[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jsorens (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 17 July 2013. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Catalonia (Spain)

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


=============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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

British groups for Mercia and Yorkshire

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Interestingly, North Kosovo isn't listed here! bobrayner (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 13:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 15:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 19:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Sokac, unless you say something useful here, i will restore section. All i see above is IDONTLIKEIT. --WhiteWriterspeaks 16:17, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. --WhiteWriterspeaks 00:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe&oldid=564678385"