`  :PBS - Why do you continue to insist the onus is on me to demonstrate/provide proof that the definition for the terms are different?  You are suggesting a change here.  The onus is on you to demostrate/prove the terms are the same.   : I do understand your point.  I do accept that often times ``military occupation`` and ``occupied territories`` are terms that go hand-in-hand.  My contention is that the nuances surrounding how the terms are used justify seperate pages.  If you can find for me some source stating that ``all occupied territories involve military occupation`` and ``all military occupations create occupied territories`` I'll join your effort.  However, lacking this I think you will have to achieve consensus for your arguement that the pages ought to be merged. :  Re Article 6 of GCIV - Again, I think perhaps you are being a little to legalistic regarding your definitions.  Remember that terms like ``Murder``/``execution``/``occupied territory``/``crime against humanity`` have legal definitions, and definitions in the popular psychi defined outside law.  Starting from a legalistic definition is a good idea, but we shouldn't be entirely focused on that definition.  I think a useful way to go about looking at the popular psychi is by examining news articles, and seeing how they treat the terms. : Shuki -  Consensus on something that is not verifiable is simply the majority of 'seems to me'.  I think you realize that in discussing definitions of terminology WP:V is often difficult/impossible.  Furthermore, I'm simply stating the opinion that ``It seems to me the terms are different.`` and asking PBS to verify otherwise. I think the only option here will ultimately be to seek consensus.  : I guess I'm interested really in the larger question, which is, when dealing with terms of this nature is there anyway of really arriving at definitions besides consensus? I think not.  I also think there a huge morass of pages & articles where we could have simliar disputes.    `