Talk:List of active separatist movements in Asia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Zhuang and Hui autonomist movements

I use books to cite these:

Kaup, Katherine. Creating the Zhuang:Ethnic Policies in China. (yes, its written in 2000 so this is ten years old, but considering that the movement got no Western attention back then, can you prove it isn't active now? It's ONLY 10 years, really... especially considering the lack of Western interest on the subject as well as the perennial lack of citation on this page)

Gladley, Dru C. Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism in the People's Republic. (same as above, except I was mistaken, it is actually older, 1996)

Harrell, Steven and others. Perspectives on the Yi of Southwest China (this helps give a sense of the autonomist sentiments of other minorities)

Basically, that people can write whole book on these topics (rather than simple articles) shows that they are notable, whether the Western press cares or not. In fact, I could probably write a Wikipedia article for both Hui and Zhuang aspirations if I had the will. I will note that these are autonomist and not separatist (though China does not seem to differentiate the two), at least for the time being (personally, it is hard for me to see the Hui EVER having a separatist movement given their Chinese roots)

Given the sources, I do not see how this violates verifiability or NPOV, as the existence of ethnic activist organizations with autonomist aims is a fact. Now, the time issue perhaps deserves discussion, to which I will note that (a) I don't think 10 years is enough to proclaim a movement extinct simply because the lazy Western press has not reported it in that time(which it never did in the first place, so why bother?), (b) even if the West wanted to report it, the Chinese government would surely do all in its power to ensure it didn't happen (as it has, and failed, with regards to Tibet and Xinjiang already) and (c) a minority of the entries on this list are really verifiable at all (but we nonetheless agree that they exist, and in some cases know it for a fact).

So, I really don't see how citing WHOLE BOOKS of information (okay, the Yi book has only a couple sections referring to it) is that much of a problem as books tend to be factual, you know. And they are often much more verifiable than simple articles, considering the scholarly positions of the authors. --Yalens (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Can you prove it isn't active now?" That's shifting the burden of proof. If a movement hasn't been heard of in decades, it belongs in the list of historical separatist movements, if it is notable. This isn't about the West or about the press; if you can cite some appropriate Chinese journal, that would be acceptable too. Ethnic nationalism is different from ethnic separatism, and the books you cite are better sources for articles like Zhuang people or perhaps Zhuang nationalism than this.

As for the "minority of entries that exist" but are not verifiable, they remain here because of apathy and not consensus. If someone deletes those too, they should be challenged not with arguments based on What We Know To Be True but with reliable sources. Quigley (talk) 23:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

"...hasn't been heard of in decades"... well, I do not think you can call 10 years, decades plural. It makes a difference. And "if you can cite some appropriate Chinese journal" is quite an inappropriate remark. Do you seriously think that any Chinese journal would dare (even if, being Chinese, it was somehow wanted to report on something contrary to its own country's interests that was generally left untouched previously) report on such a sensitive issue? China has banned the Western media completely from reporting on Tibet alone, and it just recently had a spat with Google over information distribution issues... do you seriously think Chinese journals, of all things, are a primary source? Xinhua is more or less run by the government, and even China itself more-or-less admits this. --Yalens (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As for the Zhuang people page, I believe it is already there, as is also the case with the Hui.

As for ethnic nationalism versus ethnic separatism, I can note that to date, there haven't been any widespread calls for separatism, so it is autonomism at best. But ethnic nationalism and ethnic separatism generally go hand-in-hand in a state like China where one ethnic group (the Han, playing the same role as the Russians, the ethnic French, the Turks, the Germans in the Hapsburg Empire, etc.) dominates most matters. Though I do see your point. However, the Zhuang have called for, as one of their primary demands, "greater autonomy", as stated clearly throughout the book- that clearly makes it autonomist, giving it a rightful place on this page. --Yalens (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It is plainly not true that China tries to suppresses all information about separatism in its territory. You mentioned Xinhua: hundreds of stories come up when you search for 'separatism', of Xinjiang's governor discussing it in a speech, of officials drilling against it in the SCO, etc. Besides, as the Tibetan exile media machine shows, especially in this day and age, it is not hard for dissident groups to garner international interest and reporting.

You should be careful when speaking about 'the Zhuang', as if they have singular purpose. From my skimming of the book, it appears that what you take for a Zhuang separatist movement are actually some officials in the Guangxi ZAR proposing to higher-ups greater affirmative action policies and some academic musings in the late '80s and early '90s. Can you name (from this article's introduction) "living, active members" from some coherent movement? I'm not sure now that this 'movement' qualifies for a listing in the historical separatist movements list. Quigley (talk) 22:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tibetan exile does not have a "media machine". The reason Tibet has so much coverage is for a number of reasons, all of which the Zhuang lack:

(1) Unlike the Zhuang, it was actually invaded by China within the memory of living people (okay, okay, don't bug with my terminology here).

(2) Tibet has a well-known and highly distinctive culture, so many people already know who the Tibetans are. I have not met very many people who know exactly what a "Zhuang" is.

(3) As you hinted at yourself, the Tibetans have a government-in-exile, plus numerous diaspora groups. The Zhuang (who don't necessarily support it universally or even by majority; though level of support does not seem to be a qualifier for these lists considering the inclusion of Bavaria and others) lack these things. This alone however would not give the Tibetans the attention they recieve (it clearly isn't working for the Chechens, as all the coverage we see in the West is how they are such horrible terrorists and there seems to be absolutely no fathomable reason why, even though it should be staring the media right in the face...).

(4) Tibet is symbolic for many religious people (especially in the West), as the Tibetans are being persecuted for practicing their religion, to which they are thought to be very devout. That is not to mention that Tibet is the center of Lamaistic Buddhism, to the point that one can hear a statement like "the Mongols are religiously Tibetan Buddhists".

(5) From the very beginning, Tibet had a large number of sympathizers, and they never had to have a "nationalist reawakening"- unlike the Zhuang nationalists, who are new on the scene

(6) UNPO.

...must I go on? Quite clearly, comparing Tibet to the Zhuang (who noone know about) is not really fair.

You have to read the whole book and not skim it is the message, pretty much. The reason the officials invented the thing was quite obvious, as there are 18 million of them. Throughout the book there is talk about the development of activism among the Zhuang, especially the chapter that is titled as such~.

And as for Xinhua, yes, I know they are not afraid to use the word separatist. They will do, as China's Han government itself does, the mass labeling of completely non-separatist items as separatist. What they would never do however, is give the relatively pathetic Zhuang movement a humongous help by giving it media attention, equivalent to oxygen for a fire. I'm pretty sure you know that. --Yalens (talk) 22:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you also know that Wikipedia is not supposed to compensate for a lack of coverage in reliable secondary sources. Not that I'm impugning on that book, but the material that cites it should be rewritten to conform with the other sections on this page. At least, it should refer to a geographic region and active groups with living members. Quigley (talk) 04:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

taiwan is not a separatist movement

Taiwan is independent under the name Republic of China, changing the name is not really a form separatism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.13.53 (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The reason its here (I assume) is that it is actually de facto independent. Another possible reason is that there is a large (though not necessarily a majority) of people in Taiwan who (now) consider themselves a separate nation from China. The problem- or rather the confusion- about the second possible reason is that there's a large spectra of opinions in Taiwan of how Chinese they consider themselves-- there are people that say they are Chinese only (as in their opinion Taiwan is not a nation), Chinese before Taiwanese, Chinese ethnically but part of the Taiwanese nation, completely Taiwanese nationally and ethnically, both Chinese and Taiwanese ethnically but part of the Taiwanese nation; both Chinese and Taiwanese ethnically but part of the Chinese nation; part of both nations... the list could go on. But the main reason its here is probably because its de facto independent.

I may note, its hte same case with Waziristan. No one there denies its part of Pakistan- but it is by fact de facto independent. --Yalens (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The separatist movement is for a republic of the island of Taiwan only, which is in rebellion against the Republic of China government, which was conceived as a government for all of China. It is most inappropriate to list that as a "de facto state" for the independenceist minority, because that is the state they want to demolish. Also, using the PRC flag for "China" breaks neutrality on which of the republics is the rightful government of China. I have removed that flag, but there are other questionable flags on the page. Quigley (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

As I noted above, the de facto state is NOT for the Taiwanese nationalists (or whatever we may call them). Waziristan is also listed, as they are both de facto separate states (hence de facto separatism). But neither Waziristan nor Taiwan's rulers originally had the intention of separating off their areas. That there are Taiwanese nationalists is true, but it is also a little off topic. The point is their de facto separation. --Yalens (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Indonesia

I think we should keep the Indonesian movements (maybe with a status note). The list is about separatist movements, no matter if they have a great popular suport - or a political - or not. It's too soon to tell that these movements don't have support at any circle of the population (even Aceh, it has less than 5 years that the group demilitarized). The movements listed in South America, for instance, that has very, very few supporters (in the last 10 years, I never saw a newspaper note about movements in Brazil or Argentina), but are listed because they exist in some way.Zé Carioca (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

North Caucasus / Chechnya

Please add North Caucasus and/or Chechnya under Russia, because Chechnya has a long history of national liberation struggle.--92.46.23.80 (talk) 06:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does. However, Chechnya is in Europe, so you should see the respective page. --Yalens (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

External link

The link to a website claiming to represent one separatist movement to the exclusion of all others is clearly stating that Wikipedia thinks that this one movement is important and that the others are not. This is not an editorial voice that Wikipedia wants to have. Considering that the title of this article is "List of active separatist movements in Asia", an appropriate external link would be one that listed active separatist movements in Asia, perhaps with more detail or something that the article itself could not provide. Quigley (talk) 23:32, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

While I did not originally put the link in the section, "to the exclusion of all others" is not a valid statement. You know just as well as I do that no one intended it to be that way. If you would like, we can go posting ELs for all the others; it hasn't happened yet as far as I know because people (myself included) do not consider it important.--Yalens (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's external link content guideline directs: "A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject." But the external link issue raises the larger problem of the inclusion criteria for these movements: we see many "movements" with not even a self-published website listed on these pages. Since Wikipedia already has a system of gauging notability through its article creation and deletion processes, I propose that only movements and groups with their own articles may be included on these lists. Quigley (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

(I wonder if there is a WP:COATRACK rule for talk pages, especially when issues are brought up 6 months after the fact... anyhow.) Just because the wikipedia community has been negligent with dealing with one movement does not mean it does not exist or is not notable. At best, this would make the page reminiscent of the flaws of mainstream media. At worst, it would eliminate the little coverage that Wikipedia gives to subjects it generally tends to ignore for lack of editor interest. I really see no advantage at all. --Yalens (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Flag of the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Flag of the Southern Azerbaijan National Awakening Movement.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Ainu

I have deleted the unsourced Ainu section. There was a Japanese far-left group in 1970s that expected the Ainu to start a communist revolution (see ja:アイヌ革命論), but I have never heard of a Ainu independence movement. --Nanshu (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Taliban want to set up a new state?

Rather than take over Afghanistan (or, I suppose, retake control of Afghanistan?)? Do you have any source that the Afghan Taliban have an aim of carving out a NEW state separate from Afghanistan? Where would this state be? --Yalens (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC) (and political separatism generally refers, in English at least, to the creation of new political units by breaking territories off of existing political units... not to movements aiming to overthrow governments)--Yalens (talk) 18:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Please view the sources from the war in north west Pakistan article and other articles related to all the factions of Taliban. They either want to take over Afghanistan or want to create a new state with the areas including the Pakistani Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Afghanistan. In addition, even if they aim to take over the state of Afghanistan, that can also be included as being a separatist from the government. You might also notice that some of them want to set up a global state of "Khilafat". --lTopGunl (talk) 18:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Fyi, setting up a global state to unite the world under some "Khilafat" is the opposite of separatism. An internal group wanting to take over a country's government is not separatist, as they aren't aiming for carving areas of the state off to make new states... As for a "new state with ares including the Pakistani Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and Afghanistan", this isn't separatist from Afghanistan (maybe separatist from Pakistan though, in the irridentist/separatist sense), as it includes all of Afghanistan.--Yalens (talk) 19:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

That counts as separatism since the aim is to separate from the Afghan government in any way. The KP issue with Pakistan is not limited to Pakistan, it includes most of Afghanistan as well. And they are trying to run a state within a state anyway, which is another form of separatism. --lTopGunl (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, they are currently "running a state within a state", which is a situation of de facto independence, so I suppose you could put that on here as that sort of thing, but that isn't their goal. The goal of the Taliban (and I acknowledge that this thing varies between different "Taliban" groups, as well as from time to time) is to take over Afghanistan- not to separate themselves from the current Afghan government but to replace it. As for areas of Pakistan, claims on its territories are expressions of Pashtun nationalist irridentism and really belong in Pakistan's section more than Afghanistan's.--Yalens (talk) 22:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually the term used for such condition is "insurgency", which is again separatism. The claim about territories of Pakistan is not limited to Pushtun nationalism itself, since many Pushtuns are loyal to Pakistan and have rather formed militias to help the army. The issue is, all the factions of Taliban in some way or the other are insurgents. May be a neutral opinion here would do? I'll also like to add to my argument, the ethnic cleansing done by Taliban of non Pushtuns, which is an extreme form of separatism. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Insurgency and separatism are not equivalent, and ethnic cleansing, though sometimes due to separatism, is due to Pashtun (ultra-)nationalism in the case of ethnic cleansing in Afghanistan (it would be separatism if it was Pakistani Pashtuns, though this isn't the case; it would also be separatism the Pashtuns wanted to separate away from Afghanistan to and leave a separate Afghan state of Tajiks, Hazaras, etc behind, rather than take it over). It looks like you're using the phrase "separatism" to mean a much broader category of things it isn't usually applied to... not all insurgencies are separatist, for one. They'd only be separatist if they want to separate off an area from a larger state to form a (usually) smaller one. Perhaps a third opinion would be good here...--Yalens (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Insurgency is generally due to separatism. And when ethnic cleansing is being done along with it, it becomes separatism, though of a different kind where the separatists are not breaking away themselves but rather 'cleaning up' the region to separate others. Yes, I guess a WP:3O should be called on this, but that's up to you. --lTopGunl (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hitler committing genocide (extreme form of ethnic cleansing) against Jews and Roma is never called separatism, despite Hitler wanting to rid Germany of Jews and Roma, thereby "separating" them from the Germans (by death). Atrocities against Tamils by the Sri Lankan government (perhaps not necessarily ethnic cleansing) is not called separatism on the part of the Sri Lankan government. The Soviet-era deportations targeting specific ethnic groups (Chechens, Germans, Koreans, Kalmyks, Balkars, Poles, etc.) have been called ethnic cleansing or even genocide by many sources, but never an expression of separatism. I don't really see where the idea that ethnic cleansing must be a form of political separatism (not counting your play on words) is coming from ... As for 3O, I will see if there's any user who has a good reputation who has done work on this page in the past... I have a couple in mind.--Yalens (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

You do have a point, but Taliban sort of come in the grey area of both types. There's some separatism involved. FYI, use WP:3O for that purpose because 3O is provided by an editor who has not edited the page before. --lTopGunl (talk) 05:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue in contention here isn't encyclopedic policies, but information, so I'm going to ask people who have established themselves as knowledgeable in the area. Don't worry, I'm not going to ask people I know share my opinion (heck, I can only guess what people's on this are), and it won't be consensus until we all agree to something. I think I won't do the formal 3O, I'll just ask Jsorens... he's an editor who has edited this page much in the past, and whom I believe knowledgeable about the phenomenon of separatist movements.--Yalens (talk) 22:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I think User:Yalens has got it right here; the Taliban is an insurgent movement aimed at taking over the Afghan government, rather than a movement aimed at obtaining autonomy or independence from the Afghan government. In the literature on insurgency and civil war, "ethnonationalism" and "separatism" are treated as conceptually distinct from rebellion, insurgency, or civil war more generally (for instance, Ayres and Saideman 2000 [1] and Cederman et al. 2011 [2] to name two prominent examples off the top of my head).--Jsorens (talk) 19:31, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I've made a bold move and removed the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan from the Afghanistan section and added the Islamic Emirate of Waziristan to the Pakistan section. I hope that this change will help settle things. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Then I think that's been taken care of. --lTopGunl (talk) 22:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

recent edits

I hope the several people who try to overwrite my recent edits stop doing so. Here I explain why.

1.There are two entities of "China". The Republic of China governs Taiwan, and the People's Republic of China governs Mainland. The independence movement in Taiwan aims at establishing a new state by demolishing/replacing the ROC and the ones in Mainland seeks establishing a new state by secession from the PRC. DIFFERENT.

2.Mainland China regions recognize NO official flags. The flag before the name which the region is called indicates the official or representative flag in that region NOW. So if the regions recognize no official flags currently, there should not be any flag. HKSAR is a different case as its official flags is the Bauhinia flag. On the other hand, the flag before the proposed state indicate a possible flag of the new state. DIFFERENT.

Any more challenges? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerpuff (talk • contribs) 02:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

POV language

I take it you're aware that "separatist" is a biased and loaded term? Something more neutral should be used. Self-determination is not of itself a crime.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:01, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The Epoch Times

Obsidian Friar apparently disapproves of the use of The Epoch Times as a source here. From what I can gather about it, it's a newspaper, it mainly details Chinese politics, it is highly regarded by Western academia, but disliked by the Chinese government because of its typically anti-gov't stance. In my analysis, that's clearly not a neutral source, however it is RS, as given its reputation (it's a well-established news outlet that has received various awards), it probably wouldn't just make random crap up. It would be nice to get a separate source though, simply because its presence will irk pro-Chinese-gov't viewers. --Yalens (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hmong people

What aboute Hmong separatism in China? There are 10 million hmong.--Kaiyr (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Middle East

May I suggest giving the active separatist movements in the Middle East a separate page?

Anonymous71.97.83.210 (talk) 00:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The lists appear to be by continent just now - Asia could be split up a number of ways. As stated in the archive, I am also against the use of the term "separatist", since it is pejorative. -MacRùsgail (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Free Syria

Is this technically a separatist movement? They don't want autonomy or succession, but to overthrow the government and maintain the same country. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Turkey

See talk point here: Talk:List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Europe#Turkey --Elephanthunter (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Chinese Separatist movements into this article

The page for China separatist movements doesn't seem to contain much additional information. --Elephanthunter (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

So what I've done, instead of merging the Chinese separatist article into this one, is just to remove the duplicate content from this page. Diffing changes isn't fun :P --Elephanthunter (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind... haha people keep reverting my changes and adding the section back, even though it's a pretty large chunk of duplicate content. I guess this might be a better home for China --Elephanthunter (talk) 05:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of active separatist movements in Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090325221348/http://www.dalailama.com:80/page.99.htm to http://www.dalailama.com/page.99.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

saudi arabia

what is with Ahrar al-Najran Braganza (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Sikkim

Hello! Any Indian Users Here? I would like to know if there is any support for Sikkimese independence over there. If you could help out in anyway, thank you!

-The2016 a.k.a FirestormBlizzard The2016 (talk) 08:39, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Russia

The following movements have been removed from the Russian section under the argument that they are covered by the Siberian Regionalism article (where they are not mentioned at all and these are clearly separate though related ideologies: Siberian Regionalism appears to be about autonomy for a wider Siberian region whereas these movements seem to be about independence/autonomy for specific ethnic groups of Yakuts/Tuvans or for a state on the eastern coast). Either the Siberian Regionalism article needs to be improved to mention the history and inter-relationship with these movements, or they should be added back in here. I would like people's opinions and I would also like to remind people that just because you personally don't think any particular movement is notable is no reason to excise them from Wikipedia. A movement is not the same thing as a political party.

Sakha/Yakutia Yakuts

Tuva

Primorsky/Far East Halon8 (talk) 10:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

• First source, for example, tells about survey of public opinion: how many respondents would support a greater autonomy? This is not a separatist movement. Someone debating independence in social networks is also not a separatist movement. To have a political movement one needs some kind of organization, although not necessarily a political party. What organizations (names please) are advocating the separation? How many members/participants do they have? Who are their leaders, programs? None of sources above answer these questions. See Scottish independence, for example. This is a separatist movement. See Kurdish separatism in Iran. If you wish, you can try to create a page Separatism in Russia to see if there are any currently active separatist movements and what they are. My very best wishes (talk) 14:40, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No, that's incorrect and disproved by the very article political movement that you linked to. A movement does not require any organisation. It is "a social group that operates together to obtain a political goal". A social group has been defined as "two or more people who interact with one another, share similar characteristics, and collectively have a sense of unity. Other theorists...etc" See also "A social movement is a set of opinions and beliefs in a population which represents preferences for changing some elements of the social structure and/or reward distribution of the society". Also p33 onwards but especially p35. The article on political movement could do with more work actually as it is lacking in various definitions. There is absolutely no requirement to identify organisations, programs or numbers (that appears to be your personal definition of a movement or you are confusing it with the definition of a party in that article), although if such information exists it does improve the article. Looking at the various definitions, a separatist movement might be a group of people with shared sentiment, people on facebook signing a petition, people going to protests, a big political party, or an underground network of violent terrorists - it's not up to us to decide the boundaries: if the source states that a 'separatist movement' or 'separatism' or 'separatists' exists, then that is all we can state. Whether or not a movement is notable is an entirely different question (which is not necessarily related to the size of the movement), and this is a question that should be discussed across the whole list rather than just Russian groups. I am unlikely to have the time or inclination to edit this article myself (or to create a separate article). The first source does discuss support for separatism (which can as I've explained be described as a movement), but it also discusses the application of that support and elite activism with links to further sources e.g. "A demand for increased autonomy does not extend as far as a demand for complete independence. In that respect the claims of some Caucasian republics and Tuva are clearly an expression of outright separatism, but other ethnic republics mainly want control over their own resources and taxes." "Moreover, the high economic productivity and strong exporting power of the republics are the best predictors of separatist activism among leaders of the ethnic republics in the Russian Federation (Hale 2000; Treisman 1997)". I do not think this is the best source but it is an indication that the material should be included and better sources found (and the reference list in that article might be a good place to start looking for respected authors on the subject). Halon8 (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

• You need some RS which claim literally the following: "there is such and such currently active separatist movements" in Russia. The claims must be sufficiently specific, i.e. they should provide the name of each separatist movement and tell something about their membership and goals. I do not see it in most of the sources you quoted. Saying that, I think one could create a page like Separatism in Russia based on sources like that one [3], but this should be something of substance (with text), rather than a list. But whatever. I do not have time for that. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
• I shouldn't have edited in the middle of the night. I have now realised that social movements contains the definitions (although this is the social movement theory perspective and there may be other perspectives). This book has a comprehensive list of autonomous and separatist movements http://www.reed.edu/reed_magazine/march2016/articles/features/chris-roth.html. I believe Yakutia and Tuva are described as 'dormant' separatist movements in that book (as well as Buryatia but I may be mistaken) - this is neither active nor historical (but I do not have the book at the moment and am hoping someone else can check it, and I haven't found a source that says whether their autonomy movements are dormant or active). I suspect an article would be better than a list as it would allow better discussion of the different viewpoints and discussion of how separatism has given way to autonomy-seeking, and the strength/type of the movements, etc. Alternatively it might be better to have a separate article for 'dormant movements' or move them to List of historical separatist movements and rename that article (assuming there is consensus that they are not active), but that article is also problematic i.e. it is listing a lot of defunct organisations rather than defunct movements (e.g. Irish nationalism in Northern Ireland is very much still active - it would be better to list those as 'historic parties' under the Irish Nationalism section on the Active european separatist movements page). I would be more comfortable with the community deciding better criteria for all the separatist lists, particularly relating to notability and what 'active' means (i.e. you could find a source from 10 years ago stating a movement is active, so would that be acceptable?). https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Encyclopedia_of_the_Stateless_Nations_A.html?id=OLKKVXgEpkoC&redir_esc=y also provides some information

Some of the material you removed already had the information you are requesting, specifically Circassia and Tatarstan. Halon8 (talk) 00:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh no, Yakutia and Tuva are NOT separatist movements but autonomous republics. That's why I removed that piece. As written, this is simply nonsense. My very best wishes (talk) 01:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

In other words, consider this source, for example. It tells: "For separatist groups in Dagestan, Tatarstan and other regions of Russia, the Kremlin's support of a referendum on independence in Ukraine's Crimea peninsula would seem to provide an opportunity for their own movements". OK. Which "separatist groups" this and other sources are talking about? Do they have a name and have been described in any meaningful way in RS? If so, please include them here, with references. However, simply including Tatarstan or Tartars is not the way because they are not separatist movements, but a territory and an ethic group. If it was a "list of territories with separatist movements", then yes, Tatarstan could be included. But it would be a very different and hardly meaningful list. My very best wishes (talk) 17:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of active separatist movements in Asia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://times.am/2010/02/28/russia%E2%80%99s-javakhk-diaspora-demands-autonomous-region-status-for-samtskhe-javakhk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100812065826/http://www.al-ahwaz.com/english/2009/index.php?page=news&a_p_no=1&w_p_no=1&ar_p_no=23-1-2008-1 to http://www.al-ahwaz.com/english/2009/index.php?page=news&a_p_no=1&w_p_no=1&ar_p_no=23-1-2008-1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090401225906/http://pdki.org/lang.php?lang=1 to http://pdki.org/lang.php?lang=1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924042732/http://www.interaksyon.com/article/41288/milf-says-mnlf-joins-fray-on-side-of-bifm to http://www.interaksyon.com/article/41288/milf-says-mnlf-joins-fray-on-side-of-bifm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

File nominated for deletion on commons

file:c:File:Bd banga.png Reason: subpage: 

Message automatically deposited by a robot on 09:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harideepan (talk • contribs)

Armenians in Samtskhe-Javakheti

There have been a couple attempts to remove this section. I thought it was pretty fair to restore it, as the argument the person who removed it gave was that the movement was not officially recognized by the government of Georgia. But to be fair, the movement *could* be dead. Anyone here able to provide evidence either way?

Here are some articles that reference it. There are more, but I have difficulty sorting through them since I only speak English.

2009 - Georgian Court Sentences Armenian Activist To 10 Years In Prison - Mensoian: Javakhk Activist Vahagn Chakhalyan: Justice Denied By Georgia

2013 - Javakhk’s Prospects for a New Beginning

2014 - There is no need to choose a split in Javakhk. V. Chakhalyan on Local Elections in Georgia

--Elephanthunter (talk) 05:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Khalistan Separatist Movement

It was asked that we discuss whether Khalistan should be on this list. Here is my evidence that the Khalistan movement is active, thus belongs on this list:

• Jan 2018 - New brand of Sikh militancy: Suave, tech-savvy pro-Khalistan youth radicalised on social media
• Feb 2018 - India gives Trudeau list of suspected Sikh separatists in Canada
• May 2018 - Pro-Khalistani groups planning to target Punjab police officers with ISI's support: Intelligence report

That's more recent news than a lot of the groups on this list.

Oh! And someone edited the Khalistan article to say it was no longer active. The source was a statement from Sukhbir Singh Badal that the Sikh Khalistan movement is a "non-issue". This is a political opinion missing context. It is disingenuous to treat this statement as evidence that the movement is in a literal sense no longer active.

Forcing discussion looks like a ploy to keep people from seeing an active Indian separatist group, and is ridiculous on its face.

--Elephanthunter (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Elephanthunter, Thanks for initiating this discussion. Please read the lede of the article which states and I quote "They are the citizen/peoples of the conflict area and not comes from other country". The source 2 and 3 you provide here mentions that they are either UK or Canada. All that you are currently basing this on is a single source. Here on the other end we have a plethora of sources (well researched books which indeed state the movement has ended) ([4],[5],[6]). I think we need more than single source which claims that it is "being revived". Adamgerber80 (talk) 06:05, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Did you read these sources? Juergensmeyer actually states the movement was *thought* to be gone, but then an attack happened. In the same sentence. And my "one source" is part of a recent wave of news about Khalistan:

• May 2018 - 2 Khalistan Zindabad arrested, part of Khalistan Zindabad, a sub-group of a terror module
• May 2018 - How the Khalistan Liberation Force ‘planned and executed’ the murder of an RSS activist

Also, it looks like there are plenty of Indian citizens being arrested, but maybe there is a reason we don't hear more news about pro-Khalistan Sikhs in India?

• Aug 2016 - Sikh group raises voice for freedom in Punjab, alleges police brutality

In that article, campaigners who mentioned Referendum 2020 were arrested, tortured, and accused of plotting terrorism. It also mentions the government of India blocked the Referendum 2020 website and Facebook pages.

This looks a lot like a concerted censorship effort by India. Whatever India's policies on dissent or thoughts about the origins of this movement, censorship is not allowed on Wikipedia. --Elephanthunter (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Elephanthunter: The source you yourself provided also states this "The leadership of the KLF believes that they can revive the moribund Khalistan movement by targeting members of specific communities" and even in that source the word "revive" is mentioned in brackets. Most of the references you provide are either foreign nationals or scattered incidents which do not meet a movement is active. Do you have any scholarly sources to back your claim? We can argue based on sources not what you think so please stop bringing in random arguments like cenorship since my argument is based on sources (which I have provided quite a few and scholarly ones) while you have provided some random references which hint at it being revived. This is not conclusive enough. Adamgerber80 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

That quote is from an NIA chargesheet. It's unfair to represent statements from one party actively combating another as if they are unbiased fact. Also, your position on and use of sources is confusing. Old texts, no matter how scholarly, are not valid rebuttle to the recent influx of news. You might as well claim a volcano is dormant by using 10-year-old scholarly citations, in the face of news that it's spewing lava today. --Elephanthunter (talk) 23:06, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Elephanthunter I have been very clear with my explanation. Just because there are some scatterred incidents it does not make an entire movement active. Your sources put it as a question not a fact. You are currently doing WP:SYNTH to take that and make this an "active" statement. Your comparison of this with a volcano is not correct. Please answer the issues I have raised and unless you have a scholarly source (I stress scholarly), we cannot unilaterally declare an entire movement to be active based on sources which DO NOT state it as a fact. Adamgerber80 (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Flag of Hadramout.svg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Two Chinas

Hello, anyone who is reading. I'm requesting that the "China" segment of this list be separated into "China (PRC)" and "Taiwan (ROC)". Taiwan (ROC), of course, being a "de facto" state in accordance with United Nations recognition.

The reason for this is because the current segment on China gives the impression that the PRC and the ROC are a single country, when they obviously are not. The "secessionist" movement in Taiwan (ROC) is extremely multi-faceted and is complicated by the "de facto" reality that pro-independence parties have been able to be democratically elected into power.

In my opinion, the part where it says "the Republic of China identifies itself as the sole legitimate government of China" is deliberately misleading. Since, the current administration, under the Democratic Progressive Party, does not agree with this statement. How can you say that a country says "so and so" when it's own government doesn't even agree with that statement?

I have edited the specific "Secession in China" article to list Taiwan (ROC) and China (PRC) separately, whilst mentioning China (PRC)'s claim in the Taiwan (ROC) segment. Furthermore, I have clarified that the Pan-Blue Coalition is loyal to the ROC, whereas the Pan-Green Coalition (currently in power) is loyal to Taiwan independence.

The Republic of China is only supported by around half of the country, and even then, the political parties vying for representation in Taiwan (ROC) within the Pan-Blue Coalition are arguably no longer able to be considered as true representatives of the ROC. Instead, I have labelled them as "Chinese loyalists" and I have labelled the Pan-Green Coalition as "Taiwan localists".

These are two political camps within the country, but neither camp truly represents the entire country, hence we should not be trying to present this segment in a way which portrays the Pan-Blue Coalition as legitimate and the Pan-Green Coalition as illegitimate.

And also, China (PRC) has never had control over Taiwan (ROC), so Taiwan (ROC) should not be regarded as a separatist state (like Abkhazia) but more as a rump state. In my opinion, rump states deserve their own segments, especially because they tend to be extremely complicated politically; Taiwan (ROC) is no exception. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Tables vs Lists

Do you think it could be possible to convert every list in this article into a table? At the moment, the article looks quite unpleasant with both tables and lists interspersed throughout it. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

About that. I never supported the addition of tables. I think they are doing this so they could understand the numbers of separatist movements a lot simpler. In fact, I missed the article without tables. ExplodingPoPUps 05:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Summary

Number	Land	Capital	Area	Population	Ethnic	Main Political Party
All of Asian Russia
1	Siberian Republic	Novosibirsk	13,100,000	40,000,000	Sibiryak people	Siberian regionalism
Far Eastern Federal District of Asian Russia
2	Sakha Republic	Yakutsk	3,083,523	1,000,000	Yakut people	Sakha-Amuk
3	Far Eastern Republic	Chita	1,900,000	3,000,000	Nanai people	Alliance of the Pacific Peoples
4	Chukotka	Anadyr	737,700	50,000	Chukchi people
5	Buryatia	Ulan-Ude	351,300	1,000,000	Buryat people	All-Buryat Association
6	Koryakia	Palana	292,600	15,000	Koryak people
7	Jewish Autonomous Oblast	Birobidzhan	36,000	150,000	Jewish people
Siberian Federal District of Asian Russia
8	Taymyr Autonomous Okrug	Dudinka	879,929	40,000	Dolgan people
9	Evenk Autonomous Okrug	Tura	763,197	20,000	Evenk people
10	Tuva	Kyzyl	170,500	300,000	Tuvan people	People's Party of Sovereign Tuva
11	Altai Republic	Gorno-Altaysk	92,600	220,000	Altai people	Altai-Sayun United Movement
12	Khakassia	Abakan	61,900	550,000	Khakas people
13	Ust-Orda Buryat Okrug	Ust-Ordynsky	22,138	150,000	Buryat people	All-Buryat Association
14	Agin-Buryat Autonomous Okrug	Aginskoye	19,600	80,000	Buryat people
Ural Federal District of Asian Russia
15	Yamalia	Salekhard	750,300	500,000	Nenets people	Yamal for Future Generations
16	Khanty-Mansi Autonomous Okrug	Khanty-Mansiysk	534,800	1,500,000	Finno-Ugric people	Association to Save Yurga

Update. The 'summary' has been declared misleading by Koreanovsky. ExplodingPoPUps 19:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Siberia

In 2014, an artist, Artyom Loskutov, wrote in his blog about an idea to create a Siberian Republic within the Russian Federation and attempted to organize a mock demonstration called Monstration for Siberian Federalisation to take place on August 17 in Novosibirsk. Russian authorities banned the march and attempted to censor media coverage about the event, citing a recently passed law against "calls to mass unrest, extremist activities or participation in illegal public events." The purpose of the protest was to "ridicule the Kremlin's hypocrisy in the Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation and to raise the issue of Siberia's delayed development". He claimed that Western Siberia provides most of Russia's oil and gas, but the region gets very little benefit since the taxes go to Moscow.

We are not talking about any secession of Sibiria from the Russian Federation. Also the latest about Sibiria is NOT a movement - it was the idea of one intelectual called Artyom Loskutov. --Koreanovsky (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

This isn't a compliment but you misspelled Siberia. In the other hand, there is a such thing as Siberian regionalism in the modern time. Here’s what I’m about to say. There is more activity of Siberian regionalism after August 2014, but it is so obscure and it is only available in the Russian or Ukrainian language that some couldn't find evidence Siberian movement post-2014.

Please see this: https://www.depo.ua/rus/svit/koli-rozvalitsya-rosiya-koli-zamayoryat-nad-kazannyu-zhovto-sini-27082016200000

Unfortunately, it is only available in Russian.

There are dozen evidences of Siberian separatism after August 2014, however. They are obscure. Only few may have find it. But it is also possible to find it on Region Expert, After Empire and etc.

One of which is from June 2019.

https://sprotyv.info/news/chto-stoit-za-lesnymi-pozharami-v-rf-ili-kak-kreml-sibirskuju-narodnuju-respubliku-sozdal

Again, just like the last one. It is only available in Russian. ExplodingPoPUps 21:46, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

In this moment. It is best to negotiate and resolve a dispute over Siberian separatism, and it’s reliability and activity. ExplodingPoPUps 21:47, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Speaking about original research or reliable source. I don't think Wikipedia mentions or classifies 'region.expert' as an original research nor unreliable source. ExplodingPoPUps 21:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

As for the main page of this article. Siberia shall not be added until further notice. So we may begin talking about sources of Siberian regionalism post August 2014. And the allegations of region.expert as a non-reliable source. Number 1, is there any evidence that region.expert is an unreliable source or seen as an original research? The definition of Original research is that: it is considered a primary source. it is the report of a study written by the researchers who actually did the study. the researchers describe their hypothesis or research question and the purpose of the study. ... the results of the research are reported. The definition of the reliable source is that a reliable source is one that provides a thorough, well-reasoned theory, argument, discussion, etc. based on strong evidence. So which means that some article from Region Expert, and other related websites do sometimes have a strong evidence. By definition, both of us are partially correct. But however, currently in this moment. There is a dispute over Siberian regionalism and it's activity. ProjectHorisons tried everything to add things that are reliable in both Russia articles in both the List of active separatist movements in Europe, and in Asia. I have few things to say. I am unsure if you are in a denial over Siberian regionalism after August 2014. On the other hand. Why is Region Expert nonsense? Is it because it is Russian? Please let me know. ExplodingPoPUps 22:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I am only going to leave this for you: WP:SOURCE, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:VERIFY. --Koreanovsky (talk) 21:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

China and imagery.

While back I've requested many separatists to be added. But today, the subject is different. Are you aware for the fact. That some of separatist movements, many of them are fringe movement of China. I mean the flags itself. Are deleted? Like Fujian separatism and it's Hokkienam flag is deleted. ExplodingPoPUps 03:39, 23 January 2020 (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:

• Xiangese republic .png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yuyencian and Basurian regionalism unsourced?

"Basurian Independence Movement" and "Yuyencian Independence Movement" are both movements. It’s origins does not always originate from NationStates nor Twitter. There are actual members and loyalists to both separatist movements. Basuria has it's advocacy group named 'Free Basuria', the sources exists, but because it is in Wordpress. This wouldn’t count as a source, but this couldn’t change the exact fact that’s rather a sourced movement. Both independence movements exists but the information is rather rare, or obscure or only available in Chinese languages. It even has it’s 'Basurian Cultural Revitalization Institute'. Incase if you didn’t knew. 'Basurian' independence movements only exerts for Sichuan to be independent and cultural revitalization of the Bashu culture. Now unlike "Yuyencia" as far as I know, is less populous than the Sichuanese independence movement. Some of the ideologies of it’s members of the "Yuyencia" independence movement also consists of Christian extremism, Neo-crusade related movements and etc. It even has a ‘Yuyencian National Foundation'. My perspective views that any of the movements that do exist, sourced, especially when meeting the reliability; meaning that any movement that shows it’s existence, and confirmed. Is an actual movement. ExplodingPoPUps 20:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Mandarin wikipedia only points to historical secession movements in the Bashu region. Yuyencia does not seem to be supported by Mandarin Wikiepdia at all. The region that Yuyencia refers to - Hebei - has little homogeneity culturally or linguistically. In fact, the name Yuyencia seems to have been created entirely by the organization that supports it. I do concede that the Bashu region possesses more linguistic and cultural commonalities that Yuyencia, if I were to say which entry seems more credible. However, in my opinion, both of these pages lack substantial evidence of support and are too fringe for even the "fringe movements" section. If we were to include these two then we might as well include every entry on the talk page, and this lists like this would be flooded with thousands of elements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictxcao (talk • contribs) 14:01, 2020 April 21 (UTC)

The concept of Yuyencia is indeed unsupported by Mandarin Chinese Wikipedia and was never mentioned on my summary. I used to talk to Jargo Nautilus over Yuyencia dispute. And he claims that some of the movement is a conspiracy movement. However, Yuyencia’s independence only want the revival of the Yan kingdom under greater size and the Republican government as 'Yuyencia'. I myself isn’t a chinese speaker. So therefore I could be wrong over it. 'Basuria' independence movement de-facto, unmentioned is the claimed continuation of the historical movement is Sichuan. This may contradicts that Basurian independence movement has more historical and possibly modern support than Yuyencia. ExplodingPoPUps 21:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

As a Mandarin speaker myself who knows the region well, I can confirm that the Yuyencia is not a movement for the revival of the Yan state of ancient times. The religious extremist and anti-communist elements seem to prevail over republican and historical bases. Even the name "Yuyen" itself closely approximates fantasy names that are popular on the Chinese internet. As I said, the Yan region has no homogeneity whatsoever and any historical ties that might've existed are not found anymore. I object to the inclusion of the Bashu movement on the basis of the lack of credible citations on the page, but reject the inclusion of "Yuyencia" on the basis that my knowledge of the region simply contradict its existence. I am of the opinion that if we include too many elements that do not match the level of credibility of the other entries in the section (i.e. Guangdong, etc.) we take away from the general credibility of the section as a whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erictxcao (talk • contribs) 14:31, 2020 April 21 (UTC)

Right, but I would’ve set Sichuan independence movement as the legitimate. But we can’t simply readd everything, especially the potentially unsourced or sourced without a historical, cultural and regions, background and reasoning for independence. As said, verification and reliability is important before adding a legitimate movement. What I'm attempting to mean is, whenever or not Basuria's independence movement is rather accurate and semi-general. ExplodingPoPUps 05:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

conflict about this map by Redride' s OG (78.190.158.108)

Map showing Kurdish majority areas within Turkey

https://whois.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip=78.190.158.108

address Turk Telekomunikasyon A.S Turgut Ozal Blv. Aydinlikevler 06103 ANKARA TURKEY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Redride%27_s_OG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/78.190.158.108

Turkish government does not make ethnic maps or anything related. The maps that overrepresent but you claim them to be true can be seen overrepresenting other minorities too. If Central Anatolia and Istanbul had 25 million Kurds Turkey would be vast majority Kurds. There are also great population of Kurds in Southeastern Anatolia and Eastern Anatolia. There are also a many Kurds in İzmir.

Vitaly ky1 (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Turkey_total_fertility_rate_by_province_2014.png

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurds_of_Central_Anatolia.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdish_languages_map.svg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Zaza_Map.gif

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kurdistan_of_Turkey_(CIA).png

• 
  Kurds of Central Anatolia
• 
  Kurdish languages map
• Zazas in Anatolia
  Zazas in Anatolia
• 
  Turkish Kurdistan

https://www.institutkurde.org/en/info/the-kurdish-population-1232551004

Also in Turkey the Kurdish settlement area comprises the 23 vilayets (departments) of eastern and south-eastern Anatolia and the Kurdish districts of Sivas and Marash covering an area of about 230,000 square kilometers. The territory, which the Kurds call Northern Kurdistan (Kurdistana Bakur), has 14.2 million inhabitants in 2016. According to several surveys, 86% of them are Kurds, the remainder being Arab minorities (Urfa , Mardin, Siirt) and Turkish (mainly military, police and civil servants), as well as Syriacs and Armenians. So in 2016 there are about 12.2 million Kurds still living in Kurdistan in Turkey.

We know that there are also strong Kurdish communities in the big Turkish metropolises like Istanbul, Izmir, Ankara, Adana and Mersin. The numerical importance of this "diaspora" is estimated according to sources at 7 to 10 million, of which more than 3 million in Istanbul, which is the largest Kurdish city in the world and where in the June 2015 elections the pro-Kurdish HDP party won 11 seats of deputies. Assuming an average estimate of 8 million Kurds in the Turkish part of Turkey, thus arrives at the figure of 20 million Kurds in Turkey, about 25% of the total population of this country.

It should be noted that in 2014, the European Commission assessed the Kurdish population of Turkey in a range of 14 to 18 million. Some Turkish demographers predict that if the current high Kurdish birth rate should continue, the Kurds could by 2050 constitute the majority of the population of Turkey? Hence the policies of forced displacement towards the west of the country in order to assimilate (turquize) the largest possible number of Kurds in order to avert this "peril".

Vitaly ky1 (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

also:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds_in_Turkey

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds_in_Istanbul

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurds

13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

The total population of Eastern Anatolia and Southeastern Anatolia is about 14 million where most Kurds live already. Those maps are inconsistent each other. 13:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Turkey and Russia are made a lot of ethnic propaganda maps which are not based on any information since these countries are even worse than some random people in twitter, instagram and pinterest in terms of counter-propaganda. If to see elections, nationalist parties won in many of the areas that are shown Kurds. Their fertility rates might be high, and they might become majority in the whole country by 2050 but for the present they are not majority in the areas shown on the map.

13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)78.190.158.108 (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Where is the Northern Kurdistan you mean? Most people doing the false thing does not make it right. 78.190.158.108 (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC) Even Google once made a Kurdish Imperialist map into maps.

Zazas should be counted as Kurds in the map. Most Kurdistan proposals include Zazas, while "Zaza nationalism" doesn't actually call for a separate Zaza state. --Calthinus (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Zazas are related to Kurds indeed, but it won’t correlate that Zazas are part of the Kurds. As far as I know, they are a separate ethnic group. Explode! ^Pop! 20:04, 7 May 2020 (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:

• Kurdish majority Turkey-es.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of most of the Chinese fringe movements

What happened? Why were they removed?Retzyn (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

One Taiwanese anonymous user claimed that all of those movements removed were unsourced. Which I also partly disagree. ExplodingPoPUps 02:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn't anyone bring back these fringe movements? They have resources and anyone can help solve this problem. Same goes for Pakistan, Syria, Brazil, and many countries that I cannot remember. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.40.54.229 (talk) 23:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Basurian Independence Movement

Not that I should even need to explain the removal of unreferenced information, but I have once again reverted the addition of this. If it is to be added to the article then references demonstrating its existence must be provided, see WP:BURDEN. FDW777 (talk) 20:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Removed. Again. As previously pointed out on the user's talk page, a wordpress blog with a domain name is not an acceptable reference. FDW777 (talk) 10:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Yunnan or no?

The reason why I added Yunnan is due to the fact that the map and a lot still mentions it. I believe there used to be a page mentioning about Diantnam separatism in a Chinese Wikipedia, either I haven’t visited in such a long time or the article itself was deleted. I still believe that these movements kind of exist, but they are obscure and unpopular. Explode! ^Pop! 08:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

If there is evidence of an active separatist movement, I have no objection to it being added. This, and the other continent articles, are filled with entries where a particular people/ethnic group/whatever are listed, without any evidence of an active separatist movement. I believe, in the absence of evidence there is indeed an active separatist movement, these entries should be removed. This was broadly agreed with at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#List of active separatist movements. FDW777 (talk) 09:52, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Right, I don’t need to readd Yunnan anyways, at first. I thought that it was removed for no reason, but I see it now. Explode! ^Pop! 22:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tanah Toraja?

I read the article in Indonesian as I am Indonesian and correct me if I'm wrong I don't see anything advocating independence, the article is about the local Toraja people celebrating Indonesian independence and Bonggakaradeng is just the name of the sub district so I think it should be removed Technetium 567 (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Opposition to the exclusion of Manchurian & Cantonese nationalism

I do agree that both nationalisms do need a better source, but Manchuria is a bit more relevant than the so called "Cantonia", I see across the internet that people mention "Manchuria" more than "Cantonia", we all admit that both movements are active and needs better sourcing. But I’m not trying to defend the poorly sourced parts...

Cantonese nationalism even has it's own a article on Wikipedia and it should be included, but new sources are needed. Removal isn’t necessary.

Manchurian nationalism obviously has it’s own article, and it is a bit more relavant. The problem is that not a lot of people update or edited articles relating to Manchurian nationalism/separatism.

And yes, I may be wrong about updates. But this is due to my long-term absence from the Wikipedia website. If you have anything to say about this, please reply. Explode! ^Pop! 03:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%A7%E4%B8%AD%E8%8F%AF%E5%9C%B0%E5%8D%80%E7%9A%84%E5%88%86%E9%9B%A2%E4%B8%BB%E7%BE%A9%E9%81%8B%E5%8B%95

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_active_separatist_movements_in_Asia/Archive_1#Zhuang_and_Hui_autonomist_movements

i am agree with you.

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:

• Ethnolinguistic map of Turkey.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:48, 16 March 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:

• Growth of Russia 1547-1725 true borders.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Iran

@Mako001: @Gökhan eloglu: The user Alsocome has been making POV pushes regarding Iran and removing everything He/She does not like. I pinged everyone who recently participated in editing Iran section OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:38, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

saudi user

Further information: Qatif conflict

See also: Languages of Saudi Arabia, Demographics of Saudi Arabia, Unification of Saudi Arabia, and Southern Movement

There have been several plans to divide Saudi Arabia into four or five countries in recent years, and this is the direction of Saudi Arabia's war with Yemen.

Summary

Number	Land	Capital	Area	Population	Ethnic	Main Political Party
1	Najran	Najran	149,511	550,000	Shia Arab	Ahrar al-Najran
2	Asir	Abha	76,693	2,250,000	Arabs	Asser Regional Movement (ARM)
3	Jabal Shammar	Ha'il	103,887	600,000	Arabs	Shammar Revival Movement
4	Al-Hassa	Dammam	672,522	5,000,000	Shia Arab

The Arabian Peninsula in 1914

Jabal Shammar

Asir

Najran

Map of Saudi Arabia with the Eastern Province highlighted

In 2013 Robin Wright’s colorful map of a politically re-divided Middle East in the New York Times, which illustrated her article “Imagining a Remapped Middle East.” The map, entitled “How 5 Could Become 14,” shows a hypothetical future division of Libya, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia into 14 potential new countries along with two additional city-states. I was immediately reminded of Ralph Peters’ troublesome remapping of the same region. As explained in a previous GeoCurrents post, Peters’ intriguing mental exercise in redrawing national boundaries was widely misinterpreted across the Muslim world as indicating a nefarious plot to enhance US power. As a result, the region’s pronounced anti-Americanism was further inflamed.

Furthermore, in June 2012 the Yemeni newspaper Al-Shareh revealed the names of high-ranking Yemeni state officials and tribal sheikhs who had been receiving monthly bribes from Saudi Arabia. This sparked anger among Yemenis, and a group of Yemeni activists founded the "Asir Movement" in order to reclaim the provinces of Asir, Najran, and Jizan, which Yemen conceded in the 2000 Treaty of Jeddah. A "rights organization which has worked to denounce Saudi Arabia’s abuses in northern Yemen", the Asir Movement described itself as a “civil popular” movement that seeks to raise "internal Yemeni awareness" about the situation and to explore legal remedies against Saudi Arabia "for their involvement and assistance in abdicating Yemen’s historical right to its territories", all while emphasizing Yemeni unity. The movement sought to speak out against the 2000 Jeddah border agreement as well as the 1934 Taif Agreement that was signed in 1934 to end the Saudi–Yemeni War.

The Qatif conflict refers to the modern phase of sectarian tensions and violence in Eastern Arabia between Arab Shi'a Muslims and Arab Sunni majority, which has ruled Saudi Arabia since early 20th century. The conflict encompasses civil unrest which has been sporadically ongoing since 1979 events, pro-democracy and pro-human rights protests and occasional armed incidents, which increased in 2017 as part of the 2017–19 Qatif unrest.

Najran (Ahrar al-Najran movement is an alleged secessionist group in southern Saudi Arabia)

• Ethnic group: Shia Arab
  • Proposed state: Najran
    • Militant organizations: Ismaili Defense Group, Ahrar al-Najran, Najran Valleys Liberation Organization
    • Organization: Najran Ismaili Association
    • Political party: Disobedience (Tamarrod), Najran Now

Asir

• Ethnic group: Arab
  • Proposed state: Asir
    • Advocacy groups: Abha Asir Highland Organization, Asser Regional Movement (ARM)
    • Movement: Asir Movement, Idrisi Movement
    • Militant organization: Democratic Popular Front for the Liberation of the Peninsula
    • Organization: European Asir Organization

Jabal Shammar (Ha'il Region)

• Ethnic group: Arab
  • Proposed state: Jabal Shammar
    • Advocacy groups: Dhi Qar Shammar Tribal Union, Jabal Shammar Exile Association, Shamariyeh
    • Militant organization: Al-Sanadid Forces
    • Movements: Asir Movement, Idrisi Movement, Shammar Revival Movement, Qajtanite Movement
    • Organization: Haiyel Shammar People's Organization
    • Political party: Shammar Nation

Al-Hassa (Eastern Province, Saudi Arabia) (Qatif conflict) including a series of protests and repression during the 2011–12 Saudi Arabian protests and 2017–2020 Qatif unrest.

• Ethnic group: Shia Arab
  • Proposed state: Al-Hassa

hi, see talk page of article and talk page of user. i am explaind for him but this user Insists on adding nonsense content to the article. Look at his edits. He is not neutral. Biasedly removes content and adds content. It seems to have taken money from Saudi Arabia.

He removes all content related to Saudi Arabia and writes articles against the countries with which he is involved (Iran and Yemen). I explained to him that the movements he had added were inactive and that the resources were from the personal sites of several multi-member groups. But he insists on sabotaging himself. He has repeatedly deleted Saudi content. See its edit history. I looked carefully and realized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alsocome (talk • contribs) 12:48, 26 February 2022 (UTC) @Alsocome: Please Stop making attacks against me OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

References

Saudi Arabia

@Mako001: Regarding the removal of Saudi Arabia, I was not the first or the last one to remove it. It was removed by @Thepharoah17: last time and I totally agree with Thepharoah17. The part of Saudi Arabia should be removed for several reasons:

First: Some of the sources used here are black listed in Wikipedia like Press TV due to its bias. like here please check WP:PRESSTV

Second: Other sources are actually dont talk about separatism at all and do not mention any separatist movement specifically it makes predictions on the future of Saudi Arabia based on the personal opinions, views, and beliefs of the writers of these journalist articles for example Robin Wright’s hypothetical map for the middle east in NYT or Yenisafak article that claims that Israel and US have mobilised a plan to divide Saudi Arabia.

Third: None of these supposed separatist groups mentioned here actually exists except for Al-Sanadid Forces which is actually a Syrian tribal militia based in Syria and thus they can't be considered as separatists because they are not Saudis. OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Alsocome: Can you please respond to these points that OKMG1200 has raised, and do so at an equal or higher level of the hierarchy of disagreement. So far, Alsocome, you have remained in the lower four levels, (and dissappointingly, mostly within the lower three).

To make my thoughts clear, I am still not entirely convinced that neither of you aren't POV-pushing to some extent. However, OKMG1200 is actually backing it up. Rather than just saying that "your edits are against policy/the law" OKMG is actually making reasonably solid arguments, which require an equally solid, or more solid refutation, backed up by specific policy and reliable sources. So far, I am yet to see that from you, Alsocome.

For now, all of the content involved in this dispute should be left out, since that is what is done when there is a dispute over factual accuracy. I don't really know which side to take here, and I am just making observations of the arguments presented. I will be keeping an eye on things though. Mako001 (C)  (T)  01:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Mako001:. Rest assured I will not change the disputed content and I will be always cool during this discussion. I am waiting for @Thepharoah17: because Thepharoah17 was the one who removed Saudi Arabia section last time which again I totally support. It should be noted that I also removed Israel section and the Siberian Federal District sub-section which I explained the reasons behind the removal before briefly and they were restored by Alsocome. However I think we should discuss them separately. OKMG-1200 (talk) 10:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Hi, it has been almost two weeks and we still didn't get any response from Alsocome. OKMG-1200 (talk) 14:43, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I suppose that we now reset the bold, revert, discuss cycle. I find their lack of response here to be somewhat problematic, as it isn't really assisting with resolving the situation. @OKMG-1200, if you haven't already, I'd suggest you read WP:DISCFAIL as the advice in there is likely to prove very useful here. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 08:15, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: Thank you. I have read both of them. I am not sure if contacting an administrator will help because both @Thepharoah17: and @Alsocome: seem to be inactive with the last activity being on 6 December 2021 and 26 February 2022 respectively. For the record, I going to remove Saudi Arabia section and also Israel section after starting a discussion about it. OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I have looked at the "Jabal Shammar (Ha'il Region)" addition. The reference provided says Shammar twice in this passage

• Al-Shimali is a member of the Saudi branch of the al-Jarba branch of the Shammar nation of tribes that resides between northern al-Jazira and just north of Riyadh. He claims he was born in southwestern Iraq during the wandering of his tribe. However, he is Saudi and thus qualifies as a Caliph. (The al-Jarba branch of the Shammar is also extremely important in the Syrian Sunni Arab power structure and key opposition leader – Ahmad alJarba – hails from the Syrian branch.)

I cannot see where it references any of the claimed content, and I note that is the single reference for the entire "Jabal Shammar (Ha'il Region)" addition. If this standard of bad referencing is repeated throughout, I absolutely object to the inclusion as a clear policy violation. FDW777 (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, @FDW777: So you agree with me that this section should be removed? and what about you, @Mako001:? OKMG-1200 (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in taking any sort of side here, as I consider my role in this as more of a referee/mediator/advisor or something like that. However, it isn't outside my role to make observations on the arguments presented, and I observe that there isn't really any decent opposing arguments coming from the other side of this, and for about a month, there have been none at all. If this was an official debate, I'd have no choice but to hand you the win, so to speak. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 13:11, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Mako001:. I really appreciate your help and I respect your neutrality. However, this discussion is not about winning or losing, it is about making Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Thank you again. OKMG-1200 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I get that it isn't about winning or losing, hence why I said "so to speak", I didn't intend to imply that you were trying to "win". My apologies that it was able to be interpreted that way.

I would suggest that you are free to go ahead and make the changes, as no-one has disagreed here at an equal or greater level of the hierarchy of disagreement. Should anyone revert you, they will need to come to this page, and make the case for the restoration of this material, as the current consensus, as I see it, is to remove it. Should they persist in reinserting it against the consensus here, and don't engage in discussion, then it could be considered disruptive. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 12:50, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again OKMG-1200 (talk) 13:01, 22 March 2022 (UTC)