Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe

Ukraine again

Looks like internet warriors keep trying to hide the donetsk and lugansk regions. They're not destroyed yet and still have some autonomy. Should be added to the list. -G

France

I reinstated the changes I made on joined article; I respond to comments by Yalens - What do you even mean by 'it's too early'? It's not as if as there's a time you need to wait before making an edit. I had looked at articles on the parties and the websites of the groups for example and could tell from that which they were and they almost all looked clearcut to me in these particular cases. If there is something nowadays on French Flanders, please provide a citation - all I find is Flemish National Union - a Dutch group in the 40s. Munci (talk) 13:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Alsace

The map is missing the eastern german-speaking part of the departement moselle which should be put in red along with alsace (the area where the villages and towns have german names often ending in -ing). "Lorraine" in "alsace-lorraine" refers to the plattdeutsch-speaking people which also live in the moselle departement but not exclusively. Normally people speak high german in Alsace which is close to german as spoken in neighboring switzerland and baden. Platt however is middle german similar to what is spoken in Luxemburg and large parts of germany. Platt speakers are also found in the north of the "bas rhin" departement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chjst (talk • contribs) 23:09, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Alsace has no active pollitical parties that have a claim for independence (Unser Land and Alsace First both demand greater autonomy within France) i suggest removal from active sepratism and transfer to active autonomist movements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.79.183 (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Brittany

The map of Brittany is not accurate, and reflects by the choosen edges on this picture, what french people are doing to dismantle Brittany and the identity of their inhabitants. Kiporzh (talk) 14:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

North Epirus

You do know, right, that this is irridentist. It is irridentist in the same sense that Nagorno-Karabakh is... the independent state is viewed as just a step towards reunification with "the motherland" (in this case Greece). I don't think it belongs here. --Yalens (talk) 18:43, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Nagorno Karabakh is in this page, why not Northern Epirus? Also, Kosovo is here. It is evident to everybody that the ultimate goal of Kosovar movement is to join Albania and then take other lands from neighboring countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.194.4.7 (talk) 02:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the goals are, at the current moment they have de facto separatist states. North Epirus doesn't. (and isn't it a POV double standard to have the Greek claims on North Epirus here, but not the history-based Albanian claims on Central Epirus?) All North Epirus has is a feeble if existent irridentist movement. --Yalens (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Catalonia (Spain)

Catalonia (Spain) two-independence political parties in elections will be presented:

• Solidaritat Catalana per la Independència, Laporta former president of the soccer team FC Barcelona
• Reagrupament (Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya excision) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prades (talk • contribs) 11:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

ETA?

Are there any objections to the removal of ETA due to inactivity? They declared a ceasefire on 5 September 2010, then further clarified it on 10 January 2011. Obviously any active political organisations linked to ETA would remain, and ETA could easily be added back if circumstances changes. I am unaware of exactly how "active" is defined here, so thought it simpler to propose than act unilaterally. O Fenian (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Ceasefire does not equal inactive. I'm not an expert on Basque independence, but that much I can assert. --Yalens (talk) 20:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

What does equal "inactive" then? O Fenian (talk) 20:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Not operating any more- i.e. lacking meeting between whatever the movement or group has in the way of organizers, if they ever had a website it is down, not having any political organization, et cetera. That the ETA has become a bit outdated and that it is probably in the process of being replaced by successors, though, reading the recent articles on it that seems to be the case...--Yalens (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

German reunification dissatisfaction

Some people in the former East Germany or the German Democratic Republic were disillusioned by the process of Germany's reunification for 20 years now, back when the sociocultural divide developed between the Ossies of the East and Wessies from the West replaced the political boundaries for awhile.

Today, there is less social division and more unity among all Germans, esp. the younger generation born after the fall of the Berlin Wall or too young to remember the GDR. But some Ossies demanded to restore most of the autonomous statues promised in the reunification agreement and wanted better recognition of regional issues in the federal government, they perceived are ran by the Wessies.

The Federal Republic of Germany is made up of Lander or states with high autonomous powers, that is decentralized government like the United States of America, and each of the 5 East German Lander continued to exercise a wider range of sovereignity with limited control from the national capital in Berlin. Mike D 26 (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Bandiera Toscana.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

=============SARDINIA, ITALY

There is an active independent movement in Sardinia, called Malu Entu

http://flagspot.net/flags/it%7Dsar.html

It has declared independence and it is currently having protests in SArdinia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxcrc (talk • contribs) 10:53, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Issues

Since Lihaas created one at the fork page, I thought it would be more appropriate to discuss it here (as well as on the other forked pages).

In my opinion he (Lihaas, you're a he, right?) makes some good points, but its a generalization. The percieved lack of citation is possibly explained by the fact that many of the items listed have links to respective pages which do have citations. That being said, a large percentage of those here on the page are indeed flaky in my opinion, but that's not a thing we can deal with, because in order to not be POV, we need to include each region which has a separatist movement, regardless of our opinion of it.

As for Kadyrov's support for Abkhazia, since that was brought up, I've left it deleted, because it was apparently confusing and it also was beginning to stray. What was bugging Moscow apparently was not that he supported Abkhazia (after all, so do they; same applies to S.Ossetia), but how he did so- i.e. taking diplomatic visits to Abkhazia (the kind of thing the leader of a sovereign state, not a region of another state, would do), references to self-determination related topics (when Russia would rather his reasoning be "protecting them from Georgia", not the possibly explosive concept of ethnic self-determination) and so on.--Yalens (talk) 21:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Azerbaijan

The continuous edits by Yalens and Yerevanci to add inactive movements as Lezgistan and Talysh-Mughan to the Azerbaijani list are unacceptable edits. Both of these movements are inactive as can be. Some sources dont even work and another is from 2003, proving that it is inactive. Infact the source from BBC says that all the members of that party and the Talysh minority do not define themselfs as seperatists but always envisaged the republic as a constituent part of Azerbaijan. Another concern is the addition of Azerbaijani separatists in Georgia. Again ungrounded claims and sources, none of the sources are actually talking about the Azerbaijani Congress of Georgia or Borchali based separatist movements. Heck the first source is just the homepage of a newssite. These are not sources and do not justify the edits. For these reasons I have restored the proper list regarding Azerbaijan and Georgia. If you do not agree, you must talk on the discussion pages and reach a consensus before making any edits. Neftchi (talk) 11:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Borchali, I originally opposed the addition of this before it had a source. In general, I think that Neftchi would do well to be reminded that this page defines separatism as including autonomism, which does not involve secession from Azerbaijan or Georgia. In the case of the Talysh, that source is adequate sourcing for an autonomist movement (blame the page layout for not differentiating them, though we can make the specification if you wish). The Lezghin case is also adequately sourced (though right now the sources are not loading for me, I read the articles in the past). As for the Borchali issue, while I would not say the first two sources are worthy, the third certainly mentions a movement for autonomy among Georgia's Azeris (though it does not mention the phrase "Borchali", it does speak of autonomism). --Yalens (talk) 20:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Nope you havent provided any real sources for any of your claims. There is no source to back up your claim that Azerbaijanis have an autonomy movements in Georgia. None of the three sources mentioned any of this. This shows that this is self-research and that is against Wiki regulations. The source for Lezgistan doesnt even work, so no source there either. The BBC source dates to 2003 and talks about the trial during that time. In fact the BBC source basically says this movement is dead. It is very well known that Russian and Armenian sources have attempted to other kinds of separatism in Azerbaijan and your lack of research suggests that you are trying to implement such a goal in Wikipedia. Do I need to remind you that is not allowed. Neftchi (talk) 11:32, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

This edit by Yerevanci, who didnt engage in dialogue, is unacceptable. First you need consensus before you can make this kind of major edits. Second I reviewed all the sources and suprise suprise the same ungrounded research. Heck some of its sources even point out the opposite of seperatism, such as the first source which says that "Lezgis face no discrimination at the personal level and the Lezgi nationalist movement has no wide support among the public." Furthermore it reads: "Fortunately, despite outside attempts to instigate Lezgi separatism, peace has prevailed thus far." - thereby confirming there is no active Lezgi separatist movement in Azerbaijan. The second source doesnt talk about ethnic Lezgi separatism or Lezgistan, it even says this Lezgi movement was within the borders of Azerbaijan. The third source talks about 1996 and no developments since then. Confirming this is NOT an active movement anymore. The fourth source is just a newssite for Lezgi people. It doesnt mention any kind of separatism.

Now up to the Talysh separatism claim. The first source again confirms that the movement (if it even excisted) is now dormant, and not active. I qoute from the source: "Except for a few incidents, for the most part since 1993 the Talysh issue was dormant in Azerbaijan. In May 2005, Armenia made an attempt to rekindle the Talysh issue by organizing the "First International Conference on Talysh Studies." This confirms my earlier statement that it is Armenian policy to intigate other kinds of separatism in Azerbaijan. My opinion is shared by this source, which reads: "Through this connection Armenia also tries to reach out regarding the Talysh issue." Now think about the fact that user Yerevanci is ethnic Armenian, so this should raise no eyebrows, it is common sense what is being attempted here. Source six talks about the past events of this separatist movement, thereby again confirming what I have been discussing (in my own) the entire time, both these movements are DORMANT not ACTIVE.

Third the Armenian autonomous movement in Samtskhe-Javakheti is confirmed by even Armenian media, apparently Armenia does not even hide this fact: [1] and offcourse Wikileaks sources also confirm this story: [2], you can see it is an active separatist movement. For future reference it would be best to engage in talks before making edits. Neftchi (talk) 18:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Croatia

I went back part with Croatia because I do not understand why it was removed. That part of article meets the criteria stated in the introduction and can be compared with some other movements in the article as Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia, Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti, Hungarian Regional Autonomy, Preševo Valley, Carpathian Ruthenia, Isle of Wight, Shetland etc. I think someone should ask for further explanations regarding this deletion, as well as other changes in article.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

That's what I asked user IvanOS, too, why did he remove that info from the article. He hasn't responded yet. You did the right thing to restore the article until user IvanOS provides sources and facts as to why he/she thinks it should be removed. --Jurisdr1975 (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems that IvanOs back in action. Since I will undid his last edit, I want to explain why. An article that he cited has this title but see in what context it was published (By the way they have not even was mentioned as a separatist but as autonomists). After Parliament rejected a proposal to give Council special status, president of Council said that Council belong such status and that is why they are not separatists. Also as supporters are listed other groups. So, if asking for special stating in the Croatian constitution is not a requirement for some kind of autonomy even by legal leaders of Council I do not know what is. You should also know that these requirements are not met yet. More about it here Joint Council of Municipalities#Request for the recognition of special status. Do I need to say that user is told that he should first consult here what he ignored, just as he did not want to explain his previous changes. For all these reasons, I will back previous version.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Please warn users User:Sokac121 and User:IvanOS because of their harmful and censorship edits. I also ask you to delete and control their changes in this article. I wish you everyone pleasant holidays.--MirkoS18 (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

User:IvanOS is right. The Joint Council of Municipalities is not a separatist movement, clearly demonstrated by an article published at their own official website in June 2010 titled "Nismo autonomaši niti separatisti" ("We are neither autonomists nor separatists"). The JCM is an institution which seeks to deal with "cultural and educational autonomy" of Serbs of Croatia exclusively and its leaders have repeatedly stressed that it has nothing to do with "territorial re-arrangements" (as they put it). The parliament discussion and the "special status" MirkoS18 is referring to regards the issue of JCM's financing (JCM wants this to be regulated by a special law and the parliament refused it). Furthermore none of the minority Serb parties listed by him ([3]) advocates any form of separatism. What MirkoS18 is doing here is a textbook example of WP:ADVOCACY and WP:OR. Timbouctou (talk) 18:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with IvanOS and Timbouctou on this one. Applying AGF this appears to be OR by MirkoS18 at best.--Tomobe03 (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly I did not anywhere mention separatism, but autonomy. These are quite different things. Now, it is quite true that they have no territorial authority (member municipalities as all other municipalities), although their function is territorially defined. They work on the development of ethnic autonomy in areas of former Eastern Slavonia, Baranja and Western Syrmia, do we need curent teritorial authonomy I dont know, but I do not believe, view other movements that I mentioned (some of which even do not exist today-Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia or Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia...). However, since the article in its entirety should be reedit your changes and comments welcomed, while it would be good to agree on them in advance here. Have a pleasant evening.--MirkoS18 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

This list defines its scope in very clear terms. However, the JCM does not meet them. There is no source that I know of which claims that JCM is seeking "greater autonomy or self-determination for a geographic region". This list is pretty clear in saying that this article's scope does not cover movements seeking personal autonomy, which is what JCM is about. Until you find a source which proves otherwise the JCM will be out of this article. I will remove your additions as they constitute WP:OR and are in breach of WP:V. If you continue to edit-war over this you will be reported, you have been warned more than enough times already. Timbouctou (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

http://www.tportal.hr/vijesti/hrvatska/84481/HSP-protiv-Vijeca-opcina-sa-srpskom-vecinom.html . Plus it is not edit-war it is content dispute.--MirkoS18 (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

What you linked above is a statement from a far right Croatian politician (!?) about the idea of establishing a hypothetical another council of municipalities in a different region in Croatia. If you think that counts as a source, I'm afraid you have WP:COMPETENCE issues. At least five other editors disagree with your additions (User:Sokac121, User:IvanOS, User:Tomobe03, User:Jesuislafete and me) and you keep pretending like WP:CONSENSUS does not apply, ignoring facts and misinterpreting sources at will. You edit-war to have your way. And all that after you have been warned to follow WP:BRD and accept consensus. Next time you make an edit like this one I will take this to WP:ANI. And no - this is not a content dispute. For a content dispute we would need to have conflicting sources, which we do not have here as no source in the real world supports your ideas. Quite simply, you are unable or unwilling to distinguish between between territorial and personal autonomy. I'll ask you one more time - is the JCM seeking a "greater autonomy or self-determination for a geographic region"? Yes or no? Timbouctou (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Serbia

Kosovo is a real country. it is not a proposed state or an unrecognized one. It needed to be removed from here. Please tell Serbs not to edit this page unless they can be honest. 207.61.19.62 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment. I am also not sure should we listed here de facto independent partially recognized states such as Northern Cyprus, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Kosovo? Also, should than Kosovo get special section where we will put North Kosovo?--MirkoS18 (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

In response to Mirko: I think we should come up with a convention for what to do about separatist movements that want to break off from de-facto independent states or from autonomous regions to form new autonomous regions. North Kosovo within Kosovo certainly isn't the only case of this phenomenon: we have the Hungarian autonomy movement within autonomous Vojvodina, the Georgians in Abkhazia and in South Ossetia (not much from them nowadays, but they pipe up now and then), a spider web of border issues in the North Caucasus and in the Volga region (Tatars in Bashkortostan, for example). And hten there's Dagestan, where Avars can call Andis "separatist" for wanting to call themselves Andis instead of Avars in the Russian Census, which I suppose is separatism from Avar ethnic nationalism within Dagestani regionalism-nationalism-whatever from Russia. Let's have fun with this.
But anyhow, I think we should probably have Kosovo indented under Serbia for now, but with the appearance of a separate state, with header and line and all(and North Kosovo under it, perhaps with reference to its irridentist nature). That'd probably be the most NPOV way of doing it, at least I'd say...--Yalens (talk) 23:01, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Bulgarian municipalities in southern Serbia Bosilegrad and Dimitrovgrad (Pirot) (Miting zbog polozaja Bugara u Bosilegradu, Slucaj Bosilevgrad)--Sokac121 (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I did not know for this case but it seems "interesting". This case should be listed and as a supporter this ultranationalist party from Bulgaria. Otherwise, this second source is excellent. This is from site Peščanik which is one of the most reliable and one of highest quality in the region of Southeastern Europe.--MirkoS18 (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Bosnia

I noticed that two users change very often part of the article on Bosnia. I'm not very familiar with the case, but perhaps my comments may be of some use. Specifically, in Bosnia there are attempts of some that try to contribute islamization of country (but this is rarely officially said by them, except when it comes to some of religious leaders). Their goal is not creation of new state that would be split from Bosnia. However, if this scenario would be realized such that, that new state will be created but due to the separation of other parts of Bosnia (Republika Srpska, Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina). Now Croats and Serbs are listed separately in Bosnia part, but maybe that groups that advocate Islamisation of Bosnia should be taken as an independent factor because without their intention they will create a new state? I do not know how much you have understood (my English is not very good), but I'll give you three examples from the nineties that might clarify things:Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbian Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia after Washington Agreement and Dayton Agreement created Bosnia and Herzegovina. Maybe this can help in editing? Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

After the Dayton Agreement was signed in 1995 Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) the country was internally re-organized along ethnic lines. Two top levels administrative units (termed "entities") were established along ethnic lines, the Republika Srpska (dominated by Bosnian Serbs) and the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (for areas with Bosniak and Bosnian Croat population). Although this arrangement had effectively ended the war back in 1995, it also caused a lot of political problems that populist politicians exploit to this day. These manly revolve around the following two issues:

1. Bosnian Serb mainstream politicians often toy with the idea of Republika Srpska entity proclaiming independence from BiH, sometimes with a view of a merger with Serbia. So they would constitute a separatist movement, as their ultimate goal is the breakup of BiH.

2. Bosnian Croat politicians often push for Croats to get the same treatment as Republika Srpska currently has, that is, seceding Croat-dominated parts from the Bosniak-Croat Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina which would then result in three entities within Bosnia and Herzegovina. So they would constitute an autonomist movement as what they seek is greater autonomy within BiH.

As for Bosniaks, I have no idea where MirkoS18 came up with the idea of an islamic state being in the works, and sentences like "this is rarely officially said by them, except when it comes to some of religious leaders" make me think he has no idea either. Under the heading "Bosnia and Herzegovina" the article currently lists the secessionist Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia (which ceased to exist in 1994, during the war), the idea of which no Croat politicians support today as it would imply the breakup of BiH. It also lists the Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia, a short-lived autonomous area which ceased to exist in 1995 and which no movement that I know of aims to restore. Timbouctou (talk) 21:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I didnt write anything in Bosnia section if I remember (and I think I remember)? I try to give one explanation because two users have edit war about Islamic State of Bosnia which was mentioned in article. I dont know name of main leader of islamic community of Bosnia, but he realy argue for Islamic state, and there are also some groups like Vehabisti. As I said I am not very familiar with situation in entire Bosnia so your coment that I have no idea is just...You know, people can be a kind even when there is virtual distance. Otherwise, your explanation is quite accurate. But as you can see, in this article have been applied very "low" standards for inclusion. Pretty much it was that we mentioned all movements that exist in Europe, not only very widespread because it is a list. Again, your explanation is concise and useful to all of as who are edit this article so thanks.--MirkoS18 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

United Kingdom Map

I boldly removed the map from that section per this discussion: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop#Map of separatist moviments in UK. If any editors here feel it would be a useful addition, could you please have a look at the questions raised there and make another request. Of course, if anyone thinks that removing it was the wrong thing to do, and that the map was still useful, rather than misleading with the issues discussed, please feel free to just revert the removal. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 17:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

It's just a map that don't show all movements. I did the map, I wanted show movements of Wessex and Yorkshire, but I couldn't it. Besides, the revindications are not did together. Other thing is about Northern Ireland: one proposal is United Ireland e other is it independent, so the movements aren't coordinated and there isn't only one possible map. Luan (discussão) 06:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Lega Nord

Since my previous edit has been rollbacked by Yalens i understood that i have to explain better than i did. In Italy there are national elections, regional elections, provincial elections and municipal elections. Most parties have their own list in every one of these elections. Lega Nord is one of these parties. Lega Nord Umbria, Lega Nord Marche and so on are the regional section of the party and not seperate movements. Since this is the list of active separatist movements it has no mean to show as separate movements all regional sections of the same party (and why not the municipal section like Lega Nord Milano http://www.leganordmilano.org/ ?), party that advocates the indipendece of Padania. If you think i'm not right, please explain your reason. I don't know if i've done some english mistakes, if this is the case i'm sorry.

Carlo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.233.191.122 (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This reasoning works for me. I have no problems with this. --Yalens (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

British groups for Mercia, Yorkshire and Northumbria

I've had a look at the two groups listed as Mercian separatists. Are these serious groups? Judging by their websites and the lack of publicity that they receive, I get the impression that they're just jokers.

The Yorkshire Ridings Society is a real group, but its aims are in line with those of the Association of British Counties, and this article doesn't consider that to be a separatist group. The Yorkshire Ridings Society doesn't want Yorkshire to be independent or even to have devolution: it just wants the pre-1974 county boundaries restored.

Therefore, I suggest that these groups be removed. What do you all think? Epa101 (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The two groups are still up in the article. There's a few people in Northumbria wanting more autonomy. There's talk of turning England and the UK into a federal system to subdivide England into newer "nations". Currently, Scotland is going to vote on whether to secede from the UK. 71.102.1.95 (talk) 11:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, I am new to producing / editing wikipedia content. A secion that I edited was later removed, stating "Northerners and Northumbrians are not a recognised people and the party has no Wikipedia page." On what basis are northerner's not recognised as a people? Even Wikipedia has an artical stating that there is a common Northern identity. Would that, the addition of a wikipedia page on the Northern Independence Party, with additional media citations qualify this section to remain in the article?

Northerners and Northumbrians are both English and/or British. There is no nationality or ethic group of northerners or Northumbrians in the 21st century. I don't think even with a party page this has enough weight to be listed here. Helper201 (talk) 18:08, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Kosovo, again

Why has Kosovo been kept on this list, presented as though it's part of Serbia? Kosovo declared independence in 2008, it's recognised by most UN members, international supervision of Kosovo's government ended in 2012 so Kosovo now runs its own affairs, ... bobrayner (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it portrays it as part of Serbia on this page (I'm a supporter of Kosovo's independence by the way). At least, not anymore than Western Sahara is portrayed as part of Morocco on that page. There are two sides to the issue- Serbs claim it is part of Serbia, whereas Kosovars claim it is a separate entity- and this is the crux of separatism.--Yalens (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, an article like this will never please everyone, almost by definition. :-) However, I'm concerned that this case no longer fits the criteria in the lede of the article. Although "List of states with limited recognition" is a reasonable place to be... bobrayner (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly, North Kosovo isn't listed here! bobrayner (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

That's funny- it was before. I've readded it, this time under a new Kosovo section. Originally, it was under the Kosovo section within the Serbia section, but in my view, this was incredibly awkward, and it could give the misleading impression that North Kosovo was a separate area that wanted to secede from Serbia, not from Kosovo. (on the other hand, so-called North Kosovo isn't really separatist, it's really purely irridentist...) --Yalens (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

As for Kosovo's section within Serbia... the problem with this question, I think, is that we don't really have a set rule for states with limited recognition. However, in practice, almost all of these are counted on these sorts of pages: West Sahara, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Nagorno-Karabakh, and so on are all listed, as were Ichkeria, Tamil Eelam and so on during the time that they existed (i.e. before their territory was retaken). Thus, if we're going to follow the same rule we use for other instances, we'd list it... unless there's a case to make that Kosovo is different (which I guess has a number of reasonable arguments). --Yalens (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There are not reason not to add kosovo note in this article, after it was added everywhere else. And specially in this list, with other states that are sovereign. I support its addition. --WhiteWriter^speaks 13:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The fact that people have successfully spammed the disclaimer across many other articles does not mean that it must be applied here. bobrayner (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Montenegro

There's no need to have any of so called movements in Montenegro on this list. There is no Party of Democratic Action in Montenegro, and there isn't a political party or organization in the country that supports Sandzak autonomy. For Bay of Kotor, it's questionable whether it exists even as a political concept. For Pljevlja and Hereceg Novi, it's really mixing political protest that once happened with something serious. Also, there is not any group of Albanians in MNE that supports Greater Albania with Montenegrin towns within. So, you should get serious, because it is really laughable when you can see e.g. Scotland or Catalonia or Corsica with long tradition of autonomist/separatist movements, and on the other hand you put "Pljevlja" for example, which puts seriousness of wikipedia in jeopardy, really. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.161.102.153 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

POV language

I take it you're aware that "separatist" is a biased and loaded term? Something more neutral should be used. Self-determination is not of itself a crime.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

It's a loaded term in some areas and some contexts but not all... do you have an alternative? "Secessionist" isn't any better. "Independence movements", maybe? I could support that. --Yalens (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Croatia, again

I am informing editors that removal of sourced data will not be disregarded. Active separatist movements should not be taken personally, that is our reality. Just look sections about France, Russia, Spain, while separatism in United States have its own article. Please, quit national agenda, and start talk. --WhiteWriter^speaks 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

1. Although quite active, neither the Istrian Democratic Assembly or the Istrian Social Democratic Forum are separatist movements - they are merely regionalist parties. The former is a political party which is even a member of the current ruling coalition in Croatia, and neither of them has ever produced any piece of text, proclamation or program advocating for secession of Istria. I realize you merely browsed through Google Books to add something looking like references, including this book (which does not mention IDS or ISDF, and you say the reference you refer to is on page 288, its last page), as well as this book - which ironically contradicts your claim as on page 72, it says:

"In working towards these goals the IDS consistently supported the regionalization of Croatia and increased autonomy for Istria within Croatia. The IDS supported the state's right to control national defense, foreign affairs, and some internal affairs, to implement and regulate a uniform monetary system, and to oversee an independent federal judiciary."

(Not to mention that a secessionist political party would be unconstitutional per Croatian Constitution - and therefore deemed illegal and banned from participating in elections.)

2. Regarding the quite obscure Republic of Serbian Krajina Government in Exile - there is very little proof that the thing even exists. It is not recognized by any government or institution, and apart from the grand total of two news reports which you cited they are barely visible on any political scene. The first report cited talks about its foundation in 2005, and the other one announces a protest they apparently organized in November 2012. However it only recounts a press release sent to the media - and I can't find a single report about how many people attended the protest - if any. In addition, they don't have a website, an address or a telephone number, I can't find a single report that its leaders have ever met with any elected officeholder in any country, and they never ran in any elections anywhere. For all we know it might just be a single guy with a Facebook account. Timbouctou (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

First, thank you very much, Timbouctou, for this fine and explanatory report. Regarding Istria, i must agree that you are right. We should be very careful not to include regionalist movements in here. Although they may be similar in act, there are important differences. My error with second ref, book have 288 pages, but ref is not on that one, my bad. Anyway, i have removed Istria per your fine explanation.

Regarding RSK, i still have some doubts. Please, leave it until we agree here, but at the very end, if we have even de facto attempt, with several sources, we should mention it then. It is obviously not important or strong movement, but it is active. I will try to gain some more references. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

A group of about ten people not active, We can not put into active separatist movements in Europe. Probably such a movement in Alabama has 100 more active and bigger . Sources are not reliable and relevant.--Sokac121 (talk) 18:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually I think "Dixie" separatism in the US is in fact notable (though it tends to wane when right-wingers are in power nationally and wax when lefties reign). But that's a different continent. If there are still Serb activists desiring that Krajina be separated from the rest of Croatia, it has a place on this page. Istria was regionalist, but this... this is different (one could however make the case that it's irridentist rather than separatist, though, because they may just want to rejoin Serbia proper...).--Yalens (talk) 18:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, i agree, Yalens. Sokac, you should restore your removal until we agree. If you say something, and the rest say different, you must not remove sourced content. Restore, and join discussion again. --WhiteWriter^speaks 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, Sokac, unless you say something useful here, i will restore section. All i see above is IDONTLIKEIT. --WhiteWriter^speaks 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

As I have written in edit description, source is unreliable and that meeting in Belgrade was frivolous. Everyone can organise protest and then tell he is from some "government of...", although that movement does not exist and that person has not relations with it. --IvanOS 18:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Clearly, anyone can see there is still a movement among Serbs in Croatia's Krajina for some sort of autonomy, so there should be some reference to the page... however, I don't know if we necessarily have to mention this so-called "government in exile". --Yalens (talk) 18:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That "movement" is not active (it does not exist) among Serbs of Croatia. It was established in Serbia by Serbian radicals (Serbian nationalist party), which act in Serbia (not in Croatia). Leader of that party is responsible for war in Croatia, war in Bosnia etc. Considering that Serbia lost in war against Croatia, this "movement" is a desperate move of man who cannot accept failure of his politics of conquest in 1990s. Accordingly, there is no movement among Serbs of Croatia. --IvanOS 20:34, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is your OP and POV, while sources tells us something different. Obviously this movement exist, as we have sources about it. That it doesn't exist we would not have any source about it. It is that simple.. So, this should be restored in article. --WhiteWriter^speaks 00:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Sweden

There are no active separative movements in Sweden. The Sapmi people does not want to become their own state, they just want the right to control their deers. Skånepartiet is as good as shut down, and no one seriously considers a separation from Sweden. (I live in the last mentioned part of the country and was born in the first, just to make you know.) 85.230.92.171 (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I could find no sources that say there are any Sapmi movements in Sweden that meet the criteria at the top of the article. Also, the Sapmi movement in Sweden is listed as Sami people as if they all are active members of the movement and all seek autonomy. Sjö (talk) 16:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed the Republic of Jamtland but it was restored. It is above all a marketing project and a humorous endeavor (though with some local patriotism mixed in). The movement's goal is to guard the lokal culture and language and explicitly not independence. Greater self-governance isn't even mentioned. Facebook page of Befrielserörelsen which is another name for the Republic of Jamtland source. The so-called "militant organisation" is armed with air rifles and pitchforks source and can't really be taken seriously. I will remove it again as not sourced as a separatist movement. Please discuss here before adding it again. Sjö (talk) 08:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Sami separatist movement listed here is silly, they never ever speak of any independence officially and I have personally never heard anyone mention separatism either despite living in Lappland. Skåne separatism died long ago as well, there was a party once but it got very few votes and eventually died out. --78.73.66.95 (talk) 15:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Bulgaria

There are no active separative movements in Bulgaria de jure. However, de facto, the DPS is a movement about economic and social independence of the regions with a signficiant presence of the Turkish minority (e.g. the Ludogorie and the Eastern Rhodopi regions). 95.42.6.120 (talk) 12:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Rename

This page and related pages were formerly called "List of active autonomist and secessionist movements." At some point a change was made to "separatist," which has caused endless confusion (see Checco's recent edits). I argue that these pages should be renamed to their former names. Otherwise, we end up with no pages on autonomist movements and/or more confusion about what belongs here. In addition, "separatist" is pejorative.--Jsorens (talk) 17:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it's better to have a specific article on separatism. Other articles cover autonomist parties. --Checco (talk) 10:00, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide links to articles that list autonomist/regionalist movements? I am not aware of any.--Jsorens (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

List of regional and minority parties in Europe and, to a minor extent, European Free Alliance. Of course all-encompassing lists are just impossible: it's better to limit the scope of such articles. In fact, many movements, parties, ecc. listed in the article we're discussing about are hardly notable: the article badly needs cleanup and permanent fact-checking. Anyway, if we decide to have an article encompassing both separatism and autonomism, that's OK with me: I have just expressed a preference, that this article should focus just on separatism. --Checco (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

And there's also List of political parties campaigning for self-government, which includes European parties. --Checco (talk) 08:29, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Right - but "movements" are a broader category than political parties. I agree these pages do need a great deal of cleanup, and I'm fine with separating autonomist and secessionist movements into their own pages; I just think the naming convention needs to be clear, so that we don't have these ongoing edit wars over autonomist/regionalist movements. Also, the term "separatist" should be eschewed for something more neutral and less ambiguous.--Jsorens (talk) 15:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Georgia and Azerbaijan not located in Europe?

It seems very political assigning Georgia and Azerbaijan to "Europe", since geographically, both countries lay predominantly in Asia. Georgia has only a speck of territory that is geographically a part of Europe, and only the Azeri coast northwest of Baku isn't part of Asia. Georgia's political establishment has defined the country as "European" in order to curry favor from the US and EU against its rival, Russia. Wikipedia should just stick to the facts, and let the county be a part of the continent its actually located on. Just check out a map.

Geographically speaking you're probably right, but in most cases, and especially in articles about politics, sports, ecc., Georgia and Azerbaijan are usually considered to be part of Europe, mainly for cultural reasons. --Checco (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Geographically, small sections of Azerbaijan and Georgia are in Europe. But more importantly, for political and international institutions, these states are part of Europe. If you are a soccer fan, check which international tournaments these countries attend (Europe, it is). And since this is an article about political formations, they count fully as European. Similarly, Turkey and Russia are politically and institutionally European, while geographically partly European. Even more egregious cases are Armenia and Cyprus. These countries are entirely in Asia, but participate in European political institutions. Entirely confusing are Central Asian republics, which are counted in Europe in some international organizations (also, Kazakhstan is partly in Europe).

Anyway, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Turkey, Cyprus and Russia should be in this article describing political formations (i.e. state). Enozkan (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Sapmi in Russia

Sapmi should aslo be added to Russia, since Sapmi is also located in Russia. --77.222.189.214 (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Semi-oppose — There is an organization over that statement but there is no movement supporting that claim, even if the 'Independence for the Sami', existing from Facebook, I’m pretty sure it isn’t advocating for Sami separatism in Russia but rather in Sweden or Finland solely. ExplodingPoPUps 18:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Castile and León

You are including both leonese and castilian separatists movements and if they were the same, while they are totally opposed. Leonese separatist movements claim the right for the lenoese provinces to be independent, ranging from indepencence from the autonomous community to a total nacional independence. Castilian movements claim for the unity of castile, ranging from the union of the castilian communities (Old Castile, New Castile, Madrid, Cantabria and La Rioja) as an unique community, as a federate state, even to an independent country, sometimes including the leonese provinces and sometimes excluding Cantabria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.152.137.31 (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Russia

May I suggest giving Russia its own separate page, List of active separatist movements in Russia? This will include Russian territory in both Europe and Asia. . Anonymous96.226.22.43 (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Several users have decided to remove all but one of the Russian entries claiming that these movements are inactive and unsourced. I do not think this is the right approach. I have started adding sources and editing the removed material here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Halon8/sandbox NB It might be helpful to separate this into independence movements and autonomy movements, although there is some overlap and information is sparse.

I would appreciate input on whether such material should be reinstated in the article, and any assistance in improving the sources.

I think it is extremely difficult to identify what is an 'active' movement since in many cases the relevent government may be actively trying to suppress, illegitimise or deny the existence of such movements. And how many years must pass for a movement to be ruled inactive? A movement is, of course, not the same thing as a political party. It is also difficult to say how notable a movement for 'autonomy' should be, and whether such a movement is genuinely seeking more autonomy for its own end, or is using this as a tactic for eventual independence - we can only rely on statements that are made which may be tactical, and third-party observations which may be biased. Halon8 (talk) 01:01, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Declared support-- ExplodingPoPUps 05:00, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Against. There are not many separatist movements within the modern Russian federation. --Koreanovsky (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Ukraine

Seems that there are two secessionist moveents in ukraine at the moment, in the south and southwest. Need to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.246.227 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Equal treatment of Kosovo

Kosovo and states like Abkhazia and South Ossetia are in similar position: they are all states with partial recognition, recognised by some UN members. So, it only seems logical to treat them the same way, which I tried to do, but then User:Bobrayner reverted my edit while groundlessly accusing me of being a sockpuppet, without providing any further explanation.

Since this revert was without any valid explanation, I'll revert it now, while pointing to this discussion in the edit summary. I'll also notify User:Bobrayner of this discussion. --94.253.158.12 (talk) 06:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Socks get reverted.
• I'm all in favour of reality-based coverage of Kosovo. In reality, Kosovo is independent - welcome to 2014! It is unfortunate that some editors still want to hoodwink readers with the notion that there is some kind of "separatist movement" in Kosovo, when it's actually an independent state. The suggestion that APKIM is a real territory is very much a WP:FRINGE belief.
• Kosovo is not Abkhazia or South Ossetia, but to the extent that it's similar, maybe those entries need fixing too.

bobrayner (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

You should support your claims about sockpuppetry and assume good faith. Instead of that, you just repeated them here and on your talkpage. You re-reverted my edit, with an edit summary ("welcome to 2014!") that could be interpreted as somewhat rude in this context. I won't revert any of those two reverts for the following reasons:

• I won't revert one on your talk page, because it is your talk page, so you can do what you want with it, although it is rude to revert other people's comments on talk pages.
• I won't revert one here because I don't want to be dragged in an edit war.
• I won't revert any of those because I'd like to stay calm and reasonable. Instead, I'll let someone else to revert it iff it should be reverted.

Regarding Abkhazia and South Ossetia, feel free to fix those entries for sake of consistency. --94.253.158.12 (talk) 10:05, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the best solution would be to change the title of this article to something along the lines of List of active separatist movements and partially recognised countries in Europe? Then it's not controversial whether to include Kosovo. --Twid (talk) 12:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Finally somebody reasonable!

I agree, either should the title be changed that way or entries of entities that have de facto reached their goal minus the recognition (Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria, Republic of Crimea, Northern Cyprus, Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and maybe I forgot one or two more) should be removed. If the title is changed, then it might still be good to list those entries separately in this article, like in your proposal bellow this discussion. --94.253.158.12 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Would a table be useful?

While there's a lot of useful information in this article, I'm finding it rather hard to navigate, especially because it contains information about movements ranging from those who are close to achieving independence to those who are just small groups of individuals with no political power at all.

Might I suggest that it would be useful to create a table (that allows the reader to sort it by any column), containing at least the following information: (1) Name of region/prospective country; (2) name of independence movement(s); (3) name of parent country; (4) status of movement (e.g., A = referendum has been called, B = pro-independence party is largest political party, C = pro-independence party is represented in parliament, .....); (5) goal (independence/devolution/...).

What do you all think? --Twid (talk) 10:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support - this can only make navigation easier and it can also remove some controversy over criteria for inclusion. --94.253.158.12 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, not a lot of feedback... Here's a few lines of the table I'm proposing:

Name of area	Movements	Parent country	Status	Goal
Scotland	SNP/Yes Scotland	UK	B (referendum called)	independence
Wales	Plaid Cymru	UK	D (represented in parliament)	independence
Catalonia	CiU	Spain	B (referendum called)	independence
Crimea	?	Ukraine	A (independence declared)	unification with Russia

Should I proceed and move the information in the article into this table? --Twid (talk) 20:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a good start. Perhaps it would be better to color the cells under the status column instead of using the letters (A, B, C, D,...). Also, it would be good to color code the cells under the goal column. Feon {^t/_c} 10:01, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Something like this:

Name of area	Movements	Parent country	Status	Goal
Scotland	SNP/Yes Scotland	UK	referendum called	independence
Wales	Plaid Cymru	UK	represented in parliament	independence
Catalonia	CiU	Spain	referendum called	independence
Crimea	?	Ukraine	independence declared	unification with Russia

I like the colours! The reason for my A/B/C/... suggestion is to ensure sorting on that column is sensible (i.e., the countries/regions closest to independence at the top, and then moving gradually down to the ones that are only vague dreams). I guess we could do both...? --Twid (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

There's no need for (visible) letters because sorting can be configured by specifying sort keys for the cells. Feon {^t/_c} 14:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realise that. In that case, I concur. --Twid (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

• It is a very good idea indeed. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:42, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, some parties do not have members in their national assembly but are represented in Brussels. We should mark it somehow. Fakirbakir (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps should we mark them as represented in EU parliament? Feon {^t/_c} 08:22, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

We could make several columns, e.g., represented (1) in local councils, (2) in the regional parliament, (3) in the national parliament, (4) in the European Parliament, but that might take up a lot of space. --Twid (talk) 11:50, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, nobody seems to think this is a bad idea, so I guess it's worth going ahead. Should the table replace the existing contents or be an addition? --Twid (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be an addition, at least at first, because there are useful maps of separatists regions of some individual countries throughout the article. Feon {^t/_c} 15:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

Also, we should define criteria for inclusion. Should movements to join another state (such as Republic of Crimea) and movements that have fulfilled their goal except for full international recognition (Abkhazia, Kosovo, South Ossetia,...) be included? Feon {^t/_c} 12:13, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate it would be a major change and would require changing the name of the article, but I think it'd be good to include everything you mentioned there, as well as countries that have gained full international recognition recently (e.g., Montenegro). In other words, if Scotland becomes an independent country on 24 March 2016 and gains recognition from all countries, we don't remove it at once but leave it here for a decade or so. --Twid (talk) 14:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Some users seem to be strongly against the inclusion of Kosovo, see the discussion above. Should we (re)include it nevertheless? Feon {^t/_c} 14:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I think renaming the article would be the best way forward, because it would remove the Kosovo controversy. --Twid (talk) 20:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

What would be an appropriate new name? List of active separatist movements and partially or recently recognised countries in Europe? --Twid (talk) 20:25, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds good but too long. What about List of active separatist movements and disputed polities in Europe ?Fakirbakir (talk) 21:20, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Either way it's rather long. Perhaps it would be best to clearly define criteria for inclusion in the lead section and deal with the title later. Feon {^t/_c} 08:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a list of European countries sorted by independence date and other criteria here, so I guess ideally that list should be seen as a continuation of the list here, i.e., once a country is removed from this page, it should be added there at the same time. Kosovo isn't listed as a country there, but is only given as a Serbian border change. --Twid (talk) 11:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The page is 'flaky' because people are IGNORING the word 'conflict' from the third criteria, or are people suggesting there are armed rebellions in Cornwall & Wessex? Have the UK police and military been arresting these 'separatists' or is there no conflict? The other pages like Separatist movements in Asia are listing groups that are in armed rebellion, groups that governments are trying to stop, groups like ETA in Europe. Daeron (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

P.S. If a group only wants greater autonomy or to be recognised as a national minority, then by definition of the English language its is NOT seeking secession or separatism; irrespective of any wacky social theory or attempt to change the language by a single author of an obscure book. This Wikipedia is meant to be in the English language so lets respect that fact. Daeron (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Albania/Northern Epirus

There is a recent initiative to remove the section about Albania with the excuse that in an interview a minority leader claimed that there are is no separatist movement there (interview isn't even in English). On the other hand various sources, such as this [[4]] (about the status of the Northern Epirus) or this book [[5]] clear claim that there is a movement for autonomy or even union with Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The desire to move the Greco-Albanian border north is not separatism it's irredentism, because it aims to annex a territory to a foreign country, not create a new one. Granted, there are cases that are a mix of the two (i.e. Kurdistan, Poland before World War II, et cetera) but while it may very well be active, until they are calling for creating a North Epirus separate from Greece too it belongs on our irredentist page, not here.--Yalens (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Irredentism can be labelled as 'separatism' if the demand of the minorities is not independence but to join neighboring countries. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What other sort of irredentism is there but trying to join neighboring countries? The only other kind is wanting to amalgamate areas of various neighboring countries to form a new country (i.e. parts of Iraq, Iran, Syria and Turkey for Kurdistan), which actually is separatism... But for you this isn't separatism, but wanting to be annexed by another country is (even though you wouldn't be separate?). As far as I know, issues like Fiume/Rijeka (the "original" irredentist movement) didn't tend to be referred to as "separatist". --Yalens (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Both those references are quite old. They are from 1990 and the state that Omonia seeks Northern Epirus autonomy. The current leader of Omonia has said that this is not the current stance of Omonia. So, if you find any source that any other noteworthy political organization seeks the autonomy of the Greek minority, than feel free to add it again. Until that happens, it is not an ACTIVE but a PAST claim.Balkanian`s word (talk) 14:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, per link given above, a part of this population is calling for autonomy and another one for union with another country. @BW: You need to provide wp:rs for this, not just cheap interviews uploaded by blogs which are not even in English.Alexikoua (talk) 21:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

To settle the supposed claim that there are not active claims, the present position of the Greek population in Albania is presented in the "World Directory of Minorities":[[6]]

The size of the Greek minority is especially contentious on account of the history of claims to southern Albania made by the Greek government in Athens, and of the substantial support within Greece and among Greeks in Albania, for the establishment of an autonomous district of ‘Northern Epirus’.

Off course this is an official position, while on the other hand some rumors uploaded by an unknown self-published site, as part of a supposed interview, is something a serious encyclopedia should avoid.Alexikoua (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The LEADER OF OMONIA, saying in an interview on one of the leading online newspapers in ALbania is not a rumor. So, please if you find ANY source that says that ANY notworthy organization, has such a position, add it again. Omonoia is such an organization, but its leader has opposed such a claim.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Here it is the full interview, where mr. Bollano declares that Northern Epirus is a historic concept, and not a current one. As such, I request you to stop edit waring, and try to find sources.Balkanian`s word (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Omonoia by the way isn't the only organization representing Northern Epirotes. Off course you can email minorityrights.org and convince them that the profile about 'Northern Epirus' is wrong. Wish you good luck. I'm afraid that the only one that violates wp:brd is BW. Alexikoua (talk) 17:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

As for Bollano, in another interview he claimed autonomy for Northern Epirus [[7]].Alexikoua (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

minorityrights.org is a website and not an organization. Bollan has said that there is no such claim. If previously he had stated otherwise, it means it is a past and not an active movement. Please, find sources or stop pov pushing.Balkanian`s word (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Each website has a function www: minorityrights.org offers the active profile of minorities and their status while balkanweb is a blog runned who knows by whom. According to the same rationale there is also no Kurdish movemenet, since Ocalan (Kurdish leader) declared this from his jail. Your argument appears extremely weak and off course separatist movements are not called off in intereviews uploaded in balkanweb, I would suggest to seek an active profile by representatives of the Northern Epirotes and not what other groups claim through blogs and cheap newpapers.Alexikoua (talk) 07:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bollano is the representative oof the minority and he is not in jail. So please find any organization that seeks auto omy, because omonia does not!Balkanian`s word (talk) 09:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Nope, Bollano & Omonoia isn't the only representative of the Northern Epirotes, there are two political parties (Human Rights Party of Dule and MEGA of Kico) none of them has a leader named Bollano. But Omonoia too expressed the need for autonomy.Alexikoua (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, please find that either dule or kico requests autonomy and then you may put it!Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There are already various inline citations claiming that various member of the Greek community support this.Alexikoua (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

They claim that OMONIA does which Bollano refuses. Please bring a SINGLE ONE!Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems you wp:dontgetit, I've provided material that the Greek community in Albania -in general- seeks autonomy, and this is what's in the text. On the other hand you just provided an interview with Bollano that speaks only about the term Northern Epirus, off course not that the Greeks renounce any autonomy rights.Alexikoua (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you read what you write? You write that OMONIA AND HRUP SEEKS AUTONOMY OR UNION WITH GREECE. All what I ask is to find a single source for HRUP, because it is obvious that Omonia has no such policies today as it own leader says!Balkanian`s word (talk) 12:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just found an translation of the interview in a Greek site. I regret to say that BW is gaming the system by wrongly translating Bolano's words (apart from serious wp:blp violations). In this very interview Bolano demands autonomy for Himara. [[8]] He also claims that Northern Epirus isn't an administrative region in Albania, but it's still a geographic one, i.e. nothing to do with autononmy and separatism.Alexikoua (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, he speaks about Local Government Autonomy, he speaks about the European Charter on Local Government Autonomy. You just can not make the difference. Athens has autonomy too, in this sense...Balkanian`s word (talk) 07:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't present something to refute the fact that there is a movement for autonomy, I don't see how this can be considered an argument.Alexikoua (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Can one of the editors please check the validity of this section? There are no territorial claims over the Republic of Albania, nor there is a separatist-oriented party ACTIVELY ENGAGING in such activities. Moreover, Northern Epirus is merely a historical,territorial-religious concept, based on over a hundried years old settled conflict by now. Settled means that both of the governments officially have put an end to the issue, as the greek ex-foreign minister Kotzias already mentioned. Moreover, there is no literature indicating that there is even a de-facto a Northern Epirus Active Concept of separatism as of 2018. All the literature mentions its historical importance, however none of them mentions that such a notion actively exists and there are active efforts to make it achieve its ultimate goal. Hence this can be pretty misleading to the reader, reading in the same page Kosovo and Northern Epirus, which have diametrically different statuses. I would kindly request the other editors checking this to be neither Greek nor Albanian since, as in many other cases here, the political views will differ, and an inconstructive debate would be far from benefitial to the reader. I am counting on the impartial editors to discuss the matter. Kind regards Roger Walgrove

Since I have waited for so long for an answer and no one is willing to even discuss the issue, I consider the issue settled. According to all the UN's relevant institutions there is no active movement nor according to the countries themselves and not even according to the leaders of the greek minority party, as it has been mentioned by them numerous times in the latest interviews that they have given where they explicitly state:" we do not seek for independence, wider autonomy even less for a union with greece. The purpose of our party is merely to protect the rights and improve the lives of the Greeks in the territory of the Republic of Albania". Hence I am removing the section, without misleading any further readers into thinking that there is an actual ACTIVE SEPARATIST MOVEMENT in this area, as the title suggests.

Kind Regards,

Roger Walgrove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.241.192.85 (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

{!!REPEAT-2019-!!} Since I have waited for so long for an answer and no one is willing to even discuss the issue, I consider the issue settled. According to all the UN's relevant institutions there is no active movement nor according to the countries themselves and not even according to the leaders of the greek minority party, as it has been mentioned by them numerous times in the latest interviews that they have given where they explicitly state:" we do not seek for independence, wider autonomy even less for a union with greece. The purpose of our party is merely to protect the rights and improve the lives of the Greeks in the territory of the Republic of Albania". Hence I am removing the section, without misleading any further readers into thinking that there is an actual ACTIVE SEPARATIST MOVEMENT in this area, as the title suggests. At this point, the reverters of my edit are being biased, by editing a section without a contemporary, hence valid source and should that be the case, it calls for Wikipedia to review the conditions and quality of editing by such editors!

Kind Regards,

Roger Walgrove — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.205.138.215 (talk) 14:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Bosnia & Herzegovina

Herzegovine Republic ??? - This is not serious!

the author should write a proponent of the project, if the proponent does exist. --CarRadovan (talk) 21:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(Upper) Silesia

Silesian Autonomous Movement claims the autonomy only for the terrirtory which is inhabited by ethnic Silesians, i.e. onlz Upper Silesia, without Lower Silesia (as it is on the map). The map should be corrected. The right area of the claimed autonomous territory is e.g. here (this map shows the territory of historical Upper Silesia with the part of this country placed presently in the Czech Republic): http://i296.photobucket.com/albums/mm176/maras84/blog/gorny-slask_duzy.gif 93.180.179.23 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Odessa People's Republic

I have found more than a couple of articles referring to a People's Republic being declared in Odessa yesterday, however when I try and add one of these articles as a source I find someone keeps removing them saying these news articles are not reliable enough. So far I have found at least five news articles referring to the same thing. It has become obvious that this declaration has occurred. However, to avoid further ridicule and having the source removed again. I leave it up to those that read this and look at these articles themselves to decide which are trustworthy enough to be made into source for the Odessa People's Republic.

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

Sol-nemisis 11:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Page Title

This is a problem with the title of the page. It was decided long ago that these "autonomist and secessionist movements" pages would include autonomist movements as well as independentist movements, but at some point and for reasons I find unfathomable, the titles were changed from "autonomist and secessionist movements" to "separatist movements." I would endorse a change back.--Jsorens (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Either we change the page title, or we remove all the autonomist movements.Alex2006 (talk) 05:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Whatever you do, don't remove all the autonomist ones, because the boundary between what is autonomist and what's separatist is really vague and debated here... It would lead to hell on this page :(. --Yalens (talk) 06:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you, mine was just a provocation! :-) I know a little bit the history of the Corsican movements, they change opinion about independence every other day. I would propose as new name "List of active autonomist and separatist movements in Europe": what do you think about it? Anyway, let's wait some day in order to collect some more opinion. Alex2006 (talk) 06:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree too. The previous title was much better. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Austria/Carinthia

I removed Carinthia/Austria from the list. There is a movement for more rights of the autochtonous slovenian minority in southern carinthia, but this movement is focussed on bilingual topographic names, bilingual schools, and cultural associations (criterion 2 is not met). The link in the article just references the homepage of a ethnical slovenian party does not demand secession/autonomy. There is no entry on carinthian slovenes in the German version of this article either.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carinthian_Slovenes for the minority group. Note that carinthian slovenes were met by resentiments of the majority population that they would favor secession, which has led to discrimination and at some points in history violence against members of the minority.

If this edit is revoked, please at lease correct the map to mark out only the parts of carinthia that actually have a significant slovenian minority population. Nagchampa (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Sápmi not an active seperatist movement

There is no active seperatist movement within the saami people. There may be individuals who want their own state, but the whole idea of saami seperatism is often used as propaganda by the opponents of sami and indigenous rights. I suggest we remove Sápmi from this article, unless someone finds a credible source. --85.164.17.143 (talk) 11:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think that you can remove it. There is a citation missing template there since April. Alex2006 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, there is no foundation for having them on this list. Same goes for Kvenland under Norway, which is even more far-fetched. --T*U (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Portugal

According to the new website of the Partido Democrático do Atlântico, they no longer seek greater autonomy nor independence, so the Portugal's section must be deleted and the map corrected (Azores and Madeira removed) (Gomes89 (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC))

Could you provide a link? Fakirbakir (talk)

Certainly, here it is www.pda.com.pt (Gomes89 (talk) 14:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC))

Czech Republic

I had to remove Czech Silesia from there. I am from the Czech Republic and I know the situation. There is no separatist or even an autonomous movement in Czech Silesia. The inhabitants of this area naturally have some regional sentiment but it exceeds not regional sentiments usual in all states. To oppose a habit to call this area "north Moravia" used commonly in all Czech Republic and to insist calling it Silesia is the main and almost only display of Silesian regional sentiment. There is certainly no group or even political party that strives to achieve cultural or political autonomy within the Czech Republic. The Silesian Autonomy Movement is a group of Polish Silesia and has no active members or supporters in Czech Silesia. This Polish movement may include Czech Silesia in their plans but it must be considered excessive because the inhabitants of Czech Silesia do not show a wish to share their destiny with the inhabitants of Polish Silesia. 77.48.51.206 (talk) 06:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Spain

I don't know if "Amigos de Olivença" qualifies as a separatist organization, since it's a Portuguese irredentist movement. If it is, in that case, Ceuta and Melilla should also be added, in my opinion, since Morocco claims sovereignty over those 2 territories.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing irredentist about Amigos de Olivença, they just want Spain to fulfill their duty and honor the treaty they signed saying they would return the territory to Portugal. Gomes89 (talk) 13:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's a Portuguese association, not a Spanish association. See the definition of irredentism in Irredentism article.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The association also had (I don't know if it still does or not) has Spanish (including Oliventinos) members. Furthermore the Alem Guadiana Association is not Portuguese. Gomes89 (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The Além Guadiana Association is not a separatist movement, it seeks a cultural approximation between both sides of the border (de facto). It doesn't state that it wants to reunify Olivença with Portugal. If Amigos de Olivença had Spanish / Oliventinos in the past it could be considered as a former separatist movement. This article is about active separatist movements. Mondolkiri1 (talk) 20:21, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Sweden

I removed Sweden entirely, since this is utter nonsense. The Scania Party got 16 votes in the recent elections and are totally marginalized, and Sápmi does NOT want secession from Sweden. For Sápmi, also see discussion above dated 4 August 2014. /Jssfrk (talk) 11:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

They received 2600 votes in the county elections and 1100 votes in the Malmö municipal elections. So I'll restore them to this list. 78.72.22.30 (talk) 20:37, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

That's 0.33 % in Skåne county and 0.60 % in Malmö Municipality. Totally marginalized. Removing again. /Jssfrk (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The use of flags on this article.

The use of flags in this article seems very distracting and visually noisy to me. Much worse, it's giving a lot more prominence to separatist movements that have flags than to those that don't. Being associated with a flag is absolutely not a reliable indicator of WP:DUE weight. If these movements have articles of their own, the flags can be discussed, with context, in the proper place. Here it's messy and confusing without actually adding a substantial amount of meaningful information. Does anybody object to the removal of the many, many flag icons from the body of this article? Grayfell (talk) 02:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Autonomy vs. Seperatism

why is seeking more autonomy, or even the wish to be recognized as an autonomous body within a State or Nation put as synonomous with seperatism, meaning the wish of cesession from a given state/nation and founding an own, or joining another? If the list is called "seperatist movements", than all movements that do not wish cesession should be excluded. --Wuselig (talk) 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

"Ethnic group" is a loaded term

I don't think "ethnic group" is necessarily a good word to use here - it implies a racial element that most separatist movements (especially on the political left) try to avoid. For example, the Scottish National Party takes great pains to avoid any suggestion of ethnic nationalism, and claims to represent anyone who lives in Scotland regardless of their ethnicity. Similarly, UKIP and the Conservatives do have ethnic minority members and (even if they want to restrict immigration) don't claim to want a racially homogenous nation represent only ethnic Britons. I think "ethnic group" should be used only for actual racist movements like the British National Party. Smurrayinchester 08:25, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, it should be clarified what sort of nationalism the movements espouse. 26oo (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

We could just change it to "People" for all movements? Rob984 (talk) 23:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a note that even the BNP has in recent years been pressured to widen its demographic so to speak. No movement in Britain truly claims either of the two "racist" ideologies which are either British people over non-Brittons or white supremacy but I appreciate others will always look at things differently. --Oranges Juicy (talk) 23:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you too.--Dk1919 (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, it doesn't get changed according to WP:OR. Unless there are reliable sources pointing to a move away from racist connotations or that it does have racist overtones, it's left as it's presented. No leading the readers to conclusions that can't be verified. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done Rob984 (talk) 13:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Separatism in Bulgaria and Greece

What kind of separatism is there in Bulgaria? This seems pretty ridiculous, like the supposed "movements" were just mentioned on this page with no real criteria, there's no marginally significant political party or organisation in Bulgaria that advocate Turkish autonomy/independence, in fact, there hasn't been any independence/autonomy movement among the Bulgarian Turks since the late 1980's. The fact that "Turks in Bulgaria" is vaguely mentioned in this article as a separatist movement is silly and senseless. Please site sources for these supposed "separatists" among the Bulgarian Turks, or remove it from the article.

Regarding the "Macedonians in Bulgaria", according to the 2011 Bulgarian census, there are only 1,654 "Macedonians" in the entire Bulgaria, there's only one banned organisation in Bulgaria (United Macedonian Organization Ilinden–Pirin) which advocates autonomy, not independence, for the "Macedonians" of Bulgaria. In what way is it notable to mention a "separatist movement" of a self-proclaimed people numbering only 1,000 people in a country of over 7 million? There's absolutely no point in mentioning something that insignificant at all, it shouldn't even be worth mentioning in the article.

Now, about Greece, there is absolutely no source provided to show that there are significant Albanian or "Macedonian" separatist movements in Greece either, you can't just type something as vague or obscure as "Macedonians in Greece" or "Albanians in Greece" and then call it a separatist movement with nothing to show, provide a source or don't bother adding it.

--Ivanovevichinsky34 (talk) 16:36, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Kaliningrad

I believe the section about Kaliningrad/Königsberg should be removed. It states there that a prussian ethnic group is promoting a prussian state. The problem is, there have not been ethnically prussians in this area for centuries. And there definitely is no sizeable minority of germans left to advocate for Prussia. Also, I could not find any information on the Baltic Republican Party having anything to do with Prussia (when they were still active, which they are not since 2005). They instead wanted to upgrade Kaliningrad from an Oblast to a Republic.

80.171.135.131 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. I can't find anything post-2005, and this is of currently active movements. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:10, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Formatting edits by Jerome501

Jerome501, I have reverted all of your edits because you have made number of unhelpful changes. If the flags aren't official or widely accepted, they should not go next to the region, but instead the proposed state or autonomous area. For example Occitania. Also you added flags for places that simply don't have flags, like London? Please keep in mind that a lot of incorrect flags, proposed, or outdated flags are implemented in the template. Rob984 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, ok. Still, GREATER London does have a flag.

I will keep all this in mind. Thank you for telling me.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerome501 (talk • contribs)

No it doesn't. Or at least not one that is recognised or has been seen in the last 20 years. Will need a source. Rob984 (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

Recently the entirety of Turkey's separatist movements were moved to this article. Turkey is technically part of both Europe and Asia, with the majority of its land laying within Asia. Also, Turkey's sole separatist movement, the Kurdish separatist movement, is most certainly Asian. As such I moved the content back, but left a link.

Since it was moved though, I must ask, Is there any particular reason Turkey should live here? --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Not that I'me aware of. Unless there are some Greeks, Bulgarians or Vlachs of East-Thrace or Imbroz Tenedos left with separatist ideas.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

This is just a problem of Europe's definition. If we adopt a strict geographic definition, then we should also remove Cyprus. If we use a political definition, then also the Kurds can stay. Alex2006 (talk) 12:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That's debatable. I can think of a political definition that would include Cyprus, but exclude Asian Turkey. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As I wrote, it is only a matter of definition, and of consistency: anyway, if we exclude Turkey because of geography, we should stay consistent and exclude also Cyprus because of the same reason. If we adopt a political definition of Europe, as you say, we should exclude Turkey, include Cyprus but exclude Switzerland, and so on. As we say in Italian, you cannot have full barrel and drunk wife. :-) Alex2006 (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Cyprus should definitely be removed if Turkey is --- "political" (or "cultural"!) definitions of geography are always contentious and not an encyclopedic way to categorize... --Yalens (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Structure of entries

The best way I can think to structure entries is:

[name of region in existing country]

• [people]
  • [proposed state/de facto state]
    • [movement/s]
    • [political parties]
    • [advocacy group]
    • [militant organisations]

I think this because there could be multiple different proposals for one people. For example some Albanians in Kosovo want independence only, while others want unification with Albania. And there could be multiple people in one region wanting different proposals. For example Crimea where Ukrainians want reunification with Ukraine, and Crimean Tartars want autonomy. I.e., hypothetically:

[name of region in existing country]

• [people]
  • [proposed state/de facto state]
    • [movement/s]
    • [political parties]
    • [advocacy group]
    • [militant organisations]
  • [proposed state/de facto state]
    • [movement/s]
    • [political parties]
    • [advocacy group]
    • [militant organisations]
• [people]
  • [proposed state/de facto state]
    • [movement/s]
    • [political parties]
    • [advocacy group]
    • [militant organisations]

I think we need to agree on a consistent structure. Thoughts?

Rob984 (talk) 11:31, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to have an indication of the strength and impact of the movements, but the difficulty is reliably sourcing this. This blog has a list but it seems to be one person's opinion http://www.mherrera.org/newcountries.htm so I do not think it is reliable. I think books such as https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_the_Stateless_Nations_A.html?id=OLKKVXgEpkoC&redir_esc=y and http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/march2016/articles/features/chris-roth.html and https://www.lovereading.co.uk/book/9781604265699/isbn/Separatist-Movements-A-Global-Reference-by-Brian-Beary.html might be helpful. I think 'dormant' is a description used by Chris Roth in his book, and maybe better use should be made of the List of historical separatist movements article. Some of the political parties are effectively just a couple of people, whereas other movements may have more widespread support but little organisation. I don't want to get involved so I just want to leave these references here for other people. Halon8 (talk) 13:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Sicilian Nationalism

About the repeated removal of the Sicilian movements from this article: the assertion that the Sicilian is a "fictional ethnicity" is POV, and besides that a separatist movement can have other reasons beside ethnicity for its existence. The point is whether these movements do exist or no: if the answer is positive, they should stay here. Alex2006 (talk) 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

There is not a relevant activity in Sicily and all parties or organisations mentioned belong to the past or currently have no influences in the political and social life of Sicily. According to the fact that, of course, separatism is not linked to the ethnicity, I don't see why we should mention the people from Sicily, when actually most most of them don't even know what is separatism from the rest of the Italian people. When we mention Sardinians or Venetians, this is a totally fictional statement cause we mention the inhabitants of two regions and not two separated peoples. There are no census about who is Italian and who is Venetian in Veneto.--93.32.115.247 (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, at least this looks alive and in good shape...Anyway, I invited to discuss a fellow wikipedian from Sicily, so that he can tell us whether this movement does exist or is just a cyberspace product. Alex2006 (talk) 17:59, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who lives in Palermo or Catania will have seen the yearly manifestations of the MIS. There are unfortunately several other independence parties/movements but they are small and dominated by communists. The MIS attracts thousands of participants a year, has it's own summit and while it does not hold any seats, this does not take away from its participation and visibility. So, yes...it exists and you can go to youtube or Facebook to see the public protests/manifestations/work they do https://www.facebook.com/groups/516749071674936/ Trinacrialucente (talk) 03:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for drawing my attention, Alessandro. Seems we've got the usual anonymous user that's already been removing things from other pages regarding Sardinia (don't know if he links languages and people to nationalism). Whatever his POV-riddled reasons may be, they have little sense to back up his edit warring since the "people" tag explicitly says: ...for information on what regional/ethnic/ethno-religious/racial/religious group calls for change for each individual movement listed. That is to say, even if we suppose that Sardinians, or Venetians, or Sicilians are just "inhabitants of regions and not separated peoples" (something I don't exactly agree with, given that Sardinians are mentioned in many books and are even recognized as a people by constitutional law; besides, this very thing could be said for every people as long as they live in a geographical region of the planet) the tag makes little to no distinction between regional, ethnic, religious affiliations. Removing Sardinians from the list based on the (quite arbitrary, in my opinion) anonymous' assumption that they are not an ethnic group is strow man argument in addition to POV, since the tag does not meddle in this nominalistic dispute in the first place.--Dk1919 (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

PS: I'd also like to say that Sardinians have their own Wikipedia page, so I don't think it makes much sense to remove them from the list...

I agree with you, so we can say that there is no consensus to remove them from the page. I will reinsert them. Alex2006 (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, that's one thing that's been given a resolution. Now, let's wait for a user that knows Sicilian politics and may tell us something about activity from nationalist groups, if there is any recent. Unfortunately, I am in no position to talk about it.--Dk1919 (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Graffito in Palermo, Sicily with the text "Self Determination, Autonomy, Independence"

I took this photo 3 months ago. Not sure which group to attribute it to howeverPaolorausch (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

After a more careful reading of this discussion, I realise I may have the information you're looking for. There are a lot of Independence/Autonomist oriented groups that I know about, many are quite small, some are bigger. It's important to also recognise that within Italian politics there are a variety of different approaches to greater Sicilian autonomy.:

http://www.sicilianazione.eu/ http://www.sicilianiliberi.org/it/ https://www.facebook.com/Fronte-Nazionale-Siciliano-935217669869357/ I would say that Sicilia Nazione alone with it's 10,000 facebook followers would be enough to justify reinclusion of Sicily in this list., there is also a page for this: Sicilian nationalism, but it doesn't include some information.Paolorausch (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the edits to add Sicilian nationalism, it seems like it's pretty well documented, I didn't add all the groups, maybe someone with a better idea about the specific parties can better outline what other parties specifically support sicilian nationalism, thanks.Paolorausch (talk) 10:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Greece

Both Free State of Ikaria and Septinsular Republic link to historical states both of which are now part of Greece. Is there anything to suggest there are current active movements for the re-establishment of these states? --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 17:18, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

False Balkan Separatism

A lot of things written under certain Balkan countries seem to have no source at all to support the notion that there is an organised separatist movement within their borders or among the groups claimed. Examples: Bosnia and Herzegovina - Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia There is no source. Also, Fikret Abdic is not a political party, he is a former politician who hasn’t actively been a component of separatism since the 90’s. No evidence has been cited to prove that there is an active organised separatist movement calling for the creation of an Autonomous Province of Western Bosnia separate from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Probably because there is none. Bulgaria: - Dobrich Province and Silistra Province There is no source. There is no evidence cited to prove that there is an active organised separatist movement among the few Romanians left in Bulgaria calling for unification of these 2 provinces with Romania. Probably because there is none. - Ruse Province and Razgrad Provice Firstly, it doesn’t even say what Pomaks are trying to achieve, whether it be unification with some entity, creation of an independent state separate from Bulgaria, or the creation of an autonomouse entity within Bulgaria, it just says that Pomaks are separatists and nothing else. There is no source. There is no evidence cited to prove that there is an active organised separatist movement among the Pomaks in Bulgaria. Croatia: - Osijek-Baranja County No source. No evidence. - Dalmatia No source. No evidence. - Slavonia No source. No evidence. - Republika Srpska Krajina No source. No evidence. I will be removing the passages in this article that I have made mention of. There isn’t any legitimacy to them, the claims lack any source, and the authors have cited no evidence to support them, and petty nationalism has no place in this article. Please keep childish Balkan nationalism out of this page. --Ivanovevichinsky34 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:29, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Dobruja

There are no sources to attest an active separatist movement regarding Dobruja - except for that certain blogger asking for that in 2014. This doesn't qualify (according to the criteria) for a full-fledged active separatist movement. Mentatus (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Friesland (Netherlands)

Just wondering why there is no mention of the independent movement (Groep fan Auwerk) for an independent Friesland (See here), There is a Wikipedia article of this movement on the German Wikipedia (Groep fan Auwerk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:71B1:B31D:C331:741C (talk) 12:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Expansion of Separatist movements in Europe

There seems to be a lot more separatist movements in Europe than is covered here. For instance in Italy, it only covers Sardinia, however, researching this issue there seems to be more such as Republic of Padania, Republic of Lombardy, Republic of Insubria (which takes into Swiss areas, Republic of Liguria, Principality of Seborga,Vallée d’Aoste, Free State of South Tyrol and many more. These active movements can be seen in this chapter on current Italian separatist movements (See here). It is a chapter of a book called Let’s Split! A Complete Guide to Separatist Movements and Aspirant Nations, from Abkhazia to Zanzibar. It might also be useful to look up the wiki article on Independence referendum which has noted much of the movements I have mentioned above and contains additional reliable resources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:3057:6D24:7B61:242F (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Also I have noticed that there is a political group in the European Union that represents various political parties active in separatist movements around Europe. This group is called European Free Alliance an is worth looking at.2A02:8084:25C0:380:E92E:C305:E02B:7A87 (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

East Anglia

Could somebody add East Anglia to the map (consisting of Norfolk and Suffolk), thanks. ( Cocorae (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC) )

I'm not sure combined authority proposals should be included. They do mean more autonomy, but it is part of a broad restructuring of local government across England. Also the extent of autonomy is really quite limited, and what is being campaigned for would not be considered autonomous areas. They don't have legislative powers for example. Rob984 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Note, according to the North East Party's manifesto, the North East proposal is for a "regional government", with many more responsibilities. Not just a combined authority, which already exists. The combined authority is mentioned because it is likely the Tees Valley would opt out of a regional government, like it opted out of the combined authority. So the combined authority area is the proposed area for a regional government. Rob984 (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I think the West Midlands and Greater Manchester should probably be removed as they are just concerning very limited additional powers for the combined authorities.

The source states:

"budget and policymaking flexibilities: to be handed more control over housebuilding, planning and transport, as well as a string of property taxes, better rail links and super-fast broadband"

They are not proposals for autonomous areas. Also I think these proposals might have already been implemented.

Rob984 (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Eastern Andalusia

I have noticed something as obscure as Cartagena autonomy movement (from Murcia) has been included. The much more visible and widespread "Eastern Andalusian" nationalism (seeking to break away the former Kingdom of Granada and resenting Sevilla centralism is absent from the article and from the map. Spanish wikipedia covers it extensively.https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historia_del_regionalismo_de_Andaluc%C3%ADa_Oriental This is a serious omission in this article.Asilah1981 (talk) 10:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2017

Recently it has been alot of discussions and debates and a few surveys about an independence Norrland in Northern Sweden and i think it should be on this wiki because you dont see as much debates and discussion about Scania which is on the wiki as you do about Norrland, some links in Swedish: http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/norrbotten/sjalvstandighet-till-norrland https://kit.se/2016/09/13/59811/stod-i-opinionen-for-ett-sjalvstandigt-norrland/ Staare (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane ^talk 01:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@Staare, the second link definitely points towards a significant movement for autonomy, is there any political parities or groups? Rob984 (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Franconia

The Article from the Handelsblatt mentions a possible growing unrest in Franconia if Bavaria declares itself independent from Germany. I don't think, that that is a sufficient source for a "Franconian separatist movement". Albeit there are people demanding a separate Franconian state within the Federal Republic of Germany. But that would be another story and another source. Citation needed?! --93.215.202.130 (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Bunch of WP:OR

I just noticed this page. Looking at this. Well, these are not currently active separatist movements, not mentioning this is all completely unsourced. My very best wishes (talk) 04:30, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. This is just a sink of all kind of irrelevant stuff.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Fixed. Welcome to correct my edit if I missed something. My very best wishes (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see that the edits were reverted [14]. Why? Well, I do not really mind, but the edits must be supported by RS, and that one does not look as an RS on the subject of Kuban Cossacks, and the text is very strange. My very best wishes (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes I reverted partially to restore the ones that were sourced. I explained it all in my edit summaries but I should have commented here. Some specific cases:

1) Chechnya (or rather, so-called "Ichkeria") -- the "active separatist movement" is considered to be the government in exile. As you can see four sources are attached here, from 2009, 2014, 2017 and 2017, all of which describing the government-in-exile as still active. [[15]]

2) Caucasus Emirate -- I didn't put that one back in, you simply didn't delete it. Generally nowadays they've merged with other international Islamist movements and whatever "separatism" they still have is murky (i.e. it's changed to a very irredentist seeming global jihad sort of thing). So not gonna defend that one.

Others-- most of these were cited or linked to cited pages. A lot of these I don't know much about but since they appeared cited I left them. Some of the weird-looking ones or ones in Asia I deleted. Also we might want to check on some of these sources. Comments?--Yalens (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree about "Ickeria" Let's see others. Caucasus Emirate - I thought it does not exist any longer. It is not "current". Any sources telling otherwise? Abazinia - is it a currently active separatist movement? Sources? Kumyks - same questions. And so on. I am sure there are separatists/nationalists everywhere, but we need RS telling about currently active separatist movements. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I had cursorily just looked at their pages and seen sources so I didn't include them in the ones I deleted after reverting you way back when. As you were writing this I was looking through the Abazin and Kumyk pages. Couldn't find anything past 2005~2007 ish, so that's kinda old. Personally I've caught wind of Kumyk autonomists (autonomists, they want their own republic within Russia and feel "colonized" by Avars moving into their traditional lands) still piping up from time to time in Dagestan, Abazins not so much, not gonna keep either on the page based on OR personal knowledge. Might ask a Kumyk user I know about that. As for the ones around the Volga River I personally know a lot less about that region (I'd expect you know more??) and I had tagged them all as citation needed and figured if no one came to cite them I'd delete them, so I'd agree to delete. The Idel-Ural page exists but as far as I understand its dated. Caucasus Emirate is basically irredentist to IS, so it's OFFTOPIC anyways. I'll be doing that momentarily. That all good? --Yalens (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

My very best wishes I figure you know more about this one than myself-- is this still going on as a political party? I left it because it had a link to a sourced page. Don't know if it's "active". Also do you know much about this Kuban Cossack thing is actually a legitimate thing? Granted Russian law would probably persecute it, but if it is it shouldn't be that hard to find sources on it if it exists given the media attention focused on Ukraine and its surroundings. --Yalens (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it ceased to exist in 2005; that source does not tell much about separatist movements. This is just a poorly sourced or unsourced WP:OR. I do not mind including anything, but only if objects of the list can be sourced as actual currently active separatist movements (I think that Ichkeria is probably fine by now). My very best wishes (talk) 03:45, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. It can be hard to tell with what's going on in Russia right now. But I agree about WP:OR. Kinda weird that these guys weren't in the Russia section of everything (Wessex, on the other hand...has many RS, somehow). I've removed Kuban Cossacks and Kaliningrad. If you were wondering, it wasn't I that added either of them. --Yalens (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of active separatist movements in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140330004540/http://www.mkp.sk/cikkek/2013/04/16/felvideki-onrendelkezes-kilatasairol-autonomia-albizottsag-ulesen to http://www.mkp.sk/cikkek/2013/04/16/felvideki-onrendelkezes-kilatasairol-autonomia-albizottsag-ulesen
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150928163409/http://www.rise.scot/about/ to http://www.rise.scot/about/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131085705/http://www.noraregiontrends.org/politics/politicalnews/article/shetland-rather-be-part-of-norway-than-scotland/206/neste/6/ to http://www.noraregiontrends.org/politics/politicalnews/article/shetland-rather-be-part-of-norway-than-scotland/206/neste/6/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160131103700/http://www.noraregiontrends.org/politics/politicalnews/article/norwegian-politician-welcomes-closer-ties-to-shetland/206/neste/6/ to http://www.noraregiontrends.org/politics/politicalnews/article/norwegian-politician-welcomes-closer-ties-to-shetland/206/neste/6/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Kashubians

The Kashubian 'separatist' movement doesn't meet the criteria pointed out in the article. All they want is to preserve the Kashubian culture and to strenghten their identity. The only real separatist movement in Poland is the Silesian one. BasileusAutokratorPL (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

There is such thing as autonomist movements, which are including in the main article. ExplodingPoPUps 00:09, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of active separatist movements in Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140701110414/http://erdely.ma/palyazatok.php?id=165220&cim=nyilt_palyazat_a_partium_jelkepeinek_megtervezesere to http://erdely.ma/palyazatok.php?id=165220&cim=nyilt_palyazat_a_partium_jelkepeinek_megtervezesere
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=17424AFF-8E69-4DE2-AE6E-C84B31DC2240

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:50, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Switzerland

I have never in my life heared that the Lega dei Ticinesi (not Lega Ticino) wants to split off from Switzerland and form a state with an Italian state. As a matter of fact, on federal level, the Lega works with the right-wing nationalist Swiss People's Party and together, they spend like half of their time disrespecting people coming to work from said Italian provice the Lega dei Ticinesi allegedly wants to form a new state with. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.167.2.250 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Sweden, Scania

I have removed this section because there are no sources. Little separatist movements might exist in Sweden but this is more irredentism. Ever heard of Norrland? It is the same. --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 08:50, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

IP-trolls and fake movements

As already mentioned in a prev. edit, we are giving a lot of IP-trolls a voice in this article. The lists of many countries, like Italy, Spain, the UK, France are unsourced, very problematic and making it look like the entire country is about to collapse. Yes there are a few movements in those countries, but I am going to take a look at them another time, and will try to find good and trustful sources for them. Of course, there are billions of ideas in the world, especially by some mappers on the internet. But movements are movements and not some radical ideas of a few people sitting in front of their computers, promoting their own, self-created ideologies on platforms as YouTube or Facebook.

Lithuania

I am removing Lithuania from the list. The organization "Association of Poles in Lithuania" has the goal to bring Lithuanians and Poles of Lithuania together. The so-called "Polish National-Territorial Region" was a self declared area within Lithuania, back when Communism fell and Lithuania still (de jure) was part of the Soviet Union. It was just a reaction of the Poles in Lithuania as a result of the dissolution of the USSR. --MateoKatanaCRO (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Support--Calthinus (talk) 04:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Support—- ExplodingPoPUps 21:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• BanderaCartagena.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Ruthenia

Something went really messy with the description, so I want to explain why I removed this non-sense. It is unsourced and pure irredentism. The so called "Provisional Government of Sub-Carpathian Rus" was a self announced government in 1993, which had NO int. recognition. It was a reaction of Ruthenians on the collapse of the Soviet Union. --Koreanovsky (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe we still have List of historical separatist movements for stuff like this.--Calthinus (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right! But since it was readded without source or comment ([16]) one more thing: The Social Democratic Workers' Party in Subcarpathian Rus' does not exist aswell! It is a historical, post WW1 party in the former Czechoslovakia. --Koreanovsky (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Croatian Republic/Community of Herzeg-Bosnia

I have to start this section because of this IP-edit. First I have to clear up a few things to make sure nobody would misunderstand me. Yes, I am a Croat from Bosnia and Herzegovina myself, and I know from daily life that it is true that there is a huge support by the population to annex the Croat-inhabited areas of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Croatia. There are many active and strong political parties (together with the Croatian National Assembly in Mostar) like the Croatian Democratic Union of Bosnia and Herzegovina and of course many smaller, but the current political goal is more autonomy for Croats in Bosnia and Herzegovina, since the Croatian Republic of Herzeg-Bosnia was de jure abandoned in 1996, de facto 2003, while it still exists unofficially as a community between Croatian municipalities of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

BUT: If I am against or in favour of this proposal is irrelevant (WP:NPOV) since it has nothing to do with my work on Wikipedia (!) I had to mention this, since the topics of a new, refounded Croat entity in Bosnia and Herzegovina or the secession of Republika Srpska (which even has even a very huge political support) are very, very sensible and most people enjoy to only promote what the want to believe, instead of trying to find facts - and believe the facts. --Koreanovsky (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

One thing that I also have to add is that a annexation of Croatian municipalities in Bosnia and Herzegovina to the Republic of Croatia is very is not likely to happen, but also not totally unrealistic. Since the death of Franjo Tuđman in 1999 - the Croatian government mostly supports a multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Koreanovsky (talk) 16:23, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Irredentism aside, there is a veritable autonomist movement in this case. So it has a place on the page, as autonomist. Not separatist.--Calthinus (talk) 05:47, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ulster independence

Hey Dottasriel2000. Regarding your recent additions, if there is an active movement for independence, we really need new citations for it (and that comply with WP:RS). I'm not sure why the Irish unification movement was removed however. Thanks, Rob984 (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Number	Land	Capital	Area	Population	Ethnic	Main Political Party
Ural Federal District of European Russia
1	Ural Republic	Yekaterinburg	194,800	4,300,000	Russian people	Ural Democratic Foundation
Volga Federal District of European Russia
2	Idel-Ural	Kazan	321,400	11,000,000	Volga people	Free Idel-Ural
3	Bashkortostan	Ufa	143,600	4,050,000	Bashkir people	The Heavenly Wolf
4	Tatarstan	Kazan	68,000	4,000,000	Tatar people	All-Tatar Public Center
5	Udmurtia	Izhevsk	42,100	1,500,000	Udmurt people	Udmurt Republican National Party
6	Mordovia	Saransk	26,200	800,000	Mordvin people	Democracy and Independence Mordvin Front
7	Mari El	Yoshkar-Ola	23,200	700,000	Mari people	Mari Ushem
8	Chuvashia	Cheboksary	18,300	1,250,000	Chuvash people	Chuvash National Movement
Northwestern Federal District of European Russia
9	Komi Republic	Syktyvkar	415,900	850,000	Komi people	Komi People's Congress
10	Nenetsia	Naryan-Mar	176,700	45,000	Nenets people	Nenet National Movement
11	Karelia	Petrozavodsk	172,400	600,000	Karelian people
12	Kaliningrad Oblast	Kaliningrad	84,500	1,800,000	Russian people
13	Komi-Permyak Okrug	Kudymkar	32,770	120,000	Komi people	Komi People's Congress
14	Leningrad Oblast	Leningrad	15,100	1,000,000	Ingrian people	Free Ingria
Southern Federal District of European Russia
15	Don Republic	Rostov	100,800	4,200,000	Donian people	Free Cossack Movement (Rostov Oblast)
16	Kuban	Krasnodar	76,000	5,300,000	Kubanian people	Free Cossack Movement (Krasnodar Krai)
North Caucasian Federal District of European Russia
17	Mountainous Republic	Vladikavkaz	200,000	10.000,000	Caucasian peoples
18	Caucasus Emirate	Grozny	170,400	9,500,000	Caucasian peoples	Federation of Caucasian Highland People's
19	Circassia	Sochi	50,000	1,000,000	Circassian people	Circassian nationalism
20	Chechnya	Grozny	17,300	1,500,000	Chechen people	Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
21	Lezgistan	Derbent	10,000	800,000	Lezgin people	Lezgin nationalism
22	Karachay-Balkaria	Karachayevsk	10,000	300,000	Turkic people	Balkar and Karachay nationalism
23	Ingushetia	Magas	3,000	500,000	Ingush people	Ingush People Council
24	Abazinia	Adlersky	2,000	50,000	Abkhaz people	World Congress of Abkhaz-Abazin people
25	Lakistan	Kumukh	1,500	200,000	Lak people	Lak National Council
26	Avaria	Khunzakh	Unknown	850,000	Avar people	Avar National Union
27	File:Darginstan independece movement.jpg Darginstan	Levashi	Unknown	500,000	Dargin people	Free Society of Dargo
28	Kumykia	Tarki	Unknown	500,000	Kumyk people	Tenglik
29	Nogaia	Erken	Unknown	100,000	Nogai people	Association of Nogais of Dagestan
30	Aghulistan	Aguldere	Unknown	25,000	Aghul people	Agul Gelinbatan

File:Secession in Russia.jpg

Secession in Russia

Tatarstan

File:Kenisberg(Prusia).jpg

A protest in Kaliningrad Oblast

Map of Ingria/Leningrad Oblast claimed by the advocacy group of Free Ingria, which also likely comprises another federal subject, Saint Petersburg.

Danzig?

The removal of the Free City of Danzig is nothing more than defending Polish nationalism and promoting anti-german bias used by the both the east and the west. Not only this, but also. The removal of Danzig with your claims of ‘irredentism' is actually incorrect. The Free City of Danzig’s purpose is to regain independence, not reunification with Germany. The only reason they mention "irredentist"-related statements it’s because of Władysław Bartoszewski, former Polish foreign minister only claimed and commented that they are aligned with the National Democratic Party of Germany, which is wrong. No known evidence or source that they wish to rejoin Germany, hence. Free City of Danzig Government in Exile will clearly deny any polish statements or claims that they want to rejoin Germany. Therefore the entirety of the removal of the Free City of Danzig, especially the inclusion for irredentism as a justification for removal is fruitless, but rather an attempted Polonization of the article or. It’s clearly an attempted defense of an POV Polish nationalist edit. The final conclusion is, the removal is nothing other than attempted spread of Polonization and the anti-german bias, claiming that they are irredentist, but in reality they aren’t. The government in exile will deny any Polish labeling of them as ‘irredentist'. In simple terms, the removal is basically POV Polish nationalist and potentially Pan-slavist edit. ExplodingPoPUps 17:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought this was over after the Germans were deported in any case. --Calthinus (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

It is. Apologies if this was rushed. What I was trying to point out that the purpose of the Free City of Danzig's government in exile was simply to assert claims that Danzig should be independent, therefore the only purpose isn't simply to release Danzig as a country. I simply didn’t want Danzig to be removed because of Pro-Slavic and Polish nationalist bias. I simply wanted to point out that the Free City of Danzig government in exile isn’t irredentist in anyways. Any allegations of the Danzig government in exile being irredentist is simply a polish nationalist opinion and speculation by Władysław Bartoszewski. Speculations don’t correlate to facts. As for Silesia though, These organizations known as "Silesian Separatist Movement", "Silesian National Movement" and the "People of the Silesian Nationality" are mentioned in Silesian Autonomy Movement. In simple terms, Danzig isn’t irredentist just because it’s German. ExplodingPoPUps 23:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

review past content

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe&oldid=795491104

Northern Epirus as far as I dived, it only seeks autonomy. There isn’t much say for Franconia since it’s from 2014. Taraclian autonomism does not exist anymore.. Kraja and Limburg currently has no active movements. Explode! ^Pop! 07:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Albania

Northern Epirus

• People: Greeks in Albania
  • Political parties: Omonoia, Unity for Human Rights Party (seeks autonomous status or union with Greece)

Czech Republic

Moravia

• People: Moravian
  • Political parties: Moravané (EFA member)

Czech Silesia

• People: Silesians
  • Political party: Silesian Autonomy Movement (EFA member)

Germany

Bavaria

• People: Bavarians
  • Proposed state: Bavaria (Free State of Bavaria)
    • Political party: Bavaria Party

East Frisia

• People: Frisians
  • Proposed autonomous region: East Frisia
    • Political party: Die Friesen

Franconia

• People: Franconians
  • Proposed autonomous area: Franconia

Lusatia

• People: Sorbs
  • Proposed autonomous area: Lusatia
    • Political party: Lusatian Alliance

Schleswig-Holstein

• People: Danish, Frisians
  • Proposed autonomous area: Southern Schleswig
    • Political party: South Schleswig Voter Federation

Kosovo

Further information: International recognition of Kosovo

North Kosovo

• People: Serbs
  • Proposed state: Unification with Serbia as an autonomous province
    • Political organisations: Assembly of the Community of Municipalities, Community of Serb municipalities

Macedonia

Albanian community in Macedonia

Main article: Albanian nationalism

• People: Albanians
  • Proposed state: Republic of Ilirida
    • Armed organizations: ANA/AKSh (status unknown – inactive)

Moldova

Breakaway state:

Transnistria

• People: Equal proportions of Russians, Ukrainians and Moldovans
  • De facto state: with partial de jure recognition Transnistria
    • Political organisation: Government of Transnistria
    • Militant organisation: Army of Transnistria

Proposed independent and autonomous movements:

Gagauzia

• People: Gagauz
  • Proposed state: Gagauzia
    • Political organisation: Gagauzian People Assembly

Taraclia

• People: Bulgarians
  • Proposed autonomous area: Taraclia

Montenegro

Kraja

• People: Albanian
  • Proposed autonomous area: Kraja

Netherlands

Frisia

• People: Frisian
  • Proposed autonomous area: Frisia
    • Political party: Frisian National Party, (EFA member)
    • Status: Democratic movement seeking greater autonomy for Frisian-speaking people in Friesland

Groningen

• People: Groningers
  • Proposed autonomous area: Groningen
    • Political party: Groningen Centraal!

Limburg

• People: Limburgish
  • Proposed state: unification with Limburg (Belgium)

Poland

Upper Silesia

• People: Silesians
  • Proposed autonomous area or state: Silesia
    • Political party: Silesian Autonomy Movement

Kashubia

• People: Kashubians
  • Proposed autonomous area: Kashubia
    • Political party: Kaszëbskô Jednota

Romania

The geographical distribution of Hungarians in Romania

Hungarian community in Romania

• People: Hungarians
  • Proposals for Hungarian territorial autonomy:
    • Székely Land: Székely autonomy initiatives
    • Partium
  • Other administrative proposals by regionalist organisations:
    • Transylvania
    • Banat
  • Political organisations: Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania, the demand for Hungarian autonomy has been part of their program since 1993. Hungarian Civic Party, they signed a settlement with the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania about cooperation and joint support for Hungarian autonomy. Hungarian People's Party of Transylvania (PPMT), the party proposes the establishments of Transylvanian parliament and government and supports the case of Szekler autonomy in Szekely Land. It also advocates territorial autonomy for Partium. Liga Transilvania-Banat, a regionalist party led by Sabin Gherman.
  • Advocacy organisations: Szekler National Council, Hungarian National Council of Transylvania, Liga Pro Europa, a Romanian-Hungarian regionalist NGO., Provincia, a group of intellectuals promoting regionalization of Romania, Autonomy for Transylvania (AFT) campaign, it demands autonomy for Transylvania. Democratic League of Transylvania (Liga Transilvania Democrată), a regionalist NGO, an active supporter of the "Autonomy for Transylvania" campaign, League of Banat (Liga Banateana), a regionalist NGO.

Slovenia

Free Territory of Trieste

• Proposed state: Free Territory of Trieste
  • Political movements: Movimento Trieste Libera; Territorio Libero di Trieste, Free Territory of Trieste Movement,

There is no such movement outside Italy! If they would claim foreign land (which they are NOT doing) it would be irredentism! --Koreanovsky (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but the historical state, claims a slight bit of territory outside of Italy. Explode! ^Pop! 21:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

other

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe&oldid=795491104#Spain

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe&oldid=795491104#Switzerland

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe&oldid=795491104#United_Kingdom

References

why many movement was deleted?

Ticino

León

Navarre Main article: Basque nationalism

Extremadura Main article: Extremaduran nationalism

Subcarpathian Ruthenia People: Hungarian Ukrainians, Rusyn Ukrainians[60]

Proposed state: Ulster

Northern Isle People: Shetlanders and Orcadians

       Proposed autonomous area: Northern Isles
           Political parties: Liberal Democrats[87]

Orkney

   People: Orcadians
       Proposed autonomous area:  Orkney
           Political parties: Liberal Democrats[87]
           Advocates: Liam McArthur MSP[87]

Shetland

   People: Shetlanders
       Proposed autonomous area:  Shetland
           Political parties: Liberal Democrats[87]
           Advocates: Tavish Scott MSP,[87]

Na h-Eileanan Siar

   People: People of the Outer Hebrides
       Proposed autonomous area: Outer Hebrides[88]

Independence movements of dependent territories

Isle of Man

   People: Manx

Aaaaaa, copy and paste. Did you have to copy and paste? Also, many movements are removed because some are unsourced, inactive, irredentist and etc. Some are removed because to a POV nationalist edit a long time ago. ExplodingPoPUps 17:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

@Vitaly ky1: The formatting here is off. It's difficult to tell why these movements were deleted without the corresponding citations. It might also help to use the WikiBlame tool to find the removal edit summary. But I've gotta agree with ExplodingPoPUps... these were likely either poorly sourced / unsourced, or removed due to nationalist edits. --Elephanthunter (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, I want to point out this is a list of "active" separatist movements. Movements get removed when no longer active. From what I can tell though, the bar is set very low. Just keep that in mind and WP:AGF. But unless there's recent disagreement (or significant archived talk page disagreement), I'd say go ahead and follow WP:BOLD, especially if you unearth new secondary sources. Don't take it personally if someone reverts you, but one revert doesn't mean you need to discuss every single change. --Elephanthunter (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Possible map of 40 new countries in Europe .... Is it possible to use this map in Wikipedia?

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/anthroscape/gotlander-39-s-take-on-potentially-future-independ-t69880.html

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DWs0IwBy4v8/V4d5dExxSbI/AAAAAAAA2aU/MMJ0t9MDz9ghvggCUfL-W88VrW2CeMcmACLcB/s1600/Independence.jpg

Is it possible to use this map in Wikipedia?Vitaly ky1 (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

We already have a map like this on Wikipedia. Also this is not a trustful source! [17] It shows both autonomist and secessionist movements. Please read WP:SOURCE. A source is not any random blogspot website! --Koreanovsky (talk) 11:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Can we? Yes. Should we? Absolutely not. --Calthinus (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

thanks Vitaly ky1 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I don’t recognize this as a source. Neither does Sami. Explode! ^Pop! 18:25, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sápmi

Sápmi

Sápmi football team - Sámi National Day - Sámi anthem - Sámi flag

Hello friends, please comment on this movement. In most of the maps I searched for, it was as a separatist section.Vitaly ky1 (talk) 11:49, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

• https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-94952f1c65a29d2addefbc333b486d51
• https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQlDM0vRH5EqxenGUz80cpqurJfEivgqayFXQFpW9p70Ww23D2t&s
• https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-DWs0IwBy4v8/V4d5dExxSbI/AAAAAAAA2aU/MMJ0t9MDz9ghvggCUfL-W88VrW2CeMcmACLcB/s1600/Independence.jpg
• https://i.pinimg.com/originals/9d/6f/69/9d6f69de0cc38d636891aaacfaf0226d.png
• https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jukka_Kaeyhkoe/publication/314239597/figure/fig3/AS:468873465077762@1488799553952/Reindeer-grazing-grounds-and-the-areal-extent-of-Sapmi.png
• https://i.4pcdn.org/pol/1533601050625.png
• https://bellacaledonia.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/idioma-de-europa.jpg

Please see WP:RS. Also: The fact that there is an area called Sápmi shown on maps does not in any way prove that there are active separatist or secessionist movements with active members propagating for independence or autonomy. Please see the inclusion criteria in the beginning of the article. --T*U (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

ok , thank you.17:43, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Vitaly ky1 (talk)

Danzig, Opole, and separatists in Silesia.

1. I’m not waging another reconquest against POV nationalist editors whom, refuses to listen the actual perspective and listen to Slav-biased views. I’m attempting not to rush again. Free City of Danzig Government in Exile. Does not mention that they wish to rejoin Germany. Any source of them wanting to join Germany other than the Polish nationalist perspective made by the Polish foreign minister? Therefore it isn’t irredentism as the last time I checked their website. Before asking the reason why we are starting this again because the last time was semi-gibberish and rushed.

2. The only reason Opole is added because of one political organization known as German Minority Electoral Committee. And sorry for not having the time to link that, it’s because I was asleep at the time when you reverted defending Polish nationalism.

3. I didn't have to get over this again, but seems I have no choice. The movements: Silesian Separatist Movement, Silesian National Movement as far as I know aren’t sourced movements both in the article and the Silesian Autonomy Movement, but PLEASE. Before reverting this again, the movements are mentioned in the article Silesian Autonomy Movement. I know you aren’t going to look through the links so I have no choice...

"Some members leave RAŚ for more radical organizations, such as Silesian Separatist Movement (Śląski Ruch Separatystyczny) or Silesian National Movement (Śląski Ruch Narodowy) which are seeking a full independence of Silesia. Other organizations, for example People of the Silesian Nationality (Związek Ludności Narodowości Śląskiej) call for the immediate recognition of the so-called "Silesian nation" in Poland and Czech Republic."

Importantly, try to find sources or evidences that Free City of Danzig wants to rejoin Germany other than the Polish foreign minister one. This talk page is meant to invite editors such as @LechitaPL:, User:Koreanovsky and etc. Explode! ^Pop! 18:24, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

It is evident that it found out that LechitaPL has broken WP:3RR again after instructing him to use the talk page. Do poles listen to the people who try to help nowadays? And the next time I hear Polish nationalist nonsense claiming it’s unsourced. I’ll try to inform him over 3 disputed movements. I also declare that the entirety of LechitaPL’s edits on the article to be simply labeled as POV nationalist edits. Explode! ^Pop! 23:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Stop vandalizing. Your editions bear the hallmarks of German nationalism and are without sources, and your statements are chauvinistic. If you do not stop vandalizing, you will be blocked from editing. LechitaPL (talk) 11:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

If German nationalist bias isn’t allowed on Wikipedia, then why Polish nationalist bias is? Importantly, we both. Don’t want turning into an article into a biased perspective. It’s simple that I see that most of the world has an anti-german bias. Explode! ^Pop! 18:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Do you know the difference between separatism, autonomism and irredentism? When a significant group of citizens demands secession of an area, then we talk about separatism. As soon as some individuals from other countries claim land or territory of an other nation - we talk about irredentism! National minorities or regionalist movements are not separatist movements! Just because there is a minority living in a country, it does not automatically mean that they are separatists. The Free City of Danzig Government in Exile is not a legal exile-government! It was self-established. We are talking about a group of Germans from Berlin, claiming the city of Gdańsk. Since Gdańsk is a integrated part of the Republic of Poland, and NOT an occupied city - we are talking about irredentism, since this group attacks the sovereignty and national interest of Poland. Organizations like "Silesian Separatist Movement or Silesian National Movement" do not exist, but the Silesian Autonomy Movement. Autonomism means "demanding larger self-governing, without any secession". The German Minority Electoral Committee is an minority organization, not separatist or autonomist. Minority interests are like regionalism - not separatism. Calling the edits of User:LechitaPL "POV nationalism", is very thoughtless. --Koreanovsky (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hold it, Koreanovsky. You should check LechitaPL’s contribution history. Also, how is this vandalism? Now let me see. And it is with sources, it has it’s own articles, you said the same thing to couple people a while ago, please warn me with a new notification, LechitaPL. Alright, as for the rest. You would be right, but in the Danzig exile perspectives it is technically occupied, but such claim is internationally unrecognized. Danzig government in exile is.. The last exiled nation who yet is to recognize Polish administration and integrity. Just because they are from Berlin does not mean that—, Ok. Does the city of Berlin claim Gdansk? No. I also restarted it because I was a little fussy in that time... So in apparently the illegality of the government in exile is defined as unsourced government in exile? OK.. If the "Silesian Separatist Movement or Silesian National Movement" does not exist, then why it is on the article. It is indeed unthoughtful indeed, and I sincerely apologize, It’s simply that I don’t like polonization of the English Wikipedia. Another question, do you condemn or praise the expulsion of Germans? It seems that you don't recognize my edits on the Free City of Danzig I also asked sources from http://www.danzigfreestate.org/ ... The only parts we are in the same page are the Silesian autonomism and Mark P's addition of autonomist movements as separatist movements on Silesia part. I’m mostly focused on Danzig and Silesia and not Opole’s German minority. Opole's German minority, Kabushians I’m pretty sure are both regionalists. How about this, maybe let's try to make this a little bit unbiased.Explode! ^Pop! 18:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m simply cooled down now.. Wikipedia is diversely opinionated. But we shouldn’t commit either any true or false POV. For German Minority Electoral Committee there is a very mediocre chance it is an autonomist movement, since it is related. As for Danzig, negotiation and reorganization is stalled because of the lack of replies. Again, if hails of German nationalism isn’t allowed, why is polish is? I didn’t want to fuel up again. But I’m awaiting for any discoveries from http://www.danzigfreestate.org/ . Unless you can prove that I am incorrect with the information from the website mentioned. Explode! ^Pop! 08:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

What has this to do with nationalism? The German Minority Electoral Committee is a minority-rights organization that gives political representation to the German national minorities, they even have a website. This what you are is WP:CBALLing. You said: If the "Silesian Separatist Movement or Silesian National Movement" does not exist, then why it is on the article. - I don't know friend, I only know that it is totally sourceless and that there are no encyclopedic informations about them in the WWW. The same goes for Danzig. Try to find some encyclopedic source about the government in exile. There is no movement in the city od Danzig, we are talking about a self-founded organization without any int. recognition, that calls itself the "government in exile". Danzig became a legal part of Poland with the Potsdam Agreement, today the city is populated by Poles. We are not talking about Danzigers claiming secession, we are talking about a few individuals in Germany claiming the city. If the people of Danzig would claim secession, it would be a movement, that we could add to this article, but this is not the case. It is true that the so-called "Rat der Danziger" existed ([18]), yes - but without any recognition. The organization claims, that The Free State of Danzing would de jure still exist ([19]), but this against the Potsdam Agreement. –--Koreanovsky (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Anything before or after the reply. It does not give us the reason why German Minority Electoral Committee should be readded. Once you inform that German Minority Electoral Committee isn't regionalist. I followed. Therefore. It means that Rat der Danziger or known in the English Wikipedia as the 'Free City of Danzig Government in Exile' both in 1947 and 1998 as far as I know. was never a signatory of the Potsdam Agreement, therefore it still claims the territory. The sad part is, the only sole supporters of the movement are very few German advocates from Berlin and the government in exile. Explode! ^Pop! 22:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Poland Issue

ExplodingPoPups’s current claim

Autonomist movements

Polish voivodeships

Upper Silesia

• People: Silesians
  • Proposed autonomous area or state: Silesia
    • Political party: Silesian Autonomy Movement

Ethnocultural regions

Kashubia

• People: Kashubians
  • Proposed autonomous area or state: Kashubia
    • Political party: Kashubian Unity

Secessionist movements

Gdańsk

• People: Danzigers, Poles and Kashubians
  • Proposed state: Free City of Danzig
    • Government in exile: Free City of Danzig Government in Exile

• 
  Upper Silesia
• 
  Kashubia by Bernard Sychta as the Kashubian dialects area
• 
  Free City of Danzig
• 
  Voivodeships between 1975 and 1998 superimposed over the current borders of the Opole Voivodeship

References

Internationally recognized claim

Autonomist movements

Upper Silesia

• People: Silesians
  • Proposed autonomous area or state: Silesia
    • Political party: Silesian Autonomy Movement

Kashubia

• People: Kashubians
  • Proposed autonomous area or state: Kashubia
    • Political party: Kashubian Unity

Conclusion

The conclusion isn’t yet decided. One likely change, Removal of Opole and the sourceless movements.

References

Finland , sweden

See also: Sápmi and Karelia

for finland

See also: Sápmi

for sweden

Do you think it's okay to put this link in Finland and Sweden (section) (without map) to read more?

They may not be an active separatist movement, but they are related to border changes or possible future governments.Vitaly ky1 (talk) 07:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Vitaly ky1: It is relevant in Russian Karelia, but there is not and has never been any separatism/secessonism in the Finnish part of Karelia. Secession from Finland? No way!

Regarding Sápmi: They may not be an active separatist movement Exactly!

related to border changes Please explain what border changes are related to Sápmi.

possible future governments See WP:CRYSTALBALL. --T*U (talk) 10:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Explode! ^Pop! 18:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC) There is no current active separatist movements regarding Sapmi. Explode! ^Pop! 18:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The Sápmi-people are a minority, but have a very significant population in Northern Scandinavia. There might be smaller groups demanding larger autonomy, but in general they have regionalist movements, promoting the unique identity of Lappland. As comrade T*U mentioned, there is no active separatist movement, we need to distinguish movements and ideas/dreams of individuals. --Koreanovsky (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Koreanovsky, unless something has changed this page was determined awhile ago to include autonomism as separatism. A controversial decision, I know, but that was that. --Calthinus (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but you will need to search deep for any active autonomist movement, too! By the way, it is neither Sweden nor Finland that has most Sámi people, it is Norway, which has not been mentioned. And for the record: The region is Sápmi, the people is Sámi. --T*U (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Map mess

Location of Samtskhe–Javakheti within Georgia

This is a list article, where one of the main points is to guide the user to articles relevant to the different separatist movements mentioned. Recently, a lot of maps have been added to the article. The number of maps is one problem. Even worse is that the maps come in a lot of different sizes and styles, making the overall presentation extremely chaotic. Parts of the list also has extreme sandwiching, see WP:SANDWICH. The list information is more or less drowned by the visual mess. I cannot see any benefit in most of the maps, especially the "location of X area in country Y" maps. They give little or no information about the separatist movements and their goals. Instead, they clutter up the list and makes it difficult to navigate. I propose to scrap all maps as a start, then discussing if there are any maps that would help the overall functionality of the list article. --T*U (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

All may be a bit too much. Some like those in Belgium are useful for the readership. Some are not the least bit useful.--Calthinus (talk) 19:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

One proposal, reorganization and removal of unnecessary maps. Explode! ^Pop! 19:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

For starters I want Samtskhe-Javakheti under Georgia out. Armenians do not live in all of that huge area. See the map. --Calthinus (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Not all of Samtskhe-Javakheti is Armenian. The map on the page mainspace is misleading.

Additionally, only one map is really necessary for Spain. --Calthinus (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Calthinus that a map for Belgium can be useful. But two almost identical maps is total overkill, especially when they compete with the Table of Contents and squeezes the text column down to a width of 10 characters. But let us start with removing all pure location maps and all historical maps. --T*U (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

TU-nor, I've been doing some large removals. What do you think? I agree on Belgium -- only one is necessary. I think a lot of maps for Russia are very illuminating for readers, as the Caucasus is a complicated region, and also an obscure one, as is the Volga.--Calthinus (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Good start! Italy is still a WP:SANDWICH mess. Imo pure location maps at Azerbaijan, Cyprus, Denmark etc. should go. --T*U (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I’m somewhat on the verge of planning on reorganizing the entire page and the list of active separatist movements in every single continent. Explode! ^Pop! 07:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't forget List of active separatist movements in North America. Explode! ^Pop! 18:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

maps

I collected the maps with a lot of time. Please do not delete them for no reason. Before deleting the map, put it on the discussion page and state the cause. In addition to creating consensus, this will prevent repetitive debates in the future and be reversible.In the case of Spain, for example, the first map is not comprehensive and does not have full accuracy. Even if he had a specific plan, each movement would give the reader better information. In the case of the United Kingdom, if there is an additional population or there is no movement, the whole movement must be eliminated. If there is, then the image and the map are necessary, and if there is no external existence, both the text and the map must be deleted together.Vitaly ky1 (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Vitaly, I agree with you. As with any major edit revision(s), a discussion must be started and consensus established before a "deleting spree" can commence. This is common practice- other editors please be mindful of this. Furthermore, we need to allow more then just 1 day before making drastic edits in order to provide other editors to join the discussion. TU-nor, I for one, disagree that certain location maps should be removed. Ie, a map of the South Caucasus for Azerbaijan can serve particularly useful; considering the region is a complex mess (especially for readers with little to no knowledge of the ongoing geopolitical nightmare that region is plagued with). Regards, Archives908 (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: I am afraid you have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. This is not a "deleting spree", but exactly the opposite. Of the 89 maps currently in the article, 76 have been added by Vitaly during the last one and a half week. So it is rather a "map insertion spree". And as you say, such a major revision should require a discussion and a consensus.

@Vitaly ky1: You have made a Bold edit and added a lot of maps, some of which are surely improving the article, others certainly not. When some of your additions have been Reverted, you have started a Discussion in order to create a consensus per WP:BRD. That is fine, but then you should not reinstate your edits until a consensus has been reached, se WP:CONSENSUS, WP:EDITWAR. Please consider self reverting. --T*U (talk) 09:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: Actually, I am well aware of Vitaly's recent activity on the page and have been monitoring it very closely. And I agree with you, there has been a lot of new additions. Nonetheless, as per WP:AGF, we must assume good faith. Therefore, my earlier point remains- any disagreements with Vitaly's recent additions should be discussed and a consensus reached. I also hope editor Vitaly has read this discussion and your above comment and will learn from it moving forward. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@Archives908: I have never doubted that the edits of Vitaly are made in good faith, but I find the overall result of the edits to be a rather disastrous visual chaos, which was why I raised the question. Another editor obviously partly agreed with me and removed some of the excessive maps (also in good faith). That is all "according to the book", and the discussion was ongoing. But when Vitaly then reverted the removal, we are moving into edit war territory, which is why I have asked them to self revert. Regards! --T*U (talk) 14:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: I totally agree and understand that it has been chaotic. Out of fairness, Vitaly may not know the proper ways to make revisions. Perhaps reaching out to his talk page can be a good idea? I noticed that he has been trying to start a discussion on the talk page here- which is good. We need to allow him (and other editors) to respond and make suggestions/provide critique. That cannot be done- if editors are already removing items without even allowing 24hrs to pass. I noticed you reverted your own edits just now (thank you for that) as I'm sure you realized that you did not provide an edit summary and you had started a discussion but proceeded to edit without others having the chance to respond. Case in point with your suggestion to include Taksim- You started a discussion about it but you already added it to the article without allowing a discussion to take place. Again, thank you for reverting. I hope all editors, including Vitaly, can follow suite, as others may want to explore alternate ideas. Archives908 (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

@TU-nor: And now you have reverted your own edit again...I'm quite perplexed as to what you are doing. Archives908 (talk) 15:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding We need to allow him (and other editors) to respond and make suggestions/provide critique. That cannot be done- if editors are already removing items without even allowing 24hrs to pass. That is a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. If Vitaly has made bold edits adding far too many maps, the removal is "normal procedure", so to speak. We do not ask permission to do that. But what happens afterwards is important and makes a watershed between normal procedure and edit war. Vitaly reinstated his edits, which was a wrong choice. Note that I did not revert him again, but asked him to self revert and explained why. --T*U (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

"Main article" links

During the last two weeks, several {{Main article: Secession i X country}} links have been added to the article. Since these articles do not exist, they turn up as redlinks. Some of these nonexisting articles may conceivably be relevant to start one day, but most of them will probably never be produced. Having links to nonexisting "Main articles" is ridiculous, so I have removed them. They can be readded if and when the articles are created.

Looking through the "Main article" entries, I noticed that the Cyprus section links to Turkish invasion of Cyprus as a main article. That is rather inaccurate, since the invasion was neither the beginning nor the end of the idea of Turkish Cypriot secession. I will suggest that the link should instead go to Taksim (politics), an article directly discussing the ideologi of secession. --T*U (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks like you have made the executive decision to add it already- so is a discussion even worth it? I was going to suggest including Turkish invasion of Cyprus as a "See also", as it is relevant to the larger issue and can provide good context/ background information to the reader. Archives908 (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

It was not an "executive decision" (whatever that might be in Wikipedia), it was a completely normal Bold edit per WP:BRD. Feel free to Revert if you disagree, then we will Discuss. If you do not disagree, but have an additional suggestion, go ahead and do it boldly. Actually, I like the idea, so I will do it myself. --T*U (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Infinite issues?

This page already has issues and it has been accelerated, only gets worse less everytime than 24 hours. Not to mention that there is possibly a POV nationalist editor whom refuses to read the articles that I instructed them in Poland section, or even to look at the sources. Therefore there is an attempted Polonization of the Polish section of the article which I launched back. There is a proof that the editor is only ever sympathetic to Slavs. Explode! ^Pop! 20:35, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia :). However, do be careful so as not to make personal attacks/aspersions i.e. a proof that the editor is only ever sympathetic to Slavs. Just focus on content.--Calthinus (talk) 06:22, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Alright, as long as the polish editor does not ping me. I will be fine, dear. Explode! ^Pop! 20:09, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Please don't refer to me as "dear". --Calthinus (talk) 20:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Pardon me, Calthinus. Explode! ^Pop! 20:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Where are ukrainian separatists movements

Who can explain? 1. Donetsk people republic

2. Luhansk people republic

3. Kharkov people republic

4. Rusins in Zakarpatie

5. Galicia

6. Bukovina

Trial79 (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

"People's Republics" and Rusyn regionalism are Russian special services covert operations. Galician and Bukovina separatism does not exist. -- Svito3 (talk) 15:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, Donbass separatism, Category:Separatism in Ukraine, Donetsk People's Republic, Republic of Crimea, Republic of Stakhanov, South-East Ukrainian Autonomous Republic, Peace for Lugansk Region, Donetsk-South Ossetia relations

The Republic of Stakhanov was a proposed separatist republic of Pavel Dryomov on the territory of the city of Stakhanov within the separatist Luhansk People's Republic.[1]

Before the war Dryomov was a bricklayer in Stakhanov.[1] At the beginning of the conflict in Eastern Ukraine, Dryomov offered Stakhanov citizens an alternate vision to that of the LPR - a new, socialist neo-Soviet, "Cossack" republic "that works for the poor and elderly". In 2014 Dryomov was called the "savior of Stakhanov" by the British journalist Oliver Carroll who wrote an article about him in Politico magazine.[2] According to Carroll, one of the main points of departure between The Republic of Stakhanov and the Luhansk People's Republic was whether to adhere to the Minsk Protocol ceasefire deal with Ukraine. Dryomov advocated continuing the War in Donbass. During a speech, he advocated his views and stated "We've had enough corruption and slavery here for a century! We're not fools—neither Poroshenko nor Putin are interested in an honest country!" Nothing would be allowed to get in the way of destiny, he declared: "We will build a Cossack republic right here in Stakhanov!"[2]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zealluma (talk • contribs) 11:09, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Åland

@Mark P. 8301: I see that you have added or unification with Sweden to the entry for Åland. Do you have any source for this? The only proponents mentioned in the article are the party Future of Åland, (Ålands Framtid), and they do not have this as a goal. They work for deeper autonomy and ultimately independence, but they do not mention a union with Sweden as a possibility in any of the programmatic documents I have seen. Neither do I know of any other grouping working for union with Sweden since the 1920s. Regards! --T*U (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Mark P. 8301 has not responded to this message or to the message I left on their user talk page. I have therefore reverted their addition, since there is no indication that it is true. --T*U (talk) 06:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Use Template:Excerpt for transcontinental and European council countries

Resolved

 – Proposal recalled. - Svito3 (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

See Template:Excerpt.

This was reverted Special:Diff/1015712438 with vague reasoning, see also Special:Diff/1015714512 where I asked for further reasoning. Possibly user is prejudiced against his country (Cyprus) being considered geographically in Asia, which Template:Excerpt usage may imply by referencing that article. I'm actually puzzled why this revert has been made given very concrete explanation of my edits and Template:Excerpt usage and vague reasoning of the revert.

-- Svito3 (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

First, cut the accusations- it's not warranted nor productive. Second, the reasoning provided is far from vague. Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Georgia are each transcontinental states with territories in Asia and Europe. It's a fact- not "bias". As such, these states have been equally represented in both articles for years. You have neglected to provide any logical rationale why the status quo should not be maintained. In the mean time, I suggest you read WP:BALASP. Archives908 (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This does not change anything about articles, they both have same content. It's a technical measure of using a template which transcludes same content. If you think this has anything to do which article is transcluded from please make political arguments in another thread. -- Svito3 (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That would only apply if it was actually an excerpt from a larger body of text from another article. However, after your recent edits, the information listed is not an excerpt from the Asia article. No other/new information is found in the Asia article. Therefore, it is redundant to link them- it serves no purpose to the reader. Archives908 (talk) 03:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you opposed to transclusion sections in general or just this additional text template provides? Transclusion can be done without a template and its text. -- Svito3 (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. However, it is illogical to link readers to the exact same material. What purpose would that serve? If there was an expanded body of text on either of the articles, then yes, I can see how your suggestion would be beneficial. But, the excerpts are identical, and thus I see no valid reason to refer readers to another article just to re-read the exact same material they did here. A few years ago, these three countries linked to the related Asia article as a "see also", and from my recollection, those links were removed due to redundancy. Archives908 (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

That was not actual question I've been asking, seems you misunderstood it. In any case I don't insist on using neither transclusion method. Closing. -- Svito3 (talk) 14:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Spelling of organization/organisation

This should probably use single variant on the page, see WP:ENGVAR. -- Svito3 (talk) 15:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this up. I've unified the page to one consistent spelling variant. Helper201 (talk) 12:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ulster nationalism

I have removed this addition. There is no evidence of any Ulster nationalist movement currently active in Northern Ireland. FDW777 (talk) 08:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Transylvanianism

User:Super Dromaeosaurus has repeatedly reverted any edits which attempt to underline the connection between the Transylvanian regionalist movement as listed on this article and the ideology of Transylvanianism. I have tried in the past to add {{seealso|Transylvanianism}} to the relevant section, only to have my edit immediately reverted. His edits have also affected the Stateless nationalism in Europe template, as well as the Regionalism (politics) page (for which he has been reprimanded). I believe that the link between the two topics is obvious, but just in case I would like to present this article, published by one of the organizations cited as advocating for Transylvanian regionalism, as proof of the movement's identification with the Transylvanianist label.

I must disclose that I have been reported to WP:ANI by this user and subsequently banned for 5 days for my past conduct, which is why I request the opinion of a neutral third party on the validity of these edits. Thank you. --Reodorant (talk) 09:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. If an editor will not discuss, consider the recommendations which are made here. — TransporterMan (TALK) 15:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC) _{(not watching this page)}

Reodorant, if you will continue this issue, at least mind to be neutral. Your comment is clearly trying to make me look like the bad guy, particularly with "for which he has been reprimanded", as if you had not been blocked twice for this before. I must note it is particularly annoying that only now after so many months you decide to bring a source at all to the table.

Your source's title is Un transilvanism ciudat ("A strange Transylvanianism"), which suggests the version of Transylvanianism portrayed in the newspaper is not the common one. My Romanian is pretty rusty, but from what I've understood, the article is about a suggestion from PSD Cluj aiming to give Transylvania more power and autonomy. The article only mentions Transylvanianism twice apart from the title, the first one describing this suggestion as "a very strange Transylvanianism" and the second referring to this as a "national-socialdemocrat variant of Transylvanianism". The article doesn't say at any moment that the ideology is about giving Transylvania more power (because that's what regionalism is, read the article, it is not just any movement with the name of a region in its name). And anyway, I can show more sources explaining the real meaning of Transylvanianism, here they are [20] [21] (a blog, arguably a non-reliable source but it still shows other people also make a clear distinction between Transylvanianism and movements attempting to give the region more power), [22] [23] [24] [25]. You can also read the first discussion in which I brought these sources, which I've linked countless times already and which you for some reason decided to ignore: User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419. Thus, I'm afraid you'll have to bring more sources to make this "obvious" correlation a bit more obvious. I'm aware I'm not being too kind here, but really, I am tired of discussing this. Super Ψ Dro 19:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to apologize for the poor phrasing. My intention was to highlight the fact that some previous edits you made on pages related to this topic were rollbacked. I understand that this must be annoying for you, but I was not aware of the dispute resolution procedure at the time. I am still new to editing Wikipedia, so I ask you to please bear with me as I learn the ropes.

The article I quoted is a response to a political program put forward by the then-president of PSD Cluj, which the author criticizes for attempting to "minimize the impact of alternative discussions on Transylvania's future." You are correct in that the author does not refer to his political ideology by name, but when he calls the social-democrat program "a strange Transylvanianism", I think it's pretty clear that he sees it as a subversion of the ideals espoused by him and the publication he writes for, Provincia.

Your first source describes a "neo-Transylvanianism" active in the 2000's and acknowledges that "there is a cultural Transylvanianism and a political one too." I don't have much to say about the blog post, since it largely deals with Károly Kós's architecture in Budapest, but if you think it supports your argument, then fair enough. Your third source seems to reinforce the political connotations of Transylvanianism, to me it looks like the MP's words are a call to political action. The fourth source you cited claims that Transylvanianism "aimed to preserve and reinforce Hungarian national pride and identity in the region through cultural activities, education and political action." I unfortunately cannot address your fifth and sixth source, as I don't have access to them, so you'll have to tell me how they relate to your point.

Regardless of whether the modern regionalist movement is referred to as Transylvanianism or not, I still believe that adding a seealso template linking Transylvanianism to the relevant section in this article would be uncontroversial. The discussion you had with the other editor on the Regionalism (politics) talkpage reinforces my point that these edits are something that you and you alone oppose. I have refrained from editing any of these pages due to past conflict, which is why I want to formally reach out to you here. I hope we can come to a consensus, but if that's not possible, I could notify WP:3O if you'd like. Thank you. --Reodorant (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem. After your polite reply I see you have good intentions. Sorry for escalating. Regarding the newspaper you linked, I think it's too imprecise and is not useful in this dispute. Nor it directly links Transylvanianism with regionalism nor it denies any connection between them.

In the first source I linked we find the following stances: "The three main principles of this ideology [Transylvanianism] were: multiculturality (as it sprang from the three neighbouring cultures of Transylvania [Hungarian, Romanian and Saxon German], love for the native land, and the need of establishing and following aesthetic criteria in literature." (p. 318). Note that I am not saying Transylvanianism does not have any kind of influence in politics, but that it is not regionalist. Again, remember the definition of regionalism: "Regionalism is a political ideology which seeks to increase the political power, influence and/or self-determination of the people of one or more subnational regions." I haven't seen sources describing Transylvanianism as aiming this. It wasn't even originally a political movement but a literary one from what I've understood.

In the second source we find this statement: "Transylvanianism is the kind of quixotic word that sounds like something related to paranormal activity. After first seeing the word my imagination began to run wild with a plethora of bizarre suppositions concerning just what it might mean. [...]. Another idea was that the word stood for a populist political movement to make Transylvania an independent nation. It turned out that all my theories were wrong." Furthermore: "This idea was largely the brainchild of a famous ethnic Hungarian architect, Karoly Kos. [...] Kos believed that ethnic Hungarians should work within the existing system to promote their interests, rather than call for the old borders to be reinstituted."

The third source calls for cooperation between Hungarians and Romanians. That's one of the main concepts of Transylvanianism. It doesn't call for increased power for Transylvania (check again definition of regionalism).

The fourth source says this: "Transylvanianism is a complex ideology rooted in the Hungarian national movement of the nineteenth century, one that later turned into a diverse manifestation of the Hungarian minorities in Romania through literature, culture, politics and self-definition. Elaborated by writers, historians and journalists after 1918 and even more vehemently after 1947, the movement aimed to preserve and reinforce Hungarian national pride and identity in the region through cultural activities, education and political action". No mention of increased power for Transylvania (check again definition of regionalism).

I don't know what the fifth source is, I apparently linked a wrong one while searching for another. I don't have access to the sixth one either, I just linked it because of a bit of information inside the article that showed in Google Scholar that I found useful. Let's forget about those two.

And no, adding Transylvanianism as a see also template on an article that is about active separatist movements in Europe is not uncontroversial. It links Transylvanianism with these movements, and it has nothing to do with them. And that only I oppose this doesn't signify any issue in this discussion. By the way, I don't want to comment on any user's political opinions because I got nothing to do with them, but that user I had a discussion with appears to identify with these autonomist/independentist movements, so I'd say they (I mean the user) were a bit biased in the topic when seeing my edits on the page that could be seen as an attempt to oppose these movements they identify with. This is only my perspective, sorry if I am wrong. And it would be fair to call me biased too, but if there was someone else in this discussion who agreed with my point, I wouldn't use it to "reinforce my point".

I invite you to send more sources that may link the Transylvanianist movement with regionalism. You may search them here: Google Scholar, Google Books or the news section at a regular Google search. We can leave the 3O request for later, I don't see it necessary right now. Super Ψ Dro 16:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright, if I find any more sources, I will add them here. I'm pretty sure that for a change this minor, these sources are more than enough however. I really would like a third opinion to get this over with. Reodorant (talk) 05:45, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, if you want a third opinion, you can request it, I have no problem. Super Ψ Dro 09:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

3O Response: Normally "see also" links are reasonably uncontroversial, but if they for whatever reason are, they're no longer minor. In that case, the question would be whether there are actually any reliable sources that explicitly confirm that the two things are closely related. In this case, it seems that there are several which actually say they substantially differ. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

This list is a POV-warrior mess!

I just requested this page to be protected. Since 2018 or even earlier, I have tried to make improvements to this list for so many times - but everytime I take a look on it, I have to see how so many new irredentism and wrong information gets (re-)added and (re-)added again and again. Even if there have already been countless discussions about the same sections... At some points even autonomist movements that existed over 100 years ago during the Austro-Hungarian Empire have been added to this list!

Mostly IPs and new-registered useres with only edits on this list keep adding and pushing minority right-parties or regionalist movements as "autonomism" or even "secessionism"! Especially the section about France, Italy and Russia worries me the most. --Koreanovsky (talk) 17:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I do agree this article is pretty bad in many parts. However, I reverted your edits on the Croatia section. There appears to have been a Dalmatian regionalist movement, at times demanding autonomy, although it seems to be mostly historical. The Istrian movement however is still active, you can easily find information about it from a few days ago. I added sources for both movements (even though the Istrian one already had two, despite your claim of it being unsourced). Super Ψ Dro 17:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

There is no movement in Dalmatia, that was during the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, when the Italian Dalmatians have been a prominent minority and had actual political influence, that movement by them was called Dalmatianism. As the articles perfectly describes, Dalmatianism was the movement of the Italians in the Kingdom of Dalmatia (Austrian crown), while the Croatian movement was described as "National movement" (see People's Party (Dalmatia)). Today, there are not even 18.000 Italians in entire Croatia and that is like 0,42% of the entire population. The source that was named is from 1995. All the parties are long gone + those parties were advocating a stronger regional identity in the 1990s before they were abandoned.

Istria is a topic for itself. IDS is a regionalist party, not autonomist. The articles from a few days ago is just the opinion of one parliament member, not of the entire party, Istrianism is not nationalism, it is an regional identity. But let us discuss Istria another time, since there is much bigger stuff to fix on this list. --Koreanovsky (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Istrianism is indeed mostly regionalist, but there's also a source from the president of IDS in which he suggested Istrian autonomy (if I understood correctly). Super Ψ Dro 18:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

I googled and, as of September 29 2021, I haven't found any sources of the current party-president suggesting autonomy for the Istria County. There are currently two sources in the article: the vecernji.hr article says that "idea/proposal of this one politican is against the constitution" and glasistre.hr article only quotes that a party member said in the parliament: "the autonomy could fix the problems of the residents". Basically, in my understanding the sources show the opinions of only two people. In the party program I only found mentions about stronger decentralisations of entire Croatia. Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

More important stuff to fix

@Super Dromaeosaurus: I am definitely glad that you want to help improve the article, since during the last years there has been complete mess added. Look at the section about Russia or France, it is pure POV-content that makes it look like millions of the population are separatists or that the countries are "about to dissolve". The section about Russia was fixed once, many years ago, but some I user (I believe it was a sockpuppet) has readded the same list again. The biggest issue with Germany is the fact, that minority right-parties like Die Friesen or South Schleswig Voter Federation (I removed the POV-content) keep getting re-added and re-added again as "autonomists" and the article has unironically claimed that those people want "autonomy or unification with Denmark". Unsourced WP:POV WP:NOR.

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I also hate it when people talk about separatist movements in countries they don't know anything about (although I might have been guilty of this myself with the Dalmatianism issue, apologies for that). According to international media and random YouTube accounts, I live in a country (Spain) where every single square km wants its own independent state. However, fixing this huge article would require a lot of work, which to be honest I don't have intention to do.

In the case you want to get into this yourself, I suggest to start reverting every single new unsourced addition to this article. I am the creator of Alliance for the Union of Romanians, the page of an initially marginal party whose page blew up after an election, so its infobox started getting crowded by unsourced ideologies. This was fixed by reverting (I wasn't the only one) every edit adding new ideologies without sources, adding a note in between <!-- --> telling editors not to add unsourced information (this might be harder to do here since it's for a whole article, not a section for it, but maybe take a look at Template:Editnotices/Page/Mount Athos, it shows up when editing the code of Mount Athos) and adding sources to the ideologies that could be verified (I didn't contribute to this, it was other editors). Super Ψ Dro 18:39, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Yeah, I totally understand what you mean. I worry that probably entire sections of this article would have to be reverted to older versions. :( Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 08:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The ideas of one or a few people are not movements!

I remember how long time ago, someone literally added East Germany (!) to this list. It is true that there might be a few (East) Germans who "miss" the German Democratic Republic or are just "eastaglic", but does that automatically mean there is a autonomist/secessionist movement there? Obviously not. There are, atleast in my knowledge, not even parties that support that idea.

---

But what am I trying to say with this? The idea or proposal of one person, is not automatically making it a movement! The idea of one politican is not automatically always representing the party program.

---

Another example is the Istria County in Croatia. Yes, there is a regionalist movement, Istrianism - but that is regionalism, not automatically autonomism. The party IDS, that is named in this article, has also an Wikipedia article btw. and I have also nothing found in their party program, that says something about autonomism. You will also find many European regions with a strong regional identity, but that has nothing to do with autonomism or separatism, it is pure regionalism. The news article vecernji.hr that was named as a source, has been wrongly understood in this list. It writes something that there is the goal for counties to become regions, which is decentralisation and not autonomism. The title also only comments the idea of one person.

The same counts for Kashubia in Poland. There are minority organisations, but obviously those are organisations have the goal rise awareness of Kashubians. What has this to do with autonomism? Obviously nothing.

Wessex also needs to be removed from that list. There is a regionalist party, Wessex Regionalists, yes - but what has this to do with autonomism?! I have also noticed that it seems to be a minor political party and not a huge movement or anything?

Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Koreanovsky: I brought this article and related ones up at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard/Archive 73#List of active separatist movements. These articles have been an embarrassment for far too long, most of the "active separatist movements" listed are nothing of the kind. FDW777 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@FDW777: finally - thank you, finally something moved on! I will write my opinion there aswell. Best regards, Koreanovsky (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

But my worry is, it seems like many people do not really care about this. I would totally lock this page for IPs and even add filters for blogpost sources. --Koreanovsky (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Kenisberg(Prusia).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Basse-Normandie.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Germany

Freie Sachsen

On February 26, 2021, Kohlmann became chairman of the newly founded organization "Freie Sachsen" (not to be confused with the Free Saxony – Alliance of Independent Voters) founded in 2007 in the Haus des Gastes in Bermsgrün, which describes itself as a party according to the Party Act. On the other hand, it sees itself "in the face of the state's corona coercive measures" as a roof for a collection movement. Within a few months, the organization has succeeded in taking over sovereignty over the discourse on Telegram, with 150,000 subscribers as of February 2022, and in controlling the radical actions of the Corona protesters in Saxony. Programmatically, they call for stronger cooperation with the Visegrád Group, with which they have more in common in terms of security or family policy than with the West German federal states. The Free Saxons reject democracy and demand that "the Saxon royal family [...] in shaping the future". Deputy chairmen are Stefan Hartung (NPD), city councillor in Aue-Bad Schlema and district councillor in the Erzgebirgskreis, and the Plauen bus operator Thomas Kaden; The treasurer is the pro-Chemnitz functionary Robert Andres, who is a city councillor in Chemnitz. The State Office for the Protection of the Constitution of Saxony has the alliance in its sights and classified it as a right-wing extremist in June 2021. Since January 2022, the Free Saxons have been classified as a suspected case by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and monitored nationwide. After the Russian invasion of Ukraine at the end of February 2022, Putin masks were worn during "walks" and Russian flags were waved. The declaration of the Free Saxons: "Suddenly, the unvaccinated is no longer the main enemy No. 1!" Now "the Russian is enemy No. 1".,, .,,,,,

Saxony

• People: saxionian
• Proposed state or autonomus area: Saxony
  • Extremist organisation: Freie Sachsen

Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

"Freie Sachsen" is mainly known as antivaxers and extreme rightists (with a racist agenda). They mention autonomy briefly in their "platform", but calling them a separatist movement is far away from any reality. I cannot find anything in your sources indicating that they are. Could you please indicate where a reliable source are mentioning them as such? And by the way 'Saxonians' redirekt to 'Saxony'. --T*U (talk) 13:14, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

autonomist movements are included in this list? perhaps its addition would be warrented as an autonomist movement alone? would you agree Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 14:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, autonomy movements are included, but even if autonomy is briefly mentioned in their "platform", I see no indication that they actually have done anything to pursue autonomy. If you can find an independent reliable source describing them as an autonomy movement, it could be admitted. If not, no! --T*U (talk) 16:33, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Thingsomyipisntvisable: I see that you are using WP:EDITWAR in order to get this questionable "autonomist group" into the article. I do not take part in edit wars, so I will not revert this addition, but I advice you to self revert until you have created a consensus in the talk page for the addition. I will, however, remove the entry 'People: saxionians'. There is no ethnic group called saxionians, and the piped link to "Saxonian" is redirected to "Saxony", which makes the whole entry redundant. --T*U (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

i am fine self reverting if you would like but it is undeniably an autonomist organisation and you forcing a concenus on a reliably cited Freie Sachsen that has its own page as a german secessionist organization is not helpful.

The official Freie Sachsen site https://freie-sachsen.info/wofuer-wir-stehen/ states in its aims and ambitions that:

More autonomy and, if necessary, the Säxit

Saxony's rights to regulate its own affairs are to be renegotiated within the Federal Republic. The aim of this negotiation must be that Saxony can once again determine important questions of its present and future itself in the sense of the present program (autonomy). Autonomous regions such as South Tyrol in Italy, the Basque Country in Spain or Scotland in Great Britain serve as models. If the Berlin central government is not prepared to do this, the right of termination, which results from the unification agreement, should be used as a last resort. FREE SAXONY is committed to the German nation, but takes a critical look at the current state organizational structure of the Federal Republic of Germany. a right of withdrawal,

As a short-term measure, all rights that the federalist system already grants to the Federal Republic of Germany are to be exhausted and implemented at state level in the interests of Saxony, instead of participating in the centralization and synchronization of the federal states at the request of the federal government. Decisions that affect Saxony must be made exclusively for the benefit of the Saxon citizens, not out of consideration for the other 15 federal states.

Yes to a Saxon constitution

As a direct consequence of Saxon autonomy (or even a Säxit), FREE SAXONY demands that the Saxons give themselves their own constitution. This is to be confirmed by the people as sovereign in free self-determination, through a referendum. The Saxon constitution should have a liberal character, guarantee the inviolability of the individual and form the basis for granting a peaceful and self-determined future for Saxony. The constitution is intended to protect the individual from excessive state intervention (through a further development of the constitutional rights of defense against the state) and to be based on the desired image of a responsible person. At the same time, it should define the framework in which the Saxon identity is preserved for future generations.

I have kept it as an autonomus movement in the article due to your suggestion that ""Freie Sachsen" is mainly known as antivaxers and extreme rightists (with a racist agenda). They mention autonomy briefly in their "platform", but calling them a separatist movement is far away from any reality. I cannot find anything in your sources indicating that they are. Could you please indicate where a reliable source are mentioning them as such? And by the way 'Saxonians' redirekt to 'Saxony'."

however its removal due to its political ideology and stance on covid restrictions is not only unwarranted but extremey bias.

Thanks, Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The web site of 'Freie Sachsen' is a primary source, while Wikipedia is preferably based on sevondary sources, see WP:PST. Can you provide any reliable secondary sources describing Freie Sachsen as secessionist or autonomist? --T*U (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

in the previous citations as you agreed "they mention autonomy briefly in their "platform"" so it is clear you have read these but i will link the top two again for convenience, they get more unreliable as the sources go on however, their autonomist asparations are undeniable.

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/wer-sind-die-freien-sachsen-102.html

https://www.mdr.de/presse/fernsehen/presseinformation-exactly-freie-sachsen-propaganda-proteste-100.html

https://haitblog.hypotheses.org/2586

https://newsingermany.com/right-wing-extremists-in-saxony-investigations-into-habeck-pillory-policy/ Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that all these sources are just describing what 'Freie Sachsen' are telling about themselves. When it comes to describing what the party actually stands for and does, they are described as a right-wing extremist organisation (or even neo-Nazi) with resistance against Corona measures and resistance against immigration as their main targets. --T*U (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

References

Wessex

There is a autonomist movement in Wessex So Wessex could be included USA123-567 (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Sources? --T*U (talk) 13:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps he is talking about the Wessex Regionalists on their website they talk about https://www.wessexregionalists.info/defining-wessex/   Autonomy for Wessex, "Autonomy for Wessexwill need to mean autonomy from aspects of itself, or rather a reclaiming of them as purely regional, a letting-go of wider aspirations to empire-building." this seems satirical? Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 17:36, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Taraclia

There is a idea of giving taraclia a special statues in Moldova so I think it could be included USA123-567 (talk) 16:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Any sources? Super Ψ Dro 16:36, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Here is the source https://www.moldova.org/en/bulgarian-ethnics-in-moldova-seek-autonomy-236333-eng/ USA123-567 (talk) 13:18, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

That is an isolated event, I cannot find sources discussing this as an active movement. Super Ψ Dro 13:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Germany - Freie Sachsen

I have removed it. There existed shortly a party, now a different social movement. Which of them do you mean and sources please. Xx236 (talk) 12:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Freie Sachsen Xx236 (talk) 13:06, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Denmark

Christiania is a self-governing society This country within a city within a country is a “vibrant, fun, and often controversial area that has worked with the local government to stake its claim on the land and be recognised as free.” this is essentially an autonomous movement inside the danish state 79.77.87.172 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Spain

There is a movement that advocates for statehood of Cartagena Here is the political party: Movimiento Ciudadano de Cartagena Luxenburg lover (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)