Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconVital articles: Level 5 / Society Start‑class
WikiProject iconSecession has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do.
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.


The UNPO is probably not a reliable source. So, don't overemphasis on it. According to page " UNPO Membership" : [1], every group that pays the application fee, possessing the will to be identified as a Nation or People , will be a member of this group . That is not a reliable organization or source .It seems to represent extreme minority positions and also appears to be a questionable source. It does not appear to be received as credible or widely acknowledged as a credible organization.--Larno Man (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My concern really just to show that such alliances exist. Actually it did occur to me later that there are a number of alliances of such groups and maybe a short section mentioning that fact and the most prominent groups would be best thing to do. Remember under the right conditions even a small group of 20 people can inspire and mobilize a whole people to secede, so as long as a group remains functioning it should be acknowledged somewhere -if only in one of the list of groups articles, not necessarily here which probably is getting too long. Carol Moore 13:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
This is a minor entry and no reasons to delete it, especially since a couple different editors (3?) have put it in, including me. Secession groups are by nature small to start and without much credibility. The organization exists and is a place where real secessionist/separatist groups network. I'm going to beef up its article with a few more references. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have a feeling there's something more going on with constant deletion of one sentence about UNPO with two reliable sources. The best thing to do is get a third opinion. As a start of WP:dispute resolution. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can someone add something about Tamil secessionist movement in Sri Lanka? I don't know enough about to write the section by myself. M.Campos (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do a little research on the wikipedia or the net and put it in there. That's what we all do, even when we are experts in a field :-) Carol Moore 01:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

HI! I belong to the SoCal Republic for a new Southern California State! But the ultimate goal is Southern California Republic! I Understand there is a place (see Google search) for Secession movements. Maybe Vermont will be the first US State to "revolt" and get out of the New American Nation we now have?! I Know that there is also great secessionist feelings in Catalonia (Spain they hate being called Spanish there by the way!) To Secession whereever it may be! Andre'Andreisme (talk) 23:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, You are a member of an activist movement calling for secession of all or Southern California from the state or federal governments. Good luck to you then, because the U.S. government and state capital will block all secession efforts. There are some county and city secession proposals in Southern California I knew of, so the new proposed nation will have to create regional states, provincial counties, districts to act like smaller units and city boroughs like Los Angeles becomes Hollywood, San Fernando Valley, San Pedro, South-Watts or Westside. Mike D 26 (talk) 15:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I propose that the (very long) list of secession movements be removed. We already have links for the lists of historical and active autonomist and secessionist movements, so why list all those countries here? This article should concentrate on arguments for and against secession and the history of the idea. Furthermore, the see also section is entirely too long. Many of those concepts or examples should be discussed in the article and the repetition removed. As it stands currently, this article is mostly made up of lists. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why not create an article called secessionist movements? Then just talk about the secessionist movements that are commonly used by WP:RS as examples of various types. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you mean instead of the list articles or in addition to them? ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmmmm. The list should remain populated by links as it is. But the information in the list of groups also is of interest, though it's less a complete list than whatever people personally were interested in adding. Maybe if we a) make sure every movement on this page is in either the historical or active and then b) decide what categories of secession movements we might create to illustrate the article. For examples:
  • Successful past secession movements
  • Unsuccessful past secession movements
  • Current movements pushing for full secession
  • Current movements using secession as a pressure strategy
Or whatever. Then those who just want to add their favorite one will have to think hard about whether to bother to add it in future. Just a thought. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misuse of term[edit]

The terms "secession" and "secede" are being misused by this article. They correctly refer to withdrawal from a federation, not to independence from a unitary state such as France nor a unitary (albeit devolved) state such as the United Kingdom. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC).Reply[reply]

And your source for that assertion is? I didn't notice other sources making that distinction.
However, it is true that all info should be ref'd and such refs should have someone calling the action secession, so that it is not WP:OR on part of editor. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think it is accurate to portray the Scottish independence movement as a "secessionist" one. What the Scots want is an end to the jointly agreed Act of Union of 1707 between England and Scotland. Scotland did not surrender its sovereignty to England nor England to Scotland, they agreed to pool it. Scotland is not therefore breaking away from the United Kingdom, because the United Kingdom in its original form (1707) would no longer exist after the termination of the Union.

What remains of the "United Kingdom" would be a new state, not (not) its successor entitled to the assets and representation in international forums and organizations. Freedom1968 (talk) 20:06, 8 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"National Secession"?[edit]

Couldn't a national government "secede" from the union of states by blatantly ignoring their limits in the federal constitution? Or is that another term? - FreedomWorks! (talk) 13:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's called corruption. --Khajidha (talk) 19:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or coup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or the vague but no less unsettling term used often in American politics, "extraconstitutional action." Such action is no less unconstitutional than a coup, and no less illegal than corruption, but it is often used to justify such things as (rumored though allegedly classified) emergency preparedness procedures which consolidate all government power to a single employee of the executive branch.Professor Storyteller (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THat's the opposite of secession - consolidation of power. -- Beland (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I would not call the dissolution of Czechoslovakia a secession, because both arising states agreed on it. — Petr Matas 09:37, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree. Indeed the same could be said of Scotland were it to vote for independence. Freedom1968 (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Secession often is threatened as a means to bring other parties to negotiation on independence. So it really depends on if there are RS mentioning that factoid on the topic. Obviously this whole article doesn't have sufficient RS. I haven't really worked on it much since I became more hip to policy. So many articles, too little time. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I removed the entire unsourced sentence. — Petr Matas 06:30, 20 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ukraine section is total POV[edit]

Psychonaut, the section is written as a blog with one-sided of point of view. There are major faulty statements

  • "toppled" Yanukovych; Yanukovych was not toppled, he ran away. Party of Regions issued a statement accusing him in that.
  • numerous regions, traditionally sympathetic; which exactly regions, what is numerous? what is "traditionally sympathetic"? This totally stereotypical statements that are completely groundless.
  • When did the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol "removed" existing ministry? Did it imply ministers? What exactly is the purpose of the statement and where are supporting references? Were the ministry really "removed" or simply renamed?
  • Due to presence of Russian forces in Crimea, Ukrainian forces have not made a military effort to annex.... There is no evidence of intention to "annex" back. There are intentions to reinstate state integrity. That fact is supported by the UN Security Council.
  • Confrontation between government forces and militants did not end up in government forces failing, but rather due to the invasion of the Russian Armed Forces (unmarked units).
  • Other areas in the Eastern part of the countries have also floated the idea of secession. What kind of statement is that? What regions, what ideas??? It is completely off the wall.

Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the time it took you to write this detailed criticism, you could have fixed all those individual problems yourself. I wonder why you didn't do so in the first place instead of blanking most of the section. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I do not agree with blanking, I don't think there is anything wrong with an editor who chooses to explain his or her concerns on the talk page, especially when potentially controversial issues are involved. ETA: It would have been nice, however, had Aleksandr not personalized his issues in his first sentence, and had remembered WP:AGF. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, don't get me wrong—it's great that, after some prodding, he's described the real problems with the section. I agree with the criticisms and have actually gone ahead and removed all these contentious claims (or attributed them with sources). My concerns are actually that the initial removal was part of a long-term pattern of him indiscriminately removing content about political organizations whose legitimacy he questions. Over the last few days he's tried several times to blank, delete, or speedy-delete content on secessionist groups, and given completely bogus reasons for doing so. (And some months ago he was up to shenanigans like categorizing political opponents as terrorists, fugitives, and murderers in violation of WP:BLP.) If this behaviour continues I will suggest a topic ban. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Psychonaut and Skeezix1000, the reason for blacking was the fact that the section was written as a blog and did not even supported by references as if it was created off the wall. Issues like that qualify for immediate elimination. AGF is fine if it is in fact AGF, however, the section was written in complete ignorance of all mentioned facts in wikipedia. And, as I mentioned does not have not a single reference even to follow. When you check related articles on Yanukovych, Party of Regions, Euromaidan, there are completely other interpretation of the section. 16:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Psychonaut, your last statement sounds like a personal issue (or grudge) with rather than a constructive solution. Now, I request from to support your claims of "my bogus reason" or take your words back. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Psychonaut, good job on rewriting the section. It does look fine. There are some issues that still exist. The section claims that the Donetsk Oblast does not exists by calling it "former". How true is that fact? Is that one of my previously mentioned bogus reasons? Since when Donetsk Oblast became former??? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, secession of Crimea is not officially recognized except of Russia and its two or three satellites. Autonomous Republic of Crimea continues to exist as a free economic zone due to difficulty of providing full control over it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If Yanuk would not run away, he would share the fate of Gadaffi, he was likewise betrayed by West, West also funded far-right extremists, who raided police for weapons. Yanuk also traveled through several cities until final decision to move through Crimea. He also authorized Russia to deploy troops in order to restore constitutional order (see Yanukovich letter). What Rada published afterwards is irrelevant, because Rada itself is unconsitutional: it ceased his privileges using "ran off" as argument, however no such option exists in he constitution; it also dismissed constitutional court, which it has no right to. The rest of your talk are subjective fantasies. Travel to Crimea and DPR/LPR or at least talk to its citizens in video chat. (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin origin[edit]

In my research, I found a source (ISBN:9780754677024)[1] that state the origin of the secession term is the Latin words se (apart) and cedere (to go). I hope there are those who know Latin who could help explain the difference (if there is) to the term secessio used in the article. Darwin Naz (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Belgium and The Netherlands[edit]

is the link to the Partition of Belgium relevant? I believe it is a different case from the session of Belgium and the NeTherlands. The hypothetical split of Belgium is not the same as the Belgian Revolution of 1830.

Is this split even part of "secession", and does it deserve a separate mention, or should it be deleted? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The American Revolution was a Secession[edit]

Not only that, it was perhaps the 'most significant secession in modern times. This is was a secession according to philosophers and historians,[1] and also according to the Wiki list of secessions. Not to mention, the article's own list of types of secession has "Colonial wars of independence from an imperial state" as type #2. The only 'argument' against mentioning the American Revolution as a secession is ... some USAmericans are offended with this usage. Lame! PhilLiberty (talk) 23:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then make sure the article about the American Revolution describes it that way, as only then should we add this here. And you need academic sources, the RealClear stable isn't a good source for much. And of course your lack of good faith doesn't impress (and what are "USAmericans"?). Doug Weller talk 08:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there are several thousand scholars who have studied, taught and published on the American Revolution in recent decades. Is ther a single one who calls it a secession? I think not. In this case the Stanford def it assumes that the "orignal state" (Great Britain = British Empire)--and thus was a very strange "original" entity that changed size and shape every decade for centuries. The Stanford Encyclopedia names countries in terms of secession but does NOT include 1776--no one does. Rjensen (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You couldn't say that the U.S. seceded from the U.K., since the one was never a part of the other. You could say, by the dictionary definition, that the U.S. seceded from the British Empire or British North America, but I guess that's not a country, per se, which may explain why people don't talk about it that way. It's nice to have comprehensive lists of all events that involve national breakups; the American Revolution is listed on and Decolonization and Unilateral declaration of independence and those are linked from this article. That seems reasonable to me, though I suppose these could all be collected into a mega list if that would be helpful for readers? -- Beland (talk) 07:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That Stanford Encyclopedia definition supports calling the American Revolution a secession. The SEP gives examples, not a complete list, so the omission of mentioning the American Secession means nothing, Rjensen. Beland, the American colonies were part of the British Empire. India also seceeded from the British Empire. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rjensen, there are many historians who refer to the American Revolution as secession. Here is a quote and article discussing the distinction.

Nowhere is the under-theorized character of secession and the confusion that results from failure to distinguish it from revolution more evident than in the habit of describing the conflict with Britain and the North American colonies as the “American Revolution.” It is true that there were whiggish themes from the ideology of 1688 about restoring the rights of Englishmen, and there were Lockean themes about self-government. But the act of the British colonists in America was an act of secession. It was neither whiggish, nor Lockean, nor Jacobin revolution. The colonists did not seek to overthrow the British government. Commons, Lords, and Crown were to remain exactly as before. Indeed, many of the colonial leaders, such as Adams and Hamilton, admired the British constitution and government, and sought to imitate its best features. They wished simply to limit its jurisdiction over the territory they occupied. They wished to be let alone. [2]

PhilLiberty (talk) 18:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

better find a more reliable source in a refereed scholarly journal-- since 2010 the article given has been cited SIX times according to google scholar. One deals with the US Civil War, four deal with current European movements and #6 actually does take it seriously regarding the Am Revolution--it is by an undergraduate in Louisville. Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Donald W. Livingston is a fringe neo-Confederate activist. Rjensen (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The American Revolution article now begins: "The American Revolution was a colonial revolt for secession from the British Empire which occurred between 1765 and 1783. ..." PhilLiberty (talk) 18:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No it doesn't. Changing the lead of that article in such a major way in order to use your change here might be considered disruptive/tendentious editing. Doug Weller talk 19:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:PhilLiberty has been blocked as a sockpuppet; this dispute seems to be resolved. -- Beland (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ "In what might be called secession in the classic sense, a group in a portion of the territory of a state attempt to create a new state there; secessionists attempt to exit, leaving behind the original state in reduced form." - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
  2. ^

Russia, Chechnya[edit]

Chechnya fought and lost the war.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Secession and the principle of nationality[edit]

Explain secession and the principle of nationality ? (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]