Talk:Lists of active separatist movements/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Problem with United Kingdom bit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Macau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Definition

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

siafu 03:46, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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

São Tomé and Príncipe and other African countries

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

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

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

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

Page move

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

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

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

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

Hong Kong

Honk Kong movements were removed because of claimed lack of notability. [1] Several movements in this article are of little notability. I feel this removal is debatable. --Liberlogos 17:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Representativity

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

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

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

Goa?

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

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

Dumasia vs. Karbi Conflict

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

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

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

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

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

WikiSceptic 13:55, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

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

See these links:-

"Karbi Anglong violence:Inqiry ordered"

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

Australia

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

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

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

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

Criteria for inclusion in this list

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

a recognized state controlling most or all of its territory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Puerto Rico not here?

I'd like to know. It does have an active autonomist and secessionist movement. And it is not, as another user put it, "a sovereign, freely associated state that can have indepedence any time it asks for it". It is still a pure and simple colony, and has been so for the past half century of "Free Association", as recently recognized by a [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1545661/posts White House report]. -- Mankawabi 08:22, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is included. RAYMI.

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

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

Micro-separatists

I recommend not including "micro-separatists" on this page, such as organizations seeking to establish new states or municipalities within the United States or new cantons in Switzerland, new regions in France or Italy, new autonomous communities in Spain, etc. For the U.S., the appropriate place for state-level micro-separatists is List of U.S. state secession proposals.--Jsorens (talk) 23:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Violence & politics (POV template)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

South Africa

Some comments on the South African section:

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

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

Sami

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

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

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

But there's no suggestion of any autonomous (geographical) region as such. Though there's some special provisions for Sami in the Norwegian Finnmark Law, this is very different from other autonomist movements who want more self-governance. Including it along with autonomist or secessionst movements is misleading. --Audunmb (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

At least, the Proposed autonomous region should be removed, as noone is proposing this. Maybe a link to Sámi_politics would be more appropiate.--Audunmb (talk) 15:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Real chances?

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

Montenengro

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

Croatia

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

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

Cro ed

Krajina Entry

Such an entry belongs in List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements.

In the current Republic of Croatia, there is not an autonmy movement as such. Most of the Serb minority left in 1995, and of those that remained or returned, they are no longer interested in such a plan, nor do they constitute a majority in most areas where they once hoped to create such a state.

While a government in exile exists in Belgrade, it more accurately reflects a territorial aspiration of large tracts of the elite in the Republic of Serbia - a slight difference to an autonomist or seccessionist movement. iruka 01:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a recent enough movement that it should be kept on this page for the time being. It's difficult to tell how much support within Croatia the movement has, but it seems premature to declare it dead.--Jsorens 12:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me put it in an alternative way - the movement was smashed by operation storm in 1995. There is no tolerance in the government of today for any potential movement; as President Mesic stated on this years anniversary of homeland and thanksgiving day, "there is no plan A-z (referring to the Z-plan or any new iteration of it), there is just the constitution of the Republic of Croatia". The fact that the government in exile is in exile should say something about the movements support base - it no longer is an autonomy movement (was questional to class it as one in the first place), but there exists territorial aspiration by some in a neighbouring republic. I think it is premature to ressurect it, if it is as difficult to gauge as you mentioned. iruka 13:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Most autonomist and secessionist movements are not tolerated by the countries under which they live. The Indian constitution, for instance, requires all political candidates to take an oath to the unity of the state, forcing secessionists to form clandestine, usually militant organizations. The Khalistan movement is a good analogue to Serb Krajina. Pro-Khalistan forces are banned, and after the end of the insurgency in Punjab, it is difficult to gauge popular support for the movement; however, there are active exile organizations. Khalistan is included on this page, as are the exile organizations promoting the concept.--Jsorens 15:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

True what you say about the govt support not excluding the existence of said movements, but with Khalistan, you actually have a separate Sikh state in India. Also there is a compact population mass where the movement can flourish. There isn't one anymore in Croatia. As such, any movement outside of Croatia, represents the territorial ambitions of a neighbouring country, a slightly different concept that belongs to a different stub.　iruka 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I had added the following entry, but it was deleted:

* Serbian minorities in and around [[Knin]],
region of [[Krajina]] (see [[Republic of Serbian
Krajina Government in Exile]])

According to the wiki page avout the Republic of Serbian (...), the movement was resurrected in 2004. It should be stressed that, although it might infuriate some of the Croatian wikipedians, it is our duty to report the existence of this movement (even if their support base has waned, and even if their revendications are most probably irrealistic). Would we remove notes about the French Resistance in WW2 because their "self-proclaimed government" was in exile? Other rebel groups were in exile for long periods, for instance Yasser Arafat's OLP. Other rebel groups keep fighting even after they are officially "dead", for instance the Spanish Republicans, who were installed on the French side of the Pyrenees till the end of the 1940s. -- Hugo Dufort 22:37, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

We have a duty to report the facts. And the facts do not support your assertion - the problem is that it is no longer an autonomy movement b/c there isn't the Serb majority in the regions under question. What you have in 2004 is a re-instating territorial aspirations of a neighbouring country. Your analogy of the French resistance is not a valid one b/c they were defending their country from a foriegn occupier. A better analogy for the Krajina govt is the Vinchy government that collaborated with an occupier. iruka 04:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Marinko, I understand your argument. However, from an external point of view (as I don't live in Croatia or Serbia), and according to the references I've read, this movement does exist. Maybe my WW2 example was not as neutral as it should have be. But I don't think the Vichy analogy would hold as well. This subject must be painful for Croatians, as the Krajina region nearly seceded from your country in the early 1990s. I've visited parts of Croatia in 2004 and crossed this region on my way to Split; it is simply beautiful. Do you think this "government in exile" has any serious revendications? Do they want the Serb minority in Knin to get some special rights (maybe a recognition & protection as a "cultural community")? Is that movement completely foreign, or is it reflected by local Serb militants in Knin? I think the subject matters... and we can talk about this group without supporting it. -- Hugo Dufort 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[W]e can talk about this group without supporting it. Precisely my view. It would be dangerous to allow political partisans to efface knowledge of particular movements or ideas from Wikipedia. Perhaps the Serb Krajina movement is an irredentist movement rather than a strictly secessionist one, but Wikipedia does not have a page for "active irredentist movements." Perhaps there should be one, or perhaps this page should be renamed "active autonomist, secessionist, and irredentist movements." I would note that other irredentist movements, such as Transnistria, South Ossetia, Nagorno-Karabakh, Pattani, and Somali Ogaden, are included on this page currently.--Jsorens 22:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Instead of resorting to the charge of political partisanship, pls address the underlying issue I have with the entry: Can you have an autonomy movement if there are no significant areas where a minority (that might sue for autonom) have a majority? This is the key point that everyone seems to not address. Those areas that formed part of the Krajina entity now have a predominately Croat population, b/c it was settled by Croat refugees from Bosnia. How can you have an autonomy movement when the majority of the population would be opposed to it.

The government in exile wants to use the Z4 plan they rejected in 1995 as a starting point. Ultimately they want return of the refugees in full (which is now accepted won't happen b/c of a host of economic, social & security reasons - same situation among all the former Yugoslav republics) and unity with Serbia. Without the refugee return, there is no movement. No movement, no entry on this list. Do you understand where I can coming from now? - you can't have an entry on the list on the hope that there may be a basis for an autonomy movement. The Serbian Radicals are more open in their claims on creating Greater Serbia, but now without the use of force.

Solution: list movement in List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements. Also, create separate page titled List of irredentist movements, and list it there. Your thoughts? iruka 08:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, you acknowledge the existence of this "government in exile" and you even acknowledge that they have a well-defined agenda ([they] wants to use the Z4 plan they rejected in 1995 as a starting point). Whether or not this movement is legitimate is NOT a criterion for including it or not in this list. Their motives are irrelevant to this Wikipedia entry. Across the planet, there are dozens of autonomy movements, irredentists or rebel groups that are a MINORITY in the territory they claim. Most of the times, they represent an ethnic group that either lost its majority over time, became part of a "foreign" state, or is the residual from a "population exchanges" with a neighboring country. We could name the Tibetans, who are now a minority in the territory they claim as their own "autonomous region". We can also name the Muslim rebels in southern Philippines, who are a minority... but it doesn't prevent them from fighting the central government. Their motives are despisable, their legitimity is next to nil, and their methods are bloody, but we won't erase them from this wiki page for obvious reasons. -- Hugo Dufort 22:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

My argument that it not be included on this particular list is not predicated on some notion of illegitimacy, but that it does not exist as a functional movement in the regions that it claims, nor is there a population mass to support the movement. Most autonomist/seccessionist/independence/irredentist movements claim a territory beyond their natural ethnic boundaries - it holds true for certain groups in all the republics of the former Yugoslavia during it's breakup (SRS, HSP, fringe elements of the SDA etc), and it holds true for movements elsewhere - Tibet will be no exception. The examples you have cited differ to the Serb case in that there are still significant territories where the movements target population exist as a critical mass. In Tibet, they have their own "autonomous" region within the PRC. In Mindanau in the Phillipines, I believe as part of the a deal to support the govt's fight against the JI, the govt will negotiate an autonomy deal with the political/military leaders of the Muslim majority in the south.

Again, I would like to stress that I have no objection to listing the movement, b/c a movement does exist, but I don't believe it is the appropriate list.

Perhaps we are approaching this the wrong way - how about we discuss what is the criteria for inclusion on this list & if a separate list needs to be created to cater for those entries that do not fit here? iruka 00:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Cyprus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Turkey has staked its' claim on Cyprus and supports the Northern Republic of (Turkish) Cyprus, but the country's eastern provinces where the majority of peoples are Kurds fought for an independent Kurdistan for half a century. The article removed the edit on militant Armenian separatist groups since it's been proven to me (my apologies) the ethnic Armenian population there is virtually extinct or miniscule. There are such militancy in some Turkish Armenians living in other countries such as the Republic of Armenia demand the restoration of what was a thriving culture for over 5,000 years in eastern Turkey had ended in World War I (1910's). +71.102.53.48 (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Southwest United States

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

I believe so, the La Voz de Aztlan is a controversial Chicano nationalist group called for a separate country for the region's Mexican American and Hispanic populations, most preferably towns with a Latino majority and those located along the US-Mexico border. They claimed the land known as the American Southwest was lost or stolen from the Spanish-speaking inhabitants whom were Mexican citizens in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848 that converted Cal., Ariz., Tex. and New Mex. to American rule. Also they preached Indigenismo and endorses a more American Indian identity, note the name Aztlan itself is from the mythological homeland of the Aztec people about 1,000 years ago and other native peoples of Mexico. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Other comparisons to Aztlan (sometimes called "the U.S. version of Quebec, Palestine, Ulster, Kosovo or other comparisons) are extreme factions of the American Indian Movement who called for expanding autonomy to demonstrate tribal sovereignity and to end "colonialism" of Indian reservations and reserves across the U.S. and Canada. The radical split of Sioux AIM members known as "Lakota Nationalists" made a declaration for the Republic of Lakota in January 2008 to cover parts of six states: North and South Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Montana and Wyoming. They wrote letters to the U.S. State Department, the National Congress of American Indians, the United Nations and some national governments to officially recognized this "first nation ruled by North American Indians" but little or no recognition took place.

Some AIM members based in Oklahoma talked of an establishment of a separate republic for its large American Indian population. The Eastern half of Oklahoma was Indian Territory home to the so-called "Five Civilized Tribes" from 1838 to 1907 when Oklahoma became a state. The tribal nations of the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Creek (Muskogee) and Seminole failed in an attempt to create a separate State of Sequoyah in 1905, but US congress never ratified the proposal. But they were forcibly incorporated into the western half (Oklahoma Territory) where most white American settlers arrived during the 1889-1893 Oklahoma land rushes, although the settlers populated whatever was left of Indian Territory but some towns or communities such as Osage County north of Tulsa remained majority American Indian well through the 20th century. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 09:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no proclaimation by the La Raza group for an independent state. Therefore it is a defunct movement and will be removed from the list. --Luftmann (talk) 08:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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

Ireland

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

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

Sinn fein's party line is eventual secession and annexation by the rep. of irelnd. That counts. Fennessy 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is that they are separatist with respect to the UK, not with respect to Ireland. With respect to the Irish government, they are revolutionary, not separatist, so the entry belongs solely under the UK, not under Ireland.--Jsorens 20:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Secessionist movements vs. Revolutionary movements and Governments in Exile

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

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

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

Zimbabwe

The Provisional Government of Zimbabwe is an anti-Mugabe regime group made up of white European farm owners, whom want to put an end to Mugabe's land grab policies. In the 2000's, Mugabe confiscated and redistributed farms and land acreage from white European owners to landless black African peasants. Zimbabwe (formerly the breakaway republic of Rhodesia from 1965-80) was once under a small white European minority (was 10% of the population, now less than 1% as most of them migrated out the country) until the rise of Zimbabwean nationalism in the 1970's led by Mugabe, and they acheived majority rule for black Africans long underrepresented in the former British colony. The white European land owners fought for United Nations recognition of their ordeals under the Mugabe regime and what appearedly is genocide to expel an ethnoracial minority of people. The Provincial Government of Zimbabwe is located in 50 towns where white Europeans remain a majority as they hadn't left their homes or farms, and are in a movement for an autonomous region of their own. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 08:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of a "provisional" or "provincial" government of Zimbabwe. Can you provide a reference? A news story would be fine. Which part of the country is it located in?--Jsorens (talk) 23:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Types of organizations

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

Orkney and Shetland

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

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

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

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

I think you are pushing your own POV. The S.O.U.L website mentions nothing about about campaigning for autonomy, which it is being provided for a source for, having had a look at it. It is POV point pushing. As for the Orkney Movement, I actually can't see a standard reference for its existance eg website, registration etc - unlike other documented political parties and movement. Even well defined activist groups fall foul of WP:V and WP:OR, given that these are neither, I cannot see any merit for inclusion. Thanks Globaltraveller 19:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a POV to exclude these. You may not find mention of the Orkney Movement on Web, but you read about it in the local press from time to time. As for S.O.U.L., my citation above clearly mentions the desire for autonomy! I have listed both of these as pressure groups, not activist groups or political parties, which is perfectly legitimate compared with other entries on this page. Unless you have your own axe to grind, I see no reason why you should wish to exclude them. 81.156.63.64 20:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not POV to exclude these. If there was a genuine, well publidhed autonomous movement in these islands, then that would be fair enough, but their isn't, and your desire to "invent" one contravenes WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR and WP:RS. Bearing in mind a website does not an autonomous movement make (even though the highly dubious SOUL website makes no mention of being a secessionist or autonomous movement in itself). For further information on your abuse of Wikipedia see the discussion on Talk:Scottish national identity. Globaltraveller 07:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pampas in Brazil

What are exactly the criteria for including a movement in this list or else moving its registry to "Historical"? Here in Brazil we have not been hearing about any activity of the "Movement for Independence of the Pampas" for nearly 10 years now. Even their webpage is outdated, which leads me to the undoubtful conclusion that they are defunct. Shouldn't their reference move to the "Historical" article as such? --Pedro Aguiar 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

A smaller secessionist movement is at works in the state of Amazonas which encompasses the northern half of Brazil. The western state of Acre sought nationhood in a number of occasions in the early 20th century to avoid annexation to the Brazil, Bolivia and Peru its' geographical neighbors to the west. Brazil is a federal republic in the same manner like the United States (USA) or Germany made up of states with a greater deal of autonomy in local matters. + 71.102.53.48 (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard of this movement either. Obviously there have been clashes between ranchers and indigenous tribes in Amazonas state, but I have heard nothing of a secessionist movement. Can you provide a source?--Jsorens (talk) 23:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am brazilian and i agree with Jsorens. I don't hear in tv or reading newspaper any of these secessionist movements.Another thing is that these so called "Political parties" doesn't exist. These movements doesn't have political parties and , if the movements still exist they are too weak. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What is User:Der Eberswalder/Konfederacio Orienta Prusio? no active autonomist and secessionist movements in Kashubia

1. What is User:Der Eberswalder/Konfederacio Orienta Prusio? Can i also link my imaginary/fictional country here? I think it should be removed from the list.

2. No active autonomist and secessionist movements in Kashubia (or give ^{[citation needed]}) --Krzysztoflew 23:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Does this count? --Der Eberswalder 15:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

No, this is totally WP:OR. Message board posts of people who noticed your WP:OR article on Wikipedia do not count at all toward notability.--Pharos 17:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Strength

I really think something ought to be made of the strength of the various movements on here. For instance if you know nothing of the situation then just looking at this list you could well think the Cornish have as big a independance movement as the Scots whilst in reality Cornish independance is a joke but Scotish nationalism is quite a big political issue these days.--Josquius 19:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that level of depth is meant to be covered in the actual articles on each movement. siafu 20:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Czech Republic - Moravia

There is no evidence of a relevant autonomist and/or secessionist movement in Moravia. The anonymous edit comes clearly from one of those few Czechs who would like to promote nationalism in the Czech Republic. I have erased the section. Cepek 11:52, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There IS autonomist/secessionist movement in Moravia! Since 1990 already. Somebody has blank space in his knowledge here. 77.48.51.74 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

To User:Jsorens: if you are counting parties/groups with tens of active members then you might be right, otherwise you are talking about irrelevant phenomenon. Should Wikipedia be reliable source of information or not? Cepek 20:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why there is no say about Moravané (political party, Moravians) in the article Moravia? Cepek 07:11, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Because it doesn't belong there. Look at List of political parties in the Czech Republic.--Jsorens 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The mentioned pressure group Svobodní Moravané (Free Moravians) not exist and never (probably) existed. It can be an error, a confusion with this "Free Moravia" labeled video on YouTube: [2]. 77.48.51.74 18:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I have to apologize for that I wrote the group Svobodní Moravané (Free Moravians) not exist - it is not true, but the group is only coming into existence so that few Moravians have noticed it for the present. Hence the deleting of the mentioned group was premature. I am sorry again. 77.48.51.74 18:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for the update. You seemed like someone in the know, perhaps I was too hasty!--Jsorens 20:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Seal monstate.png

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:SicilyFlag.gif

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

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

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom

see above #Problem with United Kingdom bit

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

The UK is a country [3], [4], [5], [6] as defined in both national and international law. 86.132.210.231 10:49, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

A state and a country are not the same thing. Some of the UK's laws refer to "constituent countries". In addition, for the purposes of law, education and religion, Scotland has always been a country in the UK--MacRusgail 17:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the secessionist movements listed in this article should be ones that have a seizable popular following and that this should be defined by list secessionist movements that have at least one Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom Parliament or the devolved parliaments or "associated territories". Without this anyone who has set up a web site and offer to sell a Passport To Pimlico should be listed in this article. If a political party that has such a minimum level of support has connections or alleged connections with a paramilitary force (connections which can be reliably sourced) such as that between Sinn Féin and the PIRA then the paramilitary force should be listed as well. But not organisations such as Cornwall National Liberation Army (CNLA) which may be no more than a drinking club some Dog and Duck pub--Philip Baird Shearer 12:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Mere websites or rumors should not be sufficient for inclusion. However, the Cornish National Liberation Army has been linked to some recent bombings, believe it or not, and thus should be included on those grounds.--Jsorens 14:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So a bombing makes it OK for inclusion? Any fool can make a bomb, that does not mean that they have a sizable popular following. --Philip Baird Shearer 14:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that "sizable popular following" is a necessary condition for inclusion, although it may be a sufficient one. The only necessary condition, I think, is that a "movement" exist, which would seem to require more than one person involved, but otherwise it's a fairly generous standard.--Jsorens 14:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Divide into continents?

Can I suggest that we divide this up into pages for each continent, and also leave off micronations? I appreciate some places such as Turkey and the Russian Federation cross boundaries, but I think this would be less cumbersome. --MacRusgail 17:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Portugal

I am going to remove the portuguese independence movements because they are extinct since 1976/77 so this being the List of ACTIVE autonomist and secessionist movements, it makes no sense of them to be in this list, thank you.

The Democratic Party of the Atlantic remains active, so it should remain on the list.--Jsorens (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently a new law came out in Portugal and every party with less than 5000 militants will be extinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.100.246 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cite?--Jsorens (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

here you go... http://quiosque.aeiou.pt/gen.pl?p=stories&op=view&fokey=ae.stories/7634 it's in portuguese although... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.100.246 (talk) 14:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we ought to wait and see what happens after the government tries to enforce this law. There may be a court challenge, or the party may go "underground." So long as an autonomist movement exists, even if illegal, it should be mentioned here. If and when it definitely disappears entirely, it can be moved to the List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements.--Jsorens (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Ayleid Empire

I have noticed that despite my continued efforts in keeping it on the page, the Empire has been removed twice from the list. As a search may reveal, the Empire does not exist. However, that is not true, the Ayleid Empire has not extended its influence beyond its HQ. Whoever is deleting the Empire from the page, I must ask you to stop (I will investigate as soon as I am finished with this paragraph)! This is not vandalism and I implore you! You must stop hampering the world's knowledge of the Empire before Ayleia strikes! The world shall know of the Ayleid Empire which shall continue despite your fiendish attempts at quashing it!

In the interests of the common good, please stop wasting our time and find somewhere else to have your fun. siafu 23:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? Find somewhere else to have my fun? I shall have you know that my entire town is held in the iron grip of the Empire. How are we any different from any other secessionist group that you have not now antagonized? User:Mystic Dawn 19:33, 23 July 2007 (EST)

It's also exceptionally not "cute" to impersonate others. siafu 23:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? What are you talking about? User:Mystic Dawn 20:03, 23 July, 2007 (EST)

I'm talking about these two edits: [7] [8]. siafu 00:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Unionism

On the contrary to this, is there no article about active unionist movements? For example, Korea reunification, Korea-Mongolia unionism, Romania-Molodova unionism, Greater China, etc. ― 韓斌/Yes0song (談笑筆跡 다지모) 05:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the dab at Unionism, there are articles about Irish Unionism (Category:Unionism is for this topic), Scottish Unionism, and Romania-Moldava Unionism, but no comparable list. Perhaps you'd like to start one? siafu 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Europe

Why are the first few countries in a table? It breaks the navigation template! Zazaban 20:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No idea. I guess someone started doing the whole thing and never got around to finishing.--Jsorens 12:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Should it be changed back then? It kinda wreaks the page, and I'm having trouble making heads or tails of it. Zazaban 01:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it should be changed back, but it will be a time-consuming process.--Jsorens 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This should be taken as a lessen to both disscuss changes like this in talk, and if you do it, actually FINISH. Zazaban 05:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

United Kingdom in Africa TOC

For some reason UK replaces Western Sahara and I couldn't figure out why in HTML. In case someone else can.

ALSO: I think it would be great to put the TOC of List of historical autonomist and secessionist movements in same format as this one, since easier to read and comprehend. However, my try failed and reading WIKI TOC page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Section#Table_of_contents_.28TOC.29 couldn't figure out exactly how to make sure it refers to THAT page's contents and NOT this one's contents, as you'll see my first attempt made it do. So much to learn, so little time!! Carol Moore 19:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)User:Carolmooredc User talk:Carolmooredc

Mingrelian Nationalist Party

I realize that this addition might be controversial. On second reading of the title, I'm not 100% sure if this particular organization is considered active. I know that the current agitprop of the Government_of_the_Republic_of_Abkhazia is to appeal to mingrelian nationalism so I've left it there in case this party is still active. Pocopocopocopoco 00:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it's no longer active so I've removed it. Pocopocopocopoco 01:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Palestine

The Palestinian state would be on the land of Gaza and the West Bank which are NOT part of Israel by international law, thus, saying the Palestinian movement for their own state to be secessionist is false. I am removing that from the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.178.224.164 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Lakota

They defiantly deserve a place in this article. See Lakota. Zazaban (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Put it in.

Carol Moore 01:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)CarolMooreDC talk

It's not legit or recognized by any authority, but by some activists taking a unilateral action. A better link though would be at Republic of Lakotah. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Add them both, I think. This list is for any organized autonomist or secessionist movement, however unsuccessful.--Jsorens (talk) 00:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

This listing should be for popular independence movements organized by a sizeable number of people living within the region, not a handful of individuals self-proclaiming a nation on other peoples' property. This should be in another section so it won't detract from true independence movements in other countries. --Luftmann (talk) 08:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)