Jump to content

Talk:Lists of active separatist movements/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Merging Breakaway States

Merge breakaway states here: Yes. too hard to keep all these straight! Carol Moore 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

Redirected here. No reason to even suggest to merge an unreferenced list, but all of them are already here anyway. `'Míkka>t 07:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Mexico

Chiapas mustn't be listed since EZLN uses the Mexican flag, and don't actually want an independent Chiapas, but to establish a socialist government in Mexico; also their independent "municipios" (counties) are just semi-autonomous regions from that state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.194.77.57 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have the source for this? Zazaban (talk) 04:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's true that the EZLN is not secessionist, but the Chiapas is a de facto autonomous region, so I think it should be included here nevertheless.--Jsorens (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have the references on hand but I have read about a secessionist movement in Oaxaca that was active within the last two years. I also have some notes about a secessionist movement in the northern Mexican states from 15+ years ago. If anyone, especially those close to those areas, has verifiable info it would prove worth an entry. LAWinans (talk) 00:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Mexico has 30 states, including Mexico City, Distrito Federal or "DF" and the surrounding Edomex formerly the "State of Mexico". About 10 or 15 states have secessionist movements to either gain a high degree of autonomy or to declare independence, the majority of them are backed by state political leaders. In the last decade, anti-government groups such as the EZLN of Chiapas and indigenous Mexican activists formed militancy groups for further autonomy and representation of their affairs are present in Campeche, Guerrero, Oaxaca, Quintana Roo, Tabasco and the Yucatan. Large numbers of "Nortenos" in the Mexican states of Baja California, Chihuahua, Coahuila, Durango, Nuevo Leon, Sinaloa, Sonora and Tamaulipas spoke of their state governors or legislatures were involved in conflict of interests with the Mexican government when the PRI was the majority party until the year 2000. The first non-PRI sponsored governors were elected in 1989 in the states of Baja California and Baja California Sur under the opposition party, the PAN in defiance of the PRI. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 19:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Flag of Cascadia.PNG

Image:Flag of Cascadia.PNG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina and Herceg-Bosna

Does the Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina have an active autonomist and secessionist movement? Are there Croats in Bosnia (parties,organisations,intelectual circles) whos wish is to be a part of Croatia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shanticm (talk • contribs) 11:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes,there are a lot of Croatian (Herzeg) parties especially in Mostar such as Hrvatska Demokratska Zajednica for Bosnia and Herzegovina,and they are also as part of Croat Muslim federation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 09:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Removed edit on Les Nations du France

.

Some of the claimed nations - - 1. Brittagne (Breton/Brita), 2. Francia (excluding Flanders/ Nord-Pas de Calais) along with Nourmand (Normandie), 3. Occitania (also known as Ossitia or the Languedoc, but includes Arpitia, Savoie and Provencal), 4. Lorraine which is sometimes part of..., 5. Alsatche (Alsatie), 6. Euskala/Euskara (les Provinces du Basque), 7. Catalune (Catalunya or Catalonia) and 8. Corsica (Corse)

.

I don't think there's something wrong in contributing a fact on the differences in regionalism and provincialism as an element for secessionism in France. Here's the often removed map and directory of the nine "Nations of France" or historic provinces and regions that sought further autonomy from the government in Paris.

<<France was an united entity for over 1,500 years (the Frankish Kingdom, the Kingdom of France, French Empire and the Republic of France), but there are 8 or 9 historic regions/provinces known as Les Nations du France where some residents sought increased provincial or regional autonomy >> +71.102.53.48 (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

A map would probably belong on a separate page, perhaps a new page entitled Nations and Nationalities of France, or on the Culture of France and French people pages. There's also a separate page for List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements. I disagree with the assertion in the removed text that France has been politically unified for a thousand years. Brittany was independent until the 15th century. Additionally, the proper way to define the historic regions of France is itself controversial, so I would avoid any definitive listing. Occitania, for instance, could be broken down into Aquitaine, Gascony, Languedoc, etc. However, I am certainly open to a well-written introductory paragraph about regional differences in France.--Jsorens (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Albania

I put the info about south albania (Epirus) because it is relevant,since the Greeks in this part of Albania last week organised a protest seeking independence/autonomy of South Albania at the town of Himara.The link is here http://www.a1.com.mk/pda/vestlat.asp?vestid=91743 I will put an english language link if i find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.161.76.219 (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Australian Aboriginal Flag.svg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --10:19, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

South Kasai

Deleted South Kasai from DRCongo, as it seems it went defunct in 1962, and is not active.

Original Text below

71.212.4.53 (talk) 14:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:CaliTricolor.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CaliTricolor.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stlemur (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

California

Are there any cites to show that there are secessionist movements in California? Zombie Hunter Smurf (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Not really, since the official web site for California Independence groups was taken offline (www.independentCA.org) and might have disbanded sometime ago. Most experts who try to project the future of California politics believe it could be split into two, some say three and even the maximum of four if one includes the "State of Jefferson" with its boundaries located north of Chico or Yuba City, and Ukiah or Santa Rosa. However, the City and County of Los Angeles, and the cojoint City-County of San Francisco can turn into independent city states away from state and federal intervention if it desires, with a fairly large economy to support themselves. California is one of the four states along the US-Mexican border, and the controversial debate over illegal immigration fuels the Aztlan movement and its drive for Hispanic/Mexican communities to secede into a republic or calls for annexation of the state by Mexico. +71.102.32.144 (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Real vs. fictional movements

There should be some delineation between real and fictional seccessionist movements. Otherwise, readers will not understand that some movements are active and genuinely struggling towards independence. To list Cascadia and other pipe dream states that have zero popular support is a disservice to Wikipedia users. I live in Washington and there is absolutely no talk of the creation of this state other than in the minds of a few libertarians huddled in their basements. Furthermore, giving recognition to the criminal members of the self proclaimed Republic of Texas, who also have no public support, is ludicrous.

I think having a listing of the legitimate and active secessionist movements and a separate fictional one would better serve the needs of Wikipedia users.

True secessionist movements are a derived voice of the people living there, not the pipe dreams of a few disaffected individuals. --Luftmann (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree there should be some sort of distinction between strong movements and those that are just a couple guys saying they are unhappy. There are some movements that have had or are going to have political referendums such as Quebec, Puerto Rico, and Southern Sudan. There are the political parties that have gotten a noticeable amount of votes in election such as Padania. There has been military opposition from the parent countries such as Chechnya and Tibet. Some have even sent declaration of Independence to the parent country. Others like Cascadia no one has ever heard of outside a few groups of people. I think there are objective ways to measure how prominent some movements are and those should be listed first. --CK6569 11:30, 13 June 2009

Chile/antofagasta

Where the proof this for? Found nothing about this movement! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnny-bollock-rotten (talk • contribs) 08:27, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Slovakia

As recent commentators here have pointed out, this list is encrusted with references to ethnic groups, regions, or areas which have no 'active autonomist or secessionist movement'. These should be pruned. Slovakia is an example. As removed, it states:

"

But the fact is that the Gorals people have no autonomist movement; nor does the Košice region. The reference to 'Hungarians in Slovakia' having Hungary as their proposed state is neither referenced nor correct. There is no Hungarian secessionist group in the year 2008 with significant membership. The Party of the Hungarian Coalition is not secessionist.

I suggest that editors with knowledge of particular states or countries edit them to remove obsolete or fictional references. ariwara (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Montenegro

There is no active autonomist and secessionist movement in Montenegro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.253.3.203 (talk) 11:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

That's because the Republic of Montenegro was established last June and the goal for independence to become a separate country is completed. The article is subject for constant changes and updates, when a state or territory ever becomes independent or has already seceded. Important to include reliable sources (i.e. pressure group or political organization web sites), but the official web site for an Independent California (or The Republic of California): www.independentca.org was taken offline. + 71.102.32.144 (talk) 19:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Ukraine

I have deleted Subcarpathian Rus, but with hesitation left in Crimea (x2) and Donbas for the moment. Can anyone actually identify any active autonomist or secessionist movement in either, as opposed to national minorities or even national/ethnic groups or parties? Membership of the UNPO is in this context meaningless, as it does not imply any particular attitude to autonomy, independence, or irredentism. ariwara (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC) 1)Crimea - Crimean Tatars political party Milly Firka/unrecogniized Crimean Tatars purliment - medjilis Crimean Russian movement "Sevastopol-Crimea-Rusia" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.172.130 (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Western Sahara case

As Western Sahara isn't a sovereign country but a territory, I propose to change this : 

   * Sahrawis
         o Government-in-exile: Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic (see foreign relations of Western Sahara) -> biase
         o Political party: Polisario Front
         o De facto state: Free Zone

into this : 

   * (no flag) 
         o Government-in-exile: Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic  
         o Political party: Polisario Front
         o Claimed state: Western Sahara territory  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccansahraoui (talk • contribs) 14:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Any changement about the previous proposal on the Western Sahara case?--Moroccansahraoui (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

New Discussion

A discussion has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Lists of countries which could affect the inclusion criteria and title of this and other lists of countries. Editors are invited to participate. Pfainuk talk 11:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger

Strong support for the merger proposed. Any details on that other article should be transfered across to this one and that article be deleted or redirected if needed. No point in two separate articles dealing with the same issue. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

  • Strongly oppose that this article be merged with any article regarding states or proposed states. That implies legitimacy of all secessionist authorities. De fact in no way implies legitimacy or the will of the people under said authority. PetersV       TALK 18:42, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I oppose the merger of List of proposed states into this one, because that list is a list of possible unifications, not secessions. They're unrelated articles. Now, retitling the other article to eliminate confusion seems advisable.--Jsorens (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Lithuania

I have deleted the reference to a supposed Polish secessionist movement seeking a "Greater Poland" as I see no evidence that any such movement exists. This is not a list of ethnic minority groups or parties as such. For background see Polish_minority_in_Lithuania, Association_of_Poles_in_Lithuania, Electoral_Action_of_Poles_in_Lithuania. ariwara (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have now deleted the remainder of the Lithuanian section, which pointed to an organisation named the Samogitian People's Party. The only reference I can find for this organisation is an alternative history website for a fictional state named The Republic of the Two Crowns. ariwara (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

New Zealand

Is there any evidence that any of the Maori groups listed have an autonomist or secessionist policy? I have deleted some groups which, per their Wikipedia pages, no longer exist (and don't seem to have been AA&SMs anyway), and also Tupoe, which is an iwi, not an AA&SM, and the South Island references, which seem to have historical relevance only. ariwara (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think that there is such evidence, and I would be happy to see these groups removed from this page.--Jsorens (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad merge?

I clicked from the Isle of Mann article to "List of not fully sovereign nations" and got a redirect to here. That's obviously wrong. The Isle of Mann is a "not fully soverign nation" entirely separate of any secessionist movement. Perhaps "List of not fully sovereign nations" should be recreated; in any case, the redirect doesn't make sense. Chandon (talk) 07:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Marginal, minor and major political influence

This touches upon several movements and discussions above. I propose to differentiate between movements with marginal political influence (very small groups and not an issue in the political landscape), minor political influence (actual political movement) and major political influence (huge impact on the political landscape). Exactly when something goes from marginal to minor or from minor to major is difficult to deceide, but the articles may be used for clarification --Audunmb (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Too difficult/controversial, IMO.--Jsorens (talk) 14:44, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I sympathize with the suggestion, but agree with Jsorens that it would be impossible to work in practice without constant argument and controversy. ariwara (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism to Portugal section

Somebody using IP addresses which change every day or so is repeatedly adding a long list of supposed groups or parties to the Portugal section. There is no evidence that any of these exist, and none are linked to any other page or site. There are enough non-existent, moribund, or historical groups on this page as it is. Sometimes, he/she also adds a rant of obscene and semi-literate abuse against other editors. While these are regularly deleted, please keep an eye on this section until the troll loses interest. ariwara (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This is uite obviously a vandal. Those movements do not exist and have never existed. The list added keeps changing as a matter of fact. The IPs used so far, all from Portugal, are:
213.22.161.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.64.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.64.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.65.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.65.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.66.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.66.118 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.66.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.66.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.66.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.185 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
213.22.67.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.84.223.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.84.223.65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.84.38.188 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
81.84.95.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
I shall report it. Let's see what happens. Anyway one must keep a vigilant eye. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 14:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


I got a message saying i was vandalizing Portugal part, when all i did was eliminating all the supposed movements that actually do not exist, so i believe i wasn't vandalizing but trying to protect the truth in wikipedia. Cheers... (213.22.161.180 (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC))
213.22.161.180 is entitled to feel a little hurt... in fact his correction attracted some of the most abusive rants by the vandal. I don't want to fiddle with The Ogre's listing above, but 213.22.161.180 shouldn't be on it. ariwara (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Ariwara, i am 213.22.161.180, and i deleted those a few months ago too, if you see in this same page here[1] you will see that Jsorens agreed that the extinct parties should be removed, leaving only the Democratic Party of the Atlantic in the list, and moving the rest to the historical article, i believe the same should be made now. Regards to all... (Gomes89 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC))

Sorry, my mistake, with so many different IP's is dificult not to loose track! The Ogre (talk) 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That's alright; there is an old portuguese saying "Errar é Humano" that comes from the latin "Errare humanum est" that means 'to err is human' so it's fine ;) But still i got to insist, the extinct movements should be erased... Cheers (Gomes89 (talk) 20:35, 20 March 2009 (UTC))

Dominion of British West Florida

Wikipedia wont let me edit this article but there is a group that needs to be added to the United States for this Article. Its called the Dominion of British West Florida. It is already on the list for Micro States but its much larger than a micr state and their goal is Autonomy/secession. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Assed206 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

No it doesn't need to be added. It's a hoax. Don't assume that just because somebody sets up an anonymous website they represent an "active movement"! ariwara (talk) 21:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


More about autonomist and secessionist movements in Russia

Chuvashia - Chuvashian national congress - Leader - Atmer Husangai (Атмер Хузангай) Mari El - movement "Mari Usem" and neopagan nationalistic movement "Kugeze Mlande" Mordovia - politic party "Erzyan Mastor" ("Эрзянь Мастор") —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.172.130 (talk) 06:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

If references can be given, preferably in English, these could be added. ariwara (talk) 08:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

1)Erzyan Mastorwww-www.erzia.saransk.ru-site of the newspaper of the movement - in russian and mordovian 2)Chuvashian national congress -www.en.chuvash.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.98.172.130 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic Groups

Many of the secession movements are for a certain ethnic group or nationality. I think it would help clarify some if there was another category showing which, if any, ethnic group is associated with the movements. CK6569 (talk) 23:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Major Secessionist Movements?

Does anyone have some sort of statistic for the largest and most important movements? They probably have the greatest military and political strength.--Teh Bomb Sophist

What would be your criteria for the level of "importance" of a movement? The percentage of popular approval? Also, please sign your talk entries; thanks. ;) --Liberlogos 21:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. Yes, popular approval percentage sounds good. I really, really doubt the existence of much support in say, the U.S., to secede. Another factor is military/para-military strength. For example, I'm not sure if most Basques in Spain and France want their own nation, but the ETA sure makes life difficult. --Teh Bomb Sophist 22:31, 13 May 2005 (PST)

Here are some relatively recent surveys I have found about some of the strongest and/or best known independence movements in the world. These surveys were conducted with different questions and standards, but it still can help one understand better. I may update it in the near future so keep aware. ;) --Liberlogos 05:24, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Kurdistan
    • 2005 informal referendum on independence: 98.7% in favour (you read well!) - [2]
  • Quebec
    • Two 2005 surveys on sovereignty with supra-national partnership: 54% in favour - [3], [4]
  • Basque Country
    • 2005 survey on the Ibarretxe plan: 47% in favour (27% opposed) - [5]
    • 2004 survey on political future: 31% in favour of independence (32% for status quo, 31% for federal model of greater autonomy) - [6]
  • Scotland
    • 2005 survey on independence (probably within the EU): 46% in favour (39% opposed, 15% undecided) - [7]
  • Catalonia
    • 2001 survey on independence: 35.9% in favour (48.1% opposed, 13.3% undecided) - [8] (tell us if you find a more recent one)
  • Taiwan
    • Opinion on independence (unknown date): 30% in favour - [9] (Wikipedia article without reference)
  • Wallonia
    • 2003 survey on political future: 14% in favour of independence (75% for status quo, 36% for reunion with France) - [11]
  • Corsica
    • Survey on independence (unknown date): 13% in favour - [12]
Thanks. I'd think there would be more areas in the world though. Teh Bomb Sophist [Time]

Jersey, Gibraltar, Orkney and Shetland

I have deleted these four entries under the United Kingdom entry. None have active autonomist or secessionist movements (and nor did the article identify any). Jersey is effectively an independent state. Orkney and Shetland had such movements in the 1980s and 1990s but they are not active (unless of course one counts the Scottish independence parties) . There are, I think, several other similar entries which should be deleted under the listings for other states. Ariwara 21:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jersey is NOT an independent state. It is a Crown Colony, same as the Isle of Man, which is included. A poll conducted a few years ago found that 65% of those polled wished for independence. I have reinstated Jersey. The other three deleted entries are worth musing over, but I am not personally advocating reinstatement yet. RAYMI

  • 'A poll conducted a few years ago found that 65% of those polled wished for independence.' - Evidence of this? Oh and Jersey is not an independent state, but note that Ariwara said 'effectively'
  • Actually it was 68% that supported independence. There is evidence on the net. Apologies not getting a definitive website address here, but I'll try to get one. I found the result via a search via Google. One of the reps to the Jersey Government wishes to force a state referendum. Please note Jersey is on the UN List of Non-Self Governing Territories. RAYMI 07/04/06
  • I thought that there is some sort of Shetland independence party about? If there is then it should be on - however I think they should all be off the list untill we can find evidence for them to go on. Robdurbar 15:26, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
  • There was an Orkney and, separately, Shetland Movement. Their combined candidate in a Westminster election scored around thirteen per cent of the vote. They have had elected councillors, and still exist in some form. Further research is needed here. Should anyone with the time-particularly if you own a computer, unlike myself- could do some, I would be grateful. Additionally, there was some minor support for Yorkshire independence via a question posed on the BBC. Try www.bbc.co.uk/news and then enter 'yorkshire independence' via their internal search engine for more info on this. Apologies for my lack of exact info here. Little time, no money. RAYMI 07/04/06
  • Comment - In regard to the Orkney and Shetland movements, they have cut some kind of deal with the Scottish National Party. You might want to check out the links at the Udal law article to find evidence of various pressure groups. Guernsey has been looking at independence. There was an article on this, earlier in the year. One of the options that the politicians were looking at was becoming independent and part of a federation with Jersey. --MacRusgail 12:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Guernsey and Jersey remain "crown colonies" or dependencies of the United Kingdom, but was "integrated" into the structure of Great Britain within the boundaries of Europe like Gibraltar was officially integrated in 1967. Other regional autonomist movements are occurring in England: Cornwall, Devonshire, Isle of Wight, and northern (Cumbria-Yorkshire-Border lands) and southern England (Kent-Minster-Wessex). + 71.102.3.86 (talk) 16:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sovereigntist movements

There are also movements that seek not autonomy for a specific region nor secession, but rather recognition of internal sovereignty (the Tatarstan sovereignty movement and, more recently, the Bangsamoro Juridical Entity). Should the page be renamed / modified to add "sovereigntist" movements? See for example http://kakaalih.i.ph/blogs/kakaalih/2008/08/16/bje-and-the-question-of-independent-statehood-atty-soliman-santos-jr/ . Ladril (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how a territory could have sovereignty without seceding from the nation to which it currently belongs. The linked blog doesn't make that clear either.   Will Beback  talk 
Sovereignty is a political and juridical concept which, put bluntly, means the power to exercise the functions of a nation-state in a defined territory. A key distinction is between internal sovereignty (as exercised within a state's borders) and external sovereignty (means being recognized as the highest authority in the state by other states). Within states that have federal political systems, often some or all subnational divisions have internal sovereignty, while external sovereignty is reserved to the federal government. The interpretation of what this means in practice varies from case to case, but a common element is that the sovereign subnational entity is treated as an equal, not as subordinate within the federal state (this is why, for example, the "sovereigntist" movement in Quebec is different from the "independentist" movement, this last one implying complete secession of Quebec from Canada).
An example of internal sovereignty is that afforded to the each individual state of the USA under the Tenth Ammendment of their Constitution. Quote: "Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled".


A very good theoretical source is http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/ .
There have been self-determination movements within nation-states in which a minority or subnational territory seeks sovereignty, as it is considered a more advanced form of political self-determination than autonomy is. My belief is that the fact should be stressed here. Ladril (talk) 22:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Depsite the language of the Constitution, U.S. states are not sovereign. The federal government has frequently overriden the actions of states, and has even used troops to enforce federal law. While this may be an interesting concept to deal with in some article, I don't think we need to make major changes to this list. If a few groups want something more than autonomy but less then full sovereignty then it'd be sufficient to make a short note next to their entry.   Will Beback  talk  22:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As for the sovereignty of the US states, I do not want to debate the specifics of each national case, since I lack the specific knowledge required. However the U.S. states are sovereign in a de jure sense at least (whether they are sovereign de facto or not is, in my belief, irrelevant to this discussion). As for the page edits, I agree with you that they can be short notes but also some discussion on what a sovereignty movement is would not hurt. Ladril (talk) 22:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Maybe that'd be better in a separate article if it's a notable topic or if it isn't then a section of the Sovereignty article. Then we could just link to that from this list.   Will Beback  talk  23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that "sovereignty" in this context simply refers to a particularly robust form of regional autonomy, like that enjoyed by Aaland, the Faroe Islands, or the constituent republics of Serbia and Montenegro from 2003 to 2005.--Jsorens (talk) 22:31, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Of course, pinning down exactly what "sovereignty" means depends on the specific context, just as it does for autonomy. See for example this statement from the Mindanao sovereigntists: "The Bangsamoro juridical entity resulting from peace negotiations between government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) could be a federal state that is “more advanced” than an autonomous region".
In general terms, a sovereignty movements aims for recognition of the entity as exercising the power of a nation-state. A result of this is that the sovereign entity can decide to remain part of the larger state as a federation or confederation, or it can secede and become independent without consultation with another power. That's not what simple autonomy entails. Ladril (talk) 18:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Tamil situation

Now that the main group seeking for it is 'defunct', should not the whole section for it be then now moved over to List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements? That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, way too early for that.--Jsorens (talk) 14:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
If so, when is it not "too early" then? I'm not familiar as to what the statute of limitations is set at, if there is even one. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 03:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
There are definitely still Tamil nationalists, so the movement as a whole is very much alive, even if the main violent-nationalist organization has been destroyed within the country (and the LTTE remains active in the diaspora). We had a discussion above about Serbs in Croatia, and the decision was made to keep them as well, even though the truly nationalist Serb parties were driven from the country in 1995. See also Punjab/Khalistan, etc.--Jsorens (talk) 22:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Rather than stating 'defunct', I changed it's status then to militarily inactive. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I believe I read they are still active as a guerrilla, though they control much less territory than before. Ladril (talk) 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No territory on the island is left under their control, that is why the government defeated them back in May.That-Vela-Fella (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You're correct. See http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2009jun13_s.html. This is far from being the end of it, however. Ladril (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Manchukuo Temporary Government

lol, this seems to be a joke. Looks like some anti-China or anti-CCP people set this one up (noticeable such people from Japan and possibly Taiwan). I have never for one heard of this, and for those who think this one is at all serious should visit the historical area of Manchuria in China (currently the Northern provinces). And by the limit of the scope of this website I have therefore removed this entry. For those who think this one is even remotely serious, please refer to the Manchukuo article on wikipedia for more information on the former state known as Manchukuo.

Why do I think it's a joke? Because if I needed to, I could also set up a "Vancouver Temporary Government" website promoting the split of Vancouver from B.C, Canada. I think this page should limit itself to significant secessionist movements. Children of the dragon (talk) 09:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Entry restored. Leave the assessment concerning seriousness and importance to those who read the entry. Seb az86556 (talk) 09:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the original argument. Anyone with scarcest knowledge of Manchukuo would not regard this a legitimate movement at all. It seems like some Japanese rightists, ten at most, gathered and founded this site: no sign of participation by Manchurian people at all. As for the statement right above, this is not an issue of whether a secessionist movement is popular or not, but rather an issue of does it exist. If we leave this kind of entries this page would be soon crowded with non-existing movements that people create to draw attention. 110.76.94.46 (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
If there's no evidence of a movement apart from an anonymous website, it doesn't belong here.--Jsorens (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. If you look carefully around the site, you can find many of the trappings of a legit independence movement: they have a constitution, they have bonds you can buy, they have a passport (absurd as it is that any country would recognize it, they nonetheless have one), they have a number of articles to persuade people to support Manchu independence, they have a flag, official languages, and so on. They have official branches in a number of countries, including Italy and the US and Taiwan, but most significantly Japan, where it has affiliations with nationalist and anti-Chinese movements. The website claims they organize activities to raise support for Manchu independence. Perhaps their cause is doomed, I believe it is. But that doesn't mean they aren't a legit movement. Lack of publicity is not a legit reason for exclusion, especially considering China's media policies. --Yalens (talk) 17:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, those facts all constitute evidence beyond just an anonymous website and would be reasons for keeping the entry. But do we have any evidence that the movement has support from actual Manchurians? Are they a member of the UNPO? Do they use the Manchu language in any of their literature?--Jsorens (talk) 15:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, they have an explicit goal to join UNPO.--Yalens (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't think a lot of the arguments you're making are really valid here. First of all, I don't think they (Manchus) HAVE to support the movement (especially now, notably most independence movements took some time to gain the support of their imagined nation, though personally I think Manchuria is doomed, but being doomed doesn't change the fact that the movement is legitimate) for the movement to be legitimate. It's still an independence movement whether it has popular support or not. Bavaria is included, and it is beyond fringe, its ridiculous. And furthermore, the Manchu being largely Sinified isn't an argument either: many independence movements took root in people that were already largely assimilated and/or had very few differences from the majority. In reality, Welsh people or Scots aren't really that different from English people, they (for the most part) speak the same language, practice the same religion, and so on. But are they a different NATION? Yes, because they have a separate history and blablabla. No one even debates that, people can legitimately debate whether Manchuria is a separate nation from China, but because there are people saying it is, that warrants a movement. I can go further: just look at Latin America, or all those Arab states. Egyptians pretty much ARE Arabs, but they consider Ancient Egypt part of their history, and while there are plenty who support unity with other Arab states, just as many if not more consider "Egyptian Arabs" highly separate from other Arabs. And I can go even further with this: oftentimes, the group that wants independence is actually almost completely assimilated, and may I bring up that most of the time, specifically the leaders of the independence movements are the MOST assimilated at all. For example, take Croatia's independence movement: many of its leaders couldn't speak a complete sentence of Croatian until they took to learning it themselves when they were middle-aged and leading the movement, and notably, Gaj was even born "German". Most of the aristocracy of the Czechs couldn't speak a word of Czech either, and the same applies to many such movements: but you see, then "cultural revival", as I'm sure you know (or, should we call it, "cultural reconstruction") occurs. And as for the Manchu "not existing anymore", well, for awhile Cornish people didn't exist anymore, and now they seem to exist again. I don't think any of the arguments you guys put forward really warrant removing.--Yalens (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Lastly, as for printing in the Manchu language, well they are no doubt working on that, especially judging that they have made it official meaning gov't documents must be printed in it; they have some documents, I believe translated on the site, though I haven't checked. However, may I express that Peru still writes most of its documents in Spanish, but considers itself to be an heir of the Inca Empire. The Czech nationalists also printed their official documents in German for awhile; not printing in a dying language that you have revival on teh agenda for the future, that's not really rare... --Yalens (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
"Manchus" by that definition practically do not exist anymore; however, this entry refers to an aspiration to revive Manchukuo, which was never an ethnic state in the first place. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 15:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Sure, but the charge has been made that this is purely a movement by Japanese rightists. If that is true, I'm sure that everyone would agree that the movement isn't "real" and shouldn't be included here. But is it true? Is there any way to know?--Jsorens (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Even if - how would any purported origin make it any more or any less "real"? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 22:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
It's not a real autonomist or secessionist movement if it doesn't exist among the group that would become autonomous. If I made a website demanding the independence of West Tonga from Tonga, that doesn't mean that there suddenly exists an "autonomist or secessionist movement" in West Tonga. In response to Yalens, whether the group is assimilated culturally or not is not the issue; the issue is whether it has any support in the target population. The Bavarian example is not apposite, because the Bavaria Party is a longstanding organization with a clear political program, candidates for elected office, and some support, however small, in the population of Bavaria.--Jsorens (talk) 14:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If you look carefully around the site you can see this: To archive the dream, I have the following suggestions: Unify with Japan Right Wing societies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.0.218.87 (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that's kinda what I expected. Regardless of the chances a real Manchurian independence movement would have, there's 0 evidence that it actually exists, and that at least would indicate that it IS a hoax (or wishful thinking from Japanese rightists). Doesn't really matter, so long as it's not covered by secondary sources it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. SnowFire (talk) 02:48, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

2nd largest?

I have a question. So, the Kurds are the largest ethnic group with no state anywhere to call their own, right? Okay, what's the second largest? I'm very curious to know. I know there are several language/ethnic groups in India that are millions strong, but they at least have some degree of autonomy right? I have looked for a list of this nature but have not found one on the web. Not ranked by size anyway. Malnova 01:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Berbers http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_demanding_a_separate_state
One may count the Palestinians to be currently the world's largest stateless people, except the Palestinian Authority has partial global recognition, international diplomatic relations with a hundred-some countries (mostly of the Arab World and Muslim majority nations) and the guarantee of sovereignity by the Israeli government in accordance to the 1994 Oslo Peace Accords. Despite that promise, the Israeli armed forces still occupy the Gaza strip and West Bank, and the freely elected Palestinian Hamas government (in power from 2005-2008) sought to destroy Israel whom restored the PLO/Fatah government in 2009 (the Israeli military operation in Gaza). + 71.102.7.77 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia

Several months ago I deleted Riau, Sulawesi, Bali, and Eastern Java from list of active movements in Indonesia. But Yalens undo my revisions and told me to discuss it here before. As I'm aware, there's no such movements in Indonesia currently. So could someone here provide me the source of those "movements" or could we just re-delete them from the list? Please discuss it here. -iNu- (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we can simply just delete items on the list that have been there for awhile simply because one editor, or perhaps a number don't know about them. Personally, I haven't even heard of Riau, though trickle of information about independence asp8irations on Bali appear now and then. Of course, that's OR, but just as its not easy to say for sure without personal evidence that it exists, its also difficult to say that it DOESN'T exist. Governments surpress these things and prevent media coverage on them, and so I think the best solution to the issue would be to leave a note saying "little information" or whatnot and leave it at that. It's rather hard to say yes for sure that it exists or doesn't, you know what I mean (no, I wasn't the one who put them there to begin with). Though, it is pretty well-known that every now and then, there's little pipes about Bali, whether that means there is an independence movement or not... who knows. But I'd rather not just take them off the list, you know?
As for Bali, what I know is that unlike most of the rest of Indonesia, they are Hindu. Naturally, they want autonomy, and that's pretty much well-known. "Autonomous regions" are on the list, no? (though, they have some degree of autonomy already). And as for separatism, we should keep in mind that autonomist movements can quickly morph into separatism, as seen with Albania, etc.--Yalens (talk) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
I think our discussion should be based on Wikipedia policy, WP:VERIFY. Quoted from the policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true". So, the question, is there any reliable source that support the inclusion of Riau, Sulawesi, Bali, and Eastern Java into this list? I don't know who added such information, but I think it could be a Vandalism or just a thought of a user. So, if it is difficult to decide its existence, the solution is to look for reliable source, no matter how government surpress it and prevent media coverage on them.
As for Bali, again, can you provide source? If it's just your thought or your friend's thought that "Naturally, Bali want autonomy since they're Hindu", I think it violates WP:VERIFY. And also, Bali currently DOES NOT have any degree of autonomy in Indonesia, formally and informally. They're just like other regular provinces. -iNu- (talk) 21:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Search for "Bali separatism" (without quotes) on Google and you will find several pages. This article is an example, although not necessary of active groups. Also, I think when you live in a country that is mentioned, you should be very careful when you add or remove items from this list, as people tend to be biased towards the country they live in (either positive or negative). This is not mentioned personally, but I think people tend to be that way in general, as they are raised in the country in question and therefore perceive information differently. In other words: people tend to be biased without them even realizing it. Personally, I would refrain myself from adding or removing any items from this list when the country is one you feel closely attached to. Cheers, Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 22:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
There is definitely a movement in the Riau Islands, a fairly significant one. I too favor a policy that leans toward inclusion, partly on the grounds that many movements in the developing world fly under the radar because they are a) often proscribed or repressed and b) often not reported on in English-language media. If there is some evidence that a movement existed in the past few years, it should be kept on the active list until we have definitive information that it has gone defunct.--Jsorens (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, I think there we have it... (should've just done some research myself). Indonesia is a European invention in the first place, rather than an indigenous unification, so its really only natural to think that the non-ethnic Javanese regions of the federation would like to see this undone (not to mention much sympathy for what happened to the Timorese and West Papuans with the Suharto dropping bombs on them as if watering plants, and resulting bad views of the country as a whole from minority groups). And generally, its very common for minority groups that have previously had countries of their own before being brutally conquered to want their independence back. Rather, something would be an exception if that WASN'T the case (not that you could just add an entry for that reason though, I'd suggest at least some knowledge on the issue and familiarity, etc., as well as some knowledge of what might be a movement)- people want to preserve their cultures and all, and we're talking any independence, or even better, autonomist movement. If no members of the percieved nationality, even the most radical, want independence despite originally having their independent state conquered in the past, it would be -special-.--Yalens (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Granted, I'm not Indonesian, but I will now like to get to that anyhow: I think, as some others have stated- if the country that said movement supposedly wants to break from is your country, or at least one you feel a strong connection to (relatives, etc., whatnot), I'd refrain from editing it. If you have an article on it to add, then fine, but otherwise, its only natural that your attachment to your own country could have an effect on your editing. This of course, is probably present in ALL countries: here in the US for sure. The news is discouraged from reporting about separatism here, and as a result, very few Americans that a huge chunk of the US is actually controlled by a Lakota Sioux-run independent state. There is almost no coverage of it, DESPITE IT ALREADY BEING DE FACTO INDEPENDENT. Now just imagine how much nonsuccessful movements are covered up from the public eye (especially when a number are underground from the first place). But, people from other countries are more likely to know, especially those bordering the country in question. I think it would be good to generally make a general unsaid rule that if you are from China, don't edit the China section, US the US section, Russia the Russia section, etc. --Yalens (talk) 23:30, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
What is your evidence that a "huge chunk of the US is actually controlled by a Lakota Sioux-run independent state." and that they are "DE FACTO INDEPENDENT"?CK6569 (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Circassia

So, as it stands right now, the page has no mention of Circassia.

However, Circassian nationalism is well-known, and there are a number of websites dedicated to it, with much articles on how the process is going. In the least, they want a unified Circassia (including the Kabardin part of Kabardino-Balkaria, the Cherkess part of Karachay-Cherkessia, Adygeya, as well as all historically Circassian lands: Sochi, Anapa, Tuapse, Kursavka, Yessentuki, etc.), with full autonomy, and I could dump hundreds of sources right now, but I'd rather just leave a few sites, and the mention that Unified "Greater Circassia"'s autonomy and independence groups are already officially a member of UNPO, meaning its rather impossible to deny their existence.

As for my long list of sources, lets start here:\ First, Jamestown... http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=34879 http://www.iwpr.net/?p=p&s=f&o=159562&apc_state=hENf-159565 http://www.circassianworld.com

The last is a whole website dedicated to Circassians and their culture, and implicitly (as the abundance of such articles said) at least autonomy.

I will be adding it momentarily. Any objections?

But the question is this: what to do about the Kabardino-Balkaria, Adygea and Karachay-Cherkessia ones? As far as I know, there are no movements to have any of those three as separate countries, rather, the movements are generally all for the incorporation into "Historical Circassia" (call it irridentist if you wish, it wouldn't be far of the mark). I won't be deleting them yet, but if no one pipes up, I will...--Yalens (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria or Caucasus Emirate: Which is Legitimate?

We list both the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria and the Caucasus Emirate as active secessionist movements. Since they both encompass the same land area, and it seems as if the Emirate is the new movement, could someone either clear this up, or just remove the Chechen Republic from the list?

Bkissin (talk) 22:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Both are legitimate. The Chechen Republic, as comprising of a SECULAR republic occupying ONLY ICHKERIA (i.e. Chechnya as said by people who don't use the pejorative term; you could also say "Chechenia" in English if you want), is advocated by many people and notably represented by the government in exile. The Caucasus Emirate, meanwhile, is advocated by the underground Umarov-Udugov gov't still in the region. They are different from each other, and two separate state aspirations. Though, many people, such as Tony Wood, have questioned whether the Caucasus Emirate was in fact legitimate: it could, as Wood says (hahaha) simply be an attempt by Umarov to reduce the focus on Chechnya and move the Russian soldiers away from Chechnya (into Dagestan, etc.) so that they can retake their homeland. A highly amoral strategy, but they are desperate, so its believable. Nonetheless, both are legitimate movements. --Yalens (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
One could even make note of a THIRD movement, which advocates an independent Chechnya with Ingushetia and Dagestan, which even Kadyrov has toyed with now and then. Nonetheless, this is not exactly legitimate as it is, as I see it at least, simply an attempt at a power grab by Kadyrov and/or his associates. --Yalens (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Bavaria Party

I deleted the part about the Bavaria Party as I don't feel that a party that gets less than 1% of the vote in the state that it wants to secede with doesn't even deserve to be mentioned. Obviously it's hardly a "movement" as the headlines implies. The last time it got enough votes to even be considered an actual party to go to was 1962.

Even very small movements are considered in this list. See the discussion about Cornish separatists below.--Jsorens (talk) 14:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

The information regarding the Bavaria Party is plainly wrong. They don't want Upper Bavaria(Munich, not Innes) and Lower Bavaria (Landshut, not Augsburg! Augsburg is part of Swabia) and Franconia (Nuremberg) to secede from Bavaria, in fact they want Bavaria to secede from Germany. (fakuza) 10:39 CET, 5 July 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.202.143.98 (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

De facto States

I think we should remove the de Facto States since basically they have already succeeded in seperating from the recognized countries CK6569 (talk) 22:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

They have not been officially recognised as countries so they are still technically seeking full independence. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Archive Bot for this page?

Can we get an archive bot to clean up this page? Outback the koala (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The page was archived but since I moved it, the archives have messed up. Can someone please fix this? McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ulster Third Way

I see my edit has been reverted for a second time for a reason unrelated to the reason I made it. This organisation is not active. They have not even stood in an election since 2003, and have not updated their website or produced any verifiable issues of their newspaper since 2007. Since this is a list of ACTIVE movements, unless verifiable evidence of this organisation being currently active is presented within 24 hours, I will be removing them once again. O Fenian (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the movement, but they seem to have an active Facebook page.[13] In general, we should be reluctant to remove movements to this list that have been inactive for a short period of time, unless they have formally disbanded.--Jsorens (talk) 03:41, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
They have been inactive for years. They have not stood in an election since 2003, despite three major elections since then. They only have one verifiable member, who does not appear to be active in any way. They have not updated their website since 2007, and have not produced any verifiable literature since then either. How are they in any way active? Does logging into a facebook account really make them an active political movement? Can one person really be an active political movement? Should they become active again they can easily be added back, but right now they are not active. O Fenian (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't really think we can equate standing in an election as the only form of "activity". If they have an active facebook page, that's at least something. They are certainly notable- not only does Wikipedia have a page for them, we happen to have a whole template.
On the other hand however, O Fenian (even if his name clearly shows a separate objective besides adherence to the name of the article) does make a case of a lack of verifiable evidence. Clearly, if I may reference Manchukuo, if a website with a proposed constitution, a flag, government bonds and all that stuff is not sufficient, I don't think a facebook page is sufficient either then. As an ideology, it is certainly alive (even if only about 1% of the population supports it), but is it a priority? Thus, I'd say it might be best to keep it on the page (considering that it might be wrong to remove the link to at least the ideology), but make a note saying that the movement exists as an ideology (the facebook page at least attests to that), but currently lacks a coherent political party counterpart.--Yalens (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
It is slightly confusing which part of your post refers to Ulster Third Way and which part to Ulster nationalism, at least in one case. I would fully agree that Ulster nationalism is a notable subject, but I do not see Ulster Third Way as being automatically notable since inclusion is not an indicator of notability. Since the article has not survived a deletion discussion, notability should not be presumed. All that said, I would happily agree to the removal of Ulster Third Way while leaving in Ulster nationalism as an ideology to be a reasonable solution. O Fenian (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, if we leave reference to Ulster nationalism, I completely agree- there is nothing wrong with deleting it, especially since leaving it there would be a sort of double standard (seriously, I consider a whole website that is updated regulary FAR more authoritative than a mere facebook page...).--Yalens (talk) 13:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This list is a mess

Just thought i would share that with everyone. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

This article is currently very long and cumbersome, and difficult to read quickly. I was wondering if anyone would object to splitting the content of this article by continent to create smaller and more managable articles:

The countries listed in the Middle East section of this article, which do not include North African countries, as they are listed separately under Africa, would be consolidated with Asia, to which these countries formally belong. The Central America and Caribbean section would be consolidated with North America, as North America encompasses Central America, and by convention the Carribean region. This page would become a disambiguation page, linking to the proposed above articles. I hope that this proposal would make it easier to find specific content more easily. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Update Per McLerristarr (Mclay1)'s suggestion below, I now suggest using the terminology "active separatist movements" rather than "active autonomist and secessionist movements". As such, I have amended the proposed articles above. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 23:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments

  • Please comment below. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 16:57, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I'd object. While I agree that perhaps the page is long and could be broken up (though there isn't really a good way to do it...), by continent is not the way to do it (and it would not be worth the downsides of doing so). I dislike using continents as dividing tools for wiki because first of all they are not real cultural units (Northern Africa is not at all like Sub-Saharan Africa, and would be better classified with the Middle East, for example, if we are talking politics and cultural). There are numerous other problems (for example, the lack of symmetry between the pages; or that greater historical regions with similar politics in this regard-like the former Ottomon Empire, for example- would be broken up), but I won't elaborate on them much (yet). --Yalens (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks for your input. Well, I'd be happy to support another geographical means of spliitting this article that we can agree to. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 12:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
      • I'd say, if we break it up any way, it should be by actual political regions- like the lands of the former Ottomon Empire, for example (or, if you prefer to exclude the Kurdish issue, 'The Balkans'). Another good region is the Caucasus, which has the lingering effects of Persian, Ottomon and Russian imperialism (the last of which is still largely in place). Yet another one would be Southeast Asia (where ethnic politics are very similar). And, I'd say, everything else can just go in the miscellaneous. One could also include the Middle East + North Africa as one category, and so on. I suppose, one could find a problem with this in that it would cause debate over what makes good categories though...--Yalens (talk) 13:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
        • The problem is, these regions are overlapping and imprecise. A country like Sudan could be grouped, for example, with the Middle East, as a member of the Arab League; yet its population is very ethnically and linguistically diverse, and I have no doubts that it is closer culturally to its neigbour Ethiopia, not a member of the Arab League, than Asian countries in the Middle East such as the UAE or Iran. Israel is another case in point: located in the Middle East geographically, it is aligned politically to the West rather than its Arab neigbours. Using continents may not be perfect, but they are much clearer and more widely used system of categorising countries geographically. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 12:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Alternatives might be using templates by continent like at LGBT rights by country or territory or splitting it instead by autonomist on the one hand and independentist on the other. Munci (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
    • Hmm, while a template might be useful, I don't think a whole article should be devoted to autonomist/independentist movements in every country in the world, as they with LGBT subjects. See also my comments below with reagards to seperating movements by type in the manner you suggest. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 12:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I would rather split the article into List of active autonomist movements, List of active secessionist movements and List of active irredentist movements. Either way, irredentism needs to be included, which could mean renaming this article or future sub-articles to List of active autonomist and separatist movements. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I think that sort of split you suggest Mclay1 makes more sense. BritishWatcher (talk) 08:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The problem with this suggestion, I find, is that some of the distinctions aren't really clear-cut; for example, in Cornwall, the political party Mebyon Kernow campaigns for Cornish devolution and autonomy from the UK government, while the so-called Cornish National Liberation Army seems to campaign for Cornish independence. In Wales, Plaid Cymru envisions a future independent Welsh state, but for the most part it is currently campaigning for more powers to be given to the National Assembly for Wales. I agree with you, though, on irredentism probably neding to be included. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 12:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Hmm good point, splitting it like that would involve a lot of duplication. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how this point about Cornwall actually means the distinctions aren't clear cut (The Welsh example might be reasonabel frot aht point though.). It's just that sometimes in the article, the distinctions haven't been made when they ought to. And having separate articles might actually encourage people to appropriately make the distinction. Munci (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The point of the Cornish example is that for one territory, there are many competiting ideas as to how autonomous – if at all – a territory like Cornwall should be. There may be members of the Cornish National Liberation Army who would settle for being recognised as a constituent country within the UK, as opposed to being considered part of England, while I know there are hardliner members of Mebyon Kernow to whom Cornish autonomy is just a stepping stone to full Cornish independence. I'm more familiar with the British examples, but the same can be applied all over the world, from divisions among Tibetan activists over the question of independence or autonomy, to other regions, from Catalonia to Quebec. City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 23:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Another suggestion:List of active autonomist and secessionist political parties, List of active autonomist and secessionist pressure groups etc. The distinction between these isn't that tenuous, is it? Munci (talk) 17:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
    • The problem is that it certain cases it is tenuous, because there are many times where a pressure group actually transformed itself into a political party. Furthermore, there are many inclusions on the list that lack a formally established pressure group or party, but are widely held by much of the population nonetheless (this is often the case in less developed areas, though it does occur in more modern countries as well). In a historical context, it would be hard to put a label on where the source of Croatian nationalism in the Hapsburg Empire in the early 1800s was, as it lacked a pressure group or political party. It clearly existed nonetheless however (and, to note, the reverse also exists, there are well-established political parties that have minimal support and their doctrine may often even be dismissed as utterly ridiculous, as is the case with Bavaria). --Yalens (talk) 18:05, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I don't see how separating autonomist, separatist and irredentist movements would be a good idea. The world is not as black and white as some would like it to be and those 'labels' do not always accurately describe a situation. Plaid Cymru for example is both autonomist and separatist. Even now, this article is inaccurate. The Cornish Stannary Parliament wants Cornwall to be a UK Crown Dependency as it claims the constitution states, but it is listed under "secessionist". The Cornish National Party wanted independence but is listed under "autonomist". Eleven movements are lumped together as both "secessionist & irredentist", without any distinction to be made. To claim Cornish nationalism, for example, as being irredentist, would show a rather large misunderstanding of what irredentism is. --Joowwww (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • If we can agree that splitting this article based on what type of movement it is (autonomist, secessionist) won't work, can we go back to the idea of splitting this article based on geography? City of Destruction (The Celestial City) 23:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
  • I suppose some separatist movements will settle for autonomy while they wait. Separating the article into continents will be easiest and will not cause any real problems. I guess we could do that and it can always be changed if we settle on something better. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to split the article up as we seem to have reached some sort of consensus. If you disagree, please say so. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done but they need cleaning up. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Seperatism

A question about the titles of the new sub-articles. Instead of "autonomous and secessionist", could we shorted it to just "separatist"? Separatism coves secessionism and irredentism and, according to the Wikipedia article on it, it also covers autonomism. It would be a much easier title. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't move articles like that without proper discussion, and I'm sure it will be reversed. I think there is a big difference between separation and autonomy.--Rhyswynne (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a proper discussion. We just had it. There is no reason to reverse it just because you feel we have not discussed it enough. We can continue to discuss it if you like but there is no need to reverse it unless we reach a different consesus. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

While separatism may indeed include both autonomist and secessionist movements, it certainly does not include irredentist movements. These should either be moved to a separate article (preferably) - there are not so many of them in the lsits anyway - or it should be acknowledged in the title and article that seapratism is separate from irredentism. Munci (talk) 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
In fact, there is already the article List of irredentist claims or disputes so I'll just move any irredentism there and remove any mention of it in these articles. Munci (talk) 13:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe irredentism should be included on the list for separatist movements. The two things are completely different. They should be removed from these articles and kept to its own article like you did. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
In anycase, checking the refs given at separatism, I don't see that being true either. The discussion was for a page split, not for a move. Munci (talk) 12:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Fully support the move and the titles of the new articles. Good job BritishWatcher (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I have undone the deletions of irredentism. It would be much easier to include them all under one banner rather than trying to differentiate. Separatism certainly does include irredentism: a part of a country is separating from it and joing another country. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

But there is already a list of irredentism so it is not problematic. Claiming another states territory does not make you a separatist or a group a separatist movement. Those within the state supporting it may be, but this is about the other state. I do not see any benefit from listing them on these lists, it simply causes more potential dispute over the titles of the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
A brief look at List of irredentist claims or disputes highlights the problem. It mentions for example, an English group claiming part of Wales, that does not make the English group a separatist movement. It mentions a Scottish group claiming a part of England, it doesnt make that group a separatist movement. BritishWatcher (talk) 01:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
They are kind of separatist movements because they want the place in the other country to separate with that country and join their country. List of irredentist claims or disputes provides information about each claim, whereas these articles are just lists with no real information. That is why I think the irrendentist movements should be included in these lists. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
"kind of" is not going to be good enough though. Some will not like the use of the term separatist at all in the title. Its fully justified when covering autonomous / secessionist groups but there is a problem with sticking the irredentists into the mix, especially as we do not need to. The introductions of each page could link to List of irredentist claims or disputes but they dont need to be within the list. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
It does not get mentioned on the Separatism article. BritishWatcher (talk) 02:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Mclay1, please provide sources to the claim that irredentism is included in separatism. Already the inclusion of autonomist movements is lacking sources properly. Only a single irredentist claim was ever included in the article prior to the split. There is no justification for this conflation of terms or repurposing of article. Munci (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree, irredentism must not be re-added to the lists. Lets just stick with the present format. Separatism works fine for the autonomous / secessionist moves but not Irredentism so it should be removed from a mention on all these lists, although it can be linked in the see also section. BritishWatcher (talk) 13:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree that I should need a source to say irredentism is a from of separatism, since it is all opinion anyway and any source would only be providing someone's opinion, which is no more valuable that any of ours. Irredentists want somewhere to separate from somewhere and join somewhere else. However, we are never going to agree and I appear to be out-voted, so I guess you win. But as a final word on the subject, I'd like to say that you are wrong that there was only one irredentist claim on the original article – there were heaps, especially in the UK section, but people kept arguing about them and I think a few were deleted right before I split the article. Oh, well. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 06:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Geography

If we are separating the article into geography-based sub-articles, then we need to come up with geographical sub-divisions. I support the general Wikipedia use of Africa, Asia, Europe, North America, South America and Oceania. Although they are not necessarily geological correct or even culturally correct in the case of the Middle East being in Asia but North Africa being in Africa, it's just an easy way of dividing up the world for the sake of smaller articles, and that's all we are trying to do. McLerristarr (Mclay1) (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Better title?

To avoid the conflict about whether autonomism and irridentism are separatism, couldn't we just call it the List of minority nationalist movements?--Yalens (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Which movements in particular are controversial as to whether they are separatist or not? As a rule, autonomist movements are separatist, while irredentism is not. I have not seen this challenged here. Quigley (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I oppose a change to the article name. Irredentist movements have their own list List of irredentist claims or disputes, this article should only contain separatist movements, a term which covers both secessionist movements and autonomous movements. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


Well, that's also an issue, but its not what I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is that there is a debate- visible on this page here- over whether movements that are autonomist only and/or minority rights (the Hui, the Sorbs, etc.; for an example of something strictly minority rights and not really autonomist one could use Roma organizations) or irridentist (i.e. want to separate AND join another country, like Albanian Greeks or the Krajina Serbs) are separatist. Is separatism a category that includes both of those, or is it a separate category that doesn't include autonomism and irridentism? --Yalens (talk) 18:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I do not believe Irridentist falls under the definition of separatism as they wish to extract part of another state, people within that state pushing the same agenda would be separatists, but not those in the separate state, which is what irrentists are meant to be about. I dont think they belong on this list. As for autonomous movements, we agreed to the move because that can all be under the banner of separatism. If others have a big problem with this then i would not object to a move to something like List of separatist and autonomist movements, but i think the present title is fine and covers all strands of separatism, although it should be explained it covers both secessionist and autonomists in the introduction. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:26, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, there is irridentist movements on this list (I will delete them, then). And there are people who do not believe autonomism is included in separatism as well...--Yalens (talk) 18:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

it was better before

The reason for the splitting proposal was this: "This article is currently very long and cumbersome, and difficult to read quickly."

Well, now it is definitely more difficult to read quickly. Some countries, such as Russia or France, have territories on more than one continent. So if I want to see separatist movements in, for example , the UK, I have to go to the Europe article and then search through articles to find out that there is also a separatist movement in North America(Caribbean).

Before, you could just skim through the contents or use the search to quickly find the specific information. Heav 2 (talk) 10:32, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

But the list was still split into sections when it was all on one page so you could be looking in several locations. Perhaps the introduction should make clear where a separatist movement for an overseas British of French territory would be. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Article value

Just because a page is split doesnt mean it doesnt need references or notability. Everythign on wikipedia needs to be citwed (if it was split then the references should be in the original), and there is not inherent notability.(Lihaas (talk) 11:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)).

There is no information on the page to reference or be notable. I don't understand what your problem with the page is. There are many other lists of lists (see Category:Lists of lists). McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

redirect

why does list of stateless ethnic groups redirect here? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 00:53, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

List of stateless ethnic groups was moved to List of ethnic groups demanding a separate state, which was redirected here because it is covered by these lists. McLerristarr | Mclay1 08:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for a slight change to the layout

This is the current layout that is being used on the lists:

  • De facto state

or

  • Proposed state

or

  • Proposed autonomous area

I think that we should use simply "proposal" insted of "proposed state" and "proposed autonomous area". Why? Becaus a lot of the time ther isn't a demand for an independent state or autonomous area. A lot of the time the demand is for one area to unite with another (for example those in Flanders who wish to join the Netherlands). If we use "proposal" we can giv better descriptions of what the demand is and this will make the lists easier to understand. I'd like to hear your thoughts. ~Asarlaí 23:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

When its talking about "uniting an area" to another state, that is actually irredentism.--Yalens (talk) 01:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but somtimes the proposal is both separatist and irredentist. For example, those who wish Flanders to separate from Belgium and join the Netherlands; thus creating a new state. Ther ar many more examples. ~Asarlaí 03:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
We have a separate article for those cases: "List of irredentist claims or disputes". McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:34, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't that list only for independent states who claim part of another independent state?
If so, then what about people in 'state A' who only wish for their area to join 'state B' (like the example I gave above)?
Using the current layout, it would look like this:
==== Belgium====
 Flemish Region
It'd make much more sense like this:
==== Belgium====
 Flemish Region
~Asarlaí 08:02, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
"Isn't that list only for independent states who claim part of another independent state?"
No, actually it deals with any ideology that wants to take a part (or whole) of a state and add it to another, or to adjoin certain regions from various states to form a new state. --Yalens (talk) 17:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
In that case, we'd need to remove a lot of entries from these lists. Am I right in saying that these lists ar only for movements who wish to form an independent state/autonomous area within the borders of an existing state? For example... those who wish to form an independent state inside France's borders (Breton independence movement) can stay, but those who wish to unite parts of France and Spain (Basque independence movement) should be removed? ~Asarlaí 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Nah, actually I'd say that the Basques' ambitions involve the formation of a new state which lands it on this list, being both separatist and irridentist (things that would be only on the irridentist list would be adding Moldova to Romania or taking North Ireland and giving it to Ireland-but not the proposal for a separate N.Irish state). --Yalens (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, some of the irridentism here could be called separatism. In any case, I'd support your reformatting. --Yalens (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

"List of active separtist movments" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of active separtist movments. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Reyk YO! 15:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lists_of_active_separatist_movements/Archive_4&oldid=1136258623"