Jump to content

Talk:Novorossiya (confederation)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Move proposal

The following discussion is an archived 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: moved to Federal State of Novorossiya. This case is complicated, involving a new political entity whose very existence is still the subject of dispute, both internally and internationally. As such, understandably, all questions on this topic -- including its name -- are subject to a degree of uncertainty. Wikipedia policy requires that the name most commonly used in reliable sources be employed as the article title. It is argued below that the recent creation of this political entity makes determination of a common name extremely difficult, if not impossible. While many are sympathetic to this view, the fact remains that every article requires reliable sources; the name most often employed by those sources is the name that -- absent extraordinary circumstances -- should be the title of the encyclopedia's article.

The dispute at the heart of this discussion is whether reliable sources most often use the term "Novorossiya" or it translated equivalent "New Russia." The question entails an inherently subjective element: namely, what sources are considered reliable. This is a determination left open to consensus. While consensus is most assuredly not a vote, on subjective questions, where issues of fact (not policy) are in dispute, the preponderance of opinion does carry great weight. Consensus finds that the majority of reliable sources use the native term Novorossiya, and that it constitutes the common name. Policy compels the usage of the common name.

There was an additional line of argument advanced in support of the name "New Russia": the suggestion that the use of English words in the title was the most natural alternative. "Naturalness" is one of the five naming criteria cited as guiding principles in determining article titles. Importantly, article titling policy reminds us that these criteria "should be seen as goals, not as rules. For most topics, there is a simple and obvious title that meets these goals satisfactorily. If so, use it as a straightforward choice. However, in some cases the choice is not so obvious. It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others." While the naturalness argument was a strong one, consensus below chose to favor precision, consistency, and recognizability in employing the name most commonly used in reliable sources. That choice is fully in accord with the letter and spirit of policy.

Very few commenters broached the subject of whether "Federal State(s)" should be singular or plural. On that issue, the status quo remains; a new RM might consider that question alone. Xoloz (talk) 05:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)


Federal States of New Russia → Federal State(s) of Novorossiya – Novorossiya is obviously the WP:COMMONNAME in English-language media. [1][2][3][4]. Yes, technically there IS an English translation, but that is not a valid reason for using it as the article's title. Not unless you also want to rename Belarus to 'White Russia', Republika Srpska to 'Serb Republic', Montenegro to 'Black Mountain', etc. This move proposal is predominantly about the 'New Russia' -> 'Novorossiya' part; as far as I am concerned, the 'Federal State' (singular) vs. 'Federal States' (plural) issue can be discussed separately. TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Support "New Russia" is simply not used by the people who run the entity itself or by the media. We don't translate Montenegro into "Black Mountain" or Belarus into "White Russia" anymore, so there is precedent to favor the untranslated version. --Tocino 11:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support What Tocino said. This is not about 'us' and what our original research indicates would the best name for Wikipedia, it's about our encyclopedia reflecting the Respected Sources, nearly all of which exclusively use 'Novorossiya'. I'll note also that no one calls the new state "Federal State of Novorossiya" either. The name is "Novorossiya," but for the sake of compromise I would be happy if we just went forward with the proposed change.Haberstr (talk) 12:03, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • No move Federal States of New Russia → Novorossiya instead since "federal state(s) is used by sources as a description not a state name 95.199.198.18 (talk) 12:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support per WP:COMMONNAME Plumber (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is a new page and frankly, at this stage, none of us know what the common English name for this state is or what it will be in the near future. The fact that we don't even know if it is a 'Federal State' or 'Federal States' suggests that contributors might be better off letting the dust settle on this one. That's not to say that I am not amenable to change in the future. Lunch for Two (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Just want to add briefly that there is really no ambiguity about whether it's Federal State or States: the plural just came from an error in machine translation. --Nizolan (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose - "Novorossiya" isn't English, and we use English here when possible. As I said above, it denies the reader the naturalness of knowing what the word means, and its connotations. "New Russia" instantly informs the reader of the connection between Russia and New Russia. Furthermore, New Russia is the traditional name of the region as such. "Novorossiya" means nothing to the English-speaker. In the case of Belarus, we only started calling in Byelorussia instead of White Ruthenia because we were asked to do so by the state. Montenegro and Republika Sprska established a common name. This, however, has not had time to establish a common name. RGloucester — ☎ 14:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It is not our job to "instantly inform" the reader of "the connection." ... That approach puts us on into OR. It is your job to abide by WP:COMMONNAME.Haberstr (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The point here is that there is no WP:COMMONNAME yet given that the entity has only been in existence for a few days, sufficient time will have to pass before a common name will become more apparent. Gloucester is completely right in saying that English language discourse uses the term "New Russia" and not Novorossiya. If this state becomes predominantly referred to as the latter, then we should start using the transliterated version of the local name. Until then I support the status quo. Regarding references to Belarus, Montenegro etc. changes in nomenclature occurred over a period of years and not days, as is allegedly the case here. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
No, in fact there is a common name. I think your point, better stated, is that the current common name may be less stable than a common name that has long been in use. And Gloucester, if that was the point he was making, is wrong. "English language discourse," as reflected in English language RS news reports, uses 'Novorossiya'. Haberstr (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Until there is a clear statement from the people of this state asking to call them "New Russia" we have to call them for what they really are which is "Novorossiya". Most people agree to move this article therefore I think it should be done immediately. —WhyHellWhy (talk) 15:46, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
What utter tosh. Historically, the term "Novorossiya" has always been translated as New Russia. Sources use New Russia in equal amounts, as shown above. Look at the naming criteria for titles, and look at WP:NATURALNESS. "Novorossiya" fails on all counts. RGloucester — ☎ 16:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
OKay, you need to stop thinking you know everything! This is a newly formed state and it never called itself "New Russia", it only called itself "Novorossiya" even the way they pronounce rossiya in that word is different than from how you say Russia in Russian. Most of the sources use "Novorossiya" as the name of the state and only use "New Russia" to bold out the similarity in the meaning. Finally, "Novorossiya" doesn't even translate to "New Russia". This state is not the historical region which was sometimes translated as "New Russia" in English (even then most used "Novorossiya), it is a completely new entity and its name should not be based on that. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
do we call the DPR the "Donétskaya naródnaya respúblika"? No, we use English. --Львівське (говорити) 17:20, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
'Novorossiya is common use in English-language RS. That objection satisfied, do you have any other reason for opposing the change?Haberstr (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
it's not common use. In fact, there's no consensus between "novorossiya" or "novorossia", the latter being the spelling used by their official news service. So which is it?--Львівське (говорити) 18:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
"Novorossiya" in English isn't "New Russia". As I already said, even the way the people in charge of this state pronounce rossiya is different then the way you pronounce Russia in Russian. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 19:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Novorossiya in English is New Russia. Every reliable source says so. It's a direct, obvious translation. Read a book - I provided links below.--Львівське (говорити) 00:58, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Most realiable sources call the state Novorossiya/Novorossia! You can't compare this state with the historical region. Historically the Russian language was a bit different and back then "Novorossoya" (Новороссия) really did mean "New Russia", today New Russia in Russian would be Новая Россия.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 02:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
We've already proven what you just said to be a lie, most sources say 'New Russia' both in the political and historical context. --Львівське (говорити) 03:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No, you brought up sources about the historical region, most sources about the current state call it Novorossiya or Novorossia. I also want to bring up the fact that the Wikipedia article for the historical region also calls it "Novorossiya", if we, as you said, "use English" why isn't that page titled "New Russia".--WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
That simply isnt true and it was already shown in the above discussion. --Львівське (говорити) 03:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
How is that not true? The sources you gave talked about the historical region, this article talks about the break-away entity which in most reliable sources is called either Novorossiya or Novorossia. As for the Wikipedia article of the historical region the name "Novorossiya" is used, if you claim that this isn't true either please visit the page. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 03:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Even historically if you go on google books you'll find that 'New Russia' is more common than "Novorossiya" by a 10:1 ratio. --Львівське (говорити) 18:02, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Continuing to look up the term in major history books, 'New Russia' seems to be preferred. Magocsi makes no mention of it and only uses New Russia [5]. Reid uses the transit once and uses New Russia for the rest of the book [6], Subtelny uses novorossIA and New Russia [7], Plokhy uses New Russia [8] [9] --Львівське (говорити) 18:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The official websites of this state calls it "Novorossia", not "Novorossiya" and definitely not "New Russia". [10], [11] --WhyHellWhy (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

well the site isn't in English so I think it goes without saying it wouldn't say 'New Russia'. But this is a primary source and what we're discussing here is WP:COMMON --Львівське (говорити) 00:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - Novorossiya is the correct term for this new region. We can call explain that Novorossiya means New Russia. But almost all modern English sources refer to this political concept by Novorossiya and not New Russia. —Kuzwa (talk) 02:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It isn't correct in English. RGloucester — ☎ 03:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

So far there have only been three users who opposed to the suggestion of moving the page to "Federal State of Novorossiya" everyone else supported the idea. If there is no further opposition from any more users the page will be moved as per the decision of the majority.--WhyHellWhy (talk) 06:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it Novorossia or Novorossiya? Is it a federal state or are they federal states? That this cannot even be agreed upon suggests, contrary to the objections raised here, that there is no sufficient consensus that should prompt a change to the title. Furthermore, all votes operate on consensus and not simply who has a majority. I feel that this primarily a language issue with some users failing to understand that Новороссия is commonly called "New Russia" in English, however this does not mean that it is a new Russia or indeed that it necessarily needs to have any links at all to the Russian Federation. Lunch for Two (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • (Redacted), known as Nickst (talk · contribs), happened to have moved this while there was an ongoing RM. He also took the time to tamper with the redirect, meaning that it cannot be returned to the last neutral version, except by an administrator. Therefore, I am instituting a temporary title. I really dislike his use of redirects to circumvent discussion. It really is quite disgusting. RGloucester — ☎ 13:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
You could argue that he was being WP:BOLD. "New Russia" is a substandard name/ OR-influenced name, it's not official and it's not favored by academic or most RS's either. --Tocino 13:24, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Academics do however favour the term "New Russia" and have done so for a long period of time. The only "Reliable Sources" at this stage are just media reports, which may be suitable in certain circumstances, however are less reliable when it comes to nomenclature. Lunch for Two (talk) 06:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrator comment: I have moved the page back to its original title and protected it to prevent it being moved around further. This is not support or opposition to the requested move, it is purely an administrative function. You will now need to wait until the requested move discussion has concluded and has been closed before any movement can be performed. In future, please wait for a discussion to conclude before moving a page, and please do not move pages back to improper 'temporary' titles, this causes confusion and often results in duplicated articles and history merges being necessary.Nick (talk) 13:59, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nick, this discussion is in reality closed and is just festering now. It's far past one week since the move was suggested. There is no movement on either side, and the vast majority of editors support or strongly support moving the page. What can you do, or what should any of us do now?Haberstr (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Oh, now I'm a pro-Russian POV pusher, eh? Great! No, if anything, I'm a pro-English-language POV pusher. The historical region, in English, was not call "Novorossiya". It was called, "New Russia", since that's what the word means. If we don't call Russia "Rossiya", and if we don't call new "Novo", then we don't call New Russia "Novorossiya". If the common name for the new state is established as "Novorossiya", as in the case of the former White Ruthenia (Belarus), I will be open to a move. At yet, it is too early for this, as a common name has not yet been established in English media. It takes time for change to effect itself, the same with Burma. As the common name cannot be determined at this time, the English-language title should be preferred, given WP:NATURALNESS, and also because it gives the reader much more information about the connection between Russia and New Russia. RGloucester — ☎ 17:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't want to discuss who are you and your POV-pushing after your personal attack. Try to learn good manners first. NickSt (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, good manners, dear fellow. You showed very good manners when you inappropriately moved the article and pre-empted an ongoing requested move discussion, and furthermore, edited the redirect so that it could not be reverted. That is what I call uncivil behaviour. So please, do not make accusations that have no base. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
White Rus' or White Ruthenia is an unfortunate example in this case since it does effectively translate a Russian term Белая Русь or Белая Россия (Belaya Rus, Belaya Rossiya). By contrast New Russia does not serve as a direct translation of Новороссия (Novorossiya), only an etymology. The historical province of the Russian Empire was known alternatively in Russian as Новая Россия (Novaya Rossiya, "New Russia"), which makes that term more feasible in the earlier case, but I have not seen any indication that the current state has been termed that anywhere. I don't have any strong feelings about the proposed move one way or the other since I've seen both names used in English-language media; the argument from analogy with Belarus etc. is rather disingenuous however. A partial analogy might also be Novosibirsk vs. Novaya Sibir', New Siberia. —Nizolan (talk) 18:26,
Do you question that the historical region which the state is hearkening to was known in English as "New Russia"? It was, regardless of how imperfect a translation it might be. RGloucester — ☎ 18:31, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
No, but that doesn't constitute a convincing argument in itself. An English term applied to one historical period might constitute an archaism when applied to another, even if the term remains unchanged in its native language (though in case there has been a significant change in that Novaya Rossiya is not accepted for the unrecognised state). As a random example: North Korea's official name in Korean is 조선, which in a prior historical context would be translated as Joseon, but is rendered as Korea for the modern state. —Nizolan (talk) 18:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and what's more, South Korea is called "Han" in their native language, but we don't refer to it as that either, we refer to Goryeo with "Korea". That was not what I'm talking about. Until the common name is established, which it hasn't been, it does not make sense to move it to a title that is non-English. If the word "Novorossiya" becomes accepted as the common name in English over time, fine. At this point, it is simply too early to tell what common usage will be. Given that common name as a criteria isn't clear at this time, the other title criteria become important. That's where WP:NATURALNESS comes into play, and that's why New Russia should be preferred until the common name is established. RGloucester — ☎ 18:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, the contention of those arguing for moving the article to Novorossiya is that New Russia does not constitute a valid English name for the state in the first place, and so in lieu of any other option Novorossiya ought to be adopted. It's not clear to me that naturalness is the issue since the technical definition of that is that "readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles". It doesn't seem obvious to me that readers are more likely to look for New Russia than Novorossiya. A further problem is that New Russia carries extraneous political baggage which Novorossiya doesn't necessarily do either in Russian or in English. Those are the arguments which you should be focusing on responding to, in my opinion, rather than the White Russia et al. red herring. --Nizolan (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I am having a hard time finding sources that use the term "New Russia" when it comes to updates on what is happening and not what Putin referred the region to or something un-related. Entering in "Novorossiya" Yields better results. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 11:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • This unrecognized state is named after historical region Novorossiya, in both Russian and Ukrainian languages its name is exactly equal to the name of this historical region, so it seems logical either to move Novorossiya to New Russia or to move this article to Federal State of Novorossiya. So, until article about the historical region is named Novorossiya, I support move proposal. It should also be mentioned that in Russian language "New Russia" literally would be not "Novorossiya", but "Novaya Rossiya". There is difference between these 2 words ("Novorossiya" is used exclusively for historical region, while "Novaya Rossiya" almost always means something other than South or South-Eastern Ukraine), and maybe it makes sense to reflect this difference in English too. Altes (talk) 00:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
In English, the historical region is called "New Russia". Google Books shows it, and it has been demonstrated here as such. The title of our article on it is irrelevant. RGloucester — ☎ 00:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Novorossiya can be a disamb page then, this isn't the first time in history that a former name has re-emerged. History gets written (and sometimes re-written) everyday. The fact remains that more English RS are using the term "Novorossiya" rather than New Russia to describe the current republic. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
That isn't true, as has been shown. It is too early to tell what common usage will be. New Russia and Novorossiya have both been used at this stage, as has been demonstrated below. Time will tell if one will take precedence, but at this stage, neither has. RGloucester — ☎ 01:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I meant that in Russian "Novaya Rossiya" never used to designate historical region. In English - yes, I can believe that "New Russia" is used nearly as often. Altes (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
What you just said was a flat out lie. A mistranslation in all major media and all history books? A mistranslation of a word made up of "novo" (new) and "rossiya" (russia)? What?--Львівське (говорити) 23:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
History books are not relevant in this context, any more than calling "Ukraine" "Little Russia." -- Petri Krohn (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, the current form of "Novorossiya" is alike but different than the historical one so when you cite history books as a reason to keep the name as New Russia you are taking it out of context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
You can't argue it's a widespread "mistranslation" and then say authors and specialists who have been translating the word for ages don't count as reliable sources for proper english translation. Also, Ukraine and Malorossiya are different words entirely denoting entirely different things, so not sure what kind of analogy that is supposed to be. --Львівське (говорити) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Think apples and oranges, authors and specialists have been translating the word for ages and they have come upon the word New Russia as the term but again this is a separate deal, the history books for New Russia do not talk about the current crisis or the current republic, they refer to the historical region. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Uh…the current "federative state" is named after the historical region. Where the hell do you think they got the idea from? There is no reason for there be a separate term for the historical region from the modern federative state based on that region, which claims that region. RGloucester — ☎ 01:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
There is as most sources that refer to this current federative state refer to it as Novorossiya, it goes along with WP:COMMONNAME if more sources were calling the present entity "New Russia" I would be arguing for it but they are not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Common name policy cannot properly be applied at this stage. There has not been enough coverage of "New Russia" in mainstream English media, and it has only just been established in the past week or so. RGloucester — ☎ 02:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose per WP:NATURALNESS and WP:COMMONNAME (which has not been established as a naming convention in the English language without the use of New Russia as a translation-come-qualifier in the media). There appears to be a lot of 'making it up to suit personal preferences' here. As noted by RGloucester, there is no common name in the English language as yet. (EDITED FOR CLARIFICATION OF OBJECTIONS) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
After reviewing the evidence provided in the 'Common use' section below, I ask you to reconsider your opinion, especially the part about "making it up" ...Haberstr (talk) 07:22, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Your evidence isn't much of anything, as we've said below. Anyway, regardless, common name is not appropriate or applicable criteria, as has been established. RGloucester — ☎ 16:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing has been established and WP:COMMON is still valid here, WP:KISS is an essay not policy, as for the policy under Wikipedia:NATURALNESS those are goals and not rules, as pointed out above there is a reason why we don't "translate Montenegro into "Black Mountain" or Belarus into "White Russia" anymore". Those are the English names and one might think it be more natural to call Belarus white Russia or Montenegro into Black mountain but that is not what the sources are saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
But that's the point, reliable English-language sources are not saying "Novorossiya" any more than they are saying "New Russia", if they are covering this "state" at all. Given this, we should default to English, as per WP:NATURALNESS. RGloucester — ☎ 21:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You are of course wrong, and reliable English-language sources are saying "Novorossiya" far more than they are saying "New Russia." And when they say "New Russia" they are almost exclusively putting it in parentheses as an explanation/'translation'. The bigger point is that your little team lost this 'debate' and this page should already have been moved. The by far most common usage (for the current breakaway state, of course, not for the historical region) is 'Novorossiya', as I and others have demonstrated in spades in the section below. The vote above is 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 in favor of making the move. And yet you and a couple of others continue to attempt to drive a simple discussion and decision off topic.Haberstr (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Are you able to make a statement without blatantly lying, Haberstr? TaalVerbeteraar's rationale for the move is based on his own prior knowledge of an historical area known as Novorossiya. This is a recent conflict which, in the English speaking world, has not caught on as some sort of known naming convention. You are trying to conflate the historical region and the present conflict when the term is by no means 'proven' by you to mean anything to native English speakers. Your objective here is to teach them the term. Desist from your, "I've been hard done by by some bullies" narrative and disingenuous sighs you've just littered around the discussion decrying legitimate objections. As I've stated to Knowledgekid, if you'd actually believed yourselves to have support, you would have opened an RfC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I strongly oppose the move. This is an English Wikipedia for English speakers, therefore, we should prefer English versions of the names. "Novorossiya" is not a naturalized English word. Furthermore, it is unpronounceable. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:13, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
You're wrong about 'English versions'. Wikipedia tells us to prefer the common name; please read WP:COMMONNAME for further information. As for pronunciation, that's a highly original objection. Is novo hard for you, or rossi, or ya?Haberstr (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support. A clear case has been made for renaming the article above. I will just add that if Novorossia is to be called "New Russia" by Wikipedia, Wikipedia should refer to the Ukraine as "the Borderland", because that is what the Ukraine means in Russian. In other words, the very example of how the name of the Ukraine is treated in English sets the most obvious example of how the name for Novorossia should be treated in English. –Herzen (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Ukraine doesn't translate into that in Russian though, it's still Ukraine, and even if it did, this is English wikipedia, not Russian wikipedia. Your point falls flat. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I do not understand your argument. Russia should be renamed to "Rossiya"? Fakirbakir (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Apparently. I have no clue what these guys are on about. It's Moscow, Russia; not Moskva, Rossiya. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 23:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It's the same argument that they'd be the first to slam regarding 'Kyiv' and 'Kiev'. 'Kiev' is the English language convention, despite copious POV pushes to change it to 'Kyiv'. They should take a good look at that dedicated talk page and apply it here. If not, I suggest that 'Kyiv' should be used for the purposes of English Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
When you say "They" who do you refer to? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I believe that "they" here is referring to those arguing in favor of "Novorossiya". Dustin (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Knowledgekid87, this is not my first encounter with a number of users voting for the move. In fact, I've always been in agreement with TaalVerbeteraar, who proposed the move, on other issues of translation, transliteration, et al in the past. In this instance, I disagree with its being recognised (even recognisable without 'New Russia' as a qualifier) in the English language. Furthermore, I very strongly disagree with the parallels he's drawn. They're way off the mark. If you're looking to make a case for WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL against me, bear in mind that my observations come with a history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Common use in media

There seems to be a notion among the 'supporters' that the historicla region was called Novorossiya but clearly in English sources it isnt, and New Russia is the preferred terminology in English. Same goes for us not referring to Greater Russia as 'Velikirossiya' and Little Russia as 'malorossiya' and what have you. Belarus is the only example where teh translit became official and common use over time, but all the others in English use the actual translations. Common use for the historical term is New Russia, and for the state we also see 'New Russia' used very frequently in the press. To use a translit of 'Novorossiya' or 'Novorossia', we would need a clear common use and right now either example is far behind the English version. We need to use WP:COMMON first and foremost, not do staw polls on what we prefer. Wikipedia must reflect common use and since this is English wiki, prefer readability for English readers. --Львівське (говорити) 22:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources which use "New Russia" provided by Lvivske (talk · contribs) at #Introductory remarks:

  • [12] National Post "refers to eastern and southern Ukraine by the old czarist term of “New Russia.”
  • [13] Businessweek - Why Putin's Ukrainian "New Russia" Could Be an Ungovernable Mess
  • [14] The Hindu - "The formation of Novorossiya, or New Russia, as the eastern part of Ukraine was called in the 19th century, was announced"
  • [15] Foreign Policy - "declared the return of "Novorossiya" ("New Russia") earlier this month"
  • [16] APA.az - "have united in a state called Novorossiya (New Russia)"
  • [17] Reuters - "branded eastern Ukraine "New Russia" last month"
  • [18] Al Jazeera - "described eastern Ukraine as "New Russia","
    • [19] Reuters - "Last month he began referring to eastern Ukraine as "New Russia"
  • [20] Toronto Sun - "NEW RUSSIA"
  • [21] Voice of America - "a region some separatists want to call Novorossiya, or New Russia."
  • [22] Boston Herald - "referred to eastern and southern Ukraine as “Novorossiya,” or “New Russia.”
  • [23] Globe and Mail - “I would like to remind you that what was called Novorossiya [New Russia]"
  • [24] Sydny Morning Herald - even greater swathe of territory which it has dubbed New Russia."
  • [25] Daily Herald - "by the old czarist term of “New Russia.”
  • [26] VICE news - "we are already in New Russia"
  • [27] News Tribune - "recently referred to eastern and southern Ukraine as “Novorossiya” or “New Russia"
  • [28] ITAR-TASS - "united in a state called Novorossiya (New Russia)"
  • [29] Europe Online Magazine - "Two breakaway Ukrainian regions on Saturday announced their merger as the new country of New Russia"
  • [30] Kansas.com - "He stands before the new flag of what insurgents call New Russia, the name for the territories laid claim to by Russia's czars."

As we can see, "New Russia" is used very frequently. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Your references mix up 'Novorossiya', the name for the historic region stretching across eastern and southern Ukraine, and our concern, the official name of the new state, 'Novorossiya'. I excluded the former and collected only references on Google News within the past week to the new state. Here are ALL of the references:

  • [31] "Donetsk, Lugansk republics unite in “Novorossiya” state"
  • [32] "Self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics form ‘Novorossiya’ union"
  • [33] "Donetsk, Lugansk People's Republics unite in Novorossiya"
  • [34] "Donetsk, Lugansk merged in one state: Novorossiya"
  • [35] "The two breakaway entities call themselves “Novorossiya,” or New Russia ..."
  • [36] "The two People’s Republics announced Saturday they were uniting under the name “Novorossiya."

In this unbiased sample of most recent usage, only one in six refers to 'New Russia', and that may be more an explanatory translation of the actual name rather than an alternative name for the new state. As Gloucester has stated, we need to use WP:COMMON first and foremost.Haberstr (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't what I said. I said that we cannot use WP:COMMON as a deciding criteria at this point, as it is too early for the common name to have been established. RGloucester — ☎ 14:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, three of the six examples you have provided are Russian. Fine, if that is the name in the Russian press, however in the wider English speaking world it would appear that the name Novorossiya is yet to catch on. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
I would appreciate it if you would provide some evidence for that contention.Haberstr (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm struggling to comprehend how one argument goes "the historic region is called Novorossiya, we have to be consistent" but when I show references to media it turns into "those are referencing the historic region, not the state". Which is it? Also, for what it's worth, the historic article should be moved as historians and writers clearly use New Russia as the common use. Finally, Haberstr, "inserbia.info" is not a mainstream source. Also, Macon says "The two breakaway entities call themselves “Novorossiya,” or New Russia" and NewsTribune says "recently referred to eastern and southern Ukraine as “Novorossiya” or “New Russia," and ITAR-TASS says "united in a state called Novorossiya (New Russia)" --Львівське (говорити) 16:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Any naming references to the 'historic region' are irrelevant to this 'naming the current state' discussion. It's not complicated: when you collect evidence, exclude references to the historic region. As for mainstream or non-mainstream sources, I think it is fairest and gives us the best reading on usage when we just display all the Google News references.Haberstr (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here are new sources (Within the hour) using the term "Novorossiya" [37], [38], [39], [40]. I have found no sources within the past hour that use the term "New Russia". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As my colleague above has written, "we need to use WP:COMMON first and foremost." However, I disagree with him/her when he/she states, "not do straw polls on what we prefer." The straw poll was to elicit editors' opinions regarding what is in fact common usage in English language media. They have spoken overwhelmingly, and they believe, from their observance and reading of that media, that the common usage is "Novorossiya." As my colleague above writes, "Wikipedia must reflect common use and since this is English wiki, prefer readability for English readers." In that spirit, here is more of the overwhelming recent use of "Novorossiya" (ONLY in reference to the new state, NOT in reference to the historical region) in mainstream English language news media across the world:

  • [41] Ukraine and its separatists have passed the point of no return. Haaretz - ‎May 30, 2014‎

... Last week, two eastern regions announced the establishment of a new federal state — Novorossiya (new Russia), the name of the area in the Tsarist period in the 19th Century.

  • [42] A Coffin Convoy to Russia. Daily Beast - ‎May 30, 2014‎

... “There should not be robbers with guns running around Donetsk, if we want to build Novorossia,” said Elena Lashuk, a devoted volunteer, who spent weeks cooking food and helping the rebellious militia.

  • [43] Russians Invade Donetsk (VIDEO). Kyiv Post - ‎May 30, 2014‎

“This is Novorossiya,” he said, echoing Russian President Vladimir Putin's czarist-era description of the region. ...

  • [44] Ukraine: Progress Without Peace. The New York Review of Books - ‎May 29, 2014‎

... On May 24 rebel leaders in Donetsk and Luhansk declared they were uniting into the Federal State of Novorossiya, or New Russia.

  • [45] Ukraine to extend crackdown against pro-Russian separatists. Haaretz - ‎May 28, 2014‎

The separatists in Donetsk and Lugansk announced their total separation from Ukraine on the weekend and the establishment of a new state, Novorossiya.

  • [46] Al Jazeera America: Separatists remain resolute in Ukraine after elections and bombardments. Kyiv Post - ‎May 28, 2014‎

HORLIVKA, Ukraine - The funeral procession last weekend for Aleksandr Politov snaked through the wooded lanes of an overgrown cemetery to the plot where the men of the Novorossiya Army buried their comrade.

  • [47] Ukraine says hundreds of armed militants have crossed border from Russia. News & Observer - ‎May 27, 2014‎

In the Luhansk region, whose People's Republic is linked to the Donetsk People's Republic through a union called Novorossiya, ...

  • [48] Petro Poroshenko faces array of challenges as Ukraine's president. Financial Times - ‎May 26, 2014‎

... pressing will be retaking control of Ukraine's two easternmost regions of Donetsk and Lugansk, home to 6.6m people, whose self-appointed rebel leaderships declared on Saturday they were merging to create an independent state named “Novorossiya”.

  • [49] Interview: Russia Watcher Lucas Says 'Tide Has Turned A Bit' For Ukraine. RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty - ‎May 26, 2014‎

I think that the separatists in Luhansk and Donetsk, and there so-called Novorossia will continue to be a problem.

  • [50] Ukraine's Elections See 'Chocolate King' Petro Poroshenko Take On 'Gas Princess' Yulia Tymoshenko. Huffington Post UK - ‎May 25, 2014‎

On Saturday, Pavel Gubarev, self-appointed leader of the Donetsk People's Republic, said the two states would take steps to create Novorossiya, or New Russia, the name eastern Ukraine was called in the 19th century.

  • [51] Ukraine votes for a new President, polling disrupted in east. The Hindu - ‎May 25, 2014‎

The Ukrainian Election Commission reported that voting was taking place in 9 out of 34 election districts in the two rebellious regions, which on Saturday formed a self-proclaimed independent state of Novorossiya and vowed to derail the presidential vote.

  • [52] Ukraine Decides on Its Next President. VICE News - ‎May 25, 2014‎

Just hours before the presidential vote was due to start the leaders of the two rebel-controlled oblasts announced a formal partnership, under the name of Novorossiya and the establishment of a new joint defense group, the "People's Front."

  • [53] Today's Ukraine election means there will be no war with Russia. Quartz - ‎May 25, 2014‎

Yet Ukraine's new leadership faces other gargantuan challenges, including a decision yesterday by two of its most important industrial regions to combine in their own “people's republic” called Novorossiya.

  • [54] Ukraine PM urges voters to make their choice. KSAT San Antonio - ‎May 24, 2014‎

And according to protesters speaking Saturday outside the headquarters of the self-declared "Donetsk People's Republic," as well as the body's Twitter account, Donetsk and Luhansk have united to form a new separatist republic called "Novorossiya."

  • [55] Donetsk, Lugansk republics unite in “Novorossiya” state. ITAR-TASS-May 25, 2014
  • [56] Self-proclaimed Donetsk and Lugansk republics form ‘Novorossiya’ union. RT-May 24, 2014
  • [57] Donetsk, Lugansk People's Republics Unite in Novorossiya. Fars News Agency-May 24, 2014Haberstr (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Four more mainstream 'Novorossiya' references within the last 24 hours:

  • [58] Russia, NATO Spar Over Military Forces in Central Europe. Voice of America-10 hours ago

Nearby, Ramil Gizatullin, a dentist, stood with a large banner calling for Russia's recognition of the self-styled republic of Novorossiya

  • [59] Mom and Pop on Ukraine's Battle Line. Daily Beast-12 hours ago

... for federalization and an independent republic as a part of Ukraine, and now they stand for some even more confusing idea, of a new state called Novorossia, ...

  • [60] Majority of Russians Consider Recognition of Donetsk People’s Republic Independence. RIA Novosti-18 hours ago

The self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk signed a treaty on May 24 to unify under the name of Novorossiya. The interim Kiev government refused ...

  • [61] June 1-2: Eurasian Union's attractiveness increases, civilians bombed in Ukraine, Peter the Bloody’s chocs boycotted. The Voice of Russia-Jun 2, 2014
I think more chocoholics like me will boycott Roshen chocolate: Mr 'CandyMan' Poroshenko behaves in a sour way not respecting Novorossia and the lives of its ...

Haberstr (talk) 07:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Haberstr, you should be well aware of the fact that this is not a forum. Don't try to hijack it with your advocacy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
You seem very confused Iryna Harpy. The title of this section is Common use in media; I hope that clears up the matter. If you apologize for your accusation after noting the title of this section, I would appreciate that.Haberstr (talk) 06:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Gawd! Are you ever way off the mark in picking out your concept of the media, plus picking choice pieces of irrelevant reader comments! The Voice of Russia? en.ria.ru? "Mom and Pop on Ukraine's Battle Line" (The Daily Beast picking up an article by a Moscow-based freelance journalist: already discussed with User:Knowledgekid87 - although he appears to have missed it). Per the Huffington Post, "On Saturday, Pavel Gubarev, self-appointed leader of the Donetsk People’s Republic, said the two states would take steps to create Novorossiya, or New Russia, the name eastern Ukraine was called in the 19th century.", attesting to the fact that they are qualifying what "Novorossiya", or New Russia means. How does any of this - most particularly your albatross partial quote from someone commenting - relate to what the actual discussion was about? In a nutshell, no, I can't and won't apologise for your pulling tracts of irrelevant weirdness out as if it were pertinent to "Common use [the Western] in media". Again, in the examples you've provided, where used in English language articles "Novorossiya" appears almost invariably in inverted commas and is qualified by 'meaning' New Russia. You've hijacked and derailed the thread with gobbledygook, and slid right WP:OFFTOPIC. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 07:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
It is difficult to believe how you got confused on the matter, but there are no "reader comments" in the quotes. All the quotes are from the news reporting and are of the first and or only reference to Novorossiya. That information is critical in a section called Common use in media. To get matters on topic, that evidence shows that Novorossiya is very widely used and New Russia is rarely used.Haberstr (talk) 10:09, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
What nonsense. We've proven firstly, that "New Russia" isn't "rarely used". But that's not the most important argument here. The most important part is that common name has not been established in the mainstream western English media. Given this, we fall back to WP:NATURALNESS! What is so hard to understand? Your examples often use "New Russia" together with "Novorossiya", come from non-native English-speaking media, or use "Novorossiya" in quotations of separatists. RGloucester — ☎ 16:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Not all sources put forward have done this though, when you put "New Russia" into a google search, does anything come up? The references you provided above quote "New Russia" in the historical tense and not for the current state. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@Haberstr: Confused? Yes, you certainly do confuse me. Again (and again, and again), 'in the media' is not comments (letters to the editor?) in a non-article you've found in VoR quoting a comment from an 'outraged' Spanish guy (assuming he exists). You then presume to quote his personal opinion regarding Poroshenko on this talk page. You've pleaded that there's a "little team" (implying cabal) here unreasonably objecting to Novorossia as the common English term. I'm not imply anything: I am stating that you're engaging in blatant WP:ADVOCACY. Back off now, or be prepared to take it up with me in an official venue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry you are confused. I can only repeat what is obviously true: all the sources are mainstream news sources, and all the quotes are of the first reference to Novorossiya. For example, note relevant to the only issue we should be discussing, that the quote you direct us to, of the 'outraged Spanish guy', has him saying Novorossiya and not New Russia. This demonstrates once again that Novorossiya is WP:COMMONNAME, which we are supposed apply "first and foremost," as one of the editors said above. The evidence on my side really has become quite overwhelming. And, on your side, all I see so far is a confused and confusing mix of irrelevant references to the historic region and relevant references to the breakaway state.Haberstr (talk) 07:18, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
An "outraged Spanish guy" has no relevance on the common name of the state in the English language. RGloucester — ☎ 14:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The reference to "Novorossiya" and not "New Russia" in any mainstream news report is of course relevant to a discussion of WP: COMMONNAME. So, reporting the "outraged Spanish guy" as saying "Novorossiya" and not "New Russia" is relevant.Haberstr (talk) 09:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering how to approach this from an angle you'll finally comprehend. How is it relevant? We are discussing WP:COMMONNAME in the context of native English speakers/readers of English Wikipedia, not Spaniards (real or VoR propaganda) writing into VoR in a language other than their native language.
Incidentally, if you check the Spanish version of this article, you may find it edifying to note that it's entitled "Estado Federal de Nueva Rusia". Can't see any Novorossiya there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The article you are referring to is from the English language media and refers to the breakaway state as Novorossiya. The title of this section is "Common use in media." If we are guided by WP:COMMONNAME we will choose Novorossiya or Federal State of Novorossiya as the title for the Wikipedia entry.Haberstr (talk) 13:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
It's needlessly confusing to veer discussion away from English language media, in which Novorossiya is far more common than any other name for the breakaway state.Haberstr (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not needlessly confusing. You, however, are being needlessly WP:POINTy. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Consensus, so let's move?

Including TaalVerbeteraar as a 'support', the result is 14 in favor of changing name to 'Federal State of Novorossiya' and 3 to keep the name as it is now. That's consensus, I think. So, seeing it's seven days since the proposed move, why hasn't the name been changed? Are we waiting for an uninvolved administrator?Haberstr (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTAVOTE pretty much sums it up, seven days have passed though so it wouldn't hurt to pass a mention over to WP:ANRFC. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Votes do not over-ride WP:COMMON and the use of English. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That is your position though and not what the outcome may or may not be. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sure we could get a dozen votes of Ukrainian editors to move Kiev to Kyiv, but simply saying "it's what I want" isn't going to get the page moved. So far the 'Novorossiya' side hasn't presented any legitimate arguments or citations of policy, just votes. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
I've just added a 'strong oppose' in the supposed RfC above, although there is nothing to decide on through an RfC at this point in time. The fact of a large number of English speakers whose native language is not English 'voting' to change the title of the article per WP:COMMONNAME (while most of the sources they cite in developing articles are not English language sources, or are translated into English by POV and non-native English speakers) does not add up to anything other than a preference. A preference does not translate into the reality of the English language sources. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
How did you determine editors' native languages? In any case, 14 to 3 I think represents the overwhelming opinion that Novorossiya is vastly more common in all news sources than is 'New Russia'. Just an opinion, but 14 to 3 makes it a consensus opinion. If we elicit people's opinions and then a few recalcitrant editors decide to ignore them, Wikipedia is disfunctional.Haberstr (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
"vastly more common"? Please stop blatantly making things up. We've already tallied what media says and its tilted against 'Novorossiya' if anything and you know it.--LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 07:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please follow Wikipedia policy: WP:NPA. As I said in my note below, I've presented direct and overwhelming evidence regarding WP:COMMONNAME in the section immediately above. You have chosen to provide readers a confusing mix of references to historical region and references to the breakaway state. After you were informed that references to the historical region are irrelevant to WP:COMMONNAME, why didn't you erase all such references from your 'evidence'? That would be helpful for those of us seeking an honest, civilized and evidence-focused discussion here.Haberstr (talk) 09:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please don't accuse me of personal attacks for simply describing your actions: you didn't show at all that Novorossiya is used in English media at the time of my reply, and your claims that it 'overwhelming' is patently false. There are not five lights. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 22:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
When you write "Please stop blatantly making things up," after the sheer overwhelming amount of hard evidence of the widespread use of "Novorossiya," that is a personal attack. I hope the example helps. Please read Wikipedia policy WP:NPA for further education. Are you going to provide any actual evidence for your point of view in the 'common use' section above? If you decide to try, make sure to exclude references to the historic region of south and east Ukraine, and only provide mainstream media examples of references to the breakaway state. Someone up in that section bungled that, and it's caused confusion.Haberstr (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
  • While I'm hesitant to talk about "people whose native language is not English", considering this is the "encyclopaedia that anyone can edit", I somewhat agree. It seems like many of the above editors are speakers of East Slavic language who's preference is based on their basis in those languages, rather than in their basis in English. Regardless of that, I think that all the "common name" arguments have fallen flat. Indeed, there has not been continuing coverage in the mainstream western media of "New Russia", and furthermore, the establishment of a "common name" takes time. Both usages are found evenly at present, and the use of English should inevitably be preferred for policy reasons given that the common name isn't established. Furthermore, more information is conveyed to the reader in "New Russia". I've made this all clear above, but I thought I'd just reiterate these points in summation. RGloucester — ☎ 23:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I do concede that my objections may have come across as being somewhat brusque, but it isn't the brunt of my objections to renaming the article to reflect nomenclature that is not familiar to native English speakers/readers per WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and the WP:KISS priciple. Ultimately, English Wikipedia is written for native English speakers. The title of an article in English Wikipedia should be intuitive enough to be recognisable to the reading audience it is aimed at, not based on irredentist parsing of its purpose. Despite being able to point out occurrences of 'Novorossia' - or what convolution thereof ESL (English as a Second Language) users believe to be a more appropriate title - I have not encountered it as being common in the Western media. Past usage and association is equally irrelevant and would constitute WP:OR. Are there any scholarly works on the current situation floating around as yet? No, there can't be. It would take a crystal ball to predict how it will be referred to in future research. Irredentism belongs in the body where/if appropriate. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:52, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
The "who is a native speaker" game is devoid of facts and of course breaks both ways. Common usage in English language news sources leans strongly toward 'Novorossiya'. While you are free to conjecture on any matter you'd like, that's the only real issue here.Haberstr (talk) 07:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to use what is used more commonly in English sources, you should change your vote to New Russia then or quit lying to push this POV of yours. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 07:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please follow the following Wikipedia policy: WP:NPA. Engaging in personal attacks may reveal to you that that is your only recourse, and I hope you learn the proper lesson. I have presented an enormous amount of evidence in the section immediately above this one that the term 'Novorossiya' is much more common than 'New Russia'. You've presented a mishmash of references to the historical region and to the new state. Mixing up the two references is unhelpful and may have confused you about what the issue and facts are here..Haberstr (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Please clarify what you're talking about, Haberstr. Where, in English language sources, is the use of 'Novorossiya' as pertaining to the subject of this article (being the contemporary events) the commonly recognised nomenclature? I think it prudent that you read through English Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:NAMINGCRITERIA which you still don't seem to have referred to, despite my already having pointed it out to you. I haven't seen you produce anything convincing in the way of evidence and, as I've already indicated, I've been following events through local (Australian) media and have yet to encounter the term. Where is this Common usage in English language news sources leans strongly toward 'Novorossiya' you're referencing? Incidentally, calling a spade a spade is not considered a personal attack where it is warranted. You are POV pushing, full stop. —Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
You ask this question knowing that I have presented, in the sub-section Common use in media, 27 examples of common usage of Novorossiya in a wide range of English-language media. Another editor has presented 4 additional examples. The other side of the argument has not yet presented their evidence of widespread use in the media of the term New Russia applied only to the breakaway state. Instead they've cited irrelevant but numerous examples of New Russia applied to the historical region of south and east Ukraine.Haberstr (talk) 10:19, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
And how many sources were shown the other way? 20? So it's roughly even and not lopsided like you keep lying about? And you also keep in mind you're using Russian sources and not English mainstream media. Also, your aversion to the MASSIVE preference of 'New Russia' to "Novorossiya" in the historical context is just a weasely way of ignoring evidence. So what if its not specifically for the state but for the region of which he bears its name? It's the same damn thing and you know it. This is like me saying in 1992 that "we're going to call the Russia article "Rossiyskaya Federatsiya" because all previous sources are historical". This is lame lame lame arguing on your part. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 00:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Cut the WP:ADVOCACY, Haberstr. I've already responded to your leaky 27 examples above, in the relevant section. Read it and respond. Better still, read it and back away. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I note, Iryna Harpy, that you have presented no evidence of my violating WP:ADVOCACY. So, once again, please cease the groundless attacks. If you're unsure about the matter, reading WP:NPA can be very helpful.Haberstr (talk) 07:24, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I'd also like to say that many of the "sources" he has cited only used "Novorossiya" in quotations of various insurgents, which are not translated to preserve the integrity of the quote. Furthermore, others are from the English-language news agencies of non-English speaking countries. RGloucester — ☎ 22:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I have cited English sources above that use the term as well... If the name really was complex then why would English language sources only be using that term? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is a source from 5 hours ago: [62]. The Daily Beast is an English language source. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
No, Knowledgekid87, it is a source written in English. This has already been discussed at length. "The Daily Beast" and other sources being brought up as some form of evidence is based in Moscow. Other sources you've pointed out are written in English, but are based in other parts of the world where they are not native English speakers, therefore it doesn't account for what the average native English speaker would have encountered in the mass media they access. As RGloucester has noted, instances where this nomenclature is used in the English language press are in inverted commas. The titles of the articles use the term New Russia, then refer to it as "Novorossiya". These articles deal explicitly with analysing the term within the context of the VP and RF state hark-back to a concept of the old empire. The fact that it is used in inverted commas demonstrates that it is being introduced as an unknown quantity term in the English language. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The Daily Beast is owned by IBT Media which is based in New York. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Or how about this recent source? [63] Source is Voice of America headquartered in Washington DC and owned by the US government. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
How about the fact that it draws on articles written by freelance journalists (in this case, the journalist being Anna Nemtsova who is based in Moscow). You're referencing a few specialised online reports which assume knowledge of the term. What has this to do with broader Western media coverage? The fact that the term can be found in online reportage does not automatically equate with its being familiar or in common usage. I think that you're so bogged down in chasing up information on current affairs that you're unable to distinguish between how familiar it is to you as opposed its familiarity for the average native English speaker who isn't as politicised as you are. Don't keep jumping the gun based on your own assumptions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:54, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I am not sure I am completely understanding this, but for now, I will say that I heavily oppose changing the article title to include the s in parenthesis. Dustin (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Dustin. I can understand your confusion. What is being discussed here is whether the use of "Novorossiya" is justifiable as an easily identifiable and natural English language naming convention. If you can put aside your personal involvement in the development of the article (where you have been exposed to "Novorossiya" and know what is being referenced), would the average English language reader be more likely to be familiar with this convention or "New Russia"? As you're from the US, if you think about what you've been exposed to in the US mass media, as opposed to what has been written here and discussed here, would "Novorossiya" be meaningful to you? There are a number of native English speakers who would not recognise the term through their encounters with it in their own media environment (myself included, as I live in Australia). We don't have any idea of whether the term "Novorossiya" will be used in the future (WP:CRYSTAL), therefore don't feel it is apt to apply it as the WP:TITLE for the article. While it's fine to use the term in the body of the article, is it intuitive enough for the average English speaking user to be familiar with it? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Hmm... I might need to think about this for a bit longer. In any case, I will say that most of the things I have seen on television (at least what I have seen) have not made many mentions of "Novorossiya"; I have heard "New Russia" on few occasions, but I honestly don't see why the name shouldn't be in English. At least for me, there have not been many more mentions of either, for which reason I would have thought the English naming convention should apply. I still might have to give this more thought, though. Dustin (talk) 00:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, Dustin. I'm don't know why this is being treated as an urgent decision to make. Given some time, it'll become clear without our pushing for change or no change. We're not the news, so we let the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:COMMONSENSE, WP:NATURALNESS, as well as the secondary sources we use determine the nomenclature. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
The WP:COMMONNAME is Novorossiya, WP:COMMONSENSE is part of what WP:IAR means in an essay so I do not know why you are citing that and WP:NATURALNESS has already been addressed. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
WP:NATURALNESS has been addressed (I assume you're inferring that it is has been rebutted)... where? You've yet to establish Novorossiya as WP:COMMONNAME other than specialised sources (other than a Russian freelance journalist being picked up) and occasional references (normally in the body of the article, not the title). How have you established anything other than a WP:TEDIOUS case of repetition of "Novorossiya is the the common name" through secondary sources? Being able to demonstrate that it has been used is by no means the equivalent of common name. The fact that it's your personal preference does not a case make. Why don't you try backing off for a while instead of treating this issue as a WP:BATTLEGROUND? All you've actually accomplished is raising the level of animosity and leaving a bad taste in the mouths of other users who've only encountered you for the first time. I seriously hope you truly feel this is so important that it's worth alienating other editors in their future encounters with you. Happy editing! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Please stop assuming things, the wording of Novorossiya has been present in a number of sources brought be editors here but are being dismissed as being talked about by Russian reporters? What the heck does that have to do with English RS reporting on the subject? I have provided sources as well which you failed to address even one Voice of America which is owned by the United States government. You have raised some valid points but so have I and others who are editing here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
Then open a proper RfC and see what genuinely neutral editors have to say on the subject. You're not going to get consensus this way. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I will at least say that these arguments are not going anywhere, and I do not think this article is ready for any sort of move until these back-and-forth arguments have been concluded. RfC would be best, in my opinion. It might at least help resolve this dispute. Dustin (talk) 00:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no point in drawing this out into an RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 01:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
An RfC might be best at this point as the people opposing appear to be in the minority I know that WP:NOTAVOTE applies but I do not see this being resolved anytime soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
No, Knowledgekid87... and thanks for pulling me up on this, RGloucester. You're correct. It could actually be construed as WP:FORUMSHOPPING / WP:GAMING. That's something that should have been thought out properly before attempting a 'by vote' count via an RM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually the RfC that you suggested would take place here so no it would not be either of those things. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The proper venue for move discussions to take place is in a formal requested move discussion. That's what this is. This is not a vote, as you've stated. The balance of the argumentation above stands, and I do not see how there is any argument in favour of the abstract "Novorossiya". RGloucester — ☎ 01:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay, we know where both sides stand, we should just let an admin make the final call here on a consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
@RGloucester: Well, somebody has to make the final call in order for this discussion to finally end. This discussion has already been drawn out for over a week, and continuing this discussion for any longer will not likely help anything. Dustin (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
At this point its a WP:COMMONNAME against a WP:NATURALNESS argument with other things being pointed out in the process in the form of essays. Both sides have accused each other of WP:POV pushing with titles of their own choosing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
How did you come to that conclusion, Knowledgekid87? The WP:COMMONNAME hasn't been established as being Novorossiya in the English language, therefore there is no 'versus' in the equation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The overwhelming weight of the evidence gathered in the common use' subsection indicates that the common name in English language media is Novorossiya. In addition, 15 of the 20 editors with an opinion think the article should be renamed Novorossiya, and I assume nearly all of them base their opinion on their sense of what is common use. I think looking at the evidence is the best way to make a WP:COMMONNAME decision, but if you disagree please explain.Haberstr (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Stop spouting nonsense. This is not a vote, so it doesn't matter how many people say whatever. What matters is policy, and policy does not support "Novorossiya" in any sense. You've not established anything with regard to the "common name", and we've refuted that multiple times. RGloucester — ☎ 14:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Italicising your WP:POV does not make it any more or less true. If you wanted me to present evidence of your WP:ADVOCACY, Haberstr, here's a lengthy page of it. You are being WP:POINTy. Everything to said for either side has been said... over, and over, and over... Is there anyone else here browbeating every contributor who disagrees with them? No? No. Enough. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:02, 7 June 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.

Post-move discussion

Woah, sorry, but how are you tallying up consensus from this mess? Dustin (talk) 05:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There could have been some sort of notice at least. I don't see why a non-English name would be taken almost regardless of what this is, but I would just like to know how you came to make this decision regarding this discussion. Dustin (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I have to agree with Dustin V. S. I don't actually find the rationale to be particularly edifying or the process to be transparent. The first paragraph discusses its complexity, yet argues that the most common name should be applied. One thing that has become extremely evident is that evidence for a common name per native English language sources are not demonstrable. This quick wrap-up strikes me as being... well, simply a quick wrap-up. Considering that "Novorossia" (a word/title that doesn't exist in English), and was never a part of the title at any point from the inception, where in doubt, the original name sticks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. I think we established that at best the use, due to its lack thereof, is split between the two with 'New Russia' having dominance in the historical sense. How this turned into "we dont have common use but it seems common use is novorossiya" was confusing based on the concluding text. —LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 06:22, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
No you didn't. I established overwhelming use in English of Novorossiya and not 'New Russia'. The Support vs Oppose vote was something like 15 to 5. That vote is an expression (among those editors without an ideological axe to grind) of the sense among the overwhelming majority of editors that the most common reference in English langauge RS is 'Novorossiya'. Your side presented no evidence that there was widespread reference to the breakaway state as 'New Russia'. In fact your only 'evidence' in the 'common use' section was a messy mix of references to the historical region and the breakaway state.Haberstr (talk) 19:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
That is not what I would consider to be "overwhelming". Second, Wikipedia is not a vote, so it more depends on reasoning. Third of all, the simple opinions of Wikipedia editors can not be used to establish the common name; a sample of Wikipedia editors has a sample bias because people who edit on Wikipedia are more likely to think certain things than those not on Wikipedia. Dustin (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I agree that I don't think the closure was the in line with policy, by my interpretation, he did provide a thorough analysis. A move review is possible, but I'm fairly sure it would fail on procedural grounds. I do think that we demonstrated that "Novorossiya" cannot possibly be considered the common name, and I'm fairly certain I argued well that "Novorossiya" isn't at all WP:PRECISE or in line with WP:NATURALNESS for the English speaker. I would support a move review if one was drafted, but I would not initiate it myself. RGloucester — ☎ 15:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I could have been clearer on my question above; my first question was after the discussion was closed by Xoloz but before the actual page was moved, and I missed part of Xoloz's analysis, but I still think that we should possibly put this up for reconsideration in the future. It isn't a major issue, but there ought to be a clearer, firmer way of tallying up consensus. I could see what appeared to be reliable sources from the editors in opposition to the move, so I don't think you could call this "obvious". I will say more on this in a bit. Dustin (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Am I right in saying that this discussion has died and there is now no chance of a move back or anything else? Dustin (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's premature to consider the discussion done and dusted. The original move was closed off far too quickly. Given that editors are working of a plethora of articles that have now cropped up surrounding the recent events, it's not allowing for anyone to return to this topic. Allowing for a few weeks of breathing space is hardly abnormal for Wikipedia. The only source I've encountered using the nomenclature we were landed with is VoR. I'd say it will need to be reviewed soon. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I guess breathing room shouldn't be all too unexpected. Maybe we can bring up a move review. Dustin (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Since it looks like no one else would have done it, I have listed this page at move review. Dustin (talk) 05:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
What's the link to the review? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novorossiya_(confederation)/Archive_2&oldid=1142773133"