Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Slovenia

Free Territory of Trieste

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

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

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

Danzig, Opole, and separatists in Silesia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What has this to do with nationalism? The German Minority Electoral Committee is a minority-rights organization that gives political representation to the German national minorities, they even have a website. This what you are is WP:CBALLing. You said: If the "Silesian Separatist Movement or Silesian National Movement" does not exist, then why it is on the article. - I don't know friend, I only know that it is totally sourceless and that there are no encyclopedic informations about them in the WWW. The same goes for Danzig. Try to find some encyclopedic source about the government in exile. There is no movement in the city od Danzig, we are talking about a self-founded organization without any int. recognition, that calls itself the "government in exile". Danzig became a legal part of Poland with the Potsdam Agreement, today the city is populated by Poles. We are not talking about Danzigers claiming secession, we are talking about a few individuals in Germany claiming the city. If the people of Danzig would claim secession, it would be a movement, that we could add to this article, but this is not the case. It is true that the so-called "Rat der Danziger" existed ([1]), yes - but without any recognition. The organization claims, that The Free State of Danzing would de jure still exist ([2]), but this against the Potsdam Agreement. –--Koreanovsky (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

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

Poland Issue

ExplodingPoPups’s current claim

Autonomist movements

Polish voivodeships

Upper Silesia

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

Ethnocultural regions

Kashubia

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

Secessionist movements

Gdańsk

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

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

References

Internationally recognized claim

Autonomist movements

Upper Silesia

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

Kashubia

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

Conclusion

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

References

Infinite issues?

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

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

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

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

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

Map mess

Location of Samtskhe–Javakheti within Georgia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

British groups for Mercia, Yorkshire and Northumbria

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where are ukrainian separatists movements

Who can explain? 1. Donetsk people republic

2. Luhansk people republic

3. Kharkov people republic

4. Rusins in Zakarpatie

5. Galicia

6. Bukovina

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

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

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

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

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

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

Åland

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

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

Use Template:Excerpt for transcontinental and European council countries

Resolved

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

See Template:Excerpt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spelling of organization/organisation

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

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

Ulster nationalism

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

Transylvanianism

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

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

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

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

Your source's title is Un transilvanism ciudat ("A strange Transylvanianism"), which suggests the version of Transylvanianism portrayed in the newspaper is not the common one. My Romanian is pretty rusty, but from what I've understood, the article is about a suggestion from PSD Cluj aiming to give Transylvania more power and autonomy. The article only mentions Transylvanianism twice apart from the title, the first one describing this suggestion as "a very strange Transylvanianism" and the second referring to this as a "national-socialdemocrat variant of Transylvanianism". The article doesn't say at any moment that the ideology is about giving Transylvania more power (because that's what regionalism is, read the article, it is not just any movement with the name of a region in its name). And anyway, I can show more sources explaining the real meaning of Transylvanianism, here they are [3] [4] (a blog, arguably a non-reliable source but it still shows other people also make a clear distinction between Transylvanianism and movements attempting to give the region more power), [5] [6] [7] [8]. You can also read the first discussion in which I brought these sources, which I've linked countless times already and which you for some reason decided to ignore: User talk:2A04:2413:8003:B380:E458:C1D5:38C9:2419. Thus, I'm afraid you'll have to bring more sources to make this "obvious" correlation a bit more obvious. I'm aware I'm not being too kind here, but really, I am tired of discussing this. Super Ψ Dro 19:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This list is a POV-warrior mess!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More important stuff to fix

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Kenisberg(Prusia).jpg

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

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

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

• Flag of Basse-Normandie.svg

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

France

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

Alsace

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

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

Taraclia

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

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

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

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

Wessex

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

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

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

Germany

Freie Sachsen

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

Saxony

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More autonomy and, if necessary, the Säxit

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

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

Yes to a Saxon constitution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://haitblog.hypotheses.org/2586

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

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

References

Germany - Freie Sachsen

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

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

Denmark

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

Spain

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

Political parties involved in a political system to push for autonomy or secession

How strong party needs to be, so they could be put as "political partiy involved in a political system to push for autonomy or secession"? For example do they have representation in county parliament, maybe local or regional or they just need to exist. Opatijac97 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

They should have an article on either English Wikipedia or on another. This shows the party is notable and not a random organization. I think this is a good condition for inclusion. Super Ψ Dro 20:13, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Albania

Democratic Foundation of Chameria a self-proclaimed independent state, which has not been recognised by any country but was a member state of the UNPO from 2015 until its suspension in 2019 92.0.145.156 (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Russia

As Russia is included witthin the article it should include all asian sepratist movements inside of russia aswell as the european ones, the current format allows Turkey and other Trans-continental countries to have overlap with articles :

For example Turkey consists of:

Northern Kurdistan

Main articles: Kurdish nationalism, United Kurdistan, and Kurdish Question

• Ethnic group: Kurdish
  • Proposed state:  Kurdistan
  • Militant organisations: Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), Group of Communities in Kurdistan (KCK), Kurdistan Freedom Hawks (TAK), Democrat Party of Kurdistan/North (PDK/Bakur), Revolutionary Party of Kurdistan (PŞK), Communist Party of Kurdistan (KKP)

Assyria

Main articles: Assyrian nationalism, Assyrian struggle for independence, and Assyrian genocide

• Ethnic group: Assyrian, Arab Christians
  • Proposed state:  Assyria
  • Political parties: Assyrian Democratic Movement, Assyria Liberation Party
  • Militant organisations: Nineveh Plain Protection Units, Dwekh Nawsha
  • Advocacy groups: Assyrian General Conference, Assyria Council of Europe

As such i have added russian asian movements to the artticle. Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Russian Movements

https://mariuveren.wordpress.com/2022/10/24/hear-the-mokshas-voice/

https://mariuveren.wordpress.com/2022/10/25/erzya-congress-calls-for-pursuing-independence-from-russia/#more-1667 Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 16:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Прокуратура ХМАО требует признать экстремистской листовку с призывом к федерализации и лозунгом «Хватит кормить Москву» (zona.media) Thingsomyipisntvisable (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Erzyan National Congress: we will achieve independence and secession from the Russian Federation : Free Idel-Ural 88.107.32.56 (talk) 16:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

balearic islands

https://murciatoday.com/balearic-separatists-aim-for-mallorca-independence-referendum-in-2030_124402-a.html 88.111.92.54 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Szekely.gif

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Impact of Russo-Ukrainian war on the separatist movements

Should we even include separatists which "achieved their objective" by being annexed by Russia?

Also do they still qualify if they are Russian collaborationists and proxies?

3. They are citizens/people of the conflict area and do not come from another country.

This war is essentially Russian irredentism and while some of people in question may be of Ukrainian citizenship originally they act as belligerent of Russia.

I think writing down every Russian occupational administration as 'separatist movement' is misrepresentation of the nature of these military occupation entities. Svito3 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

This page is trash

We need to do something with this list. Basically every single day, there are unsourced or not notable additions by IPs and newly-registered users. The history of this list is a huge mess. It is completely full of reverts [9]. The list in itself is in a very bad state, with many unsourced parts. I added this list to my watchlist due to ensure a vandal would not keep restoring certain content but I have to constantly find new bad changes to this page on my watchlist and I'm tired of it.

I think we can take two different measures here.

• Protect the article to restrict new users from adding improper content here. It should solve this huge flow of trash coming into the list.
• Take advantage of the huge traffic this page gets and implement a series of standard requirements for listing separatist movements in this list. This way we will also treat the bad state of this list. This is how it is done in year articles like 2001 for example. All new additions need to be sourced there, and so should they be on here. We could also add some level of protection but lower than in the first proposal.

I am not sure if my proposals here will receive any discussion at all. If I am to deal with this issue nobody wants to fix by myself, I will just request a high level of protection as it will be easier. Super Ψ Dro 14:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

+1 Something has to be done to overall state of this page. -- Svito3 (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Bourgogne and others

I found this political party called Mouvement de libération de la bourgogne on the Asturian Wikipedia page of list of active separatist movement so will it be a new addition to this Wikipedia page? These are also some of the entries for Portugal on the Asturian Wikipedia page: Miranda Valley Autonomist groups : Mirandés Valley Freedom Party Mirandés Independent Socialist Party ravines autonomist group : Movement of the People of Barrancos Alentejo Autonomist groups National Party of Alentejo , Alentejo Socialist Group Algarve Regionalist group : Algarve Regionalist Party Serbia: Preševo , Bujanovac and Medveđa Revolutionary group : UCPMB (defunct) Political party : Political Council for Preševo, Medveđa and BujanovacComores 123 (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

@Comores 123: A list like this is hardly helpful. If you could give sources, it would be possible to evaluate. But please, please read about reliable sources at WP:RS before you bring any more uselesss sources. --T*U (talk) 16:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Edit Warring and Localist Groups

@Aonadh nan Gaidheal Please desist from edit warring, and note that a localist group is not the same as an autonomist one. Some of these need removing as they are not necessarily calling for more autonomy for their area at all: simply being a localist group does not mean that they belong on this list. ~~~ BryceIII (talk) 10:08, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

They are also warring, i'm currently removing all unsourced seperatist movements as even if its obviously true it is unsourced. Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Aonadh nan Gaidheal, read Wikipedia:ELOFFICIAL. Official websites are not sources. Super Ψ Dro 11:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

its a stupid rule when it comes to political parties. because that ensures that all sources are going to be biased against political parties. Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

No it ensures that we will not be including irrelevant parties voted only by the president's mother. If no independent sources talk about them they don't matter. Super Ψ Dro 13:39, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

thats not the reason, its because you cant even list a parties claimed ideology if no news source mentions it.... eg.g alba party claims to be social democratic on its website but because no news describes it as such it cannot be listed yet in this instance the party itself would be the most reliable source. Aonadh nan Gaidheal (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

It is not allowed to cite the official websites of parties as reference. We either have secondary sources or have none. In the example you mentioned, we would not include this information even if it's known because it has no coverage by independent sources. However these cases are very rare because the parties in this case that would have so much basic information lacking would probably not even deserve an article precisely because of lack of independent sources discussing them. It is easy to write an article of something (anything) using itself as a source but if other sources do not discuss it it does not deserve a page. Super Ψ Dro 19:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Chameria source

would this be a good source for Chameria https://www.faxweb.al/fier-camet-ne-proteste-duam-republiken-tone/ Rad da writer (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine again

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

Belgium

Luxembourg (Belgium)

• ethnic group: Luxembourgers
  • proposed: Independence for the Region of Luxembourg
  • political party: Letzebuergesches Akzionsfront

Comores 123 (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

No! Only source is from 2008. The "political party" creates 2 Google hits, the second is from 2012. Active? No!

References

These articles are kind of problematic

There's an inherent problem with these lists of badly sourced movements - people already inclined towards these subjects will take it at face value, which, given how regularly misinformation is added in here, deforms how one might look at the reality of it. I'm specifically mentioning user Comores 123 here, who has been spreading this kind of misinformation for a while now. Entities like and "Algarve" and "Lusitania" get regularly readded, despite it being blogposts by LARPing single people - the latter "movement" is very literally a person who talks about Roman oppression of the Celtic aboriginal people in modern day Portugal. Even more ... "real" entities, like Lusatia, are either outdated or don't represent any autonomist movement. The "Pied-Noir" movement is made out of a dozen of people and far from an actual movement. The main issue is that people who want to keep this dubious article clean don't want to monitor it all the time, yet a handful of users do seem to have the time and energy to reinsert their unfounded claims whenever nobody is looking. And this clearly contributes to the spreading of misinformation, especially in the vast plains of internet politics. There's an inherent need to lock this article down. --HolonZeias (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

September 2023

@JackyTheChemosh: your claim that It's a separatist movement wishing to secede from Algeria which is entirely in Africa is factually incorrect: the pied-noirs are French nationals and based in France, therefore, the only country they can secede from is France. M.Bitton (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton the sources exclusively talk about secession from Algeria not France JackyTheChemosh (talk) 12:58, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to cite the sources that support the baseless claim (how can you secede from a country that is not yours?). M.Bitton (talk) 13:00, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

@M.Bitton Since the sources in this very list article cite "people born in Algeria" and "government in exile", it is very safe to assume their idea of a new country would be in Algeria, and probably not a secessionist movement anyway. This "movement" just doesn't have its place here and forcing it into the article is really annoying, I'll be thus removing it again. --HolonZeias (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Where they are born is irrelevant to who they are (French people), where they are based (France) and their claim about seceding from their country (France). Also, what I said in my previous comment hasn't been addressed: how can you secede from a country that is not yours? M.Bitton (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It has been adressed in the "it is not a secessionist movement in the first place then" part. If it were a secessionist movement in France, it would have its own region to secede with - not the case. Also, I am very convinced you do not read the sources you consistently try to readd all the time. Other than the non-existent primary source Pied-Noir website, the only extant info, from a Gabonese website, states:

La Vème République française, sans droit, ni titre, les a remis à la Ière République algérienne qui ne les a pas exploités, les laissant se dégrader ou être squattés ou faire l’objet de transactions illégales. Nous pourrions légitimement les réclamer au seul nom de notre Peuple.« La Fédération des Deux Rives demande à ce que ces territoires nous soient restitués afin que nous puissions les gérer dans le cadre du droit international, nous engageant à créer des hôpitaux généraux internationaux et des lieux de santé dans le droit fil des idées humanistes de Jean-Henri Dunant au service de la communauté internationale et des peuples en souffrances ».

They are, in your very own source, asking for the regions, "illegally transfered to Algeria", to be "given back" to the Pieds Noirs. Even Etat Pied-Noir the Wikipedia article (based on the same primary inexistent source and "Infosplusgabon") states that they want an autonomous or independent entity in Algeria. I will be removing this for a last time, as this is getting ridiculous. --HolonZeias (talk) 16:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

No, the article in question says that they want to establish a state in either France or Spain, which is irrelevant to the fact that they want to secede from France (this is what this list is about). You clearly haven't addressed any part of my comment. Please do so and refrain from edit warring. M.Bitton (talk) 16:48, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

...what? The article does not state this in the slightest; it does not even mention the term Spain at all. The article does not, again, does not state they want to secede from France. Please reread it, and come back if you find anything that would prove otherwise. Also, again, I have adressed your comment - which is again non-sensical as the movement is about a region in Algeria, where they want to secede from as I quoted, not France. The whole "how can it be a movement in Algeria if the country is not theirs" is like saying there cannot a movement in Artsakh anymore as the whole population has fled to Armenia now. HolonZeias (talk) 16:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Spain and France are mentioned and sourced in their article. For the last time, you cannot secede from a country that is not yours, just like you cannot renounce the citizenships that you do not possess. M.Bitton (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Quote the article then. I have read it - no mention of Spain, no mention of independence from France. The closest thing to "independence from France" would be that they see France in their duty of intervention to restore a Pied Noir region in Algeria. See my direct quote above from this very article, which you have not read.

You seem to have quite a problem with the term "government in exile" to even dare saying that you can not secede from a country you don't currently live in. For the last time - read the news article. In French. Otherwise I can not understand how you come to that conclusion, or how you manage to get the term Spain into it. if you do not I will remove it - the sources don't cite a movement desiring a region in France - except if you consider Algeria to be part of the French heartland, which would be the only - quite imperialist - allusion they are making to in the article. HolonZeias (talk) 17:12, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Taken from Etat Pied-Noir: "They dream of acquiring a separate territory in France or Spain, although they have made no specific territorial claims."

saying that you can not secede from a country you don't currently live in Nope, that's most definitely not what I said.

In any case, whatever their pipe dream might be, the fact is that the only country they can separate from is France, making them suitable for inclusion in this list only. M.Bitton (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The source on the Pied-Noir Wikipedia article you are quoting - which cites a region in Algeria as their goal in the Infobox, like I said before, but you willfully ignored - doesn't link to anything, the website doesn't exist and the Internet Archive doesn't bring any results either. Meanwhile, the only existant page actually - the one I've been quoting since the beginning - mentioning a possible Pied Noir region clearly mentions the Algerian lands France has "abandoned". The only thing they want here from France is interfering in modern-day Algeria and give them the country. And again, not France, nor a French region, hence not Europe. And even if it were - in that case the Canaries, French Guyana, or New Caledonia should be included in this article, otherwise your logic just doesn't work. HolonZeias (talk) 17:32, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

I repeat: whatever their pipe dream might be, the fact is that, as French nationals who longer wish to remain French, the only country they can separate from is France, making them suitable for inclusion in this list only. M.Bitton (talk) 17:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Thus I will be adding French Guyana and New Caledonia to this list then, as they are French nationals as well. --HolonZeias (talk) 17:36, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

This edit a) doesn't make sense (those are not based in Europe, even though they are French) and b) seems rather pointy (while comparing apples to oranges, i.e., comparing them to those that are based in Metropolitan France). M.Bitton (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Weird, seems to be exactly what you are advocating for. The current place of a government in exile or part or most of its exiled movement shouldn't matter, should it? They're all national citizens of France like the Pieds Noirs. HolonZeias (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

This is different from most 3O requests, in that I am being asked to make a judgment of the validity of content, vs. notability or Wikipedia guidelines. I have no prior familiarity with this topic, do not live in Europe or Africa, and should be a neutral party in this discussion. After reading around a dozen articles, both historical and current, I believe I have come to a fair and correct conclusion. I am going to summarize my findings in bullets, to make it easier for all involved to understand my thought process: The Pied-Nor lived in Algeria during the colonial period but were always considered French citizens and never lost their citizenship to France. At the time of the Algerian Civil War, most of the Pied-Nor left Algeria; many of these refugees were repatriated to France where they were promised restitution for their lost properties in Algeria. The scholarly article I reviewed specifically used the term "repatriated" which means to send someone back to their home country. Thus, the Pied-Nor are French, not Algerian. One million Pied-Nor left Algeria but their numbers now include some five million, meaning that the majority never lived in Algeria. These descendants of the original refugees live around the world, not just in France. However, one million do live in France. The Pied-Nor in France have grown increasingly disgruntled with the lack of the promised compensation from France, limited work opportunities, and what they view as prejudice or bias against them by the general population and the French government. This sentiment is mostly found among the Pied-Nor who were working class or small land owners who returned to France with fewer financial resources. Some Pied-Nor are also unhappy with what they perceived to be militant and violent actions of the French government. They want to live in a nation that has a more peaceful and neutral political stance. This is one of the stated goals of the Etat Pied-Noir in its founding documents. The Etat Pied-Noir or Federation of Two Shores has filed paperwork to be a "provisional government in exile" with the United Nations. This is a political strategy to gain official international recognition and to be treated under existing regulations for political refugees. This also gives Etat Pied-Noir the right to form a new state. Acting as a sovereign nation, the Federation of Two Shores has elected officials; created a flag, anthem, and constitution; and established an embassy. In 2018, an official from the Federation of Two Shores said in this article, “Regarding the territory, we are in the process of buying it. Our research is concentrated between Genoa and Alicante." Note that this would be between Italy and Spain, and would include France. In the same article, the official continues, "We have just signed a sales agreement for the acquisition of 285 ha of land north of Montpellier, near Viols-le-Fort. This will be our first embassy." He also notes that France is the "motherland" of the Pied-Nor. Thus, this is a group of French citizens who are defining their desire to separate from France by establishing an embassy in France. Another article from 2018, says, "They are showing their desire to now have a territory, preferably in France and why not north of Montpellier in Hérault where a plot of land of 287 ha, or seven times the size of the Vatican, has been offered to them. But land and text are not the only conditions for a state to exist." Thus, the Etat Pied-Noir is a political movement of French citizens with specific complaints against their home country who wish to create a separate country within France or French-adjacent territories. They are not expressing a desire to return to Algeria. I believe this fits the definition of a French separatist movement and is, therefore, appropriate for this article. Note that I am relying on two secondary sources, and not the group's website, in determining where the Etat Pied-Noir wishes to reside. Rublamb (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2023 (UTC)