Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe

Missing Sami Separatism

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

Missing movements

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

definition of separatist

This article's lead section says:

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:

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)

Concerns Regarding Accuracy and Scope of the page

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)

RFC on basic policy violation issues

This list has been tagged for original research cleanup for eight years now. The criteria section is completely unreferenced, seemingly encouraging original research - instead of being consistent with the lists on the rest of the encyclopedia and depending on reliable sources, it creates this sort of a hodgepodge of various claims. Its basic definition also contradicts the non-list main article on the topic (see above).

There don't seem to be any sources to the list as a whole, it's mostly newspaper articles about individual possibly qualifying items. Given how relatively easy it is to get a political claim published in a newspaper these days, this is a really shoddy basis for an encyclopedia article.

There's a fairly consistent formatting about how some "people" or "ethnic group" has separatist movements, but there's no nuance to it, which may well lead the average reader to arbitrary conclusions about the notability or significance of each of these.

There's a consistent stream of complaints on the Talk page that have been getting largely ignored for many years now. Nobody seems to be seriously reacting to this, so I'm bringing it up as an RFC to try to bring more attention to it. --Joy (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. My own review of this page led me to very similar conclusions regarding the inconsistent inclusion criteria and the reliance on potentially weak or non-existent sourcing for many entries.

Specifically, I believe a clear distinction needs to be made between separatist movements genuinely seeking independence and autonomist movements advocating for greater regional autonomy within existing states. The current indiscriminate listing significantly diminishes the clarity and accuracy of the article.

Furthermore, I strongly support the removal of any movements that lack substantial evidence of widespread support or verifiable sources. As I noted on the talk page, the inclusion of examples based on isolated political parties or even internet memes undermines the encyclopedic nature of this list and can lead to significant misinformation.

Thank you for bringing these critical issues to the attention of the wider community through this RFC. I hope it leads to a much-needed cleanup and a more rigorous approach to the content of this page. Miiversal (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)