Talk:Independence referendum/Archive 1

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

Successful referendums?

What means "successful independence referendum"? West Australia or Faroe were successful? Maybe it would be better to put all the referendums in a single list, or to separate them according to whether they lead to an independent state or not. --Txebixev (talk) 10:06, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Bougainville

http://www.islandsbusiness.com/news/papua-new-guinea/1659/bougainville-ready-for-referendum-date/

date set for 2016 prabably :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.144.150 (talk) 11:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you edit the article accordingly? --Checco (talk) 11:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Overhaul started by Soffredo

I duly appreciate what User:Soffredo started to do to the article (implementation of a table instead of a list), but, unless he or someone else edits the entire article accordingly, I'm going to revert his edits. --Checco (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality

As this article is mostly tables that doesn't touch on any hotly disputed topics I can't see why the neutrality of this article is disputed. Should the tag be removed? Moniker42 (talk) 11:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

OK for me. --Checco (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't think Catalonia independence is a hotly disputed topic? Most of the cases, particularly the "expected" and "plausible" referendums, are likely to be hotly disputed. You don't think it's hotly disputed that Donetsk and Luhansk have become independent as the article claims?
And it's difficult to believe that the article is neutral. Does "Republic of Ilirida", which appears to be little more than a micronation, belong alongside New Caledonia? Can we neutrally say that a referendum in Catalonia is "expected" on 9 November when the Spanish government is actively trying to block it in the courts? No, on both accounts.
And in the historic referendums list there are several cases that are claimed to "decide whether the territory should become an independent country" where no option that would make the territory definitively independent was on the ballot paper. Northern Ireland in 1973 is one example. The Tokelau referendums are another. Crimea is a third. In other cases we have "referendums" organised by private groups with no authority, such as Veneto.
Is it really neutral to say that a vote against independence makes a referendum "unsuccessful", or that a vote for independence makes the referendum "successful"? There are plenty of ways in which a referendum that votes against may be successful - if it is respected and definitively decides the issue - and ways in which a referendum that favours independence may be unsuccessful - if it is discredited and does not decide the issue.
This article is not just non-neutral, all in all it has a very strong bias. Kahastok talk 18:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Referendums not about independence

Per this edit, why should referendums where independence was not an option proposed be included on this list? Examples include Northern Ireland (where the options were to remain in the UK or join Ireland), and Crimea (where the options were to remain in Ukraine or join Russia). None of these referendums is plausibly a "referendum in which the citizens of a territory decide whether the territory should become an independent sovereign state".

Similarly, how can it possibly be said that a private online poll constitutes a referendum? If I organise a private online poll on independence for my area, does it get included in the article? Kahastok talk 18:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

For me, it should be about whether there is an independence option on the ballot paper. So, for example, I would include the 2005 referendum in Sint Eustatius, but I would not include either of the referenda in Tokelau. RedvBlue 19:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Right. This was not the case in any of the instances that Checco just reverted in:
  • In Northern Ireland, the question was UK or Ireland. Neither is Northern Irish independence.
  • In Crimea, the question was Russia or a looser association with Ukraine. Neither is Crimean independence.
  • In parts of Donetsk and Luhansk the questions asked - at most - were as to whether they should maintain their de facto non-state status or join Ukraine. In neither case was this full Donetsk or Luhansk independence.
In none of these cases was the option of independence on the ballot paper.
So, Checco, how on earth do you come to the conclusion that a referendum asking whether Northern Ireland should be part of the United Kingdom or part of Ireland a "referendum in which the citizens of a territory decide whether the territory should become an independent sovereign state"?
As to Tokelau, Cook Islands and Niue, I think it's debatable simply because the it is debatable whether the status amounts to independence. They aren't clear on the matter. Our lists include the Cook Islands and Niue with qualifications.
My overall view is actually that this article is trying to define an "independence referendum" as something clearly distinct from other kinds of referendum, and I don't think it's possible to draw such a distinction meaningfully. If there is, we need a far clearer definition of what belongs and what does not. Kahastok talk 18:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Alright, let me go through some of my opinions:
  • The referenda Northern Ireland and Crimea should not be included, as they do not mention independence.
  • The referenda in Donbass could possibly be included, as they do mention independence. This may have to be subject to further discussion.
  • I can't really speak too much for the Cook Islands or Niue, because I didn't follow those referenda. I did, however, follow both referenda in Tokelau, and I have to say that there's no way that either of them was marketed as an "independence referendum". I certainly do not consider what was being voted for as independence. I'd need to see some pretty substantial sources to convince me otherwise.
  • The referendum in Sint Eustatius that I mentioned should be included, as it does mention independence. RedvBlue 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
The form of words in Donetsk and Luhansk was actually - at best - fairly ambiguous. They referred not to "independence", but to what has been translated on Wikipedia as "standing by oneself", which could equally refer to autonomy within Ukraine. In any case, they were asking whether the current status of the regions should be maintained - and that current status is not recognised by governmental, academic or legal opinion as independence.
On the wider question, we have already basically answered the question of what "independence" is at the List of sovereign states. We shouldn't try to define it again. I will open a wider question below as to what should belong. Kahastok talk 20:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
First of all, let me just say that before I made my last edit to this talk page, I did check Wikipedia's own article about the referenda in Donbass, and I did see the word "independence" when I read each referendum question. It is for that reason why I made the comment that I did.
This is all a difficult area, though. If you look at the politics, then clearly the Donbass referenda were constructed in such a way that they were trying to mimic the Crimea process. In short, the referenda were being used as a way of achieving the eventual goal of joining Russia, and not really independence. The 'independence' that we then see is more like a kind of side effect of the whole process.
When it is looked at in those terms, it becomes very unclear as to what to do with regards to this article. I think that there may be a solution, though. How about, instead of just trying to lump everything together in a big list, a new section is created which deals with these kind of 'quasi' referenda? This section could deal with referenda which involve independence in some way, but could largely just be political manoeuvring. Crimea could be mentioned here because there was a referendum which led to an independent country with partial recognition. We wouldn't have to go into great depth with these specific instances, but it would be nice for this article to have a bit of prose discussing how political figures might use referenda as a way of furthering a cause.
Now, I must come on to the issue raised in relation to the 'List of sovereign states' article. Let me just say that I've spent the last few hours thinking very carefully about this.
After closely studying the 'List of sovereign states' article, it seems to me that the Cook Islands and Niue are included in the list on the basis that they are members of certain United Nations agencies, and that they have relations with other states.
At this point we need to get technical. The point must be made that the status achieved through a referendum vote does not automatically return those benefits. I assume that it would be entirely possible for Tokelau to vote for this status, but to not enter into any agencies or international relations, thus keeping it off the list.
I am all for keeping consistencies throughout Wikipedia, but we have to abide by the facts. As far as I can see, it is not the status which is important for these places in the 'List of sovereign states' article, and yet these referenda were status referenda. RedvBlue 01:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The article on the Donetsk and Luhansk events uses the word "independence", but that's a Wikipedian's translation of a Russian-language source. The article itself acknowledges:

The Russian word used, самостоятельность, (samostoyatel'nost) (literally "standing by oneself"), can be translated as either full independence or broad autonomy, which left voters confused about what their ballot actually meant.

If you look at the Russian source, it seems clear that the questions in Russian were the same in both cases, despite the difference in wordings in the article. The question was (emphasis mine, and note that "Донецкой" refers to Donetsk, "Луганской" to Luhansk):
Plus it was asking whether the voter was supporting the act that had already taken de facto effect - which created a status which does not amount to independent sovereignty. No, this referendum had two options, one of which was the status quo, where Donetsk and Luhansk have a status short of independence, and the other was reintegration into Ukraine. No option on these ballots was for outright independence.
Since Checco's last revert, the article content has been very seriously biased as it holds that Donetsk and Luhansk became independent states - despite the fact that no independent source considers them to actually be - or to ever have been - independent states, which is why they are not included on the list of sovereign states.
As to the Cook Islands and Niue, I'm fairly open on them. You make good points, but I feel that internal consistency is important. Kahastok talk 10:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your clarification about the questions.
You use a quote about voter confusion. This seems to me to be an indication that a number of voters would have considered it to be an independence referendum. This would make it relevant to the article.
However, I see a wider issue that I must move on to. I have drawn upon a number of things that you have said on this talk page, and I think that I now have a clearer understanding of your position on the matter of this article.
To some extent, perhaps wholly, it seems that your opinion is that this article should go hand in hand with the 'List of sovereign states' article.
I must warn against this.
As I said, I am all for keeping consistencies throughout Wikipedia, but we must not get mixed up between that article and this one.
I can now demonstrate very clearly what I mean by pointing to the referenda in South Ossetia and Transnistria, which are included on this article's list. Let me just go through a few points in relation to these two places:
  • There were two referenda for each territory.
  • The territories each declared independence before both of their respective referenda.
  • Neither of these territories would have qualified for the 'List of sovereign states' article until Russia recognised South Ossetia as independent in 2008 (which was in the fallout of a war, and not due to referenda).
Does this remind you of anything? There were exactly the same circumstances for the referenda in South Ossetia and Transnistria as there were for both referenda in Donbass. This is particularly with regard to the first referendum in each of South Ossetia and Transnistria. Although independence had already been declared, this was more like the citizens having there say on whether they wanted their territory to become independent. I'm less inclined for the list to include the second referendum in each of South Ossetia and Transnistria, as they were more to do with reaffirming independence. They were not trying to "become" independent. Note that I'm trying to make it clear by fitting in with the article's definition of an independence referendum.
In any case, my point is that it is definitely not a clear as day decision to link this article to the 'List of sovereign states' article. Just because a place is listed on there does not mean that that same place should or, indeed, should not be listed here.
Analysts have previously suggested that Russia could very well recognise the independence of both Donbass territories within the not too distant future. In the event of that happening, and if I am right about you seeing a link between this article and the 'List of sovereign states' article, then do you think that the Donbass referenda should be included in this article?
We cannot retrospectively add referenda back into this article if another country just happens to recognise independence. Either a referendum is notable, or it isn't, and recognition of independence from other countries has nothing to do with that.
Hopefully we've already achieved a consensus in relation to the 'List of sovereign states' article and removing the referenda in New Zealand. Now I think that a decision has to be made, too, about the referenda in the Donbass region. Quite simply, if we remove both of those, then we must also remove all the referenda for South Ossetia and Transnistria. As I say, the circumstances were practically exactly the same, so we can't remove the Donbass ones unless we remove the ones for South Ossetia and Transnistria as well.
My concerns over whether these referenda should be included are only in relation to their questions. The referendum in each of these cases was after the declaration of independence. This does not make it straightforward when determining whether they were independence referenda. This is the reason why, earlier on, I thought that the issue may have to be subject to further discussion. RedvBlue 16:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe you have misunderstood why Transnistria and South Ossetia are in the article.
The rule we are relying on re: the List of sovereign states is as to whether reliable sources consider them to meet the declarative theory. This is the case for both Transnistria and South Ossetia today. In fact, it is the only reason why Transnistria is included at all (as Transnistria is not recognised by a UN member state). It is not, and never has been the case for Donetsk or Luhansk. The status quo, in which the article claims that Donetsk and Luhansk are independent states is biased for that reason alone. It appears that Wikipedia is the only independent source on the entire planet that considers Donetsk and Luhansk to legally be independent states, and even then only on lower-profile articles such as this one.
My wider point is that we need some basis to decide what constitutes an "independence referendum" and what does not. It seems to me that at the very least, one option must unambiguously result in independence, and another option must ambiguously result in no independence. In the cases of Donetsk and Luhansk, at most, the whole point of the referendums was to decide whether to retain a status that is not regarded as independence. Neither option unambiguously results in independence.
I also agree, however, that the question of an "independence referendum" held in an already-independent state (at least according to whatever interpretation of "independence" it might be included in the first place - these needs a far better definition than it has today) is at the very least an anomaly, and would have no problem with removing votes on that basis. Kahastok talk 18:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me about declarative theory. I was not aware that that was being used.
However, with the exception of a few tweaks regarding recognition by other countries, everything that I said about the referenda for South Ossetia and Transnistria in relation to the referenda in Donbass still stands. They took place under the same circumstances. The South Ossetia and Transnistria that existed in the aftermath of their referenda are the same as the Donbass region now. As such, they must be treated the same on this article.
You mention Wikipedia appearing as "the only independent source on the entire planet that considers Donetsk and Luhansk to legally be independent states". I support changing the article. However, I'm not sure that the article says that they have attained independence "legally". The article says "No" in the Recognition column; implying that they have not done so legally.
It would appear to me that the Recognition column is there to cater for the exact likes of the Donbass referenda. If we removed the Donbass referenda from the list, it would seem to me that there would not be much point in having the Recognition column. Maybe we should just get rid of the Recognition column and all of the referenda listed which have a "No" in it?
In relation to the issue of having a referendum after a declaration of independence, I still think that these could potentially be defined as independence referenda, according to the article's definition. However, there probably shouldn't be a really long gap between the declarations and the referenda, because then the vote is not to "become" independent. We can see this with the second referendum in each of South Ossetia and Transnistria. RedvBlue 20:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The key difference between Donetsk and Luhansk now, and Transnistria and South Ossetia then, is recognition by academia.
The article currently claims that Donetsk and Luhansk are indepedent states, whether the referendum was recognised or not. This is highly biased in their favour - as I say, a claim not accepted by any independent governmental, legal or academic source anywhere in the world. It's not the "no" under "recognition", it's the "yes" under "independence" plus the claim that these were referendums on independence in the first place.
I have no problem with getting rid of all polls with a "no" under recognition. The key point though is that we need adequate rules to determine what belongs and what does not, and the ones we have are inadequate. The relevant MOS endorse this as a requirement. Perhaps we would be best off starting there? Kahastok talk 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You assert that South Ossetia and Transnistria are different from the Donbass region, but I have to say that I see no difference. I'll accept that I did not follow the referenda in 1992, but I did in 2006. I remember those referenda being decried internationally in just the same way as last year's referenda.
I've been having a bit more of a look around Wikipedia, and something struck me. I was looking at the 'List of states with limited recognition' article, and something which I said further up this talk page came back to my mind. Earlier, I mentioned that some analysts had suggested that Russia could recognise the independence of both Donbass territories within the not too distant future.
It does not matter whether a country has recognised the independence or not. What this shows is that the territories are in a position to be recognised as independent. This means that they are in a position to be imminently included within the 'List of states with limited recognition' article. Per their inclusion, it might be that you change your stance, and support the referenda being included in this article (aside from the fact that the referenda were held after independence was declared).
However, for reasons that I'll explain, I think that this way of doing things must not happen.
The Donbass referenda represent just an example. In fact, they are pretty bad example, as there are issues with the questions that were asked, and what kind of statehood they were dealing with. They still broadly illustrate my point, but feel free to imagine a brand new situation if you please.
The Donbass regions are in a position to be listed on the 'List of states with limited recognition' article because there was a vote for independence.
Perhaps an imaginary territory is actually listed on the 'List of sovereign states' article because there was a vote for independence in a referendum.
To say that a referendum should be listed on this article because the state in question is listed on another article cannot be done because, as the examples show, this relies on votes for independence.
I'll accept that these kinds of referenda inevitably end up with voters choosing independence. However, it is fundamentally wrong for Wikipedia to list a referendum on the basis of its result.
With regards to the issue of what the article says about referenda resulting in legal independence, I already said that I supported a change. I was merely pointing out that the existing situation relies upon the readers' interpretation of the Recognition column. The title of the Independence column makes no mention of legality.
I'll answer the more specific point about what belongs in the list in the "Inclusion criteria" section below. RedvBlue 01:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I think my biggest problem with the Donetsk/Luhansk case is the part that you say you agree with me.
How about I make this suggestion: we should come up with inclusion criteria and they Donetsk and Luhansk should go in or stay out as per those criteria. But if they stay, we must be clear about the difficulties re: the question, and remove everything that implies or states that Donetsk and Luhansk are or ever have been independent states, be that de facto or de jure. Kahastok talk 09:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Speculation

The section on "plausible independence referendums" is be included on this article per this edit? Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and should not be in the business of speculating as to what might happen if there are no concrete plans to hold a referendum. This gives the speculation far more weight than it deserves. Kahastok talk 18:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

If there is real talk in the media, or by some political figures, and there are sources for this, then I think that there could be a place for this kind of information within this article. RedvBlue 19:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with RedvBlue and I will thus revert this edit by Kahastok, which is clearly not supported by consensus. Also, how can't we exclude from the list the Ukrainian referendums? No matter how flawed they were, the referendums were effectively held. --Checco (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
So you think that we should be making a list of things that might be referred to referendums that might possibly happen at some stage in the future, or might not.
"Real talk in the media, or by some political figures" is meaningless. Today's press is tomorrow's chip paper. There must be hundreds of cases where at some stage in the past a local politician has discussed independence referendums and nothing has happened, and this point gives far to much weight.
Are you proposing to put Donetsk and Luhansk in this section? If not, the answer is irrelevant. Kahastok talk 18:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Worth adding, in most cases in that list, there actually wasn't "real talk" in any meaningful sense. In some cases, the best we got was that there might be a referendum if a party supporting independence gets voted in and various constitutional hurdles are reached (which could apply just about anywhere). In some cases, there wasn't even that. Kahastok talk 18:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I was kind of hoping for some common sense on this topic. When I commented before, there were two cases that I had in mind.
Firstly, my understanding is that there is a considerable majority of people in Catalonia who support staging a referendum (even if the number of people who would vote "yes" is less sizeable). Is this not worth a mention?
Also, the Scottish National Party has said that there should be another referendum in Scotland if the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. As David Cameron has said that there will be an in-out referendum if he is Prime Minister after the general election, and that is still a real possibility, then that leaves the real possibility of an "out" vote, and so there would be another referendum in Scotland. In an article entitled "Independence referendum", is this worth no mention at all? Not even one sentence?
When I ask for common sense, maybe this needs a stronger definition. Perhaps we should have a rule where a possible future referendum is only listed if it is discussed by the governing party of the region in question. This would concern the Scottish National Party, for example. RedvBlue 19:24, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
As I said in my edit summary, ifs and buts and maybes.
If David Cameron is Prime Minister after the 2015 election and if David Cameron honours his promise of an in-out referendum and if the UK votes to leave the EU and if the SNP is in a position to call a referendum after the next Holyrood election in 2016 and if the UK government is willing to give legal authority for a new referendum less than 5 years after the previous one then there might be a second independence referendum. That's quite a lot of ifs - plenty enough to push us into speculation territory.
If the majority of people in Catalonia want a referendum then that is different from saying that a referendum is plausible. A formal independence referendum is implausible because the Spanish government does not want it and has a veto. We have no way at present from distinguishing an informal independence referendum from an opinion poll, so that's pretty meaningless as well. Kahastok talk 20:05, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
You seem to be missing my point. I am not talking about whether a future referendum is "plausible" or "implausible". They are not my terms, and I have never used them.
Look, you say yourself that for Catalonia a "formal independence referendum is implausible because the Spanish government does not want it and has a veto." This is exactly the kind of information that should exist in an article entitled "Independence referendum". It is relevant to the topic. RedvBlue 01:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I will continue to maintain this split in sections because I think it's useful to split these different issues, so I will deal with Checco's comment below here as well.

"Plausible" is not your word, but it's the word used by the article. I want to remove the entire concept because it's inherently crystal balling. I note that Checco refers to the "implausibility" of a Catalan referendum, but the section is entitled "Plausible independence referendums". If it is implausible then it does not belong in a list of plausible referendums. A new Scottish referendum is equally implausible - more so in some ways, as even the case made that it might happen relies on a specific series of events - not all of them likely - going their way before they even get to the position where the UK government gets to say no (which is where the Catalans are today).

It is true that there are articles on future elections, but these are generally future elections that we know are going to happen. There was always going to be a next Swedish general election, even if it didn't happen in 2015. And there were things we could usefully say about it. Similarly, we know that there is going to be a US election in 2016. But there is no reason to assume that there will ever be another Scottish referendum, nor a Catalan referendum, nor any other of these "plausible" referendums.

This article is - in all but name - a list of independence referendums, not an article on indepedence referendums. In that context, these cases do not belong. If you want to turn this into a prose article, then by all means - but that probably means mentioning fewer referendums as it will only flag up the interesting or relevant ones in describing the concept of an independence referendum. Kahastok talk 10:36, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Whoa! By no means did I want to do away with the list! No, I put forward the idea of adding some text saying how independence referenda may be used for political purposes. That kind of thing.
With regards to Catalonia and Scotland, I still think that you may be missing my point slightly. If you want to "remove the entire concept" of what is "plausible", then I do not have a problem with you doing so.
The point that I am making is that there should still be a mention for 'places where the specific issue of an independence referendum is a hot topic'. I'll give you the fact that I might not be the best person to name its section, but there would be relevant points to be made, some of which have actually been made over on this very talk page instead. RedvBlue 16:19, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
If we have to have a section on discussion on independence referendums - and I would still say no - then it should really be a prose section describing cases where there is precedent and discussion on the subject. But in my view, that's still too much weight to be putting on what is - in the end - ifs and buts and maybes. Kahastok talk 18:45, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
You still have maybe missed my point. I am not talking about "ifs and buts and maybes." I am simply saying that we report what has already been said. There are no "ifs and buts and maybes" about what has already been said. We should not be saying whether future referenda are likely to happen or not. That should be left entirely up to the reader to decide. However, I would say that it would be perfectly reasonable for us note information that has been said about independence referenda.
I'm not sure whether you support mentioning Catalonia in this article anywhere, at all. Yet there is a constant stream of media reports coming from there about an independence referendum. In an article entitled "Independence referendum", it's almost hard to justify not saying something. RedvBlue 20:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
On Catalonia, I am unconvinced of the case for including it. But if excluded, per the list selection criteria I referred to in the section above, there is no reason why it could not then be discussed separately in prose. There are several lists out there that stick mostly to cases that qualify, and but use prose to then highlight interesting cases that don't qualify. Kahastok talk 19:58, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Aha! It might be that we have found agreement!
I'm going to create a new section in the article. It won't have citations. However, I hope that it will be counted as at least something of an improvement, and provide a basis for editors to build on in the future.
Note that when I edit the article, I will not be editing the list. As I have not done so before, I do not want to be involving myself in that at this stage. RedvBlue 01:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

At present this list has no solid basis as to how to determine what belongs and what does not. As the above points demonstrate, the question of what is an independence referendum is not sufficiently answered by the definition in this article "a type of referendum in which the citizens of a territory decide whether the territory should become an independent sovereign state". Notably, we have no means of distinguishing an unrecognised independence referendum from an opinion poll - as the cases of Veneto (an online poll, included on this article for most of its history) demonstrates.

There is also the question of what constitutes "independence". This list has historically taken a very liberal definition of "independence", to the point where it includes referendums on changes of sovereignty that do not amount to independence. It is not sensible or logical for us to have different definitions of independence from article to article.

I propose:

  • This list should define independence according to the definition used by the list of sovereign states; in the modern day case, actual inclusion is the requirement.
  • For cases where the status is (or would be) on the second list, yellow should be used in place of green.
  • No informal or unrecognised "referendum" (such as the Catalan 2014 "consultation") is included unless it directly results in independence (according to the above definition).
  • No referendum is included that is not clearly and unambiguously on the topic secession or independence for the region being polled (according to the above definition).

Kahastok talk 20:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think that it should be about whether there is an independence option on the ballot paper. Referenda such as the one for Sint Eustatius should be included.
I'm not sure that I have too many qualms about your bullet points, although I think that people may like to see beforehand what the list would end up looking like.
The biggest thing that I feel that I need to point out is to do with the penultimate bullet point. You say "unless it directly results in independence". Does this mean that referenda could merit inclusion only if the result goes a certain way? That's hugely contentious. RedvBlue 01:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I broadly agree with RedvBlue, while I'm not sure I agree with Kahastok's bullet points. In my view, all the referendums on independence, irrespective of procedure, legality, outcome, etc., should be included in the article, whose name should probably be "List of independence referendums". In this respect, I find very difficult to understand why Kahastok is continuing to edit the article, especially removing referendums on whose removal there is no consensus.
I'm thus going to reinstate the following referendums or would-be referendums in the article for the following reasons:
Finally, I would like to put a good word on "past/expected/plausible". This seems to be a good, neutral and encyclopedic way to organize the list. As we have a list of potential candidates for the United States presidential election of 2016 or articles on elections which have not taken place yet (and can always cancelled, as recently happened with the Swedish general election), we can have also a list of plausible (or potential, if you prefer) referendums. The only thing is to clealry explain the difference between "expected" and "plausible", which is obvious to me, but can be problematic for some readers. --Checco (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Ps: I did not reinstate Ambazonia, Anguilla, Faroe Islands and Greenland for two reasons: there are no clear sources on a potential referendum and I always try to avoid total rollbacks as an evidence of my interest in compromise. This said, I agree with RedvBlue when, talking about the implausibility of a legal Catalonian referendum, he said: "This is exactly the kind of information that should exist in an article entitled "Independence referendum"". The article should be a little bit wider in its scope, otherwise it should be named "List of independence referendums" (as I proposed above), and should include also all the cases in which an independence referendum is debated with adequate consistency. --Checco (talk) 09:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You say "all the referendums on independence, irrespective of procedure, legality, outcome, etc., should be included in the article"
Please define "referendum" for me. Your latest version includes an informal internet poll. By this standard, there have been thousands of "referendums". Every opinion poll held on every formal referendum listed would easily qualify if this qualifies. Any time a newspaper runs a non-scientific internet poll discussing independence (whatever that means) for a region, it should go on, by your standard.
Then, please define "independence" for me. The list that you insist on includes as "independence" referendums cases where independence for the area in question was not obviously an option given to voters. For example, in the Northern Ireland case the question was as to whether NI should "remain part of the United Kingdom" or "be joined with the Republic of Ireland outside the United Kingdom". Which of these two options amounts to Northern Irish independence, separate from the UK and Ireland? I don't see one. But you are absolutely insisting that one of them is. Which?
By the current standard, this article contains large numbers of polls that cannot reasonably be considered referendums in any normal sense and polls that have nothing to do with independence, and claims them all to be "independence referendums". It's touting an "independence referendum" to be some kind of fundamental concept, but fails utterly to define any of the salient features that distinguish such a referendum from an informal opinion poll on the subject of the constitution. The fact that it lists examples of the latter as independence referendums demonstrates this point. Kahastok talk 10:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Here are the Wikipedia definitions of "referendum" ["A referendum (in some countries synonymous with plebiscite — or a vote on a ballot question) is a direct vote in which an entire electorate is asked to vote on a particular proposal"] and "independence" ["Independence is a condition of a nation, country, or state in which its residents and population, or some portion thereof, exercise self-government, and usually sovereignty, over the territory"].
The Venetian poll, despite being performed online (from personal computers and hundreds of voting booths), organised by a private committee, etc., was a referendum. The Northen Irish and the Ukrainian polls, no matter how flawed, gave the opportunity to voters to exercise their self-determination and sovereignty. These are the reasons why is why I think those referendums should stay in the list.
I continue to think that the problem with this article may not be its content (on which several users have worked over the years), but its name. What about "List of independence and self-determination referendums"? --Checco (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
You say the Venetian poll "was a referendum" as though that were some unquestionable or indisputable fact. No it wasn't, unless the definition of "referendum" used is so broad as to include just about any form of opinion polling. It was an internet poll. There were not even the basic attempts to make the thing fair that one would expect to find in a standard opinion poll. There were 2.36 million votes and yet only 135000 visits to the website - the average voter voted over 17 times - including large numbers from outside Italy (let alone outside Veneto).
By this standard, internet polls of the sort routinely run by newspapers do count and must be included in this article. All of them. There must be hundreds of examples out there. If I start a poll tomorrow on a website on whether my town should become independent - which would be trivial to do - and come back a few weeks later to report the results, then that poll must be included on this article by your standard. This is one of the reasons why this article has four different cleanup tags at the top (all of which, incidentally, are accurate - the article is incomplete, biased, full of OR and contains WP:CRYSTAL violations).
You say, "The Northen Irish and the Ukrainian polls, no matter how flawed, gave the opportunity to voters to exercise their self-determination and sovereignty" - which means that they don't belong on an article about independence referendums, where each "referendum" listed is to be a "referendum in which the citizens of a territory decide whether the territory should become an independent sovereign state". You propose a change in name, but changing the name doesn't help. In that case you're still going to have to define what a "self-determination referendum" is as well as an "independence referendum" (which the article defines, only to then refuse to follow its own definition). It doesn't even begin to resolve the very major issues with this article. Kahastok talk 12:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I respect your concerns, but I don't see "major issues" here. The article is quite good in my view, although it is clearly perfectible, which is why I wouldn't remove the tags. The referendums you have problems with were defnitely controversial, but they should be mentioned in the article. Regarding the Venetian poll, the case I know better, there are no certainties on the numbers, but the referendum is worth mentioning, having received much public attention (most recently here). The case is quite similar to the Catalonian one --Checco (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
These are platitudes, not arguments. The Northern Irish referendum was certainly controversial, but I think one of the least controversial things about it was probably the question of whether Northern Irish independence was on the ballot or not. It doesn't take a genius to work out that it wasn't. Why you are so insistent that it must go on an article about independence referendums, when even by the woolly definition given by the article there is no possible way in which it qualifies is quite beyond me, and I've seen nothing in your arguments that would go anywhere near explaining the point.
And if you think the Venetian case has go in, perhaps you would make a start in putting in all those equivalent polls that have to be included? A private online poll is hardly an unusual occurrence, the fact that this one has airs and graces doesn't make it any more an "independence referendum". "Worth mentioning"? Why? It's had some public attention but that does not mean that it belongs on every article. Twitter gets public attention, doesn't mean we should be adding Twitter - or Twitter votes - to this article.
The banner isn't there because the article isn't perfect. The banner is there because the article is dreadful. It really is. I am trying to improve it and you're trying to block those improvements with a series of platitudes. We need to move on with this and we shouldn't allow improvements to the article to be blocked in this manner. Kahastok talk 20:05, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I want to eradicate that banner, so I agree that we should work to improve the article. Hopefully the discussion that we've had so far means that we are in a position to take care of the banner's fourth bullet point. Do we need sections on this talk page to discuss the other three?
With regards to the Venetian situation, I do remember reading one article (bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28365453) referring to the vote as "a referendum on independence".
However, some of the comments on this talk page have given me concerns about it. The latest one is that "there are no certainties on the numbers". If there are no certainties on the numbers, then how on earth are we supposed to put "Yes" or "No" in the Majority for independence column?
I have to say that the word that I would use to describe this referendum is 'mock' (as in 'mock exams'). It was a mock referendum. As such, I don't think that it deserves inclusion in the list proper (unless a whole host of other similar polls are also included).
This brings me on to the issue of inclusion criteria. I've always said that it should be about whether there is an independence option on the ballot paper. Maybe I need to clarify this, though.
The connotation of what I have said is that the list should display an independence referendum when its independence option is included on the ballot paper as a way of meeting the actual intention of achieving independence.
As such, the referendum in Sint Eustatius should qualify. RedvBlue 01:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I will be repeating myself. The Northern Irish referendum included the possibility for Northern Ireland to secede from the UK (and join the Republic of Ireland), thus I think that the poll should be no doubt included in the article (similarly to the Ukrainian polls). The Venetian referendum was quite similar to the Catalonian one (and, as I explained, it was not just an online poll, there were voting booths, voluteers, and in both cases the turnout can't be easily certified), so I don't understand why it should be treated differently.
I appreciate RedvBlue's efforts, but I have a few doubts on the sections he created. We definitely need sources and also the structure of the sections might be improved. I will do something about them. --Checco (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
You are repeating yourself but you are not actually answering any of the questions or responding to any of the points. Northern Ireland could have left the UK but it could not have become independent as a result of the 1973 referendum. No matter what the outcome of the referendum, no result could have put a "Yes" in either of the first two columns. It was not a referendum on independence, which is what this article is all about. Right now this article knowingly misleads the reader. That is inappropriate.
I agree with RedvBlue. The Venetian poll - and the Catalan poll but the Venetian poll fits that mould far better - were "mock" polls. The Catalan case at least had the support of the local government - the Veneto case was absolutely no different to someone like me putting up a website asking about independence for my town and listing that on this list. The claims made about turnout and response are based on nothing but the account of the private nationalist organisation promoting the poll, and directly contradicted by external evidence. Moreover, the external evidence suggests that a large proportion of the "voters" weren't even in Europe, let alone Italy, let alone Veneto. It was not a "referendum", unless the word "referendum" is taken to include any form of opinion poll, whether scientific or otherwise. Kahastok talk 09:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The first point that I have to respond to is actually for something that's further up this talk page, but it was regarding inclusion criteria, so I'll answer it here.
It relates to referenda which there may be questions over, and I agree that "if they stay, we must be clear about the difficulties". There is plenty of scope within the list for pointing out that states are self-proclaimed, and other things like that. In fact, I think that the list has scope to mention other things, as well. For example, I think that we should note that a quota was required in the Montenegrin referendum, and I think that we should mention if there were other options on the ballot paper (but not necessarily list the options, as there could be many), as was the case for Sint Eustatius.
Now, the "Northern Irish referendum included the possibility for Northern Ireland to secede from the UK (and join the Republic of Ireland)" is something that I need to respond to. I fear that, perhaps, there has been a misunderstanding. Maybe it is felt that this was a bit like the Crimea situation. In Crimea, there was a referendum which did not mention independence. However, it led to a partially recognised independent country. This country was then quickly absorbed into Russia. Maybe it is thought that Northern Ireland could have undergone a similar process? Well, that's not quite right. If it had happened, then it would have been more like the transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong. There was no independence involved. Thus, it was not an independence referendum. Indeed, on the rare occasions that the issue arises these days, it is still called what it was then: a Border Poll.
With regards to the question of why the Venetian situation and the Catalan situation "should be treated differently", well, in terms of the list, then I don't think that they should. I'm inclined to say that neither should be included in the list. Going back to what I said before, I think that the list should display an independence referendum when its independence option is included on the ballot paper as a way of meeting the actual intention of achieving independence. This is my inclusion criteria. In both of these referenda, even if there was one hundred per cent of the vote for independence, neither would have actually delivered independence. There may have been polling booths, and other things that looked in keeping with an independence referendum. That is why I used the term mock referendum. It's like a practice for a referendum.
I mentioned the Catalan situation in my edit to the article earlier this week. There may be a place to mention the Venetian situation, too.
Speaking of that, please note my thanks for the edits to my contribution to the article. As I said, I wanted what I had put to be a basis for editors to build on in the future. Unfortunately, however, the subsequent edits have left me a little confused in some areas, and I've had to go through it again. In the interests of keeping everybody informed, here are the reasons for my edits to the edits:
  1. I've renamed the title of the section. This was by far my biggest concern about the section previously. To be honest, I completely despair whenever I see articles with sections entitled 'Introduction' on Wikipedia. It's as if the articles say that 'what you're reading now is not the important bit, no, that's actually further down the page'. For an article called "Independence referendum", then details about potential procedures should be just as important as any list that is included. Also, even the Manual of Style refers to the lead section as the introduction, so that means that this article had two introductions!
  2. I've reinstated the lead sentences. I didn't like the forward slashes, and it should also be noted that it is possible for parties for the entire sovereign state to have a policy of an independence referendum for a territory. I've kept the part about separatism, though.
  3. I've removed the bit which said that a territory's government is responsible for negotiations, as not every territory may have a government.
  4. I've taken out the phrase "procedural issues". The entire section refers to procedure, and the sentence already used the word "issues", so I figured that readers could gather that procedural issues were being discussed.
  5. I've reinstated a separate paragraph beginning "Other issues…". This entire subsection deals with negotiations, so it seems reasonable to me for there to be different paragraphs for different points of negotiation.
  6. I've reinstated the sentence about revising questions, as I saw no benefit of removing it. I remember that this was an issue during the Scottish referendum, and it seems like an important point to me.
  7. I've included one reference.
  8. I've removed the violence section. If we're only having one section for all of this, then the issue of violence doesn't seem to fit in with everything else already in the section.
As you can see, most of these are minor points, but I just wanted to clarify what I had done to prevent bemusement. RedvBlue 22:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Looking through this post, there's nothing much I can find that I particularly disagree with. I would note in particular that I would support a wording of the inclusion criterion in the spirit that you outline. I agree that this is an appropriate limit to this list - that an "independence referendum" must have independence as a possible outcome. A poll that cannot result in independence (such as Northern Ireland, Catalonia and Veneto) does not belong on this list.
I will note my intention to push some of these points to RFC if I am not satisfied that we have reached a consensus on these points. Kahastok talk 20:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
You guys convinced me on Northen Ireland, while, regarding the Venetian and Catalonian polls, I disagree with their description as purely "mock" referendums and... who are we to say that those polls cannot have resulted in independence? Often in history events have unintended or, better, not foreseen consequences.
This said, the part of the article which sounds more controversial to me is definitely not the list, but the "Procedure" section. It is not properly sourced (but we can accept that for now, as the section is a work in progress) and contains some controversial wording. First, the name of the section: definitely "An introduction" was not a good name, but virtually anything is better that "Procedure" in my view; can we invent a better name? Second, I think it is wrong to equate "separatism" with "nationalism". Of course, I really appreciate RedvBlue's efforts and I'm sure we will be able to improve the section by working together on it. For instance, I agreed on the removal of the "Violence" sub-section. I will possibly make some more minor edits. --Checco (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm in agreement (with seemingly now everyone) that the Northern Irish referendum cannot be described as an independence vote, as independence was not an option. However, I also think that the Catalan and Venetian votes should be included. Even if they were unofficial/unrecognised, they were still referendums. Unrecognised referendums have resulted in the independence of a few, albeit unrecognised countries such as South Ossetia and Transnistria. Number 57 17:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The question comes again, how exactly do you define a "referendum"? In particular, how do you distinguish a "referendum" from e.g. an online newspaper poll or opinion poll performed by any means? The Veneto case in particular has far more in common with online newspaper polls than with most of the other referendums listed. The thing was entirely a private exercise without any form of official oversight - or even independent oversight if the article is to be believed. There seems to have been no attempt to control who voted or how many times they voted. It is clear from the website statistics that many of the voters weren't even in Italy, let alone Veneto. There must have been dozens of online newspaper polls of similar merit all over the web on Scottish independence - why does Veneto get in when they don't? Saying "they were still referendums" is not good enough. The Catalan case is a bit less clear-cut but even then, it was a private effort and everyone knew that it was going to be ignored.
The fact is, neither of these "referendums" could have resulted in independence in any sense that an online newspaper poll or opinion poll could not have resulted in independence. I see no reason why they should be included in the list. Kahastok talk 19:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The Catalan vote was organised by the Government of Catalonia, so it was an official referendum, not a "private effort". The fact is that we don't know may have happened if the turnout had been 90% and the result been a 90% yes – there may well have been a groundswell of opinion that simply swept away established political norms, much as happened with the collapse of Communism in much of eastern Europe.
The Venetian vote is clearly a more marginal case – however, the question is largely answered by what reliable sources describe it as. We could set our own criteria based on the standard expectation of a public vote (voter registration, inability to cast more than one vote etc – however, being held entirely online should not necessarily count against it – I wouldn't be surprised if we went increasingly in this direction over the next century), but this would ultimately be WP:OR. You are probably right that this one in itself could not result in independence, but that doesn't necessarily mean it wasn't an independence referendum (otherwise you could also argue the Faroese one should be disqualified as the results were always going to be ignored). Number 57 21:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Moreover, the Venetian referendum was not performed only online, but also at real voting booths. It was not an official referendum and was not supported by the regional government, but the President of Veneto himself told foreign journalists that he had taken part to the poll.
I totally agree with Number 57 on everything he said, especially the comparison with the collapse of Communism in eastern Europe.
--Checco (talk) 13:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So you're saying, all notion of political science, logic, consistency, neutrality is out of the window? If people refer to it as a "referendum" it's a referendum.
We will, of course, therefore have to remove everything on this list that was not described as an "independence referendum". The Bahrain survey was not a referendum. It was a survey. The Latvian case was a poll. Uzbekistan had an election. The events in Catalonia, Tokelau, Niue, the Cook Islands were about "self-determination". That doesn't count. St Maarten, Puerto Rico, Curaçao had status referendums, not independence referendums. They don't count. Micronesia had a referendum on the Compact of Free Association. Doesn't count. Guinea and Malta had constitutional referendums. Not independence referendums. They don't count. In Western Australia it was a secession referendum, not an independence referendum. Doesn't count. Norway voted on dissolution of the union. It was not an "independence referendum". It doesn't count.
No, reliance on usage of specific English-language words is almost always a terrible way of determining the contents of any list. Such a rule is almost guaranteed - as it has here - to lead to decisions that are primarily based on the prejudices of the editors. It actively prevents objectivity, replacing it with original research and bias.
So with this background I do not accept that your basis for including Veneto is remotely good enough from my perspective. The fact remains that in this case - and the Catalan case - that there was no chance of independence resulting from these polls that would not also have existed with opinion polls or newspaper online polls. Fact remains that the Veneto poll in particular bears far more similarity to a newspaper online poll than to, say, the Scottish referendum. Kahastok talk 19:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
I think you're twisting words a little. If a reliable source describes it as a referendum, then it's fair to consider it might be true. If Joe Bloggs says it's a referendum on his blog, then we can ignore it.
But anyway, if you don't want to use reliable media sources, an alternative is to use compendiums of referendums such as the Dieter Nohlen books or the Direct Democracy website, which aims to list all referendums held since the 18th century. The latter does include the Veneto referendum, although marking it as "unofficial". Number 57 19:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
So if this was a list of Indians, you would include both Pocahontas and Indira Gandhi then. That is your argument.
I look at the page you give us. Where does it cite its qualifications? On what basis should we assume it reliable? And precisely how do you propose we use it as an inclusion criterion?
That last point is critical here. Precisely what objective and neutral measure are you proposing to use as a basis for the list on this article? Kahastok talk 19:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
If you're resorting to straw man arguments like the Pocahontas bit above, then I can't really see any point in trying to have a rational debate about it.
The Direct Democracy database is maintained by Beat Müller, who works with the Centre for Research on Direct Democracy. It is used as a source by numerous academic books on political science (as you can see here). To answer both your last two points, if a referendum is included on that site, I think we should list it here too. Number 57 20:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
That seems a good source also to me. --Checco (talk) 10:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems to me difficult to see how you can say that "if a reliable source calls something a referendum it must be included in a list of referendums" but do not allow the same logic for other topics. Such as, if a reliable source calls someone an Indian they must be included in a list of Indians. This would mean that such a list must include both Pocahontas and Indira Gandhi. It isn't a straw man - it's that your argument is unworkable.
I remain unconvinced by your rationale. On the basis of "if a referendum is included on that site, I think we should list it here too", we must include this referendum on Swiss tax policy.
Which referendums listed do you think should be included? The page does not significantly distinguish independence polls from non-independence polls. It gives potted descriptions of the subjects of the referendums but the referendums listed here are not consistently described. For example, Puerto Rico (2012) refers to "Alternatives to the current status" ("Alternativen zum jetzigen Status") whereas East Timor's refers to "Autonomy within Indonesia" ("Autonomie innerhalb Indonesiens"). Are we saying that these do not count as independence referendums?
I note also that this proposal would mean removing completely the "Expected independence referendums" and "Plausible independence referendums" sections as none of them are on that list. Kahastok talk 19:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I presume you are being deliberately obstinate, and are not stupid enough to assume that I meant all referendums listed on that site (whether independence related or not) should be included. Please can we have a grown up discussion, and not resort to silly diversionary arguments like that.
Back to the proper debate, as has been mentioned by previous commenters, an independence referendum would be either one that has independence as an option on the ballot (e.g. the Puerto Rican one you mention, or Saban status referendum, 2004) or one in which the approval or rejection of the proposal would undoubtedly lead to independence (such as the East Timorese example, or Maltese constitutional referendum, 1964, where the adoption of the new constitution would make the country as an independent state).
As to the proposed and plausible referendums, I don't really have a view – the site does not list referendums that have not happened or not been formally arranged. I think having plausible ones is pushing it a bit, but if there has long been talk about a referendum being held (as was the case in Scotland before the 2014 one was officially called) and there is significant coverage of that, I don't see why it can't be mentioned. Perhaps rather than a list, it could simply be written about in prose. Number 57 21:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Number 57 that not all the referendums included in the aforementioned website should be automatically included in this article. On "plausible referendums" I continue to think that, if sources cover them, they should stay in the article. --Checco (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Please checco, don't compare an online poll made by privates... with the direct action of the Government of Catalonia (running since 1359): The latter led to opening 1250 public schools, 19 international embassies, on a sunday... just for attending 2.3M people (census is 5.4M), crosschecking documento, crosschecking anagrafe, with the presence of MEPs... etc. Elected charges are responding on the court just for such a disobedience act. Inclusion criterias must include sources this kind of evidences.--89.204.135.201 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Chechen Republic of Ichkeria

I can't see anything about the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beshogur (talk • contribs) 20:37, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@Beshogur: Possibly because there doesn't seem to have been one. From what I can gather, there were elections that confirmed Dzhokhar Dudayev as President, and the elections were deemed to be an unofficial poll on independence. Dudayev subsequently unilaterally declared independence with no referendum taking place. Number 57 00:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Kurdistan

"In the near future" doesn't prove anything. If we can add Kurdistan for "In the near future" it's not then a scheduled referendum, then we can add Republika Srpska also on the page. Beshogur (talk) 12:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

A Kurdistani official *claimed* that the referendum would take place before the US Presidential Election. While that seems incredibly unlikely now, a time-frame was given rather than the just "I'll do it, I swear" attitude of Bosniak Serbs. It is now a delayed announced referendum, rather than a cancelled or speculated referendum.Astrofreak92 (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, your claim doesn't matter. Serbs will also do a referandum soon, it has been announced several times, but it's not added on this page. Beshogur (talk) 22:33, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
If they put a month or year on the announcement, then go right ahead and add it. They've just threatened it for political purposes, they've never actually announced a referendum. Astrofreak92 (talk) 02:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Punjab Referendum

Does a referendum conducted by expats or descendants of a region's citizens living abroad but not locals merit inclusion here? If Cuban- or Haitian-Americans had a vote on their ancestral countries becoming part of the United States, would it qualify for inclusion here like the Moldova referendum on maintaining independence in 1994? If it wouldn't, I can't think of a reason the Punjab referendum, which is not being organized by or planned to be held within Punjab, should be included here. It keeps being added and deleted without discussion, and I'd like discussion here. Astrofreak92 (talk) 15:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Punjab has no citizens. A referendum on Punjabis abroad seems meaningless, and should not be added unless reliable sources accredit it with meaning. CMD (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Punjab has residents, though. I mean Indians and/or Pakistanis resident in Punjab state India and/or Pakistan as well as neighboring states considered part of "punjab". But yes, given that it's not being conducted by or for locals I don't see why it's here. Astrofreak92 (talk) 01:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
@Astrofreak92: @Chipmunkdavis: @Number 57: History of Punjabi people and Sikhs in the Indian union should be considered here. From 1980s-1990s, Punjabis in Punjab demanded independence from India in retaliation Indian authorities attacked Amritsar (Operation Blue Star) and later committed a genocide. Punjabis in Punjab presented a memorandum for Independence from India to Mr Boutros-Boutros Ghali, the then UN Secretary-General in 1992 in New Delhi. Two political parties in Punjab (Akali Dal Mann and Dal Khalsa) are demanding independence, hence the movement for independence is active in the Punjab but when Punjab Referendum 2020 activists campaign in Punjab, India they are charged with war against India. Punjab isn't a free society, therefore the Punjabi diaspora residing in free societies are raising their voices for the people of Punjab.
Check out interview with Khalistan supporter, Jitendra Singh of Sikhs for Justice
114.109.50.238 (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
That's all interesting, but it is not an "independence referendum" under the definition used here. Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Agree with Astrofreak92 on this – this is not an independence referendum. Number 57 13:05, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Republic Srpska

So is this referendum actually happening? I can't find out if it is yet. Someone please help. The2016 (talk) 14:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be, more specifically, Kosovo? BulbAtop

South Ossetia

While I agree that there is not currently an independence referendum scheduled, the referendum in question would have as an option retaining independence. Crimea's "vote" on accession to the Russian Federation only included staying in Ukraine versus joining Russia, and so it is rightfully excluded, but if the Ossetia vote is "stay independent" vs "merge" it would belong here just like the vote in Moldova to maintain independence and the votes in breakaway states to "ratify" de facto independence. Astrofreak92 (talk) 03:30, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I think we should remove Moldova and South Ossetia. A vote on whether to merge with another country is not the same as a vote to take independence. They start from different status quos. CMD (talk) 03:59, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree, Moldova should also be removed; its inclusion directly contradicts the first line of the article ("An independence referendum is a type of referendum in which the citizens of a territory decide whether the territory should become an independent sovereign state"). Number 57 10:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Independence_referendum/Archive_1&oldid=1065777934"