`  :::::::::::: PBS - The falklands were absolutely an example of ``occupied territory`` post-invasion.  Note, the falklands aren't an entire country or even a significant portion of a country.  This fact in my mind makes them simply ``occupied territories``.   :::::::::::: Shuki - Thanks for the ``understanding``.  It's nice to see we can agree on something.  Now that we are on the same side of the argument, let me ask you the same question I asked you earlier.  How do we find reliable sources that makes this kind of distinction?  I contend that for nuances between terminology of this nature, it is virtually impossilbe to dig up RS that explicitly supports your position.  I challenge you to find something that spells out what 'seems to us' to be the case. :::::::::::: PBS&Shuki; - I think it's fair to ask ``can you provide ``a number of sources that makes the distinction`` between ``occupied territory`` and ``military occupation````.  But, at the same time I think it's equally fair to say ``can you provide a number of sources that says the two terms are the same?``.  I think as PBS is suggesting a change from the historical norm, the onus of proof is on him.  :::::::::::: One final point (apologies for overly long posts); PBS keep in mind that there are undoubtly ``legal`` definitions for both these terms, but there are also definitions that exist in the public phsyci.  Wikipedia should try address both of these.   `