Talk:Separatism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] To add or not to add?

Located at this link is talk about the Seperatists that broke off from England. There is very little talk about it here. I believe it needs to be talked about a lot more. --Cyberman 04:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

At least talk about it here or add an ambiguation page. --Cyberman 04:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Original Comment

If there is not a first stept, there won´t be easy go ahead with more posterior steps.

[edit] Taiwan

Exactly how should Taiwan be classified? It is diplomaticaly recognized by a few countries. It hasn't formally declared independence. Mainland China declares it a territory in rebellion. Taiwan has been effectively independent of Mainland China but has yet to declare itself independent. Ktbenbrook 01:05, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed it from ==Countries which have independence, but have not declared independence==. When referring to Taiwan as independent, we are really referring to the Republic of China, which did declare itself a sovereign state while Taiwan was still part of Japan. (It was the ROC that was calling the CPC on the mainland 'rebels' (officially until 1991), since in the Chinese Civil War, the Kuomintang had control of the ROC government, and the CPC kicked that government off the mainland to form the People's Republic of China.) Therefore, the notion that "Taiwan is de facto independent but hasn't declared its independence" is really bogus. Either it means the Republic of China or it doesn't. If it does, then it's already a declared state. If it doesn't, then it is subservient to the Republic of China and not de facto independent. It cannot mean both half the way. --Jiang 10:48, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] About Quebec separatism

" Even in an area like Quebec, where economic concerns are not part of the separatist argument, support for separation clearly decreases when the economy is doing well."

  • 1. economic concerns are part of the separatist argments. All serious nationalist groups in Quebec argue for "the complete political, economic and cultural independence for the people of Quebec".
  • 2. In reality, there is absolutely no correlation between support for independence and economic prosperity in Quebec.

I can provide sources for those who wish to validate this information before modifying the article. -- Mathieugp 22:16, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I removed "where economic concerns are not part of the separatist argument" before reading this. Obviously, I agree with Mathieugp on this. Especially when considering that two of Quebec's last three separatist premiers were separatists because they saw the economic and administrative necessity for sovereignty. I also have serious doubts as to whether or not "support for separation clearly decreases when the economy is doing well." Tremblay 22:54, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Tamils link

Does the Tamils link want to be to the Tamil_people entry? This broken link got flagged as part of Daniel Quinlan's Redirect Project. Thanks Silverfish 19:05, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Western Sahara?

I think Western Sahara aka Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic should be added because they have an active sepratist movement.

[edit] Czechoslovakia

"Economics can also be seen in the break up of Czechoslovakia; one of the main causes was Slovakia's reluctance to abandon state-run industries, which were the core of its economy. The Czech Republic was far more prepared to embrace the free market, and thus the countries parted."

Could you please provide some more information or link? This argument was very new and surprising to me. And it skips a lot of history - Slovakia and Czech were separated between 1918 (SK was part of Hungaria, CZ of Austria), during WW2, political differences after WW2 (Communists in CZ, Democrats in SK). Viliam Búr 14:35, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Classification

Shouldn't Transnistria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia be listed under Entities which have proclaimed independence, and not merely independence movements? All are functioning independent states, certainly moreso than Palestine. Unless there are objections, I will move them.--24.70.31.148 00:05, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] False info

What are Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, etc. doing here? They were occupied by the USSR and then regained independence, which means separatism has nothing to do with this. When Hitler occupied part of France and Denmark and Norway you don't say that they all broke off of Germany after the alliance had defeated it, do you?

"Separatism is also often a violent response to a past military takeover." This sentence is misleading, I guess, because by this definition any resistance to occupation might be considered as separatism. Therefore Baltic countries and East Timor are included into separatist list here. I'll correct that if you don't mind. Dirgela 15:13, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is not NPOV at all. Many (if not all) separatist movements call their territories "occupied" and would likely be able to produce stories about past military takeovers. (Quebec, etc...) If you go by this standard then very few things (if any) would be left in this article.
As for your example: if Germany had won the war, and had incorporated Denmark, Norway, and Austria into the Reich for several decades, and in the the meantime there arose movements for Danish, Norwegian, and Austrian independence, then yes, that would be separatism. If you don't call that separatism.... then what WOULD you call separatism? -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 06:12, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
I am talking here about very concrete cases. Why don't you read History of Lithuania? I find it rather strange that articles in wikipedia are contradictory.
"then what WOULD you call separatism?" The anwer to you questions might be a question what is NOT separatism then? By your definition all states are formed because of separatism. And what does your several decades mean? How would you call movement for independence in those first decades before you call it separatism?
If you want to see more NPOV then let's write that communist consedered that independence movement in Baltic states was separatism, however leaders of those republics saw it as restoration of independence, because they were occupied and annexed by soviets in 1940. Plainly putting those states under "recently... separatism" is not NPOV at all. My main objection to tis article is that it is short and misleading. Why don't you write in the article about problems related with identification of separatism?
One more thing. When Soviet Union desintegrated, republics in Central Asia didn't have any separatist movements. To call the cause of the formation of these states separatism is not correct either. And let me repeat myself "recent" does not mean anything in the title of the section and I do not see it as appropriate for encyclopedia.
Eh, relax.
I see what you're saying, that calling the independence movements of the Baltic States "separatist" is POV. But your edits simply replaced one POV with another POV, and made a special case out of the Baltic States even though there are many other states that would be equally ready to call themselves "military occupied and annexed" before independence. That's why I objected to your edits. If you want NPOV, then you probably need to write something more well-rounded, that makes it clear that:
  1. "Separatism" is a problematic word and offends people who consider themselves to be fighting against military annexation, but are considered by others to be separatist
  2. There are many such cases in the world; in fact nearly all separatist movements have these characteristics (that it's supporters consider themselves "mlitary annexed"), and the Baltic states are an example, not the only special case of this
-- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 15:11, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)
I'm relaxed. And I don't see it a big issue either. I might not have NPOV talking about Lithuania, but I find it rather strange way of collaboration here. You found that I replaced one POV with another you simply "restored" first POV as if POV which was writen earlier is more valid :) instead of trying to make it NPOV. I would split that list of "recent separatism" into several categories explaining points of view of the "separatists" but I rather discouraged to do so, cause you'll probably will revert it back with some other reason. Not that I am very busy, but I really have more interesting things to do. Here I actually see POV of some imperialistically minded Russian nationalists who think that the fact that Baltic states were occupied during WWII and it was recognized by many countries including USA doesn't matter, cause all separatists are the same. The same here goes I think about East Timor, as from the point of view of Indonesian nationalists it doesn't matter that independence of East timor was recognized by UN and many countries after Portuguese colonization. It is the same separatist movement as in any other country. Why not put Kuwait on same list. Their state was formed after separatist movement with help of US separated it from Iraq?

Dirgela 18:48, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, I see what you're saying. And I apologize for reverting one POV to another. -- [[User:Ran|ran (talk)]] 22:08, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] "Separatism" is loaded language

(Partly copied from my comments on the Aceh article).

Members of various independence, or secessionist if you will, movements find the term "separatism" offensive. People who oppose certain independence movements favour the term, since it gives them an added legitimacy, and/or suggests that said area was always part of whichever state (often not true). Members of independence movements in general should not be confused with armed groups which favour violent insurrection...

I suggest it is only "generally accepted", in that many of the large states of the world have ulterior motives in hanging on to certain territories, and do not wish to give their self-determination movements positive publicity, especially if those territories were annexed in a dubious fashion, or just plain invaded.

p.s. A similar argument could be applied as to the section "Countries which have broken apart due to separatism", which lists the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was the successor state to the Russian Empire (some would say it was another Russian empire), but it is debatable as to whether it was a "country" or not.

I agree. In Quebec, for example, the fact is that the term is very seldom used, if at all, by people in favour of independence, favouring instead "indépendantiste" or "souverainiste". It is, on the other hand, often favoured by the most adamant and intransigent opponents in French, and virtually all opponents in English. I spoke more of this here if you wish to read more.
Another article that poses loaded language problems is List of countries where language is a political issue. The importance of independence movements is measured in terms of "gravity". Some other words that are used are the following: "problematic", "serious", "friction", "gravity", "threaten", "contained".
Now, what should be done with the Separatism article? The problem is that the word "indépendantiste", that exists in French and in other languages through some equivalent, is more of a neologism in English. Quebec has "sovereigntist", but the word cannot be applied worldwide. Are there any suggestions? Would "Independentism" be acceptable as the title of this article? --Liberlogos 15:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disenfranchisement

Just let me rant a bit about the constant misuse of this word. Disenfranchisement means the removal of the right to vote. No-one has done that to the people of Québec. Therefore, I have replaced the erroneous usage with the word marginalization, which is what I assume the original writer meant.-------------Kelisi 2005/2/3

Actually no it doesn't. The "franchise" can indeed mean the right to vote, but in a wider sense it also means being allowed a 'voice' or to be properly heard, so 'disenfranchisement' has a much wider meaning than you state.

[edit] Yugoslavia

I have noticed that you mentioned this QUOTE: "The wars erupting with the break-up of Yugoslavia exemplify this, despite constitutional provisions in the former Yugoslavia that theoretically allowed division and referenda", witch utmost incorrect info> I resisted the temptation to rewrite it myself, but unless You do so in the next several weeks, I will be forced to do it myself. The law of The Socialist Federative Republic of Yugoslavia clearly stated that member states CANNOT scede from the federation unless ALL representatives from ALL fractions soundly agree that it should be done (i. e. when Slovenia first decided to scede from the country, only Croatia voted for it, the other four countries didn't at the FIRST request of Slovenian independance). -- Yours respectivly, Yugoslav

There's no "us" here. Everyone who comes to Wikipedia can be an editor. If there is anything you disagree with then change it, don't wait for others to do it for you. -- ran (talk) July 3, 2005 19:41 (UTC)
About whether the KLA should be called terrorist -- I think it's better to discuss the matter at Talk:Kosovo Liberation Army and arrive at a more NPOV description. -- ran (talk) July 3, 2005 20:08 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right about KLA, I CAN'T roughly say that they are terorists, but hey, you're WRONG with the Yugoslav matter

I've deleted Montenegro from the separatists of Serbia and Montenegro, there is no organised separative movement in it. Both states have doubts and desire should the union the kept or dissolved, nonetheless it is insignificant due to the much larger number of those supporting the union. I've also added the so-called Republic of Kosova.

It doesn't really matter how many people support it... as long as there's some political group or force calling for it. After all, Western Canada, Alaska, California etc. are all in that list. Also, please don't remove links, they're useful.. and when you add new information, such as the Republika Srpska, please provide links to them. -- ran (talk) July 7, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

You're missing my point. Ther IS NO political group NOR a force. Let me help you out with a metaphore: Two seven-year old kids gather in their courtyard and say: "Do you think that our union should seperate?" and the other says: "i dunno"." And I said that BOTH country's peoples have doubts... nothing self-determinative... only doubts IF they should keep toogether, so there is no poin in listing Montenegro. Sorry about the links, I'll try that in the future (I still haven't got the hang of it) And why did you delete the Republic of Kosova? I've put some more separatist countries (The Republic of Serbian Borderland and The Republic of Kosova, respectivly)

Oh c'mon.... which one of the following is more likely to separate: Texas, or Montenegro? Since you don't seem to mind leaving Texas in the list but you removed Montenegro, are you saying that it's more likely and more imminent that Texas separate from the United States, than Montenegro separate from SCG?
Neither Serbia nor Montenegro is a "seven-year-old kid". Both are complete nations with many different points of view in them. The Montenegro article clearly shows that independence or union is a major contentious issue there. So I don't see why you want to remove Montenegro.
As for the "Republic of Kosova", that doesn't exist right now. Kosovo is administered by the UN. -- ran (talk) July 9, 2005 16:11 (UTC)

You COMPLETLY missed my point.... again. Never mind that about the seven-year-old kids (by that I meants the citizens of Montenegro that STARTED the separatist process, but nm that now) The Republic of Kosova is one of the unrecognised states (if you haven't noticed I've added it there). Kosovo is administered by the U.S. forces and the Kosovo Protection Corps (second name for the Kosovo Liberation Army, since that name became far too ill-known). And if you said, which is more likely to DIVIDE: Eastern US (under California) and Western US (under Washington) [because ther is no national Montenegrin sence if they should scede from the union, only common people's doubts if it should be kept) or Serbia and Montenegro? I would've said that the United States' Dividation is more likely. I live in Serbia and Montenegro, and there are more Serbian politicians promoting dividation then Montenegrin, so if you're already putting another separatist movement, you should type "Serbia", which is more likely (althoug even that would be idiotish), plus, I don't know why you deleted the Kosovar Liberation Army. I'll add it again. OK? Now hard feelings? Please don't delete it now.

...What? Are you seriously telling me that the U.S. is more likely to split into Eastern/Western halves in the next few years than SCG into Serbia and Montenegro?! Seriously....compared to SCG, how many political parties or politicians are seriously making this proposal? -- ran (talk) 03:28, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

My relatives live in California, and ALL of the people they know hate to admit that they are a part of the United States of America, as it seems, several politicians claim that "it is enough that we are being scourged by the Eastern imperialists of Washington; for we have once led a war for liberation, it is a shame that we are being forced into the same situation". As for Serbia and Montenegro, there are NO political parties which are seriously making this proposal, except just a few TV shows that exist only to oil the people with lies and illusion.

I'm very sorry, but current articles in Wikipedia (e.g. Montenegro#Union with Serbia) do not support your interpretation of the situation. With independence a major political issue and major compromises (even a change to the name of the federation!) made to the pro-independence position, Montenegro is obviously closer to Quebec than to California. Unless you would like to go over to the Montenegro article and change the description of the Montenegrin situation there, Montenegro will stay in this list. -- ran (talk) 17:40, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

What? No, no! You've got it good this time! (Haven't you noticed that I didn't make any changings this time?) Why should I argue with anything. And I am not making a parallel between Montenegro and California (or Quebec). We'll leave it this way, since both countries want to (although this... OK, OK, "movement" is about to die-out pretty soon) dissolve the union. It is nothing similiat to Quebec at all, since Quebec wants clearly to scede from the state (by ALL means I see [I've read your article, it's quitte detaled]). I mean, if it would be similiar, then it would be something like this: "There are separatist movements in Quebec, but there are also separatist movements in every other province/territory of the country. (figurativly speaking)" since Montenegro OR Serbia don't want to SCEDE from Serbia and Montenegro, they want to dissolve it. I am very surprised that you keep mentioning Montenegro, instead of say... Montenegro and Serbia (if not Serbia and Montenegro since it's already the official name of the union). This is not a movement in which a oart of a country wants to seperate, it is a general "spiritual" presence in the Serbo-Montenegrin people of the question "should the union be kept?". Do you get me know?

(several days later).. ahm..... are you there?

[edit] Proposed disambiguation page

Is that not what this page already is? It may not have the standard format but it does the job quite well. Indeed, it does it better than most disambiguation pages do, since it gives useful explanations and does the job more thoroughly. (RJP 4 July 2005 11:12 (UTC))

Am I the only one who finds it ironic that there is a notice at the top of the Seperatism article, saying that there is a proposal that it be seperated into seperate articles? --Munchkinguy 04:07, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Ha ha ha ha...no, you're not. NatusRoma 03:11, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Country list of present movements

Why is there a "Separatism#Countries with separatist movements" section that repeats badly the effort of the List of active autonomist and secessionist movements article? This section is a repetition, it is incomplete, and it is unbalanced since some extremly small movements are relatively more covered while other more important and more sincere are neglected. I believe that section should be removed. --Liberlogos 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I changed it a bit.. What do you think? Joffeloff 18:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "suggestion" headline

I think the headline on the actual page ought to be changed. Suggesting that an article about separatism be split up into several different articles is the most ridiculous joke I've heard in a while. Wareq 0052 a.m. EST USA

[edit] Separatism in Mexico????

I would like that the authot tell where the hell he found that Tamaulipas, Coahuila and Nuevo Leon all toghether wants to abandon Mexico, because that's an absolute lie, it's urgent to take out that false information from wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lefairh (talk • contribs).

Due to the heavy economic differences form northeastern Mexico from the rest of the cuntry as well as historical reasons, a large number of residents of the Mexican States of Coahuila, Nuevo Leon and Tamaulipas have been wanting to secede from the nation. There are even underground groups that advocate to separate from the Federal Pact and form a new nation that comprises the three states. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NorthernPride (talk • contribs).


[edit] Separatism in Croatia???

separatism doesn't exist in modern Croatia.. it appeared only during serbian occupation.. there are only 10 municipalities (and there is total of 120 muncipalities in Croatia) which don't have croatian majority so we can't talk about any type of separatism..

Cro ed

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/e/p/Talk%7ESeparatism_9be8.html"