Talk:Novorossiya

I love the Ukrainian "i" :)

No talk page? I found a talkpage can safe a lot of frustration! Anyhow should the Ukrainian name of Novorossiya (Ukrainian: Новоросія) not be mentioned in the article? After all it is a part of Ukraine which we all love and cherish. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

No Zaporazhia it's writing Zaporizhia (UA) or Zaporozhie (RU) (Запорожье) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.119.226.75 (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Separatists and Novorossiya (section)

Please do not add useless statements of Donetsk and Lugansk separatists to this article. There is no informational value for that!!

MAP

Map has to be changed. It is inaccurate - must include Crimea and Krasnodar krai. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pav kov (talk • contribs) 21:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Odd map, and its plastered all over Wikipedia. The original image appears to be by DDima 19 May 2007, after which it's been modified by many hands, especially by Blast furnace chip worker on 7 May 2013 per the comment: "Bounds of the [sic] Novorossia was [sic] changed according to the sources" with no reference to what those sources were. The one consistency over the many hands is that the revisions shrink the footprint, significantly. For a subtle example, fix your stare on the border per the city of Dnepropetrovsk and how it changes over the versions. Note, too, the version of this map under the History of Crimea has the caption: "A map of what was called New Russia during the time of the Russian Empire. Only the parts of New Russia that are now in Ukraine are shown." So, parts of Novorossiya that were outside modern Ukraine are axed. Its a fictional version predicated on modern Ukrainian borders. But if that isn't enough, there's the date--1897. Even in Novorossiya's final configuration, it never existed past 1874, so where does 1897 come from? Granted there was an All-Russian Empire population census taken in 1897...and the relevance is? I don't have the mapping resources to do anything about this, but it goes to show how something like this can assume the guise of authenticity. Tachypaidia (talk) 17:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merger

This seems entirely reasonable and I support it Chrismorey (talk) 02:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing reasonable here. The governorate of Novorossiya existed until 1802 whereas the eponymous viceroyalty persisted until the early October Revolution. There's no reason on earth to conflate separate administrative units. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct, there is no reason to merge these articles. Tresnjevo (talk) 09:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Not merged. Different topics. NickSt (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Potential separatist flag

I've seen Pavel Gubarev post this flag in the past, but this newspaper from the rebels are using it now too. Looks like the Confederate battle flag but without the stars.[1] Looks like they made a political party? --Львівське (говорити) 19:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I am unsure about the "Present-day References" section. It looks somehow like propaganda and it does not present the Ukranian point of view. Weak boundary between insurgency and terrorism. --Robertiki (talk) 03:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this article is about the historical entity and have removed the section per WP:COATRACK. --Nug (talk) 06:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Lock Subject

I propose locking the subject in order to prevent propaganda edits. Looking at the history there was really almost no work done and then suddenly there is a burst of activity. Considering that propaganda is spreading all over it would be best to keep this section locked. Silver163 (talk) 01:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: clearly no consensus for this move. Number 57 20:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Novorossiya → New Russia – Russian Novorossiya is literally New-Russia. Google Ngram shows the English name has always been much more common. WP:Use English and WP:Common name apply. (This article is about the historical region, and not the 2014 Federal State of Novorossiya.)  —Michael Z. 2014-09-19 21:54 z 21:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment New Russia (disambiguation), but "new Russia" is also used to describe post Communist Russia... IIRC it was also used to describe Trans-Ural Russia. -- 70.51.46.146 (talk) 05:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, there is a significant frequency of “the new Russia.” Nevertheless, this historic region is referred to as “New Russia” far more often than as “Novorossiya” or “Novorossiia.” Can you cite any references at all of New Russia meaning the trans-Ural? —Michael Z. 2014-09-23 18:00 z

• Oppose Ngram is clueless: is just a phrase "new Russia" which is not Novorossiya, with the exception of very old times. No evidence for modern usage. -No.Altenmann >t 08:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  I looked in a number of modern history books. Most use New Russia and rarely mention Novorossiya, and if so then they gloss it with English “New Russia.” —Michael Z. 2014-09-23 18:00 z

  Ngram is specifically recommended by WP:RM/CM. —Michael Z. 2014-09-23 18:06 z

• Oppose Novorossiya is an historical term that has different connotations to New Russia, which denies its history. Applying literal translations is not a safe way to determine the meaning of contemporary terms. This article is about the historical Novorossiya, refer the first line of the summary:Novorossia (Russian: Новоро́ссия, Ukrainian: Новоросія, Romanian: Noua Rusie; literally New Russia) was a historical term of the Russian Empire in 1764-1873. While we are at it the name New Russia on the map shown needs to be changed to reflect the name of the area used in the article. Ex nihil ^(talk) 08:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

  I don’t understand your argument, but it seems to relate to politics or Russian-language usage. I don’t understand how using plain English “denies its history.” How does this relate to any of Wikipedia’s regulations (I have cited WP:Use English and WP:Common name)? —Michael Z. 2014-09-23 18:00 z

• Oppose. This article is about the historical entity, and there is already a link to New Russia (disambiguation) at the top of the article. --Nug (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  The historical entity is called “New Russia” in most English-language sources. —Michael Z. 2014-09-23 18:00 z

I searched all of the searchable sources listed in the first two sections of History of Russia#Further reading. About half of them mention “New Russia.” Only one mentions “Novorossiya,” but glosses it, as a foreign term, as “New Russia.” (A couple of them also refer to “the New Russia.”) It’s pretty clear that English-language history books call this entity “New Russia.” This ngram separates the usages a bit better. Also compare G Books results for "Russian Empire" AND "New Russia" (5,870 results) and "Russian Empire" AND "Novorossiya" OR "Novorossiia" (145 results). —Michael Z. 2014-09-23 18:00 z

• Strong Support – This region is historically called "New Russia" in English. First of all, let's seperate modern usage with regard to the separatist "Novorossiya" from the historical region. These are separate things. Mzajac has provided tons of book sources which show that this is the proper title, and always has been. I will provide some too.[2][3][4] We use English here. Foreign whims do not dictate English usage. I challenge anyone to find any scholarly sources referring to the historical New Russia as "Novorossiya" in English. You won't find any, because they don't exist. Just as we called "Malorossiya" as Little Russia, "Belorussia" as White Russia, we also called this New Russia. No one has a provided a counter to the wealth of sources provided that use "New Russia". No sources have been provided that use "Novorossiya" to restore to the historical region. RGloucester — ☎ 18:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: of course Google Ngrams is recommended. That doesn't mean that it's applicable to every situation, and Mzajac is correct in pointing out that "New Russia" could refer to any number of phrases, including "Novorossiya".[5] I'm also skeptical of your claim that Most [historians] use New Russia and rarely mention Novorossiya, and if so then they gloss it with English “New Russia.”. Alone, Novorossiia and Novorossiya get a bit under 16,000 hits. Many of these sources include both NR and N, but I believe this situation is much more nuanced that you're trying to claim. Best, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

POV fork

This page either 1) duplicated material from Novorossiysk Governorate, or 2) discuss the history of the geographic region covered by that governorate, without citing any sources. There's no sources provided that this is a widely recognized historical region. Volunteer Marek  20:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This article is about a concept, not an actual historical entity. An article about a historical entity with a similar name is located at Novorossiysk Governorate. In a sense, this article is an expansion of the article on a Governorate of the Russian Empire, which is completely irrelevant today. The corresponding region is definitely not referred to as "Novorossiya" by the either Ukrainian government or the people who currently live in that area. There was no region that officially carried the name "Novorossiya" in history, making the "historical area" merely a concept.--BoguSlav 06:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Strong support. The term doesn't determine a certain territory and was never used before 21th century. It was born in Putin's Russia and all references before 17 April 2014 go back to a recent "research". The detailed study of the problem is presented here: Source1, Source2 and Source3. Shishkin (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

False. It seems you didn't bother to read sources you cite.-M.Altenmann >t 17:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree that the article must be severely cleaned of unnecessary duplicated content and of unreferenced text, but the term did historically exist, and to say that Putinists invented it is nonsense. Please remember that English language has the word "was", in addition to "is". If you want to decrease Putinist (or anti-Putinist) influence, please use sources predating the conflict. Wikipedia has a good policy about source neutrality. -M.Altenmann >t 16:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I also noticed that various statistics and some other info are absent in the corresponding sup-articles, for example, ethnic composition of Kherson Governorate. This unnecessary detail must be moved into the corresponding articles. The article about "Novorossiya" must be a general overview of what happened in this historical area, with details going into the corresponding administrative/historical articles, according to wikipedia:Summary style. -M.Altenmann >t 17:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Shishkin: IF you have read the sources you mentioned, if you remove all political garbage from them , then you will notice that, e.g., your "Source1" actually writes what Novorossiya was. Unfortunately this source cannot be qualified as reliable for wikipedia purposes, but it demonstrates that even passionate opponents of pro-Russian separatists know that "Novorossiya" did exist as a concept. And therefore it must be covered in wikipedia. -M.Altenmann >t 17:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@BoguSlav re:"completely irrelevant today". Wikipedia is not restricted to "today". -M.Altenmann >t 17:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Altenamnn, I applaud your efforts to pull my statement out of context. The only flaw in your attempt, is that my statement is located right about yours and people can double check what I said at any time. A separate article about the Novorossiysk Governorate, referring to it by a name that never existed at the time is completely irrelevant. The term "Novorossiya" does not apply to this region based on historical arguments or current naming practices. To be notable on Wikipedia this article must be relevant either (1) historically or (2) currently.

1. In terms of history, there NEVER WAS a region called "Novorossiya" in the past. The closest we can get to this title is the "Novorossiysk Governorate" (which already has an article). Based on this, this article should be merged into the relevant article about the Governorate.
2. The article could otherwise potentially be notable if the region was known as "Novorossiya" today. However, this is also not true because, as I mentioned before, the people who live in the so-called region of "Novorossiya" don't call their region by this name. Similarly, the Ukrainian government does not call the region by the name either. Therefore, this name does not apply to the current region. Therefore, Novorossiya is NOT a historical region, but rather a conceptual region that covers the area of the Novorossiysk Governorate.--BoguSlav 00:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

re "out of context". Yes, I may be mistaken. There is no reason to applaud my stupidity. Please clarify what exactly is "irrelevant today", so that we may have a meaningful discussion. The sentence in question has several nouns and nominal groups; which one is described as "irrelevant today"? In your reply you used the phrase "irrelevant today" again, but the sentence has wrong grammar and I may fix in in several ways. I understand it was written in hurry. Kindly asking, please rephrase carefully.

re: " NEVER WAS". I am not sure this is so. Please see my reply to Shishkin. -M.Altenmann >t 05:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If you're not so sure, please provide several reliable references historical references that say this. This article is irrelevant because the region was not known as "Novorossiya" then, and neither is it considered Novorossiya today by the authorities of the land nor by the inhabitants who live there.--BoguSlav 19:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Altenmann, what would you say constitutes the scope of this article then? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

See my P.S. above. Clearly the current article is a mess of WP:SYNTH. The article from the Ukrainian national encyclopedia is a good starting point. In particular, it clearly says that 'Novorossiya' and Novorossiysk Governorate are not exactly synonyms. And this must be the main content: historical evolution of the concept (up to modern political games). -M.Altenmann >t 07:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

If look at the Russian wikipedia version of this article, the first sentence states that "Новоро́ссия (Новороссийский край, Но́вая Росси́я, Но́вая Русь) — синоним Новороссийской губернии." Translation: Novorossiya (Novorossiyskiy Kray, New Russia, New Rus) is a synonym of the Novorossiysk Governorate." Maybe we should start a conversation there from them to change their opening sentence. Otherwise, this article is a POV fork, as Volunteer Marek, and Shishkin have noted.--BoguSlav 19:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am beginning to think that you are listening only to yourself. In this talk thread I provided two sources which say that novoroissiya is not exactly governorate and both of them are not of moskalski origin. BTW, Russian wikipedia is not a valid source for english wikipedia. And how many times to repeat, I agree that the article content is inappropriate. And I already explained twice how I think this is to be handled in English wikipedia. -M.Altenmann >t 04:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

And I'm begging to think you are ignoring my statements. But to clarify, can you summarize how you think this article should be revised?--BoguSlav 05:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Well' I answered your questions about sources. And I am not going to write my suggestions for the third time. I will simply copy them here and stay away from this page for a week. let other people speak -M.Altenmann >t 06:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This article was created in May 2005. To claim that it is a "POV fork" of an article started 5 years later is lunacy. See also my comment above: "The governorate of Novorossiya existed until 1802 whereas the eponymous viceroyalty persisted until the early October Revolution. There's no reason on earth to conflate separate administrative units". It is no good going round in circles on sterile arguments. P.S. I'm going to revert revisionist edits from the last month. --Ghirla^-трёп- 15:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Your revert added a lot more POV than before. How are you going to say that you are removing POV and then re-add an offensive (to Ukrainians) propaganda image about "Territorial Expansion of Ukraine" that says that Ukraine is essentially a "gift" from Russian overlords? I suggest that you do some research in Ukrainian history. You may be surprised to learn that the Ukrainian State, for example, actually "gifted" some of its current territory to Russia and Belarus. How about I make a map that describes Russia to be a "gift from Mongol overlords"? This is not NPOV. Also, you go in and remove information that has been cited, but choose to keep a bunch of other POV info that is unsourced. --BoguSlav 19:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Please. Stop confusing Soviet Empire with Russians. Everybody knows it was ruled by Georgians and Jews (joke; if you didn't "get it"). Jokes aside, Stalin created huge headaches fot today by arbitrarily dividing territories and moving populations, and to describe them as "gifts" even with irony is meaningless. Stalin knew what he was doing when he moved chunks of Belarus to Lithuania, chunks of Belarus to Russia (btw Belarus barely avoided to be swallowed into Russia completely, only Polish-Soviet War made Russia leave minuscule piece of Belarus as a seed for grabbing from Poland. And Ukraine does not have Pridnestrovie now, because this land was used for getting Moldova. And.... and so on and on.). He only did not foresee that his empire will crumble. A similar arrogant map-carving of the Brits after WWI created today's headaches in Middle East. Same with cartography of Africa. -M.Altenmann >t 06:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok..... so how does this response have to do with anything that I said? There's a compliment to Stalin ("Stalin knew what he was doing"), a bit about disrespecting "miniscule" Belarus (which clearly should be a part of Russia), and then all the pro-Russian dribble. However, there is no substance responding to what I bring up. It appears that in your view, it's up to Russia to decide who gets what territory and the rest of the world shouldn't question it. How more Russo-centric can you get? --BoguSlav 20:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Repeating for those who remember only last phrase of the text:"Stop confusing Soviet Empire with Russians". And how my description of imperial policies of Stalin are the "pro-Russian dribble", beats me. Seeing an enemy in everyone does not help understanding what other people say. Yes, the captions of the map are stupid and offensive, but it is deleted (and it will be deleted from Commons as well). And picking fights on minor issues which can be resolved by simple editing (nobody reverted your deletion, right?) does not help finding consensus on the major issue. -M.Altenmann >t 03:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The content can be POV-forkish even when the date of creation predates the other article. Maybe going back to an older version would be better. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC) P.S. The governorate article appears to cover the timeline up to 1917.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I minimally fixed the chronology of the administrative perturbations within the territory. So that it is now clearly seen it is not single Novorossiysk Governorate. I am thoroughly surprised by overall laziness of the participants of the discussion to have the facts straight. THey are not somewhere in closed KGB archives. They are all over google books. Heck, nobody even bothered to check the name(s) of the capital(s). Shame on you all. (On a further grumbling note, today I revisited two other articles of my former interest and once again was unpleasantly surprized by the reign of chaos descending onto wikipedia). -M.Altenmann >t 07:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose as per Ghirlandajo, the article existed since almost a decade and can't be described as POV fork.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 10:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Agree / Eliminate the article. There was never historical region like Novorossiya. It is an Imperial point of view of Russian chauvinists. The concept arose with introduction of Russian gubernias in Ukraine after annexation of the Cossack Hetmanate and elimination of Zaporizhian Sich. It was never a Russian territory. The modern Russians as they prefer to be called come from Moscow, the territory of Meshchera swamps and that is where they should stay. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

The article should be at least merged as it is redundant or to be used as disambiguation page. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No one calls Lüshunkou District Port Arthur today. There is no separate article on the Ukrainian/Ruthenian city of Peremyshl as it used to be. There is no separate article on Ukrainian Kuban although such concept exists in Ukrainian community. The article was introduced in 2005 before the introduction of articles on Russian governorates in the Southern Ukraine. It was important then, but now it is obsolete and should be at least merged with the appropriate article. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

No, no one, so what? By the way I see nothing wrong in having Port Arthur article: it had clear historical bounds. We have both Constantinople and Istanbul. And Soviet Peremyshl simply was too short-living and nothing notable happened to have a separate article. Concluding, please let me remind you that in wikipedia WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was never an accepted argument. Each subject is judged by its own merits, namely is there information in reliable secondary sources which covers the subject sufficient to create a decent article. -M.Altenmann >t 03:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that for sure, because I am the one who created the article on the Novorossiysk Governorate after reading the nonsense at this article. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@Aleksandr Grigoryev:Please take a look at my recent addition/deletion. Are you still claiming that Novorossiya and Novorossiysk Governorate are one and the same? -M.Altenmann >t 03:18, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes.--BoguSlav 02:38, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not asking you. -M.Altenmann >t 03:35, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Boguslav. The article is in terrible condition. Introduction of tables and goofy propaganda placards did not really improve it. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be better to introduce the article on Novorossiskoye General Governorate. Initially the name for Novorossisk Governorate derived from the name of its administrative center, later it was grandfathered to the region of northern Black Sea coast. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you are confused, just as the article is. Obviously you did not bother to look into my changes I asked you to. There was no such thing as "Novorossiskoye General Governorate". But your idea is sound: the foundation of the subject is clear separation of topics: good articles about all administrative entities in the area. After that done, the current article can be a brief overview of the history of this historical region, per WP:Summary style. -M.Altenmann >t 20:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ukrainian Cossacks??

Wat? The cossaks themself must be very surprised to know that they're Ukrainian. Even Vyhovsky's ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Vyhovsky ) state was named Duchy of Ruthenia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Hadiach There're simply no any mentions of "Ukrainian nation" till 1914 in hystorical documents. 217.173.18.179 (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

"ethnic Ukrainian Cossacks" as in cossacks who are ethnically Ukrainian - Malorossiyskiy, in the vernacular of the time. By the by, in 1812 there were four "Ukrainian Cossack" regiments recruited from Kiev and Kamenets-Podolia. 65.95.66.45 (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous is playing word games, pretending that Ukrainians didn’t exist because they were called Ruthenians or Little Russians. Advocating such colonial attitudes today is just plain racist. —Michael Z. 2015-02-16 15:29 z

Don't feed trolls. (Besides, name calling is not a valid argument. Any racist is easily defeated by rational argument in wikipedia. Not to say it just as well be a confused person (confused by Great Russian propaganda)). -M.Altenmann >t 20:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

History

The history section says that Novorossiysk Governorate was established after the Russo-Turkish War of 1768-1774 when the Russian Empire annexed the northern coast of the Black Sea from the Ottomans. The cited source (as all other sources), however, dates its establishment to 1764. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. -M.Altenmann >t 16:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Initial Revival of Novorossiya as a Political Entity

this edit:

The revert is based on the following reasoning. This article is about a historical territory. In wikipedia article introductions are summaries of the article content. The phrase in question is about some speculation about modern Russian politics. It was based on a source which only in passing wrote: some not entirely academic quarters in Moscow played with the idea of a major geopolitical redesign of the northern Black Sea area, under which southern Ukraine, from the Crimea to Odessa, would secede from Kiev and form a Moscow-friendly buffer state, “Novorossiya”—New Russia" . Nothing in the subsequent wikipedia text explains what the heck is "not entirely academic quarters" and now this idea was "played". Therefore this isolated opinion has no place in the intro to the historical article. If anybody finds any specific details about this "idea of not entirely academic quarters" they are welcome to expand the article about modern Russian separatism in Ukraine. -M.Altenmann >t 19:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

It is given that the article is about a historical territory, but the crux of the matter is the re-establishment of that territory. If that were not the case, every reference after 1917 in this article is inapplicable and subject to deletion. If that is case that only the 1764-1917 period is admissible (but even in this range its constitutive status changed). If the current Novorossiya cannot claim a restoration of the former province, then that is a valid argument; in such case the whole matter should be taken, independently, to Novorossiya (Confederation). That is, of course, ceding to the argument that no restoration is possible. The source you cite as unreliable: "Trenin, Dmitri V., “Post-Imperium: A Eurasian Story,” Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 2011", I am unconcerned. Given the rag popular weeklies that are cited as "reliable sources," I have no issue referring on whether the Carnegie source is reliable.

Given your inquiry of "not entirely academic quarters" - what is this?" means that: the possibility of a restored Novorossiya was not just an academic exercise (although that too), but was actually considered within non-academic (read, political) circles, but it was unrealistic under the circumstances. Some would cite this as evidence of an early conspiracy in Russian circles. Circumstances change, and they did. The author wrote obliquely here, not "naming names", but the inference is clear. Moreover, it is not proffered as opinion, but related as fact. If one is interested in the origin of the Novorossiya resurgence, this is critical information; otherwise, one finds the current Novorossiyan appearing ex nihilo in 2014. That the movement's roots are contemporaneous with the rise of Ukrainian independence is critical information. ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 20:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I understand your point, and I have actually accepted it in my last sentence above. My point is that this phrase in this context is, using your words, ex nihilo. If these "not entirely academic quarters" were a major development, then there must be a reasonably detailed text in wikipedia. If there were 1-2 postcommunist unknown hawks chatting behind the closed doors, there is undue weight to mention about them here. I agree that this is a critical information, and in wikipedia there is a saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". In this case, if indeed the root of the current mess is in some Kremlin blueprints, then bring them here, please. YOu do have to "name the names". Otherwise this claim is on par with Moscow's claims that Maidan was cooked by the CIA. -M.Altenmann >t 23:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The source being cited is available in PDF format from a number of places. Here's the url for one of the many (+Wayback archive here) for any other editors interested in examining the source in question. Tachypaidia, could you please point out where, on pg. 100 of this reference, the information you extrapolated appears with further footnotes to independent evaluations or substantiated sources? I'm having extreme difficulties in identifying the content you're arguing for as existing other than as being an opinion expressed by Dmitri Trenin as the Director of the Carnegie Moscow Centre think tank. I have to agree that more reliable sources are needed in order to include this. As it stands, I would be highly reticent to include it, even with WP:INTEXT attribution, as being WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The entire paragraph is as follows:

"After this, the peace process languished for another five years, with the Kremlin visibly unhappy over the westward leaning of Voronin’s Communist Party of Moldova in its foreign policy, even as the Moldovan president himself was becoming increasingly authoritarian in domestic affairs. At the low point of the Kremlin’s self-consciousness and high water mark of perceived Western penetration of the former Soviet Union—the time of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and again after the Ukrainian bid for a path to NATO membership—some not entirely academic quarters in Moscow played with the idea of a major geopolitical redesign of the northern Black Sea area, under which southern Ukraine, from the Crimea to Odessa, would secede from Kiev and form a Moscow-friendly buffer state, “Novorossiya”—New Russia.** As part of that grand scheme, tiny Transnistria would either be affiliated with that state or absorbed by it. The rest of Moldova could then be annexed by Romania."

Back to the points at hand: (1) this content is wholly unfitted for the "[Historical background of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine]" section--it has nothing to do with it--this is about what was considered in Moscow, unpredicated on any localized unrest. (2) The impetus for this consideration of Novorossiya came not from the events in the historic region, but originated from concerns arising out of Moldova. (More reason it does not belong where M.Alternmann suggest it belongs). (3) This is not an isolated "opinion", since it is not an opinion at all. One might argue that it is a hitherto not well-known fact, but that is a different claim for exclusion (which is also a faulty argument). (4) The argument that if this fact is (a) a the crux of the question discussed, then (b) "reasonably detailed text in wikipedia". This commits the fallacy of confusing cause and effect. (5) Information that may be critical on a question need not be an "extraordinary" claim, just decisive. Moreover, Altenmann conflates whether the information is critical for the event (i.e., when the idea of "Novorossiya began to be considered) vs. whether it is "the root of the current mess." The credible argument here is that the historical Novorossiya dates from 1764-1783; 1796-1802; 1822-1874; and that discussion of its re-establishment from 2014-ff should be elsewhere. I disagree it, there should be some direction to the connection, but at this nascent point not too much can be made of it. Though, I think to require such an exclusion is to prejudge the facts.Tachypaidia (talk) 08:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

re (1), (2): you convinced me that the place for this text is in this article. (and I prepared a section for this, made from a piece of the unnecessarily detailed intro paragraph. Re (3): Once again, you misunderstood me: I am not insisting on the exclusion: I am insisting on the stronger verification, precisely for the reason that it is "not well-known". So far we have a single source without any detail. Therefore, as Iryna said it is only the authors opinion that some politicians "played with the idea of major geopolitical redesign". We have no factual what exactly these "not so academic circles" were discussing, only author's judgement. Re (4) why cause and effect fallacy? At this point I may admit that my phrase about "crux" was under the influence of propaganda that pro-Russian unrest was initiated by Russia, so this phrase was read as a hint in this respect. Therefore the 4(a) is moot now. But still, if it was not moot, I would see no fallacy: a (supposed) "crux" must be detailed rather than mentioned in passing. Re (5) OK, not "extraordinary", just "decisive". This is just a notch down. Reiterating, "decisive" things must be checked and double-checked - this is the prime rule of reporting. In wikipedia double-checking means finding several independent sources about the fact. Re "moreover" - I agree here, as I described in "re (4)". Concluding, find us one more independent reference, and you are in. -M.Altenmann >t 15:54, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

While I did feel that this is the correct article for such content, my concern was (and remains) that of WP:FRINGE, most specifically that of evaluating claims. While the source can be deemed RS and WP:V, to be included on its own merit it would need to have serious substance rather than relying on vagaries. As it stands, it isn't explicit enough as to who was involved, nor does it present any form of evidence that this was indeed a geopolitical plan actually in place. This is not to say that editors here doubt the veracity of nation-states formulating plans which can be acted on opportunistically (erhem, 9/11 → invasion of Iraq), but that, for the purposes of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic source, this is easily challenged as one man's opinion. I agree with Altenmann that another independent RS attesting to the recognition of such a strategy would satisfy requisite verification.

In the meantime, I'm going to archive the PDF for future reference. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Altenmann, do you have access to "Лев Гудков. Негативная идентичность. Статьи 1997-2002 годов"? Page 193 is referenced in the paragraph immediately below the paragraph in question as

These concepts never materialized. Eventually, the peace process was revived in the fall of 2008 after the Georgia war, and it was stepped up after the communists’ loss of power in 2009.

It's probably unrelated, but there is a possibility that it does discuss the same material. I've found some excerpts, but not the essay in question. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Iryna that overall the source is good. I even added refs from it into some article. It even brought my attention to a subject missing in wikipedia, and I added a new article, Socialist-leaning countries. (So if you have nothing to do better, you may help me to add brief annotations into the country list as I did for Somalia there.) I am not sure about finding Gudkov; I am in California, so I am mostly an online reader of Russian. -M.Altenmann >t 04:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The Kharkov Oblast -- Novorossiyan or not?

Much has been made that Putin was wrong when he stated that Kharkov was part of Novorossiya. There are two citations in the notes of the article to this effect, neither of which speak to the question. The contention is easily found and is included in such articles as "Putin’s Lie about “Novorossia”" http://www.stopfake.org/en/putin-s-lie-about-novorossia/. This article, and every other that I've noted make reference to the capital city of the eponymous province, not the province itself. Note the careful slight-of-hand between city and province in the above-cited article, 15th paragraph, which begins, "Facts: Kharkiv was never a part of any administrative unit ..." Putin's remark was on the oblasts not any particular city or capital. From the 1764 maps that I have seen, plus the rule that all lands within 40 versts (=~ 26.5 miles) of the Ukrainian line were included in Novorossiya evince otherwise. Though, granted, the 40 verts belt was not immediately marked off, but eventually (1766) it was. The southern half of what would be Kharkiv oblast was part of Novorossiya, though not the city. Given that all the modern oblast boundaries have changed from the 18th century, so there is no instance of a 1-to-1 correspondence between oblasts and Novorossiya, Putin's statement is correct for the oblast, with the appropriate qualification. Tachypaidia (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I would add that both calculation of the 40 verts belt and a map of 1764 Novorossiya puts Novo Vodolaha within Novorossiya; indeed, the border by calculation comes within 18 miles of the city center of Kharkov.Tachypaidia (talk) 16:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

1) Your 'calculations' are WP:OR. 2) Your personal 'reading' of 'slight of hand' is your personal reading WP:POV. 3) Your justification, according to your 'calculations', of what Putin really meant to say when he added Kharkiv is complete and utter WP:POV pushing, WP:SYNTH, and shoehorning to make your theory fit. Articles are written using secondary RS, not OR, thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

(1) "Calculation" is too precise, better if I had said (though less colloquial) "marking". Perhaps best questioned by example: if there is a news story that a 20-mile security perimeter has been established around Washington, D.C., and it is noted that Baltimore lays outside this perimeter, is that "original research"? This is even less than "routine calculations", which is allowed and not OR; but, even if this were original research (which I do not believe it is), it is not in the article but in the Talk page, where it is permitted. Moreover, it is supported by the mapping of the time. And, relevant for this question, it does not contradict the content of the article, i.e., there is no contestation that the City of Kharkiv, historically, always laid outside of Novorossiya. What is the issue here?

(2) The statement that "After the dissolution of the Soviet Union 1991, there have been attempts to revive the concept..."--that is huge! - yet unsourced. All I did was place a "citation needed" here--which you deleted.

(3) The note that states that "Kharkiv" was not part of Novorossiya was added by Yulia Romero on 28 March 2015 at 22:14 with two sources--neither of which have of anything to say about assertion! If you would, please respond to this.

(4) Whether there is a "slight of hand" in the source (a partisan, unreliable source at that), i.e., whether there is a semantic shift from [a direct quote follows, except italics added:] "[1] Kharkiv was the provincial center of Slobodskaya province (1765-1780 yy.), [to (2)]" Sloboda-Ukrainian province (1796-1835 yy.), and then–[to (3)] Kharkiv province." The transition should be clear to the reader. When Putin rattled-off the series of oblasts, I do not believe anyone is contending that when he got to Kharkov--there he meant the city, not the oblast. And, two facts I do not believe are even in dispute: (a) the southern portion of the modern Kharkiv province was part of Novorossiya, and (b) Putin's "series reference" listed oblasts, not cities.

(5) Regarding your point that "Articles are written using secondary RS, not OR", the listed source for the Putin quote is the english translation transcript as published by the Washington Post. Why would that not be a secondary reliable source?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 15:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The Kharkov Governorate was a part of the Little-Russian Governorate-General, not New-Russian/Novorossian Governorate-General. The first who said that is Kharkiv is a part of Novorossia is Putin.--Юе Артеміс (talk) 09:21, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Importance of direct quotation of Putin's remark re: Novorossiyan oblasts

The wording of the quotation giving rise to the resurgence of Novorossiya is relevant. The actual quotation is: "... Новороссия: Харьков, Луганск, Донецк, Херсон, Николаев, Одесса не входили в состав Украины в царские времена … (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20796), which translates as "... Novorossiya: Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolaev, Odessa were not part of Ukraine in tsarist times..." To depreciate the quote (even under the color of "to reflect common English usage & for consistency") is to rob it of its potency and significance. Tachypaidia (talk) 16:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Tachypaidia, lack of responses within a tiny time frame are not to be understood as consensus for content additions, subtractions and development which have already been demonstrated to not meet with consensus for your WP:POV refactoring (as evidenced on both this talk page and in the editing history of the article). Please always allow for the fact that other editors are busy on other articles, or not available to discuss content at when you are. There are no hard and fast laws, but it is standard practice to wait for at least several days in order for responses, and that lack of immediate communication does not automatically give editors carte blanche to go against consensus. Thank you for your future attempt to understand the difference between good editing practices and being a WP:POINTy editor. As I understand you are new to Wikipedia, I am allowing for good faith overenthusiasm on your behalf, particularly because high profile and contentious article subject matter tends to be worked on in spates after the initial editing frenzy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy, a review here would be helpful:

(1) The article wrongly stated that (a) Novorossiya was annexed from the Ottoman Empire, and then (b) was expanded by annexation from the Hetmanate and Zaporozhia. The history is other way around--first came the Hetmanate/Zaporzhia annexation, then the annexation from the Ottoman Empire--a decade later. Your edit puts this critical error back in.

(2) The article had conflated the geographic territory with political entity (this too, had been corrected).

(3) The original addition of the Putin quotation (February 19, 10:41) was mine; it was Yulia_Romero on March 28 who first edited-in the misquotation, without any talk. That should have been called out, not my reverting it to the actual and original quotation.

(4) This misquotation of Putin also runs afoul under the WP:BLP

I would be glad to engage in a substantive consideration of these questions. Tachypaidia (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, Tachypaidia. Thanks for qualifying the sequence of events and potential problems. I'm still trying to get on top of a backlog of priorities after having returned from holiday, so I'll need to make some time to check the history of the article, as well as read the sources carefully. Please allow for a couple of days for me to get back to this. If I don't respond within two days, please ping me from this thread and I'll make it my priority on the spot. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

For those for whom what was actually said matters, here is the quote: “...напомню, пользуясь терминологией ещё царских времён, это Новороссия: Харьков, Луганск, Донецк, Херсон, Николаев, Одесса не входили в состав Украины в царские времена ..." http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/20796 Tachypaidia (talk) 01:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Grammar points

I don't like the use of the conjunction in the sentence (opening section, 3rd para.) " ... the most significant ... has been the ... movement ... and ... War..." It is awkward with the singular verb. Better: "the movement .... with the ... War." "With" modifies "movement" without compounding it. Tachypaidia (talk) 15:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Cf. Fowler's Modern English Usage, pp. 34-35. Tachypaidia (talk) 11:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That works for me. Currently, the Novorossiya confederacy reads as if it were the central catalyst from the inception. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:03, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This section should be deleted. Erroneously entered. Tachypaidia (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Relevance to the current war

Proposing to update the article to reflect the new situation in Ukraine. Particularly how this territory is suspiciously similar to what Russia is taking by force of arms, and how it may be integrated into the Russian Federation by action of the pro-Russian separatists. 185.242.25.88 (talk) 02:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

There is already an article about this project from early on during the war. As of now, there is no such Novorossiya plan. Mellk (talk) 02:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead map

The lead map has multiple inaccuracies and POV labels. The biggest for this article is the label “Novorussia” and that it looks like it includes Sloboda Ukraine. But references to “independence” of the UkSSR, the term “retrocession” as if Ukraine had agency in territories transferred by the USSR, the bounds of “Ukraine proper,” and the selective inclusion and omission of historical territories makes the whole thing dubious. It may be fixable if someone can update the SVG labels and line weights.  —Michael Z. 20:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it was the intention of the author to say that Sloboda Ukraine is a part of Novorossiya. However the map is so crowded that it's hard to say for sure. I'd replace it if possible. Alaexis_¿question? 12:14, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Hard to say what was intended, as the label “Novorussia” visually relates to the three large greenish regions, and not to the two grey borders within it as it crosses the one representing the Dnipro.

The set of outlines is good, though. I certainly think it can have value with better labelling.

It’s also a bit confused as to what it intends to represent: its scope should be better defined and perhaps narrowed, or split into several maps. E.g., from the sixteenth century it has Zaporizhzhia and one region labelled “1503–1537 Russian possessions (1503–1618),” but most of it refers to the Soviet period.  —Michael Z. 16:38, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see my last edit, hopefully it makes things clearer. Unfortunately I don't know how to edit SVG, we should probably request it at the Commons page. Alaexis_¿question? 20:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you.  —Michael Z. 23:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Ukraine Historical Borders.svg is a terribly wrong map! Sloboda Ukraine is never associated with Novorossia! It was a part of the Little-Russian Governorate-General!--Юе Артеміс (talk) 09:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)