Jump to content

Talk:Novorossiya (confederation)/Archive 3

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

Leadership

Who is in charge of this nation now that they've merged? Is there a single leader or are the leaders of the individual people's republic ruling side by side? The article mentions a president, so who is the President? Toolen (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

They haven't merged in any real sense. It is all theory. Essentially, the DPR and LPR continue to exist separately, and have separate leaderships. RGloucester — ☎ 22:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)\

Not if their constitutions have been merged. I guess that just means that Novorossiya is just a weak confederation that has yet to choose a central leader. 205.232.106.254 (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Novorossiya

That's only right name of country. Or may be Newrussia, but NOT new Russia, it's impossible: not part of Russia (or you think so?))77.41.94.113 (talk) 19:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)77.41.94.113 (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)Pavel

correct Megi Bun
Absolutely agreed. It is as wrong to call Novorossiya by the name "New Russia" as it would be to refer to Belarus as "White Russia". Using the name "New Russia" appears to be advancing a non-neutral point of view. The parallel is very strong 71.3.96.176 (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2014 (UTC) hhall
The state name not necessarily is had to repeat the name of the historical territory. Otherwise, the term Novorossiya also would be wrong as it occurred from the term Russia (i.e. on such logic Novorussia should be written). Anyway, the term Novorossiya is closer to truth, than New Russia. --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually Novorossiya and New Russia means absolutely the same in Russian, Ukrainian and English languages.Viktor Š 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Viktor Yushchenko in Novorossiya propaganda

According to this article former Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko is used in a Novorossiya propaganda movie... Yushchenko was the one who awarded ultranationalist leader Stepan Bandera the title of Hero of Ukraine.... Novorossiya claims to protect people from supporters of Bandera.... And is using a photo of Yuchenko as an example of a "courageous defender" of Novorossiya.... Should this embarrassing mistake be mentioned in this, or another, Wikipedia article? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't consider it to be reliable info, unless we can get more neutral sources on this.89.215.172.157 (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)BLGR

Third unrecognised state recognising South Ossetia?

I'm only aware of South Ossetia being recognised by Abkhazia and Transnistria. What's the 3rd unrecognised state recognising it? Would it be Kosovo? If so, I can't find any sources to support it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

It would be the  Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. [Soffredo] Yeoman 14:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Cheer, Soffredo. It's probably worth finding a source for that and adding it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Or people could just refer to this. [Soffredo] Yeoman 00:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Could be a good idea to wikilink it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

The other day I edited this page, and added that the FSN was partially recognised/limited recognition, as it is recognised by South Ossetia, which in turn is recognised by several UN member States, why was that edit undone? Unrecognised means by its very definition, not recognised by any other State but FSN is recognised by another State, that being South Ossetia. South Ossetia is a State, a non-UN member but a State nonetheless. The existence of a recognised State isn't dependent on UN membership. So could someone explain please why the edit was undone? Thing is, as it is now, the page is simply incorrect. Cheers. Martioh (talk) 04:15, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

South Ossetia is a state of extremely limited recognition. Being recognised by other unrecognised states and one state with extremely limited recognition does not make FSN a recognised state. Your assessment is WP:OR. If you have difficulties with accepting this, I suggest that you try to convince the Wikipedia community in another forum. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
You are funny : ) You say it does not make FSN a State with limited recognition, why, on what source do you base that assertion, an opinion is not an acceptable source. Are you being bias and not having a neutral point of view? Martioh (talk) 13:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Actually, the onus is on you to prove (through use of reliable sources) that it makes it a state in any capacity. Don't laugh too hard: can't have you hurting yourself, can we! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

User generated maps

Why are we using a user generated map in this article? The editor producing the map claims www.rnbo.gov.ua as the source, but looking at the latest August 28 map we can see that they are different [1] [2]. 92.2.66.209 (talk) 16:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Confederate States of America

Is it a coincidence that the flag looks similiar the Confederacy? --2.246.39.224 (talk) 09:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

It is a coincidence. New Russia's flag is derivative of a Naval Jack of Russia (1698) --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 11:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
the flag has nothing to do with the Russian naval jack. It does indeed to be a copy of the American Confederate flag. --Львівське (говорити) 17:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
It's joke?)))))) New Russia's flag is derivative of a Naval Jack of Russia. Look, they at all didn't begin to change it on action for Union of people's republics "New Russia" creation: [3] --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
it's derivative of both then, no mention of the naval jack was made during the unveiling and gubarev has been showing it since december --Львівське (говорити) 18:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STOVvHG-WaQ explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2028Е (talk • contribs) 22:12, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
And also this article: Izvestia.ru. What is Novorossiya? (in Russian). It was written before FSN came to being, but still states that flag of Novorossiya is based on Russian naval jack (and not on Confederate flag - it's just a coincidence). Seryo93 (talk) 07:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It is clearly inspired by the Russian flag, teh CSA argument is just a cheap shot of propaganda. --Soman (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Propaganda? For what? The only secessionists in the Southern United States I'm aware of are those idiots in the League of the South. Nobody is seriously considering seceding from the Union. Toolen (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. People in Ukraine choosing symbol for their new state just to appease some Americans. That's totally plausible \s 217.76.2.162 (talk) 05:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Section titled "Reality and truth beyond tons of fake information (Witness point of view)"

I've removed it due to its violating WP:NPOV. Epicgenius (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

manifest

This is what the article states about the "Manifesto of National Front of Liberation of Ukraine, Novorossiya and Carpathian Russia": "The key subject of the movement is called "the nation" and the main purpose of the movement is to "protect the nation's interests". Sorry, but I couldn't find it in the reference given. This appears to be flat out false. It does not mention the word "nation" (нация) at all. --80.7.87.151 (talk) 22:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

 Fixed Line removed. Quite right: it's generic manifesto which does not discuss 'nation' but, if anything, is a simplistic socialist-anarchist breakdown of units of power in each region (each of which can have their own constitution), and their accountability to the peoples of the Novorossia. I don't see the point in a further breakdown of how it is envisioned that the state would function, as a lengthy breakdown would be WP:UNDUE. This article isn't advertising space for rhetoric. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Population

The article should feature pre-war and current population estimates for the rebel controlled areas (IMHO). Fakirbakir (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how that could be accomplished. We'd need RS for any form of WP:CALC. Considering that the last Ukrainian census was held in 2001, and that figures for refugees, etc. have only been approximations, we'd really be in the thick of OR. It would certainly make for valuable encyclopaedic information... if it were possible. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for your answer. I know it is quite problematic. I hope we will have some RSs soon. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
If by soon, you mean within a year or so, that's not going to happen. There are still no serious efforts to create institutions of the new state of Novorossiya underway, and without having a credible official authority which can say something about how many people are within its jurisdiction, RSs can't give population estimates. – Herzen (talk) 11:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Er, what would you call a census, for example, Herzen? Not an RS? No one is trying to jump the gun on this issue. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
57.1% = 2 / 3.5 of Donetsk oblast live in DPR and roughly 64.4% of Luhansk oblast live in LPR. Approximately 4,356,392 * 0.571 + 2,246,884 * 0.644 = 3,934,493 people live in New Russia. Hope this helps.

http://en.itar-tass.com/world/751315

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_Oblast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_Oblast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Territorial size of New Russia

Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts have a total territory of 53,201 square kilometers. A third of this is New Russia. This amounts to about 17,700 square kilometers.

Sources:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/russia-urges-ukraine-to-talk-with-rebels-on-status-1410260966

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140909/192773919/Self-Proclaimed-Ukrainian-Republics-Lay-Claim-to-Whole.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donetsk_Oblast

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luhansk_Oblast — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.7.137.211 (talk) 15:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, 199.7.137.211, none of this 'helps' anyone. The "Federal State of Novorossiya" doesn't actually exist. Your input on this talk page works on the assumption that it does or will: known as crystal ball. Further to that, your population and territorial stats are not based on reasonable WP:CALC, but on original research. Wikipedia is strictly against original research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The Flag

The article contains the flag proposed by Oleh Tsarov some time ago, but we don't see it used anywhere. Every single photo featuring Novorossiya's symbols has the "naval jack" variant. The new variant could as well be personal project of Tsarov, maybe even nothing more than associating this Russian nationalist symbol with Novorossiya. So could we get the "naval jack" back? What kind of evidence is necessary to override evidence in favour of black-yellow-white? 217.76.2.162 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The saltire is the "war flag". They held an official thing on this matter. The tricolour is the state flag. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not a true. See this:
Представлено 2 законопроекта. Первый законопроект подразумевает такой же вид официального флага как и воинского знамени. Т.е. воинское знамя предлагалось у нас как красный фон, Андреевский крест на белой подложке, и предлагалось, что будет таким же и официальный флаг. И другой вариант - это из трёх полос состоящий, где посередине золотая полоса, сверху - белая, внизу - чёрная... // Oleg Tsaryov
There are 2 law projects. In the first project the official flag is meaned as War flag. The War flag contains red background and blue saltire with white edge. It was offered official flag will be same. The second project is the flag with gold (in the middle), white (at the top) and black lines. --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The yellow-white-black triband was officially adopted as the state flag. I don't know where you're coming up with this nonsense about "project flags". RGloucester — ☎ 20:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you speak russian? In your source, 2014/08/13, Tsaryov told the commission chose variant of state flag. It is all. Votes in Novorussian parliament it wasn't carried out yet. In this source, 2014/08/23, Tsaryov explained that Novorussian parliament will choose state flag from two projects. I еven wrote out the quote from the video for you, but you ask, from where I took it. --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
He's correct, RGloucester. I don't have any knowledge of a decision being made (although it's been a couple of months). Ultimately, they're still functioning with the 'naval jack' (created as their war flag) as the official flag. The black, white and gold is merely under consideration as their ultimate official flag. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Hm, I swear someone provided a source ages ago for changing the flag. Apparently there was some kind of poll, whereby there were multiple flags to choose from and they chose the triband. I don't remember when or where it was, but I'm almost positive that I saw it. Regardless, if that's the case, then the flagicons ought be changed. RGloucester — ☎ 22:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I found the source, but the link is dead. I argued with someone about this before, because I originally reverted the inclusion of the triband. Someone ought update Flag of the Federal State of Novorossiya (are we ever going to get rid of this horrible "federal state" nonsense?). RGloucester — ☎ 22:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Here is an archived version of the link. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yep, I was just about to post it for you [4]. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, the date discrepancy as to the announcement (supposedly 23 August) that it is currently under consideration and the actual official announcement of the adoption of the new flag (13 August) is merely a reflection of the fact that a user uploaded the video dating it 23 August (not an RS). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The video of Tsaryov press conference is had no relation by August 13. The video took place after adoption of law about War flag (the press conference was devoted to it). The law was adopted at a session of parliament at 2014/08/21. Then it was decided to postpone adoption of law on state flag. Possibly, not all agree with white-yellow-black flag variant which was offered by Tsarev. Therefore officially state flag of Novorussia doesn't exists. Only the War flag, flags of the Donetsk and Lugansk republics, and also a flag of Russia is actually used. Nobody uses a white-yellow-black flag --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 06:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I see. So, does the triband have any status at all? Or, is it abandoned completely? RGloucester — ☎ 17:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Triband has not officially status. It only project, no more than that. I will explain to you why everything so occurs. It was supposed that the parliament will adopt at the same time laws on State flag and on a War flag. Therefore in August of mass media prematurely began to distribute the wrong information on the triband, having decided that it will be approved in the next few days. But probably it happened so that there were disagreements concerning State flag and only the War flag was accepted. It is known that Gubarev lobbies a saltire. Leaders of the republics lobby their flags. If to speak about Tsaryov, nobody interests his opinion. He is the former deputy of the Ukrainian Rada, plays a link role between Donbass and Ukraine. He is necessary to Moscow that Novorussa continued expansion on all the historical territory (to Transnistria). In Odessa and Kherson Ukrainization consequences therefore the local population tears away radical pro-Russian leaders of Donbass are too strong. Tsaryov is a compromise figure which looks for things uniting Donbass and the Western Novorossiya. Possibly, Tsaryov decided that the flag of Russia of the 19th eyelid (when Novorussia reached blossoming) will be one of such things.--Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree to display of two flags in article as it is made in the Russian Wiki. It is a good compromise, after all officially there are two projects of a flag.--Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 20:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for bringing clarity to this discussion. RGloucester — ☎ 21:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Nicolay Sidorov. I've noted some edit warring over the use of one or the other flag, so I think some form of consensus needs to be reached as to the use of the flag which has not as yet been adopted. Use of the proposed new peacetime flag is contingent on the Federation coming into being, therefore shouldn't be displayed in the infobox per WP:CRYSTAL. My understanding is that, in the second conference, Tsarov is elaborating on adopting the triband (and what it alludes to, if, indeed, the triband is adopted) to usurp the naval jack because of its connotations of being awash with blood. Currently, there is no recognised federation, therefore the flag is a projection into the future. If it belongs anywhere, it would require a section on the flag to be added, although I suspect that would be WP:UNDUE. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Could some one please update the Flag of the Federal State of Novorossiya page? I would update the page myself but I am not familiar enough with the flag dispute to edit the page. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure of what you mean, Elevatorrailfan. Both the war flag and the projected triband are depicted there, although I see you've swapped the svg with a png (when svg versions are preferred). Could you please clarify the problem? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I mean that since the national flag is kind of disputed, I thought someone should edit the page. I do recall replacing a png with an svg however I do not recall replacing an svg with a png. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I confused myself flipping from page to page. Yes, you did replace the png with an svg in that article. I'm still not certain as to what you want edited there. Would you mind if we moved the discussion to that talk page? I'll start a section in order to establish what it is that you think needs to be addressed there. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:14, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

They have a court system now

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2Ymaq4m1zY Seems like they are trying to establish a court system — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.57.245 (talk) 02:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

International recognition

Furthermore, it was already stated neutrally. The user refactored
"...is a self-proclaimed confederation of Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic, claiming the territory of Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast in eastern Ukraine, which share a border with Russia."
to
"... is a self-declared confederation of the internationally under-recognised Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic, claiming and de facto administering the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk, which are internationally recognised as Donetsk Oblast and Luhansk Oblast, part of eastern Ukraine, which share a border with Russia." (in the lead, no less) is not 'Maintaining NPOV' as per the user's edit summary, but the antithesis: it doesn't get much more heavily POV and highly unencyclopaedic. The ES for the user's revert was a blatant personal attack. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
That edit was bizarre, because "oblasts" (regions) do not get internationally recognized; only states do. And I find the remark in the edit summary that "please, editors from Ukraine and Russia should either stop vandalising, or just stay out altogether" highly offensive. Both Ukrainian and Russian editors are capable of building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. There are a few editors who aren't Russian or Ukrainian creating and maintaining the article, but most of the editors who are involved are of Russian or Ukrainian descent. Disputes about NPOV, what's due or undue, what can be considered an RS, attribution for biased sources break out... but we've been perfectly capable of working through those issues (even if it does get unruly at times). Ethnic slurs and assumptions about POV are ignorant, unacceptable and, most importantly, violate policy. What is our role here? As Ukrainians or Russians, are we only to be trusted to translate the bulk of detailed, relevant information in one or the other language so long as we're kept on a leash? Experience to date has demonstrated that the worst of the bigotry and misinformation comes from outside of our Wikipedia community presence in these articles. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
That was understood, My very best wishes. It has also been discussed at the template for States with limited recognition, Donetsk People's Republic. Sorry to rehash my own comment from there regarding ISIL or any other such self-proclaimed state, but the shoe fits:
"Declaring yourself to be a state and not being recognised by official bodies (governments, UN, etc.) does not automatically make the declared state unrecognised. No official support means that you don't get a look in. Frankly, I could declare my front doorstep an independent state. I could get hundreds of people to sign a petition demanding that my doorstep should be recognised as an independent state. I could get media coverage over my dispute and sympathisers for my right to have my front step recognised as an independent state. The fact, however, will remain that no official entities recognise my front doorstep as anything other than my front doorstep in one of the states of Australia, therefore it will not be added to this list as an unrecognised state." --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:11, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

List of states recognizing the DNR and LNR

An editor removed a list that was originally it's own article, International recognition of Novorossiya, but was later merged. They said South Ossetia recognized LNR and DNR, not Novorossia. I undid the removal saying that's why the DNR and LNR are listed separately, but my edits were once again undone by the same editor who said South Ossetia did not recognize "Novorossia", which is the subject of this page. Since I'm placed under WP:1RR, I have to bring this issue to the talk page.

The original page for the International recognition of Novorossiya was merged, so I don't see why making new articles titled International recognition of the Donetsk People's Republic or International recognition of the Lugansk People's Republic would help. There wouldn't be enough content for each page, since each entity is recognized by two other disputed entities (it's sister and South Ossetia). But, since these entities within Novorossiya have received recognition to some degree, the list should be included. To have separate lists for them wouldn't be convenient, since we already have a merger seen at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Note that the DNR and LNR are, and always have been, listed separately on the list and that no entity has ever recognized Novorossiya as a sovereign state, as it doesn't claim to be that either. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 22:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

If you wish, you can create page International recognition of DNR and LNR, but not International recognition of Novorossiya. It was correctly merged because Novorossiya, as a confederation, was not recognized by any country. My very best wishes (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
It was merged because of WP:Content forking. Stop vandalizing the page and removing the information provided. If you actually took the time to read, it explains that Novorossiya isn't recognized by any state because it is not a state and has never claimed to be one. It talks about the international recognition that the DNR/LNR have received.
If you cared so much about this, you would propose a split and use the talk page, not remove an entire section based on your belief. [Soffredo] Yeoman 2 12:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

CSM

I know the name sometimes throws people off, but the Christian Science Monitor is a widely respected and reputable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's only off-putting by association. Recent reviews of CSM and the calibre of the author of the article suggests that it's an RS in the context you've used it. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Title

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: moved to Novorossiya (confederation). RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I think that we all know that the present title is unsatisfactory in every way. I don't want to rehash the New Russia ([Novorossiya] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help)) thing, and I'm sure that everyone knows where I stand on that issue. However, I've not seen this "federal state" business used in any reliable sources anywhere. Where is this derived from? If no sources can be provided, it should be eliminated from the title. RGloucester — ☎ 03:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Aye, there's the rub. Not only do RS not use the term (let's take an educated guess as to why: the state doesn't exist), the very concept of its existence, constitution, etc. is WP:CRYSTAL. Given that there is no 'Federal State of Novorossiya', that leaves us with the option of dropping 'federal state', leaving us with Novorossiya which - surprise, surprise - already exists in English Wikipedia as an historical region. Much as I don't want to rehash the "New Russia" thing, the entire move was premature and contingent on its being somehow picked up by RS. Er, coincidentally, I think everyone knows where I, too, stand on that issue. Considering that Wikipedia doesn't write the news and indulge in WP:OR, that's precisely what the renaming move did. "New Russia (Novorossiya)" anyone? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree entirely, but that ship has sailed away, for the time being. At this point, I just want to get rid of the "Federal State", which is supported by exactly zero sources. Yes, I'd prefer New Russia (confederation), or something like that. However, we know that such titles will fail, given the prominence of the anti-English lobby. As such, I imagine we're stuck with "Novorossiya (confederation)". RGloucester — ☎ 23:59, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree with Novorossiya (confederation), since it's simple. I've seen other titles in other Wikipedias. In the French Wikipedia it's called "Nouvelle-Russie (État)" or "Union des républiques populaires (Nouvelle-Russie)" which has a different meaning. The same meaning (more or less) is in the Ukrainian article: "Союз народних республік" (Union of People's Republics) and in the Russian article: "Новороссия (Союз народных республик)" (Novorossiya - Union of People's Republics). In Spanish it's "Nueva Rusia (confederación)" (New Russia (confederation)), in Dutch it's Nieuw-Rusland (regio) - Unie van Volksrepublieken New Russia (region) - Union of People's Republics. In other European languages, in Wikipedia, the name is the same as it is now in English: German: "Föderativer Staat Neurussland", Italian: "Stato federale della Nuova Russia"), Turkish: "Novorossiya Federal Devleti", Greek: "Ομοσπονδιακή Πολιτεία της Νέας Ρωσίας" (though in this case it's New Russia, not Novorossiya), Portuguese: "Estado Federal da Nova Rússia" (the same as in Greek), Swedish: "Federala staten Nya Ryssland". Well, I could list all the other languages here, but by what I've seen the most consensual terms in Wikipedia, at least are "Union of People's Republics" and "Novorossiya" (or New Russia, since Novorossiya is a transliteration). However, this is just what I picked up from Wikipedia itself. Each language has its own terms to name this entity, and they may vary a lot from one source to the other, in the same language itself.Charrock (talk) 01:56, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
By the way, among the remaining 10 most spoken languages in the world, in Mandarin (Chinese) Wikipedia (which is actually the most spoken language in the world, both as a 1st language, and by what I've seen from some quite reliable sources such as ethnologue), it's called, simply 新俄羅斯聯邦 (New Russia, if my translator is working well), in Hindi, they don't even have an article about it, so neither in Panjabi or Bengali (which are also among the 10 most languages in the world), in Arabic it's called, in Wikipedia, دولة نوفوروسيا الإتحادية(Federal State of Novorossiya), in Japanese also ノヴォロシア人民共和国連邦 (Federal State of Novorossiya), and since 3 Indian languages are missing (which is a pity for Wikipedia), I add the 3 following ones that have this article: Bahasa Indonesia: Negara Federal Novorossiya (Federal State of Novorossiya), Vietnamese: Nhà nước Liên bang Novorossiya (Federal State of Novorossiya) and Korean: 노보로시야 연방국 (Federal State of Novorossiya). I ignore why Hindi, Panjabi, Bengali, Farsi, Javanese, Telugu, Tamil or Marathi are ignoring this issue. Maybe in India and Iran (and maybe Indonesia, concerning to Javanese) they're not very interested about Ukraine, but it's an importantant issue, nevertheless (in my opinion, but it might be only a European important issue... I haven't investigated yet how much the Karen, Shan, Kachin or Rohingya people (only to mention Myanmar aka Burma) are so well known in the West. Maybe this is not an issue concerning to English Wikipedia, but concerns to Wikipedia in other languages. If anyone can speak Hindi, Panjabi, Bengali, Farsi, Javanese, Telugu, Tamil or Marathi, it would be interesting to address them this issue.Charrock (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Google searches: Novorossiya : 444.000 results, 新俄羅斯聯邦 (Novorossiya or New Russia): 826.000 results, in Mandarin (Chinese), Union of People's Republics: 95.300.000 results (though this may include a lot more than the current entity called Novorossiya), Union of People's Republics Novorossiya: 78.300 results, Novorossiya Federal Devleti (Turkish): 1070 results, Novorossiya Devleti (Turkish): 2050 results, Nouvelle-Russie (French): 66.700.000 results, Nouvelle-Russie État (French): 32.800.000 results, Federal State of Novorossiya (English): 62.300 results, Nueva Rusia (Spanish): 66.900.000 results, Nueva Rusia confederación (Spanish): 545.000 results. Among these few searches the only result that is more common on Google is actually Novorossiya (I guess, the transliteration from Новоросія in Ukrainian, and from the almost similar Russian version Новороссия). So, I guess Novorossiya shall stay, in my opinion. For me, at least, the question is: "Federal State of... " or "Union of People's Republic (Novorossiya)"? This according to Google searches I mentioned, according to some specific sources the conclusion might be different. Though, I've found the number of searches in French for Nouvelle-Russie État quite amazing (which would mean "Novorossiya (state)" or "New Russia (state)" Charrock (talk) 05:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
In all honesty, I gave up on the title when it was changed to the WP:OR WP:TITLE of 'Novorossiya'. I don't see how it can be redressed without restoring 'New Russia'. Months later, and there is still no evidence of the use of 'Novorossiya' without inverted comas and discussion of it as part of the Russian Federation's greater territorial plans. 'Confederation' as a disambiguator is as much of a conceptual ambition rather than actual entity as is the current title (also taking into account the greater territorial ambitions of the leaders of this unrecognised state in themselves). Given the dire economic straits of Donetsk and Luhansk with winter coming up, this is all WP:CRYSTAL. I'm reticent to attribute aspirational/notional confederations with an 'in this world' title. Kiev has fairly much cut the apron strings and it's down to the RF as to whether they're going to give actual financial aid and recognition to the regions. Until anything happens further down the line, it's still OR to confer any status other than what RS are telling us. I apologise to the sysop (or it may have been in consultation with other sysops) for offending them, but the RM was closed without careful consideration of policy where WP:CON should play no part in when the request is based on WP:EXTRAORDINARY claims. The best I could go with is "Novorossiya (virtual confederation)", and I'd sneer at it as an NDESC title. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
As "virtual" as it may be, I'm sure you are aware that we can't use such words in an article, just as with WP:ALLEGED. The only way to really know what's going on with this "New Russia" would be to go there and find out. As it stands now, I've seen the saltire used by various people in pictures, but I'm not aware of "New Russia" really existing otherwise. Regardless, it is a proposed "confederal-like" entity, so "confederation" is the best possible disambiguation in my opinion. "State" doesn't seem appropriate, as I'm don't even think it claims to be a state. Yes, I favour "New Russia". You know that. I just don't see it happening. I've tried to defend English-language titles for a variety of things pertaining to this Eastern Europe stuff, and yet it has all fallen through. I can't imagine a new request would likely result in this article being move to "New Russia" anything. RGloucester — ☎ 00:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Given that the article exists, and that 'Novorossiya' has been deemed to be a component of the title, I do see your proposal as being a pragmatic solution. 'Federal State' is not supported by sources or by any known quantity that would support that any form of functioning state as existing. I'm prepared to support "Novorossiya (confederation)" as a far better option than the current farcical title. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
If there are no objections, I will go forward with that proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Go ahead. – Herzen (talk) 05:21, 6 December 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.

Nominated for Deletion to get input

I've just nominated this for deletion. I don't have a strong feeling yet what to do with it, but I'm not happy with the current state. Maybe a delete discussion will pull in more editors and focus the debate? Legacypac (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking on how best to address the nomination. While I strongly suspect there'll be a push to keep it as meeting GNG, it really shouldn't exist in its current form. Personally, I consider it to be of regional interest. Anything of any substance could easily be merged into one of the other articles surrounding the war, most pertinently the two self-declared republics. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I feel the subject is prominent enough to be featured in its own article. However, I'd say the article should indeed treat the subject as a matter of symbolism / propaganda / theory, rather than as a factual state. Stamboliyski (talk) 09:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Delete discussion is trending strongly to a major rewrite - which will give weight to the needed rewrite. I took out some inappropriate categories already and suggest we start refocusing it as an idea or concept. How about the article name? Maybe Novorossiya (political concept)?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Legacypac (talk • contribs) 23:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Support: At the moment, I'm prepared to accept any form of disambiguation in order to distinguish it from the historical region and qualify it as a political concept. It would certainly make for a good starting point for beginning an overhaul of the content to fit the subject. As I don't see any RS to indicate a COMMONNAME, the suggestion seems appropriate per NDESC. The only other possibilities that occur to me are probably more CONCISE, but would probably lean towards being identified as POV. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Novorossiya no longer a confederation?

On December 12, 2014, the "Declaration of State Sovereignty of Novorossiya" was amended. According to translation, it describes an entity known as the Union of Sovereign Republics of the State of Novorossiya "as a free and independent state [that] has the authority to declare war, conclude peace, contract alliances, engage in international trade, and to take any other action which is entitled to any independent state."[5] Did the DNR and LNR merge into one? Have they seized to exist and now Novorossiya has taken their place? 24.44.176.72 (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That's an interesting document. Yes, indeed it does not describe Novorossiya as a confederation, but as a "union" on the model of the USSR. It states that the only official language is Russian, which only makes sense, since most Ukrainians over twenty are not able to use Ukrainian in an official or professional capacity. Except in the case of nationalist extremists, the use of Ukrainian is restricted to rural areas, whereas Russian is a world language. This document also mentions "the people of Novorossiya", which indicates that the ultimate objective is to create a nation state. Especially interesting is this: "Новороссия расторгает все политические связи с бывшим государством Украина, не является и не стремится быть частью общего с ним политического пространства." Novorossia annuls all political relations with the former state of Ukraine, and is not and does not aim to be part of a common political space with it.
Now for a little original research, since I don't see how else to answer your question. This document represents the Strelkov line: Novorossiya basically replaces Ukraine, except for its western parts. The problem with this is that Moscow does not agree with Strelkov. Moscow wants Donetsk and Lugansk to remain parts of Ukraine, because so long as those regions are part of Ukraine, Ukraine cannot launch a war agoinst Russia.
So I think the title of this article is fine for now. We can wait and see how things develop. (I recently read that Russians now say that they have no idea of how things are going to develop with Ukraine.) – Herzen (talk) 01:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Considering this interview with Borodai (which I'm not going to contest being in the lead as it's attributed, not over-the-top, and is indicative of the political impasse that's come about). As there's really nothing of substance in reliable sources as to where this is heading, per Herzen, I'd agree that it's best to let the article stand as is until further information is available. For the purposes of Wikipedia, we can't engage in WP:RECENTISM, WP:CRYSTAL... and we certainly must avoid yellow journalism.
As an aside Herzen, I would ask that you desist from WP:OR and op-ed WP:ADVOCACY evidenced in "It states that the only official language is Russian, which only makes sense, since most Ukrainians over twenty are not able to use Ukrainian in an official or professional capacity. Except in the case of nationalist extremists, the use of Ukrainian is restricted to rurral areas, whereas Russian is a world language." Please indicate, by the use of reliable, not biased sources, blogs, forums, etc., where this assertion about Ukrainians of 'a certain age' are Russophones unless they're nationalist extremists or from rural areas has come from? Are you alluding to the fact that, under Soviet governance, you couldn't get a job outside of being a farm labourer or factory labourer unless you were fully literate in the Russian language? This is not a venue for sweeping generalisations, as well you know. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
The statements made about Russian usage are not true based on my experiences in Ukraine. Legacypac (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
@Iryna Harpy: That was based on casual empiricism. There was that intercepted phone call in which Yulya Timoshonko talks about nuking Russians in Russian. And there was the recent news story about how the new cabinet had to use Russian instead of Ukrainian because the foreigners who were appointed to it (Georgian and Lithuanian) could speak Russian but not Ukrainian. I may be wrong about the "over twenty" part; maybe "over thirty" is more correct. The reason I brought up "nationalist extremists" is that when a member of the Rada beat up the head of the main Ukrainian television network for airing Putin's Crimea speech, he yelled in Ukrainian, not Russian. Finally there is this Gallup poll which 83% of Ukrainians chose to answer in Russian instead of Ukrainian. I think that alone completely backs up the claims I made in my previous comment. –Herzen (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd suggest that it's sloppy empiricism (AKA WP:CHERRY). Yes, I am well aware of the Gallup poll (held in 2008!). I've had to pick through the work of statisticians and where they've gone wrong in how they gather their information, questionnaires, etc. throughout my career. Check the details of the Gallup poll and note that they used 'sample groups' (very small sample groups) in different regions; failed to disclose where the 'sample groups' were found (shopping during a weekday in the main street of a cushy part of town; coming straight out of a factory after work; getting drunk at a friend's birthday bash). Gallup polls are not a substitute for serious research accounting for sociological factors, interview techniques (if used), or straight questions which are leading in themselves dependent on the options offered, or even the ethnic backgrounds of the people they interview. Finally - repeating - 2008. Much has changed since the 2000 census. Even more has changed since 2008. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I think we need to focus on reliable sources here. This is not a real confederation. Legacypac (talk) 05:08, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. There's no point in picking over the details of an unrecognised confederation. More to the point, should this article be re-evaluated as pertaining to the WP:TITLE (which was highly problematic from the inception, and the result of POV pushing and RECENTISM), but has now become a hodge-podge of WP:BIASED sourcing and obsolete information. The lead still discusses Novorossiya as if it were beyond a concept, whereas even BIASED sources no longer discuss this conceptual 'confederation/federation' as an ongoing concern. It now reads as a WP:COATRACK. Whatever RS impetus was holding it together has made it either redundant (i.e., WP:PROD-worthy), or in need of a major overhaul in order to make it encyclopaedic instead of a shoddy piece of recidivism-come-yellow press journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't think any sources ever discussed "Novorossiya" as anything more than a concept, and even then, they rarely discussed it at all. I've been saying so since the start. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I am getting really annoyed with Herzen using Wikipedia to spread his ideas around the world through Wikipedia. Talkpages are only to be used for discussing the subject of the article, the subject of this article is not "knowledge of the Ukrainian language in Ukraine"). When will he learn that Wikipedia is not a forum. If you want to change the world: become a politician. If you want to tell people what is going on: become a journalist. If you want to write an encyclopaedia: become a Wikipedia editor. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Why were there never elections held of the Novorossiya parliament?

Why were there never elections held of the Novorossiya parliament? This could have been done during the Donbass general elections, 2014. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Odds are, because the ones holding the elections were a different faction from those supporting Novorossiya. Quote from the article you linked: "Pavel Gubarev and his New Russia Party, along with other parties, were banned from participating because they "were not able to hold a founding conference", had "purported errors in their documents", or had "not notified the central election commission of the conference at which the party had been founded"." Stamboliyski (talk) 20:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Since I've never seen that discussed anywhere, you're in effect asking people to do original research. But there's nothing wrong with that in a Talk page, so I will answer your question. Stamboliyski makes the very relevant point that Gubarev was not allowed to be a candidate in the elections. Gubarev was the initial proponent of the Novorossiya project, as I recall. Moscow prevented his running because it is against the Novorossiya project, for reasons I won't go into unless somebody asks me to. – Herzen (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd be most interested in hearing your perspective on this. Maybe somewhere else than here, though. Stamboliyski (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novorossiya_(confederation)/Archive_3&oldid=1256489040"