"

 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.   "