Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe#Croatia

{{ping|Archives908}} The Jamestown source is from eight years ago but even if it were to be accepted, it clearly says "would like to create autonomous zones on both sides of the Russian-Azerbaijani border", so the movement cannot be described as secessionist, especially given that other, more recent sources describe it as defunct: [https://www.kavkaz-uzel.eu/articles/359170]. More specifically, Jamestown in 2016 refers to "the announcement by Lezgin activists in 2012 that they were relaunching Sadval" whereas Kavkazsky Uzel in 2021 says: "In 2012, there was talk of reviving the movement, and a conference was even held in Moscow, but that was where it ended." More sources thus need to be provided to confirm that the movement is active.

I am also questioning the inclusion of the Federal Lezgian National and Cultural Autonomy as a political movement advocating for such initiatives given that [https://flnka.ru/obschaya_informaciya.html the organisation's website] describes its goals as follows: "Consolidation and development of Lezgin communities in Russia by preserving their identity, native language, national culture and education in the native language - in accordance with the federal law on national-cultural autonomies in the Russian Federation". How exactly is this related to Azerbaijan and its internal politics? Samur, according to the organisation's [https://www.facebook.com/lmmmsamur/ social media pages], is officially known as Samur Ləzgi Milli Mədəni Mərkəzi ("Samur National Lezgian Cultural Centre"); it can hardly be described as political, so I am not sure why it is on the list. Parishan (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:We generally don't remove credible sources on Wikipedia simply because its from "eight years ago". The source you provided is almost half a decade old and may itself be outdated. You are, however, more than welcome to add "clarify" or "citation needed" tags where you see fit. Archives908 (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

::We definitely do remove them when they are not in line with the subject of the article ("active" and "separatist"). A piece of investigative journalism from three years ago which furnishes more up-to-date information on the issue supersedes a news coverage source from eight years ago. If you have more recent sources than 2021 (or "half a decade", if you will) tackling the issue, I am definitely interested. Otherwise I suggest moving it to List of historical separatist movements in Europe. Parishan (talk) 13:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

:::The source you provided is hardly authoritative and barely discusses the subject matter with great detail. The Jamestown source is far more scholarly and reliable. If you wish to add the movement to List of historical separatist movements in Europe, you will need to provide more credible (and recent) sources which back up the bold claims you are making. Archives908 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

::::Caucasian Knot is the recipient of [https://www.fpee.info/ Free Press for Eastern Europe] and [https://geuzenpenning.nl/ Geuzenpenning] awards, so I am not sure how "non-authoritative" it is. The article also looks much more voluminous and informative than Vatchagaev's. There are definitely more sources, including a fellow Jamestown contributor Valery Dzutsati of Southern Illinois University, who corroborates the information from Caucasian Knot in his [https://jamestown.org/program/poisonings-of-activists-in-the-north-caucasus-a-low-threshold-for-chemical-weapons-use-inside-russia/ 2021 article]: "Sadval’s separatist activities, however, largely subsided soon after Heidar Aliev came to power in Azerbaijan in 1993". More recently, [https://brill.com/view/journals/casu/aop/article-10.30965-23761202-bja10034/article-10.30965-23761202-bja10034.xml Storm (2024)] has referred to Sadval as "a seemingly fringe movement linking Lezgins in Azerbaijan with those across the border in Russia in the late 1980s–early 1990s". Again, no reasons to believe this movement persists into the present day, apart from Vatchagaev's outdated and contested statement. Parishan (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing the movement for the Sami people in Northern Norway, Sweden and Finland Cozmothepeep (talk) 03:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Why are the Komi Republic and chuvashia missing? Liminal Taro (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

This article's lead section says:

: {{tq|Separatism often refers to full political secession, though separatist movements may seek nothing more than greater autonomy or to be recognised as a national minority.}}

Yet the article separatist says:

: {{tq|As with secession, separatism conventionally refers to full political separation. Groups simply seeking greater autonomy are usually not considered separatists.}}

This needs to be reconciled, because it's incoherent like this. --Joy (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Dear Editors,

I'm writing to express several concerns about the current state of the "List of active separatist movements in Europe" article. I believe that certain aspects of its content and structure require significant revision to ensure accuracy and neutrality.

My primary concerns are as follows:

• Inconsistent Inclusion Criteria:
• The article suffers from a lack of precise inclusion criteria, leading to a disparate list that indiscriminately mixes movements with widely divergent objectives, ranging from demands for enhanced regional autonomy to calls for outright secession. This conflation obscures the fundamental differences between these aims and significantly reduces the article's clarity. Furthermore, the article fails to adequately represent the varying levels of support and activity among these movements. For instance, the inclusion of autonomist movements in regions like Alsace, Normandy, Savoy, Occitania, and Franche-Comté, where political parties advocate for increased autonomy, contrasts sharply with the situation in Corsica, where a more robust separatist movement exists, including political parties and militant groups actively pursuing independence. This lack of distinction in the article's representation creates a misleading impression of uniformity, where in reality, the levels of support and activity vary drastically.
• Furthermore, the inclusion of certain entries that lack substantial supporting evidence, or that appear to be based on internet memes and personal interpretations rather than verifiable sources (e.g., the claim of Galician unification with Portugal, or Ingushetian unification with Georgia), is problematic. This is further evidenced by edits from last year removing claims of an active Azorean Liberation movement (which ceased activity after the April Revolution) and the aforementioned "unification proposals," which shows a pattern of unsourced or inaccurate information being present in the article. These removals highlight the instability of the information contained within the article, and the lack of proper sources being used.
• This problem is not isolated. My attention to this article was drawn after viewing a recent Geography Now video (see here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ere6G1MXKSU) that contained significant inaccuracies, which were directly traceable to this Wikipedia page. For example, the video presents Granada as a "separatist movement," directly reflecting the article's misleading categorization, despite the "Hunos por Granada" party advocating for autonomy within Andalusia. The video also makes broad generalizations about "separatist groups" based on this article's indiscriminate listing, and failure to properly use the EFA's criteria. The article's portrayal of Greater Poland as a separatist movement, without significant evidence of widespread support, and the video's subsequent inclusion of it, reinforces the pattern of misinformation originating from this page. This demonstrates the real-world impact of the article's flaws and the urgent need for revision.
• Potential for Original Research:
• There is a concern that some of the information presented may not be adequately supported by reliable, published sources, raising the possibility of original research. This issue necessitates a thorough review and verification of all claims.
• Bias in Terminology:
• The consistent use of the term "separatist" may introduce an unintended bias, as this term often carries negative connotations, especially in mainstream media. Employing more precise language to reflect the objectives of these movements is recommended.

To address these concerns, I propose the following:

• Establishment of clear, well-defined criteria for inclusion, distinguishing between autonomist and secessionist movements.
• Rigorous verification of all information against reliable, published sources.
• Revision of terminology to ensure neutrality and accuracy.

I believe that these revisions are essential to maintain the article's integrity and value as a reliable source of information. I welcome further discussion and collaboration on this matter.

Thank you for your attention. Miiversal (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2025 (UTC)