Talk:Lists of active separatist movements

• /archive1
• /archive 2 (From merged article Talk:List of ethnic groups demanding a separate state)

Problem with United Kingdom bit

One of the problems is that The Channel Islands, The Isle of Man and Gibraltar aren't part of the U.K. Also there's no reason for having the entry "Orkney" on the list. The Orkney Islands are just a place in The U.K. Unless we're going to have to have every single place that's in the U.K. on the list, Birmingham, Clapham, Little Waltham etc., then it needs to be deleted. Can someone attend to this? I get blocked for a month by a bloke called "Neutrality" if I so much as change a jot.WikiUser 21:04, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Done. Although I realise that changing the title to "UK and associated islands (Europe)" doesn't really work for Gib. Any suggestions? Kevintoronto 16:43, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Orkney and Shetland Movement(s) put up a candidate in a General Election in the 1990's, scoring, if I recall 13.6%. The candidate was not opposed by the SNP. raymi.

Are Monmouthsire and Berwick really applicable here? They are not trying to become autonomous or to seceed from the United Kingdom, after all Robdurbar 11:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Those were silly, unsourced additions. Duly deleted.--Mais oui! 14:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

In defence:- a) Berwick Upon Tweed:- Obviously the source of debate regarding being part of England or Scotland. Only classed as part of England since 1746. A large proportion of Scottish Nationalists wish it to be part of Scotland. Whilst not trying to secede single-handedly from the UK, if Scotland does become independent, the question of Berwick will no doubt be high up the agenda. Realise of course that Scotland does have its' own parliament. b)Monmouthshire:- I believe the policy of the English National Party is to reincorporate the County with England. Again, this is not secession from the UK, but should be duly noted. I will try to make an entry in the next few weeks as regards these and other English/Scottish, English/Welsh and Scots/Northern Irish sub-national (generally minority) irredentist claims. Suggestions welcome, as always. RAYMI.

Do we actually have any proof that these are is an 'active' movements? Robdurbar 15:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes. For Berwick Upon Tweed, one can read up several articles on the net. While I do not know of any polls conducted to see levels of support locally, there are plenty of people in and outside of Berwick who would like to see the area 'reunited'. Some groups of Nationalists move the 'Welcome to England' signs. Good points to start for a background are articles on the town itself. With Monmouthshire, I will have to check to see if this is DEFINITELY English National Party policy. It is certainly a discussion point within the Association of British Counties, as is the Berwick question Incidentally, there is a party called the Scottish Jacobite Party who wish to include much of the North of England within the boundaries of an independent Scotland. This Party admittedly represents a TINY fraction of Scots. On a difeerent, but related subject, you may be also aware of Hay-on-Wye's 'claim' for 'independence' (related article), and the attempt made by Llanwrst in North Wales to join the UN in the 1950's. Also, there was discussion on the BBC website a while ago regarding Yorkshire independence. Many many thanks for your opinions and interest! RAYMI 10/01/06.

It may be worth pointing out at this juncture that there is no such thing as an English National Party. Also, as a lifelong member of the Scottish National Party, I find the statement "... a large proportion of Scottish Nationalists wish it to be part of Scotland... " to be absolutely flabergasting: that is just plain pants! I have attended many, many meetings and several conferences, and met hundreds of SNP members and supporters, and I have never, ever heard the topic of Berwick even mentioned. This is a total red herring.--Mais oui! 16:17, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the English Democrats' policy page, they claim that the people of Monmouthsire should be given a referendum to decide whether they are English or Welsh. I think it would be incorrect to describe this as an 'active secessionist movement'. However, their agruments for a devolved English parliament might be worth mentioning as a movement for auntonomy? Oh, it's already there! Robdurbar 17:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, and corrections, gratefully received. I do not think that the arguments regarding the status of both Berwick Upon Tweed and Monmouthshire should be ignored by Wikipedia. I would like suggestions please, as there is no easy categorisation without a certain amount of POVness. My responses to the comments posted (in addition to my thanks...) are that the debate regarding Berwick has been, unquestionably, going on for centuries. In addition, some famous Nationalists (Wendy Wood springs to mind) supported a change in National status for B-O-T. Scottish support is only 50% of the issue here. As Berwick lies currently within English administration, support within the Borough must be counted also. I expect, although I am sure you will know better, that perhaps the SNP did not debate Berwick as it was an English issue!!!! (an East Berwickshire, rather than a West Lothian question!!). Also, nowadays, although still the beneficiary of BY FAR the largest amount of Nationalist support, the SNP is no longer the only Nationalist Party with representation.I write with less experience of Nationalist politics myself, but I did live in Scotland, and on the Borders for over five years in the last six. Categorisation is what is needed here, I would be grateful for your views. In regard to Monmouthshire, thank you for correcting me as regards the English Democrats. If there is consideration that Monmouthshire should perhaps be moved to eventual Independent/Autonomous administration, then they are NOT opposing it.

United Kingdom

has never been a country. It's a state with several countries within it. This is even acknowledged to an extent officially unlike certain other states.

The UK is a country [1], [2], [3], [4] as defined in both national and international law. 86.132.210.231 10:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Macau

has an active autonomist movement?--Huaiwei 06:46, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More accurately, movements to safeguard autonomy. — Instantnood 14:05, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

With no outright demand for greater autonomy, isnt it? If so, perhaps it should be removed from this list?--Huaiwei 19:38, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article doesn't tell what active autonomist movement is. — Instantnood 06:12, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Then define it.--Huaiwei 08:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with the current version. — Instantnood 09:57, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

You dont have to tell me that, and it is hardly of interest to me. I was asking about Macau. In my opinion, it does not need to be there when they do not have active movements demanding for greater autonomy or independence.--Huaiwei 10:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As the article doesn't tell what an active autonomist movement is, I tend to keeping cases like Macau. — Instantnood 12:59, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

First you say you dont find any problem with the definition. Then you say it dosent tell you what anything is. The contradiction is getting amusing. Meanwhile, listing Macau in this page alongside examples like Kosovo, Kashmir and even Hong Kong seems like an extreme mismatch.--Huaiwei 13:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

First, when did I say I "dont find any problem with the definition"? And second, how is it mismatched? — Instantnood 13:11, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

"I don't think there's any problem with the current version." Oh.....so you are going to claim that you are talking about something else right? Right. Typical Instantnood behavior. Meanwhile, may I know which organisation(s) is advocating for greater autonomy in Macau for one? Do they have demonstrations? Do they have mass movements? Do they even have major discourse happening in any media?--Huaiwei 13:15, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So did I say I "dont find any problem with the definition"? — Instantnood 13:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

This political group and its two lawmakers strive to defend and safeguard Macau's autonomy. They consider the acts of the government undermining its autonomy. They have demonstrations. — Instantnood 13:19, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Defend and safeguard you say? What does that got to do a fight for greater autonomy, a common trait for practically every other entity in that list? And how big is this political group? 2 people? 10? 100? 100,000?--Huaiwei 13:25, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Did the article say only places with organisation fighting for greater autonomy can be listed? And to repeat myself, did I say I "dont find any problem with the definition"? — Instantnood 14:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I seriously do not care about what you think of the definition. That kind of debate, you can wage with your 3 year old nephew. I am more concerned over why Macau appears in this list. Macau is not demanding independence, or is it? Macau is not demanding greater autonomy, or is it? If you are saying it exists because it wants to maintain the status quo, then perhaps we shall then include the hundreds upon hundreds of organisations and their home countries whereby they also happen to be advocating the "status quo"? A simple look through of the article gives you a clear impression of its intentions...they are fillled with seperatist/secessionist movements calling for either greater autonomy (with possiblities for eventual statehood), or outright independence immediately. Having Hong Kong listed already raises eyebrows...Hong Kong hopes for greater autonomy with statehood ambitions? To see Macau also listed just because Hong Kong is there has made a mockery out of this article!--Huaiwei 16:50, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Before we start efficiently expending our mental resources on an exceptionally useful and helpful flame war, we should take a step back. There does not seem to be a stated definition of "autonomist and secessionist" movement; we should probably create one. However, the name does make it plain that we're talking about movements seeking autonomy or secession/independence. If you can demonstrate that such a movement exists in Macao, then it belongs on the list. If not, then it doesn't. Unfortunately, my Chinese isn't up to reading the link provided, but if this group does in fact merely seek to maintain the status quo (i.e., SAR status), then it doesn't qualify. siafu 17:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks siafu. What some of the people are advocating is to fight for the autonomy what an SAR should be deserved to have enjoyed. They think what the SAR government under Edmund Ho and the pro-Beijing lawmakers are doing has undermined, or more precisely, damaged its autonomy as an SAR. — Instantnood 18:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

• then point to wikipedia articles about the secessionist movement, not to the articles about the state. the US has thousands of kooks in it that say they are autonomist or secessionist that nobody pays attention to - some of them are linked to here. If you think they are worthy of being listed here, then write the article. if they are that unimportant, then don't link here. SchmuckyTheCat 03:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• which means you are suggesting that this group is saying the local govenment is undermining the level of autonomy already granted when it was accorded SAR status, and they are demanding a return to that level of autonomy? Honestly...this still sounds like maintaining the staus quo...it does not involve the changing any laws or constitutions. The PRC does not have to yield anything...it has already granted that autonomy. So in what way are they calling for greater autonomy beyond what has been given to them? For Hong Kong, the only reason they might appear is the whole issue on demanding the rights to elect their leader. Does this happen in Macau to a significant scale to be wikipedia-worthy?--Huaiwei 04:36, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Many of the entries are listed without mentioning the relevant orgaisations. And the article does not state what an active autonomist or secessionist movement is. We have little foundation to comment on which are qualified to be listed, and which are not. — Instantnood 09:57, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

And so because of the definition is deemed as poorly defined, we have our hands tied, and are forced to keep an entity here even thou we know full well it is not asking for greater autonomy or independence? If this page is as dubious as this, perhaps it needs to be removed?--Huaiwei 09:41, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Keep it as it has been, until a clearer definition has been concluded to tell what qualifies to be listed. — Instantnood 09:55, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

I suppose you are missing the point that no matter how we defines it, Macau still dosent qualify?--Huaiwei 10:27, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You don't think it's qualified, but I do. — Instantnood 10:59, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Seems like there is a general agreement above that if we cannot show that Macau is asking for greater autonomy, then it should not be in this page? I certainly do not think its between you and I. You think too highly of me. Instead of spending all your time writing what looks more suitable for soup opera scripts in discussion pages, perhaps you should be spending more time demonstrating the facts directly under dispute?--Huaiwei 11:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

Huaiwei mentioned in the section right below that the parties/movements in Macao are only calling for a preservation of the status quo. In reality, although autonomy is already guaranteed on paper, the organisations in Macao are striking to have such autonomy fulfilled. IMHO it does fit into the definition of autonomist movements. — Instantnood 16:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Pre-democracy camps in HK and Macau should not be counted as autonomist and secessionist. They are for democracy but not for more autonomy as autonomy has already be granted by basic law. Chungpui from Chinese wiki147.8.239.64 23:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC) ...and it's quite confusing to see pro-democracy camps of HK and Macau to be listed with say Tibet and Taiwan independent movements. If the words I deleted restored, maybe we should add a brief explanation so that others will not be confused.147.8.239.64 23:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Definition

Obviously, we need a definition. I think it's fair to say that we can rely on the following criteria for an entry on this list:

1. It must be an 'active' movement (i.e., have active, living members).

2. It must be seeking autonomy or secession for a particular region or area.

Which seems pretty simple. If there's anything we need to equivocate on further, please say so now. Once we got this hashed out, I'll put it on the page proper. siafu 20:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider if we are including parties or movements calling for a preservation of the status quo, vs those asking for greater political/social freedom? I personally assumed this page was meant for the later, and not the former, hence the whole debate over Macau above.--Huaiwei 12:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sounds a little bit irrelevant here, but as someone has inacurately brought it up I have to tell anyways. The New Macau Association is asking for greater political and social freedom within the present legal and constitutional framework, which the government is not doing. For instance the right of assembly is guaranteed, but the government had a record of getting electricity supply to a June 4 vigil. They are not calling for a preservation of the status quo, but freedom within the present framework. — Instantnood 15:36, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

Please, keep Macao debate in the section above. I'm not trying to legitimize or illegitimize any party or their agenda, just trying hammer out what belongs on this particular page-- once we get this done it should provide us with a reasonable tool for deciding the debate. If we include those asking for greater policital/civil freedoms, then we'd have to include the Libertarian party in the United States as well as the ACLU, neither of which strike me as "autonomist" or "secessionist", so I suggest not having that in the definition. siafu 16:04, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I know we should keep the debate in the section above. But someone brought it up in an inaccurate manner, and I have to make some clarification. The discussion, if there's any, will continue above. — Instantnood 16:49, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am quite sure I merely said "hence the debate over Macau above", and I clearly did not even bother mentioning which scenario Macau falls into. So what is with the "inaccuracy"? I do wonder who is this "someone" you are refering to then?--Huaiwei 22:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding siafu's proposed criteria above, it makes sense to me. Regarding Macau, whatever the the legal basis may be, they are seeking greater autonomy. Maybe a flaw in the proposed definition is that by implication it only includes movements for absolute autonomy, while in the real world there are many degrees of autonomy. Maybe the definition should be amended to be "It must be seeking increased autonomy or secession for a particular region or area" or something similar. Cheers, -Willmcw 22:15, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with have to have a definition, but I'm afraid there's no absolute autonomy, except real independence. Autonomy is something relative. — Instantnood 15:00, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

The definition takes in relative degrees of autonomy just fine; it just centers on regional autonomy instead of personal autonomy (civil freedom). siafu 15:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hm..with regards to Macau, I dont see how the above indicated that they are seeking greater autonomy. If we are to critically analyise this paragraph: "The New Macau Association is asking for greater political and social freedom within the present legal and constitutional framework, which the government is not doing. For instance the right of assembly is guaranteed, but the government had a record of getting electricity supply to a June 4 vigil. They are not calling for a preservation of the status quo, but freedom within the present framework."

Notice that they are seeking "greater" autonomy within the present legal and constitutional framework. In other words, in terms of legality and the constitution, a level of autonomy has already been guaranteed. Aceeding to these people's demands will not involve a rewrite of the constitution or any other law, quite in contrast to the vast majority of examples listed here. The example highlighted says the same thing. These groups are demanding that autonomy which has been granted should be exercised on the ground. Are they asking for more autonomy beyond what has been granted? No. and most importantly, does this call for greater economy actually involve domestic politics and civil liberties, or regional autonomy from the PRC? If we are going to consider domestic liberties as a qualifying factor, then I suppose almost every country on Earth will get listed, and almost every organisation with any form of liberalist inclinations will get listed too? Is this what the article sets out to archieve?--Huaiwei 16:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They aren't merely asking for civil liberties, but requesting the government not to say yes to political pressures from Beijing. Don't simply jump to the conclusion if you are not familiar with it. Please. — Instantnood 17:29, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

I am making conclusions from your comments right now. If they are inadequate, you only have yourselves to blame, because you did not mention this earlier. You say they are "requesting the government not to say yes to political pressures from Beijing". Mind giving concrete examples?--Huaiwei 18:35, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind. But Macao is listed there for some time, and it was you who challenged whether it should be qualified to be listed. You are the one to be responsible for giving evidence why it shouldn't be listed. If you're not familiar with it, do some homework. — Instantnood 20:45, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Timing as little relevance for this site, for quite an obvious reason. People do not always log in and track changes everyday, and they do not always check every single edits of any other person as much as you do. For a site as vast as this, you cannot assume others will have noted the existance of an entry from the time it is up. I posted the question the moment I happened to chance upon it, and I asked for more information because I have ever seen any report on the supposed Macau autonomist movement in any major Asian newspaper, let alone on international newswires. So again I ask...where is the concrete evidence?--Huaiwei 10:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

We've got to ask why it got listed in the very beginning. If you have never heard about it, you should proceed to look for information, instead of requesting people who oppose your proposal to delete it to provide evidence, or else it has to be deleted. — Instantnood 11:24, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

(response to siafu's comment at 15:07, 25 Mar 2005) Agree. Autonomy is always something in relative sense. Some of those listed are sucessionist movements from a province to be a separate province within the sovereign state, and these could hardly be called absolute autonomy. It just fine as long as the movements listed are seeking for increase autonomy, of a certain region. — Instantnood 20:51, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Increased autonomy can naturally be considered for inclusion in this page. The problem is what kind of autonomy are we talking about here, plus the need to diffrentiate between political autonomy occuring within a political sub-entity, and that which involves the larger political entity it belongs to. Calling for the local government to respect rights as enshrined in existing laws by the controlling higher-level government is not the same as groups calling for existing laws to be amended to allow for greater autonomy from that government.--Huaiwei 10:47, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Very right. It is logical to have some definitions. But I'm pretty sure Macao is not the only case on the list. What we can do is to tell readers what form of autonomy it is seeking, and what actually the people involved are heading to. It's not black and white, to keep or to kick. — Instantnood 11:24, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Obviously this discussion is getting rather sidetracked by a specific case. I'm proposing that we can have several black and white requirements for inclusion, with at least one area (level of autonomy desired) left as a spectrum. Since I haven't heard any other suggested criteria at this point, if no one objects in the next 48 hours I'm going to go ahead and place the definition as it is on the page proper. siafu 03:30, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no objection to your suggestion Siafu. After much pointless debates (see the history of this talk page), this article was finally renamed to List of active autonomist and secessionist movements. The list is meant to include currently active movements seeking important political changes in a given region of the world. Although not explicit, the region is of course often considered the homeland or historical homeland of a people. The political transformations can range from simply negociating greater autonomy within a given state to obtaining total independance from a state through negociation or violence. When I created the "template" of this article so to speak, I divided the movements according to what we have in Quebec, that is organisations whose actions are either primarily political (political parties), civic (labour unions, citizens associations promoting Quebec nationalism) or cultural (organisations promoting French and Quebec culture). In the past, there were also one organisation, the FLQ, which decided to resort to violent actions. Since it is no longer active, it was added to List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements.

-- Mathieugp 19:57, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just for clarity, it seems that an inference for your statement would be that if a secessionist movement were successful in gaining full political independence, it would promptly need to be moved to List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements? If so, I agree. If not, please clarify.

I also am happy with the current template; I find it informative (elegant even?) and does not seem in any way obstructive.

However, the issue of homeland seems to me a difficult one from the outset. Not only do I not think it entirely necessary for a group to claim the region they are seeking greater autonomy in to be their "homeland", I also think that determining what is or isn't a group's homeland is an exceptionally thorny issue (see, e.g., FYRO Macedonia Macedonian Slavs vs. Macedonian-Albanians). I think it would be better to leave this at most implicit, and perhaps even explicitly denied in the definition.

siafu 03:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since it appears I'm not attracting any further discussion with this, I went ahead and put a blurb in the top by way of definition. siafu 23:24, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

São Tomé and Príncipe and other African countries

Principe is listed as a region of São Tomé and Príncipe here. No movement is identified. Is there any evidence that there is active autonomist/secessionist movement? It is an island of 5400 people, after all. If there is no evidence of a movement, perhaps we should remove Principe from this list.

I raise the same questions about Madagascar - Merina, Ghana - Dagomba and United Kingdom (Africa) - Saint Helena. The articles on the regions do not mention autonomist/secessionist movements. Comments? Kevintoronto 22:49, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: Seems good to me. siafu 23:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted them, then. They can be added back in if someone cna provide some evidence. Thanks. Ground Zero 19:46, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Other questionable entries

Here are some more entries on the list that are questionable. I will remove these unless someone can provide some evidence of an active autonmoist or secessionst movement. Thanks.

Muscat, Oman, Santa Cruz, Bolivia, Lìmon, Costa Rica, and Pitcairn Island. Ground Zero 19:43, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem might be a bit more general; this isn't supposed to be a list of "troublesome regions" but a list of movements. Entries that refer only to a region don't provide us with much at all-- they should be the names of actual movements, even if its just a red link, IMHO. siafu 22:11, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. What I've been doing is going through and taking a look at the regions that do not have movements identified and reviewing the articles. I haven't found anything in these articles to suggest autonomist/secessionist activity. In some cases, I have not nominated a region for deletion even though there is no movement listed because I am aware that there is some autonomist/secessionist activity. I'll provide examples later. Ground Zero 14:32, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've lived in California for fourteen years, and I've hever heard of either the California Secessionist Party, or the Committee to Explore California Secession. I'd imagine that many of the other listings in developed countries are equally pitiful. --Smack (talk) 21:13, 17 Apr 2005 (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!) - [5]

• Quebec
  • Two 2005 surveys on sovereignty with supra-national partnership: 54% in favour - [6], [7]

• Basque Country
  • 2005 survey on the Ibarretxe plan: 47% in favour (27% opposed) - [8]
  • 2004 survey on political future: 31% in favour of independence (32% for status quo, 31% for federal model of greater autonomy) - [9]

• Scotland
  • 2005 survey on independence (probably within the EU): 46% in favour (39% opposed, 15% undecided) - [10]

• Catalonia
  • 2001 survey on independence: 35.9% in favour (48.1% opposed, 13.3% undecided) - [11] (tell us if you find a more recent one)

• Taiwan
  • Opinion on independence (unknown date): 30% in favour - [12] (Wikipedia article without reference)

• Brittany
  • 2000 survey on independence (unknown date): 19% in favour, in current departments of Britanny (30% in Loire-Atlantique - 76% opposed in Britanny, 69% in Loire-Atlantique) - [13]

• Wallonia
  • 2003 survey on political future: 14% in favour of independence (75% for status quo, 36% for reunion with France) - [14]

• Corsica
  • Survey on independence (unknown date): 13% in favour - [15]

Thanks. I'd think there would be more areas in the world though. Teh Bomb Sophist [Time]

Page move

Info from the ethnic groups demanding a separate state page should be merged here. They are basicially the same page. --Hottentot

This list has a clearly broader scope than the other; is there any argument that secessionist groups with a specifically ethnic focus are qualititatively different? Alternately, is there a specific interest in such groups that would make the more narrow list desirable? If there's a convincing yes to either, we could easily add a small descriptive tag to each relevant entry on this list and merge them anyway. siafu 23:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The title of this page, List of active autonomist and secessionist movements even is the same as List of ethnic groups demanding a separate state. --Hottentot

Oppose move or merge (it is not at all clear what proposer Hottentot is actually proposing). May I request that contributors also date their contributions, not just sign them.--Mais oui! 04:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Honk Kong movements were removed because of claimed lack of notability. [16] Several movements in this article are of little notability. I feel this removal is debatable. --Liberlogos 17:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Representativity

I have some concern about this page. The idea isn't bad, but I really don't like the confusion between real autonomist groups and small groups which are constitued of a handful of people (I am talking from the case I know (France), but I supposed that it could be the same for other countries). As you now, Internet is a place small extremists groups really like because they can make a lot of propoaganda in it and impose their truth. The groups mentioned in this article for France could be right (I didn't really look at it actually), but among them only those from Corsica are really existing (the question of the independantist movements of Britanny is a little bit more complex) and the others on this webpage are virtually non existing (in other they perhaps (I say perhaps because I didn't verify) exist (and correspond to the stricto sensu definition of this article) but are really limited to a handful (let's say 50) of members and aren't really representatives of peoples willing. I am not really for removing this small groups but I think that this article needs some work on. An idea could be to try to split all the groups between those who represents a real autonomist or independist movement (let's say 10 or 15% of the people in the specific territory) and the others. I definitely agree that it's far from being a perfect definition but I think that it's a little bit better. Poppypetty 18:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The fact that various are small and "unimportant" is not really important, IMO. I certainly agree that the FLNC has a much larger presence and a much larger (claimed, at least) support base than, say, the small autonomist movement for Alsace or Savoie, but they still exist and can be documented. I don't think that this is, or would work as well as, a list of autonomist regions (rather than groups) because doing such would raise criticism from the opposite camp. That is, right now you can point out that some groups are small and inconsequential, but we don't claim that they are large. If we were to make this a list of large and serious autonomist regions we could well expect objections from "unionists" or "anti-autonomists" in these regions that the secessionists are a minority or an oppressive majority. In short, I think that's an issue on which we would do best remaining agnostic. siafu 03:30, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. What about adding a line at the top of the article just to mention what you said ? Something like The importance and number of members from the following groups and parties are really various, from few dozens of militants to several thousands. I guess that could be fair and precise a little bit to people that these groups aren't all really important. Poppypetty 02:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Goa?

May I know why Goa is listed here? WikiSceptic 13:30, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed it; I have no idea why it had been listed in the first place, but this list is for movements and not regions, so if there's no information it doesn't belong. siafu 14:46, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Dumasia vs. Karbi Conflict

I came here searching for information on the conflict between the Karbi and Dumasia (or Dimasia) ethnic communities, which has taken a toll of about 50-80 murders in the last fifteen days in the district of Karbi-Anglong, Assam. Sadly, Wikipedia has no mention of the Dumasias/Dimasias ethnic group and what their agenda is. Even the Karbi information is meagre.

I catch the drift that the Karbis have been entertaining "high caste" notions of themselves, which is why they opted out of Meghalaya when the Hill Districts were carved out and that for that reason they look down on the Mizo / Hmar as "Chamars", i.e., Shudras or Low Caste, actually, leather-working tribe, although I do not find any information to corroborate a connection between the Mizos and Chamars. And that they are being cultivated in such ideas by the Hindu Right. So much I had picked about a year or so ago, before the present conflict flared up, from reading the websites of the Hindu fascist network or "Sangh Parivar."

Bombay papers portray the killings as having been initiated by the Dimasias, and most victims as being Karbis, although atleast 40% of the victims, if not more, are Dimasia.

The newspapers talk of a Central minister, Jaiswal, rushing to Karbi-Anglong to bring the two political organizations representing each ethnic community to the table for discussion and for restoring a ceasefire. However, I had not heard of a ceasefire involving either the Karbis or the Dimasias.

I do not even know what the Dimasias mean by their demand for a "separate homeland". A separate, Dimasia-dominated district in Assam carved out of Karbi-Anglong? A separate province / state ("pradesh")? Or independence, a la ULFA, etc.?

WikiSceptic 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

This page is just a list, unfortunately, and not a repository for detailed information. This all seems like very interesting information, and interesting questions, but they really belong on the relevant article talk pages and not here. siafu 14:48, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

See these links:-

"Karbi Anglong violence:Inqiry ordered"

"Seven Karbis killed in Assam", see also last paragraph: "Police suspect the assailants to be from the outlawed Dima Halom Daoga that is fighting for an independent homeland for the Dimasa tribe in eastern Assam." WikiSceptic 05:03, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Australia

I have added New England (Australia), as there is still an active movement to secede from Australia. RAYMI 27/11/2005

My understandning is that activists and politicians in New England and North Queensland lobby to establish separate states within the framwork of Australia, and that outright independence is the goal of an utterly tiny minority. --Big Adamsky 17:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

It has active living members who wish to secede. It IS arguable to include it, but note that it qualifies by definition anyway.

On a different subject can we have a section/article on groups that wish their nation to JOIN with another country. Suggestions:- United Ireland movement, US Canada union movement, PanEuropeanism, Belarus-Russia union, Panslavism, China-Taiwan union,'no borders',Iraq-Kuwait union, Guatemala-Belize, Canada-Cayman OR Turks and Caicos union, Korean unification, Turk-Azeri union, Romania-Moldova union, pan Arabism, panAfricanism, German-Austrian union. I realise with this I may be stirring up a hornet's nest, but many 'unions' of nations have taken place over the years (Germany and Yemen are two recent ones). Some of the above have had government support; a few are supported by sizeable majorities, and a few have little support. Rather like in this article. Suggestions please for titles, entries, and please do as much work as you can. I have around 5 hours access to PC's a week!!!!! RAYMI

Criteria for inclusion in this list

In the articles List of sovereign states, List of unrecognized countries and List of active autonomist and secessionist movements I think it would help the reader a great deal if a clearer distinction is made between these categories:

• a recognized state controlling most or all of its territory

• a de facto sovereign state that lacks general recognition, but still maintains most of the attributes of a functioning state

• an aspirant state, i.e. a group of people concentrated in a singel territory that want either a sovereign state or an autonomous sub-state within another state

Otherwise, it will be difficult to reach a consensus about what to properly call all these entities that may variously either want or have actual control and/or partial recognition. Then there are all those territories that don't want either sovereign statehood nor political union with or incorporation into another state, as well as disputed territories that don't seek independence. --Big Adamsky 19:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This may be a good idea, if possible, but the first one is in 'list of nations'. The second in 'territorial disputes', and the third is here. Any comments on my 'aspirant reunification movements' idea as above? RAYMI

I am not opposed to a clarification of the criteria for inclusion in this list. It seems a good idea. Also, a List of active reunification movements or something similar might be a good idea. -- Mathieugp 22:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Good ideas. -Willmcw 00:07, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this list is surprisingly generous/liberal in what it considers to be a secessionist movement or group. At least a handful of the entries listed, confined mainly to the West, hardly expect their advocacy for sovereignty to be taken literally - or even seriously. In such cases, it might be more apt and helpful to regard these movements or groups as expressions of political protest (anti-authoritarianism and non-conformism) or as a statement of local pride and a celebration of cultural uniqueness. //Big Adamsky 17:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

It is generous, but it NEEDS to be. Southern Sudan, as an example, may be independent within 20 years, yet it's not an area that is KNOWN for secessionist aim, unlike Tibet, or Quebec, for example. Aspirations may be high in a lot of cases, and some may be unlikely to achieve full independence in ANY lifetime, but by wayof completeness, all need to be included.....until the list gets too big.....and then make some division. However, at the moment it's great the way it is... I add to it, and it will get bigger. On a personal note thank you all for commenting. Thank you!!!!! RAYMI 2/1/06 Aldershot (no independence movement that I know of....)

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

Why is Puerto Rico not here?

I'd like to know. It does have an active autonomist and secessionist movement. And it is not, as another user put it, "a sovereign, freely associated state that can have indepedence any time it asks for it". It is still a pure and simple colony, and has been so for the past half century of "Free Association", as recently recognized by a White House report. -- Mankawabi 08:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is included. RAYMI.

Yes. I included it after commenting. I was just wondering why it hadn't been already included. -- Mankawabi 12:12, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Glad you did. Keep 'em coming. RAYMI (23/01/2006)

Niue

i doubt there is any secessionist movement in Niue (or the Cook Islands for that matter) Bigkev

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 independet 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

Micro-separatists

I recommend not including "micro-separatists" on this page, such as organizations seeking to establish new states or municipalities within the United States or new cantons in Switzerland, new regions in France or Italy, new autonomous communities in Spain, etc. For the U.S., the appropriate place for state-level micro-separatists is List of U.S. state secession proposals.

I do not know who wrote this (please sign your comments) but I strongly agree. Secessionist movements are generally considered to be those who seek independent statehood and sovereignty as independent states. Proposals for new municipalities, and the like, would not fall under this heading. - Mauco 14:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Violence & politics (POV template)

I rm the distinction between "violent" & "politics" movement although I haven't finished and it must be continued. This distinction has no solid foundations for it. Apart from the POV issues relating to classifying without sources certain movements in "violents" while others are classified, for arbitrary reasons, into "politics" movement (a POV related to the problem of terrorism classification), there is the more important issue that war & "violence" is not necessarily opposed to politics, quite to the contrary if you reread Clausewitz' On War. Furthermore, it is quite evident that any of these "violent" movements use violence for political purposes. Thus, apart from being POV, this classification is not helpful. Lapaz 18:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A movement (or person) can be political without being violent, and violent without being political. It's an obvious distinction, and a very relevant one. Obviously, it can be inferred that any entry on this list that is marked as "violent" is pursuing violence for political purposes, but the two states are not opposed in the manner you suggest. It's also not POV to indicate if a secessionist movements engages in violence or not; it's not any sort of POV at all to label violence as violence. Winning elections and debating are non-violent; blowing things up, rioting, and shooting people are violent. siafu 20:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Then you may use "military" or "paramilitary", but "violent" is too vague and it is completely meaningless to oppose it to "political". All of these violent movements have political reasons at the origin of their creation and follow political goals, before they eventually become narco-terrorist mafia groups, in which case violence is no longer a political mean. Lapaz 20:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"Military" and "paramilitary" are both somewhat ambiguous, and in many cases inaccurate. A terrorist group, for example, does not necessarily classify as either, but is clearly violent. siafu 20:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Variable, I'm not going to argue with you for tens of years. I'm pretty sure you consider your reasons valid, else you wouldn't take the care to argue about them, and I'm pretty sure I'm not going to make your mind change. What I do wish you would eventually consider, is that if you consider "military" and "paramilitary" "ambiguous", then you may understand why others may consider the opposition between "violence" & "politics" ambiguous! If you feel about using "terrorism" labels, well albeit the POV issues that raise, this at least doesn't oppose meaninglessly "politics" to "violence". Since Wikipedia is about finding a consensual decision, I do hope you will consider these arguments and think that, although no categorization may be perfect, this current one opposing "violence" to "politics" is not helpful at all!Lapaz 21:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm hereby reversing your changes because I hope that other users may contribute to this, and that this is not an affair between you & me. Please allow another user to revert my changes if he feels like it. Lapaz 21:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

In other words, I am inviting you to help find together a consensual solution, because this current categorization will not do. Lapaz 21:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Beside, I point out to you that WP:CS no source have been provided to classify groups in one or the other category, which thus entitle me according to Wikipedia policy to remove this unreferenced classification which is meaningless according to political science standards. Lapaz 21:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remove entries because of a lack of sources, go ahead; that has nothing to do withamy problems with "violent". I'm also not suggesting using the word "terrorist" here in the list, simply presenting an example. Aside from a narrow interpretation from Clausewitz, you haven't presented any real reason why "violent" and "political" are in any way POV. siafu 01:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me put it again for you. "Violents" is not opposed to "Politics", so it is meaningless to classify movements according to if they are "violents" or if they are "politics". There is no disjunction between violence & politics. We MUST find another way of categorizing, be it by "military", "terrorism" or anything else, which all have in common of NOT opposing violence to politics. Politics, you know, is not reserved to parliaments. I don't think I need to provide any source for such evident observation, quoting Clausewitz was just to recall classics... Lapaz 18:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

How is it not clear? "Violent" means that a movement uses violence. "Political" means that they use political means, e.g. a political party. There's no POV involved, and I fail to see how it's not clear. Certainly it's also obvious that movements categorized as "violent" here are pursuing political ends, and it doesn't seem that anyone is confounding the two aside from, possibly, yourself. The apparenty consensus, based on the fact that these distinctions have been in place for over a year, is to include them, and unless you can either convince me or bring in other editors (through an RFC perhaps?) and therefore establish a new consensus, I don't see any reason to change it. siafu 19:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What about groups like Hamas that are political parties, take part in elections, run civic instituons, etc. -- but also carry out attacks? What about the Nazi party (emphaisis on that last word), which was also political, and started a huge war? Instead of violent vs. political A better dichotomy would be violent vs. non-military (though the lines can blur a little even in that case). Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 02:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This distinction doesn't work at all. Beside, it ignores evolution. Why is the Polisario Front classed "political"? Because it has recently abandonned armed struggle? But what happens if Morocco insists on refusing to negotiate with it? Won't it take again its armed struggle? So what does this means, qualifying one day the Polisario as a "political" movement, the other day as a "violent" movement?... Is there any basis AT ALL, legitimate sources, and all, for this classification? Don't tell me it's been "around for a year or so": Wikipedia is not authoritative at all, you're aware of that you've been here for at least a year or so... If this classification can't be sourced to some authoritative political scientist, it should be removed. And if it sourced, I'll be happy to find some time to prove you that they are many other much more relevant classifications than this ill-advised one. I know that you think I'm just crazy to believe that this opposition between "violence" & "politics" is POV, but maybe you should take into account that this dualism may actually be ill-advised. Why should elections be opposed to war? To give you just one example: the Columbian FARC are just now being the subject of a military campaign by Uribe's government, who wants to break them military before taking them to the table of negotiations. Military operations are almost always subjected to political goals, as is violence: THUS, most of the times violences & politics are mixed. So why separate them in a POV attempt to distinguish "pacific" movements with "violents" movements? If this is really the opposition, then write "pacific" against "violent", at least this is an opposition, while "violence" does not oppose politics. Lapaz 16:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a proposed solution: instead of "violent" and "political," use "political party," "pressure group," and "rebel organization," possibly with the notation "(banned)" for political parties, pressure groups, and rebel organizations that are prohibited under domestic law. This distinction would allow the inclusion of Batasuna, for instance, as a political party (currently banned), and Eta as a rebel organization. The distinction between political parties and rebel organizations is very much relevant in most of the world, as they are usually organizationally distinct and of course formed for different reasons. In Sudan, to take another example, the SPLM was the Southern political party, while the SPLA was its military wing. In Sri Lanka, the rebel LTTE does not contest elections directly, but instead seeks to control which candidates from other parties (particularly the Tamil National Alliance) are put up for election and ultimately elected. If this solution is acceptable to all, I will go through and make whatever changes to the categorizations that I can. (I am, by the way, a political scientist, and I am basing this proposed categorization loosely on the categories of ethnic conflict - electoral action, protest, rebellion - used by Ted Gurr in his books and in the Minorities at Risk project.--Jsorens 13:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objections to my solution, I have implemented it. Jsorens 18:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

South Africa

Some comments on the South African section:

• Secession of the Western Cape? I am not aware of any such movement.
• Kwazulu Natal - I am not aware that there is any argument for the seperation of theis provence from South Africa. The ony google hits on this topic appear to all date from 1994 (the time of South Africa's first democratic election and of significant political turmoil in this region. Since then this appears to have been largely ignored. I might propose that this be moved to the inactive or historic secessionist movement page.

Just my two cents worth for now.Mark 14:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sami

There is hardly an active secessionist movement within the Sami area. Occasionally, it is suggested by one or two Sami intellectuals and others. However, no political party suggests it, and there is no organization advocating it.

Another thing is that Sami identity is being reinforced lately by the use of the Sami flag, the Sami national athem, the celebration of the Day of the Sami People etc. All this is recognized by Norway, Sweden and Finland, and is often included in the way these countries present themselves abroad.

But it is an autonomist movement, of which they have achieved a lot with their flag, their day, anthem and Assembly. It should be included here. The list is, afterall, named 'active autonomist and secessionist movements', not 'active secessionist movements'. Joffeloff 15:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Real chances?

Which coutries may actually achieve independence in next 10-20 years.I mean legaly,like Montenegro did,which of them has right to decide on their future?I know that referendums are mentioned for New Caledonia,Bougenville,Quebec,Saharawia and that Kosovo and Palestine would probably become independent with no new referendum.Other examples? Duga gravitacije 08:10, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Montenengro

So called Serb Montenegro doesn't really exist in any political program,nor it has defined boreders or public support.It was just made out of statement of leader of one Serbian nationalist party (from Serbia,a party that is out of parliament in Montenegro),who was angry at the moment when he said that after results of Montenegrin independence referendum. Also,Albanians in Montenegro seek autonomy for them as a nation,not any kind of territorial autonomy (which would be hardly given to them since they live in 3 enclaves that are in different parts of Montenegro).There is a public movement in Tuzi,in metropolitan area of Podgorica that wants for Tuzi (with Albanian majority) to become municipality of its own,and not part of Podgorica,but Montenegro is already divided into 21 municipality,as a way of local oraganisation,an the don't have any kind of autonomy as some special entities. For Sandzak,on the other hand,there are movements for autonomy,although it has to be said that they are mainly centered in Serbia.Bosniaks of northern Montenegro(which is Sandzak) are great Montenegrin patriots and around 98% of them support Montenegrin independence and vote for ruling coalition in Montenegro which is made of civic and not national parties.Duga gravitacije 08:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Croatia

where do editors of this page get such informations???!!! are you crazy???!!!

there is not a single autonomist movement in Croatia.. that thing you wrote about Rijeka, Istria and Dalmatia is plain BS..

Cro ed

Cyprus

It's not so obvious which continent Cyprus belongs to. The wikipedia article on Cyprus explains the situation, describing it as a "Eurasian island", but also that culturally and historically it has strong ties to Europe. The European Union considers Cyprus to be a European country, and the Cypriots as well see it that way. I think especially in this case it should be listed under Europe, as the division of the island strongly reflects the European/Asian character split, and we (and most of the international community) have it represented as "Cyprus" meaning "southern" or "Greek" Cyprus, while the seperatist movement/unrecognized de fact state is "northern" or "Turkish" Cyprus. That is, it's represented as a European island with "Asian" separatists, not the other way around. siafu 22:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's quite obvious actually -- it's Asian land. See that cute little "Countries in Europe" box under any European country? We either include Russia, Turkey, and Azerbaijan -- whom all actually HAVE European land, unlike Cyprus -- under Europe, or we go by strict land definitions of where the event is occurring, which would classify all 4 under Asia. MonsterOfTheLake 22:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not clearly Asian land, since it's an island in the Mediterranean, which is surrounded by three continents. Europe, for that matter, is not actually a continent at all, and is primarily defined on cultural and historical grounds. Historically, Cyprus has been considered part of Europe. Geographically, it's by no means obvious or clear where it belongs-- Rhodes, for example, is closer to the "Asian mainland" than Cyprus, but as part of Greece is clearly European. In short, Europe thinks Cyprus is part of Europe, the nation of Cyprus thinks it's part of Europe, and geographically it's not obviously defined. BTW, Cyprus also contains the infobox you're referring to, and is listed in it. At any rate, this page is not about geography but politics, and politically it's very clear that Cyprus belongs with Europe. siafu 23:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If you've seen the infobox, you'll realize that Cyprus is listed as "Entirely in Asia." I've stated my issue here -- Russia, Turkey and Azerbaijan are all considered European. They're listed under Asia in this list, even though if you went by any classification other than strict geographical occurrings of the events, they'd be under Europe. Cyprus _is_ entirely in Asia, and they'd also be listed under Europe if you went by any classification other than geographical. The list is almost fully geographical, I'm just sticking with it. MonsterOfTheLake 23:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To Siafu: Cyprus has not historically been considered part of Europe. Thinking of it as part of Europe would not have made any sense at all before the Turkish/Greek population exchange in the 1920s. Prior to that Greeks had lived on the Asian mainland for almost 3000 years. Greekness has no necessary relationship with Europeanness. It is only the fact of the absence of Greeks from Asian Turkey now that makes people want to say Cyprus is in "Europe." Even still, Cyprus is pretty obviously geographically Asian - it is only a few miles from the coast of Turkey, and the next closest continental landmass is the Levant. To Monster: Russia and Turkey are obviously in both Europe and Asia. If we are talking about separatist movements in those countries, a separatist movement in, say, Smolensk, or, more apositely, the Northern Caucasus, should be listed as European, while one in Siberia should be listed as Asian. Similarly, a separatist movement in Edirne would be European, while one in Konya would be Asian. john k 23:17, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus is normally considered geographically in Asia. And this page is organized by geography. That's why there's a 'United Kingdom' section under Carribean.--Pharos 23:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

John K/Pharos: Thanks for restating what I've just said :-D MonsterOfTheLake 23:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To both: thank you for chiming in; it saves the hassle of having to visit RfC. I guess we'll leave under Asia. siafu 23:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Southwest United States

Has MEChA ever actually explicitly voiced support for any secessionist movement? Wiki Wikardo 04:22, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Question

I don't understand, why does "List of not fully sovereign nations" redirects here? Shouldn't that list include another countries?

Thanks,200.126.165.145 16:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems a good idea to me: after all what is a non-sovereign nation but a part of a sovereign state that wants to secede or at least get a good deal of autonomy. I belong to one of those nn-sovereign nations but I understand that it is a good criterium, always assuming the identity nation=state and not just nation=ethnicity. This last would be quite arguable but well. --Sugaar 03:35, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

Why are groups like the Provisional IRA not also listed under Ireland? After all, they calim themselves to be the rightful government of the Republic, and are opposed to the Irish government just as they are to the British government. Supersheep 23:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

They are not separatist, but revolutionary.--Jsorens 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Secessionist movements vs. Revolutionary movements and Governments in Exile

This article has a lot of groups that seek not, to gain sovernty over regions, but to gain sovernty over countries.

The Government for Free Veitnam, is not a Seperatist movement, as they are not trying to retake all of Veitnam, not just a province.

Yes, if you find these in the article, please help delete them.--Jsorens 19:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Types of organizations

Under the new scheme, discussed above, these are the types of autonomist and secessionist organizations now included in the article: Political party, Pressure group, Rebel organization, De facto state, and Government-in-exile. Proposed state and Proposed autonomous region are the types of proposed institutions included. Editors, please make sure that all new additions fit one of those categories, and please correct any misclassifications that you may come across. Jsorens 18:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Broken link (Greece)

The link list at the beginning of the article has a link to a section on Greece, but there is no such section in the article itself.Is there any content to be put under that section or should we just get rid of the link altogether?--Jsone 13:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Orkney and Shetland

1) It is the Orkney and Shetland Movement coalition that is defunct, not the Orkney Movement.

2) On the S.O.U.L. website it clearly states: "We are now preparing the way to take a case to an international court. The success of that case will open the door for the people of Shetland and Orkney to make their choice - either leave things as they are, or grasp the opportunity that our unique status offers. According to a Shetland Times poll in 1992, 62% of people polled would like more autonomy.

"This is a one-off opportunity that could secure the prosperity of the islands for future generations. Do Shetland and Orkney want a future as an insignificant place on the far outer reaches of a federation of Europe, our destiny at the whim of some distant official who neither knows nor cares even where we are? Or do we want more control over our own future and be able to properly care for the natural resources that everyone else would like to plunder?"

So, Globaltraveller, will you please leave my additions in place. Thank you. 81.156.63.64 17:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)