want to add something? When I point out that Iceland has it the same way, when I point out other has it the same way, you keep wikilawyering, you keep saying or assuming I am partisan or trying to do bad, but you need to assume goo faith. It's not partisan to be precise. And to nitpick, I still think it should be blank, since the header is state, not territory, but I'm not going to put up a major fuss about that, and I thought you were combining EJ into WB? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 02:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Why are you being partisan? Wikilawyering? Learn what the term actually means, you are misusing it. If you want people to assume good faith, start first by acting in good faith. Our social policies are not suicide pacts. You can not inappropriately canvass people to your cause in good faith. Why again should we add Tibet to the article? Because we have East Jerusalem? Who are these international bodies and/or actors that recognize a Tibetan Occupation and that are taking efforts to end it? How again is this not an undue legitimization of the Tibetan independence movement? Why should we ignore the NPOV policy?  Why add Jordan? Again so few recognized their claim and later Jordan itself renounced the claim. Why does your addition to this conversation keep going beyond actually implementing this consensus? And why did you think I was going to combine East Jerusalem into the West Bank?   As I said, disregard that. It has nothing to do with implementing the consensus. And I've made one further change to my sandbox.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:04, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_military_occupations&diff=prev&oldid=693458943 Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I moved the founded by to a new line, IMO it looks nicer on a new line. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And? Any decision that we reach regarding East Jerusalem should be considered interim. The RFC would takes precedence. We have reached no decision and this has nothing to do with implementing the consensus about the State of Palestine.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right, until the RFC, he suggested we have WB (including EJ) Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Right and in case it's not clear, since this discussion is about implementing the consensus we should keep the conversation limited to implementing the consensus. Any proposed changes that have absolutely nothing to do with that should have their own conversation started. And before the closer becomes involved and does so, or before you do so, We should actually finish this discussion and implement the consensus. Again, User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox My proposal and the actual discussion we are in at least someway trying to conclude.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:06, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Are we stuck?— S Marshall T/C 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would think so, because every time I agree with something you post, suddenly Serialjoepsycho changes it and says consensus changes. I had agreed with what you posted at the top, and I don't know how that got to what he has on his sandbox. But like I said, I don't really care one way or another anymore. I don't have it in me to fight him anymore. Every time I put in a suggestion it's a fight. It's also a bit confusing all these templates so it would be good if you can post what the latest suggestion is, and we can go from there. I had thought we had a blank 48-67, and then 88-, and that was the one that made the most sense and WB would include East Jerusalem since West Bank does include East Jerusalem, and EJ does not need its own line, especially since it doesn't have its own line in the historical section,and mentioning that is trying to balance out the article since it is indeed undue in such a contentious area, we have to strive to avoid bias, and you should not break out EJ in the current section. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Shall I start a formal dispute resolution process, then? I'm not personally willing to spend an infinite amount of time on this, and it's apparent to me that I'm going to reach the end of my patience long before we reach the end of this discussion.  But "consensus" shouldn't mean "last person to give up".  I'd recommend a mediation conducted by others, and I'm happy to start the process if you wish.— S Marshall  T/C 19:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be willing to take his current sandbox, including his nonblank 48-67,but we should have the EJ part of the WB, which it is, as per the WB article itself. If there's a problem that the EJ is claimed to be annexed, that is already taken care of in the citation. That would solve that issue and it would solve the issue of the historical section. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 20:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * S Marshall, you are the closer. I am here to discuss how to implement the consensus of the of the RFC you closed. This is why this discussion was started and this is why you first made comment here. It has went off track to a discussion about adding Jordan as the formerly occupied country.  After that it went off track about East Jerusalem and the West Bank. And before it's something else, enough is enough. It's time to stop all of this external discussion and discuss implementing that consensus. You want to discuss combining East Jerusalem? Go open a new Talk page discussion. You want to talk about the ethnic cuisine of the occupied states and adding a section on them? Go open a new talk page discussion. It's time to stop the filibustering and tendentiousness. There is already a consensus. yes, the State of Palestine may be linked in this list once the preconditions in the following paragraph are met. The preconditions are not: You must add Jordan as an occupied state. You must combine East Jerusalem with the West Bank. The preconditions are: attributing by means of an inline citation to a reliable source.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And Formal dispute resolution is fine for me as well. I'll be glad to take this discussion over there, the discussion of how to implement the consensus that already exists.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have begun a request for mediation. I hope you can work it out! All the best— S Marshall T/C 22:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

West bank
The above item is requested to be copied into the historical section on the main page, chronological. Thanks. (see the below notes from Serialjoepsycho for placement) Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The change is noncontroversial.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It is indeed (just in case the implementing admin needs further confirmation).— S Marshall T/C 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I also endorse this. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  17:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I just realized East Jerusalem is not under Historical either, while it's technically part of the West Bank, I think it would be undue to include it under historical WB if we are breaking it out and making it its own entry for Current Occupation. Would any of you object to adding EJ to historical? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Historical EJ was apart of the West Bank. No one started discussing it as a distinct entity separate from the West Bank until the "Annexation".-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Serialjoepsycho is correct here. It would be anachronistic to add another line for East Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967. However it may be worth adding a footnote next to "West Bank" to clarify that this includes what would now be described as East Jerusalem. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I would be OK with getting rid of EJ in current, since it's part of the WB, and it's in the the lead of the WB article. Then we don't need it in historical, or in the current. And cite or ref whatever we need. How does that sound? Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, as I am sure you are aware, West Bank under Jordan was in the historic list, but it was removed. I am trying to pinpoint when it was removed but it is a daunting task. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 21:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I would like to add this as well to the historic section, then both historic and current would be matching and we can then work on fixing to see if we even need a separate EJ section.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir Joseph (talk • contribs) There is no consensus to add East Jerusalem as requested above.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

May I separate this discussion from the uncontroversial request above?— S Marshall T/C 18:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC) It would probably be better.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

"How should Palestinian statehood be represented in this list" RFC closure
The RFC was closed. The state of Palestine maybe linked as it is, but it must be sourced. How to do so is the question of the day. Much conversation has come from how to do this, most of which is unrelated to how this should be done. Looking for suggestions on how to implement this. I propose the following, User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox. Two fold. 1) We source it. 2) We add (founded in 1988) so that anyone who doesn't read the reference note can see that.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * So you're now negating all the conversations we had about splitting it into two? We agreed to have two lines, whether it was blank, or listed Palestinian Territories was a question, but just because you don't get your way, you go back to your original position? This is UNDUE. If you go to the way the current list is, similar to Iceland during WWII, as I already told you, I would agree with having two lines, one for 67-88 and one for 88-current, as similar to Iceland and other territories that had a change in sovereignty. You yourself agreed to it. Here's how it was in your sandbox and how it was when you agreed to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Serialjoepsycho/sandbox&oldid=693533890 We can discuss WB (EJ) after, but let's clear up the talk page first, even though that's yet another thing S. Marshall proposed that I agreed with. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 03:52, 8 December 2015
 * Nope. I've not agreed to anything. We've discussed, we've come to no agreement. The discussion has moved over to DRN. I'm starting a new discussion here that is not TLDR, so that the other individuals can actually give input. But if it's your position that you agree to this, then it would seem that the issue has resolved itself and we can just insert that in. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the sake of getting something in, I'll agree, even though I agreed with what S. Marshall proposed that EJ is as it says in the WB article, part of the WB, but we can take care of that later, and if you want we can add EJ as part of the historical simultaneously so that we don't have an undue weight, even though you don't think so, that is a compromise on a contentious article. I also think the Palestinian Territories should have a second line with 48-67. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 04:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no justification for 48-67. That was an unrelated occupation that ended. It's in the historic section. Gaza has been there and the West Bank has been added today. And there's no justification to adding EJ to the Historic section. East Jerusalem was administered as a part of the West Bank until the illegal annexation. All of this is unrelated to implementing the consensus. You want to discuss combing East Jerusalem with the West Bank start a new section on the talk page.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I mean adding the years 48-67 to the Palestinian Territories. right now it just says PT, add a line to say 48-67. And then we have Palestine 88-Current. It would just look cleaner. 2) Why not have WB (ej) and in the citations, you can specify that Israel annexed it?


 * Footnotes

Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)

I'm OK with this for now, I think this is fine, for now. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 05:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)Gaza and the West Bank are the Palestinian territories. They already have a spot on the list. 2)Why would we do that? We don't do that with any of the other current listings. You've seen the status section haven't you? 3) none of this has anything to do with implementing the consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * This is from your page, I just added 48-67 to the Territories to make the dates clearer. I didn't change anything with the citations or references. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 05:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any diff or anything related to implementing the consensus.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the way you had it in your sandbox was fine, I just wanted a second line with the dates 48-67 to make it more explanatory. When you view it here, the citations get messed up. I think when you view it in the sandbox, the way it is there, on two lines, with the refs, it is clear enough and should meet the consensus. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 05:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The list of Past Military Occupations already says that Gaza and the West Bank were occupied from 1948-1967. It wouldn't make any sense to list it twice and it wouldn't make any sense to list it with an unrelated occupation. But it seems, unless I'm mistaken that this situation it completely resolved. Would you like to open a separate conversation and discuss combining East Jerusalem with the West Bank?-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad, I meant 67-88. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk)  14:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I put in 67-88, but it was reverted, I still think it looks better to have the dates specified but I can't revert and it's not being discussed on the talk page. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I was the one who reverted the addition of text implying that there was a separation occupation, that of the "Palestinian territories" as opposed to the "State of Palestine", between 1967 and 1988. I see no reason to add that. The point of having both "Palestinian territories" and "State of Palestine" there in the same box is to make clear that the political status of the area is in dispute; putting that it was one thing until 1988 and then something else after gives the message that this is a statement of fact. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Eh, I think it's a style preference, to me it looks nicer with the dates, but since we have the 1967 in the left column it's not a factual issue, just a stylistic issue. Sir Joseph <sup style="color:green;">(talk) 15:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it works well as it is. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  15:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice change with the declared BTW.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 22:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)