Talk:Military occupation of France

Dab page
This should be a dab page like any other (see here). There is no point making this into a stubby article, as the various military occupations have no common thread. -- PBS (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * This is just a list of military occupations of France, so it is a list or set index article. There are not two (or more) different things called "military occupation of France." There is one France, and there is one concept of military occupation. If we had an article about a person named France whose occupation was serving in the military, then maybe the title would be ambiguous, but we don't and it isn't. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * If someone links to "Military occupation of France" then they may be referring to World War II or some other occupation such as the Seventh Coalition's occupation under the command of Duke of Wellington which was agreed and implemented under the Convention on the Military Line (1815). Just because an article does not yet exist does not mean that someone may not link to the Military occupation of France meaning the 1815-1818 occupation, hence this should be a dab page. -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You said 'If someone links to "Military occupation of France" then they may be referring to World War II or some other occupation.' Yes, they may. That's why it is a good idea for there to be a list of those occupations at this title. But a list of instances of the same type of thing is not a disambiguation page. Please read WP:DABCONCEPT. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with PBS that this (with singular "occupation" in the title) should be a dab page (e.g. as at 1135, except it shouldn't be in an article-space category). R'n'B could create "Military occupations of France" or "List of military ..." and link to it from the dab page. DexDor (talk) 21:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean you think there should be two lists with identical content, but at different titles? How is that going to help our readers? --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:17, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is either, in list form, a set index article, or in prose form, an article on the history of military occupations of France. Dab is too general when set index suffices. Likewise, splitting it into two would only be appropriate if the prose were too long to be contained in one article; in which case, the set index/overall topic would remain anyway and the lengthy content would be moved to a new article (as per normal WP:SPINOUT process). Either way, it seems best served as either a set index or a prose history article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 18:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There could be a dab page along with the SIA or concept article, but it would be redundant (as R'n'B points out). In cases like that, though, the dab is superfluous and we just use the article because it serves both needs: informational (valid link target) and navigational. If the concept article grew large enough that it hindered navigation, we could have a separate dab page listing the ambiguous set (or subset); even though it would be redundant, it would be useful (for navigation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @R'n'B, they are only the same thing in a superficial sense, but each occupation is an unique event, it is like saying that all parliaments are similar and any budget is similar ... @JHunterJ, the logic you are putting forwards will hinder navigation because someone who links to this page from another article will almost certainly mean a specific occupation. What you are suggesting here is true for nearly every dab page and as such are a hindrance rather than a help (See my comments in the next subsection Prose expansion of the article). -- PBS (talk) 19:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @PBS, if this is not a valid link target, then it should be redone as a disambiguation page, and (if a fuller list is needed) List of military occupations of France should be linked in its See also section. The tools are there, they just have to be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Serial events of a certain type occurring in a single geographical area are not ambiguous per WP:DABCONCEPT. If this were a disambiguation page, every title not including the phrase "Military occupation of France" would need to be removed to comply with MOS:DAB. Since there is not a single title that contains that phrase (and precious few that even meet WP:DABMENTION for it), the page would be left empty. Can anyone point to a reliable source that says that "War of the Sixth Coalition", for example, "is also known as Military occupation of France"? If not, then the concept is not ambiguous, it is merely one of several examples of the same kind of concept. bd2412 T 00:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The articles are yet to be written, but there is no doubt that military occupations took place, and in time these articles will be written. To date there are several articles that already fit the bill:
 * German occupation of France during World War II
 * Military Administration in Belgium and Northern France
 * Italian occupation of France during World War II
 * There is also a link:
 * German occupation of France during World War I
 * -- PBS (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Prose expansion of the article
Turning the logic of my above point on its head, how does everyone react to the suggestion that we include text from the linked articles, in order to structure it into a prose discussion of the history of military occupations of France? This would not need to be a lengthy treatise, but simply a paragraph or two on each occupation, wikilinked (and hatnoted) as appropriate? I would be bold and do it now, but I don't want to make such a major change in the middle of a discussion without some sort of consensus. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what we should strive to make of this article, unless we intend for it to be a mere "list of" article. Such an arrangement would also eliminate the illusion that these "occupations" were isolated and historically unconnected. bd2412  T 14:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've copied the article content to User:Sasuke Sarutobi/Military occupation of France, where I shall be drafting an initial version of the article later tonight. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Cheers. bd2412  T 14:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added to the draft, but noticed in compiling this that Military occupations of Luxembourg appears to be in much the same position as this article. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this is a very bad idea. France and parts of France have been occupied on a number of occasions, there is no common thread. If this is a dab page then it is easy to fix errors when someone links to this page not realising that it is an ambiguous title. In very very few cases are people going to be linking to this page. This is the primary objection to an overview article.

Sarutobi if you want to turn it into an overview article what are the reliable sources (other than general histories -- for which articles already exist) that you are going to use that have in them such an overview of the Military occupations of France? If no such overview articles exist then what you are proposing is a SYN. This is a secondary objection to creating such an overview article. -- PBS (talk) 19:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PBS, no offense, but I don't think you appreciate the difference between a disambiguation page and a set index article. I don't mean that to be a criticism; it's a fairly obscure distinction and if you don't spend a lot of time working in this particular area, you very well may not have come across it before. But both I and other participants in this discussion have linked to the relevant guidelines in previous comments, and your responses consistently do not engage with the points made. Instead, it's like we were discussing whether to build a structure out of wood or steel, and whenever anyone pointed out a specific reason why we should use steel, you responded, "But it should be made out of wood." If you don't give reasons for your opinion that respond to the points actually made by other participants, I'm afraid your comments are of little value to the discussion. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:05, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am familiar with what the difference is and have known the difference for many years (a quick look shows that I have been involved in editing index article since at least 2009). You argue "There is one France, and there is one concept of military occupation", but in fact there are different concepts of what France is (both territoriality and constitutionally), and there different concepts of what constitutes military occupation (particularly over 150 years which span the period before and after treaties were ratified refining the term).
 * There are plenty of books on the individual occupations eg: see The Duke of Wellington and the British Army of Occupation in France, 1815-1818 by Thomas Veve (1992). If you think that all the military occupations of France are in some way related and not distinct entities in their own right, what do you propose as an overview source of the subject "Military occupations of France"?
 * I think it is more useful for the project to define this as a dab page -- even though it can be defined as an index article -- as on balance it will reduce errors in Wikipedia articles. -- PBS (talk) 21:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand your point regarding overview articles, but to my mind there is little difference between the validity of the proposed article and the validity of, for instance, "History of France". They are both of the same type, the key difference being that the present article would specifically encompass events when a territory that belonged to France, either de jure or de facto (in either case was normally administered by the French government or a directly related entity), was entered by a foreign military force, who then administered that territory for any period of time. This is the common thread; that it is occasion when France or a part of France was occupied. While the occupations are separate events, yes, there is always a historical context to them. Alsace-Lorraine is the first example that springs to my mind; why was the administration of that region in the German occupation of World War II different to other parts of the Zone occupée? The Treaty of Versailles and events of the Franco-Prussian War help to give that context, and the events of the Napoleonic Wars in turn help to give the Franco-Prussian war context; more widely, the overlap between the French natural borders and the intended unification of German-speaking peoples (including populations in Alsace and Lorraine). But I don't follow why (as you mention in the section above) the article would be original research by synthesis. As above, the history of France is not a synthesis; to be technical (perhaps overly so), it is a history of things that happened relating to the geographic region now or at that point administered as "France", and the people of that region or under/comprising those administrations. And that article summarises events expounded in greater detail in other, more specific articles, just as the present article would do with the articles that you link. There will be secondary sources that talk about the history of France in the same way as that article, just as there will be secondary sources that relate occupations to previous or later occupations.
 * Ultimately, if you are worried that the article would not be sufficiently well-referenced to be a cogent overview, I am happy to open this up to WikiProject Military history to get a fuller consensus. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 12:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think you do understand what I am saying about the difference between the "History of France" and the proposed article. I can easily present thousands of books on the "History of France" is is a well known subject. If you want to write an article on the "Military occupations of France" you need to show that it is a scholarly or populist topic, without that it is a random collection of facts and not suitable as an encyclopaedic article. If you take books like the "The Duke of Wellington and the British Army of Occupation in France, 1815-1818" and pick facts out of it then pick facts out of a book about the Italian occupation in 1940, and draw a comparison or a conclusion not explicitly spelt out in either source then that is likely to be a breach of WP:SYN. Even if you find a "secondary sources that relate occupations to previous or later occupations", you can not say as sources 1 compares occupation A to occupation B, and source 2 compares occupation B to occupation C therefore we can compare A to C because that would be a SYN. If you are going to do more than list them then what is the specific common historiography about the "military occupations of France" on which you are basing your proposed article? The article you are proposing might be a suitable one for a Phd thesis but unless such a thesis has been published, unless the article is simply a list it is likely to contain original research.  If all you are going to do is simply list the occupations with little or no comment, then that is better handled by a dab page as the number of occupations is not large.  -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)