![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Rider ranger47 Talk 15:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Novorossiya (confederation) → Novorossiya (political concept) – the current title reads like it is a state but it is clearly not. Legacypac ( talk) 06:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
See delete discussion here for more input received and this Washington Post article for background Legacypac ( talk) 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Who are these "leaders of Novorossiya" Fakirbakir? Only Oleg Tsarov? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The article had stated that Bakery Kaurov is the president. The reference does not back this up. While looking through news articles, I noticed that he is not president of the confederation that this article is about, but heads one with a similar name. The only official of the confederation this article is about is the speaker of parliament. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry this was not linked here but in the lead it says: On January 1, 2015, former Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Borodai stated that "there is no Novorossiya" and that the proposed state was a "dream that was not brought to life". This bit of information is not discussed at all in the body of the article and contradicts the "Formation" section information. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above. This article is a bit absurd, treating something that even proponents of the concept say doesn't exist as if it did. Let's kibosh the rubbish, and merge the remainder of RS reportage to the existing Novorossiya article as a "modern political concept" section, or something like that. The present circumstance is unworkable. RGloucester — ☎ 01:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"even proponents of the concept say [it] doesn't exist", at least not without qualification—I take it the evidence for that claim is Borodai's statement currently in the lede, but Borodai was not speaking in any official capacity and has not been a ranking official of the DPR since October (pace the out-of-date article on the English wiki). This should also answer Knowledgekid87's question above: Borodai's statement simply has no legal bearing.
As seen in this video of "the flag of Novorossiya being raised over Debaltsevo", and in many other places, the de facto flag is not the black-yellow-white one (which seems to be little-used on the ground). Esn ( talk) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The red and blue flag is the confederation's war flag. As such, unless there are reliable sources proving that it is also the Novorossiya "National Flag," it should not be adopted as such in this article's infobox. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the flag still doesn't match the one in the video, neither does the coat of arms. The coat of arms in the video is this one (which is going to be deleted in two days because it's not currently being used in any articles). However, the coat of arms seen on the flag in the article is this one (with a blue colour underneath, instead of red). Also, the coat of arms is bigger. See 0:04 in the video, and you'll see that the bottom curve of the ribbon extends about halfway into the white area. Were these a mistake, or are there other flag variants that use the blue colour instead of the red, and have a smaller coat of arms? Esn ( talk) 06:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The article has several shortcomings as to the neutral description. It is absurd to insist on labelling someone as ″neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist writer″ based on one dubious opinion piece, namely this one [5]. The person probably has influences of all these ideologies, however, details about his views belong to the special article about him. Only simple and undisputed qualification goes here.
I've also removed the allegation ″far-right″ from the political party Novorossiya - I see here no consensus on how to label this party.
Hope this helps. Phil. -- Phil070707 ( talk) 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the background section contains the following errors:
Province is a perfectly acceptable English-language translation of the Russian word "губерния". English-language books often use the term "province" in such expressions as "St Petersburg province" or "Yekaterinoslav province" (about half the time the initial "Y" in Yekaterinoslav is ommited). The awkward non-English term "governorate" comes from an overly literal translation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Nikolaev (a.k.a. Nikolayev) was founded in 1789. That is before 1802 isn't it? The city is still called Nikolaev by the city council.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Novorossiya New Russia | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2014–2015 | |||||||||||||
Anthem: "
Живи Новороссия"
Zhivi, Novorossiya! on
YouTube (in Russian) (in Ukrainian) "Live, New Russia!" | |||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||
Status | Self-proclaimed confederation | ||||||||||||
Official languages |
Russian Ukrainian | ||||||||||||
Religion | Russian Orthodox (official) [1] | ||||||||||||
Membership | ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||
Government | Provisional Confederation | ||||||||||||
• Speaker of the Parliament | Oleg Tsaryov [2] | ||||||||||||
• Head of the DPR | Alexander Zakharchenko | ||||||||||||
• Head of the LPR | Igor Plotnitsky | ||||||||||||
Confederation between Donetsk and Luhansk | |||||||||||||
History | |||||||||||||
• Established | 24 May 2014 | ||||||||||||
• Disestablished | 15 May 2015 | ||||||||||||
|
I have made a proposal to add the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic as predecessors and successors within the infobox so the infobox can show that the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics both existed before Novorossiya was established and after it was disestablished. I also think we should add a note ( {{efn|group="note"]] ) that states that the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic were not disestablished when Novorossiya existed. Please let me know what you think Elevatorrailfan ( talk) 19:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I've removed the addition of the predecessor and successor states from the infobox, added by Dragovit. These parameters are not mandatory and, per the template instructions, are for "official predecessor/successor (under international law)". Considering that Novorossiya was a conceptual/idealogical state in the first instance, as has been discussed at length on the talk page, depicting unrecognised states of an unrecognised theoretical state is misleading and WP:OR.
The relationship to the DPR and LPR is in the lead of the article, therefore such a depiction is redundant at the least. Feedback is welcome. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The posted "termination date" of the Novorossiya confederation is apparently unofficial, as the individuals cited would lack the authority to do so of their own accord, and there is no claim of the execution of official instruments to do so. That is not to say that Novorossiya confederation will not terminate, it is unlikely to endure without recognition from Russia. The recent statement by George Soros well capsulize this when he avers that Putin prefers not to obtain "a military victory that leaves him in possession of–-and responsible for–-part of Ukraine. He has shown this by twice converting a military victory into a ceasefire." http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ukraine-eu-last-chance-by-george-soros-2015-03. Whether this estimate, or the claims by Oleg Tsaryov and Alexander Kofman prove accurate, the current reports of Novorossiya's termination are unofficial and should be noted as such. Tachypaidia ( talk) 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There are very limited sources that suggest that the Federal State of Novorossija has ceased to exist. In fact, According to Alexander Koffman (Minister of Foreign Affairs) and Denis Pushillin (Vice-Chairman of National Council) it has not ceased to exist, but merely the push for the joining of new regions into it (as they call the project) is "on hold". They argue western journalists have misinterpreted their words and Federal State of Novorossija still exists and excersizes effective control over its land.
Based on this I am disputing the legitimacy of so-called "termination", but want to bring it up for discussion before editing the article.
Sources (Russian): http://www.oplot.info/content/v-dnr-oprovergli-dannye-o-zamorazhivanii-proekta-novorossiya https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-Clu7k4UQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.69.71 ( talk) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
References
welcomenr
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The source 77.238.69.71 provided is Oplot; which is a separatist organizations that takes part in this War in Donbass, so it is very likely to be bias. Oplot is not a journalistic or academic source and hence also not a reliable, published sources (see: WP:RS).
Besides the article in its current state does not claim "the Federal State of Novorossija has ceased to exist". It claims: "On 1 January 2015 founding leadership announced the project has 'been put on hold', and on 20 May the constituent groups announced the 'freezing' of the confederation 'project'."
Besides 2 since the 2 November 2014 Donbass parliamentary elections the Novorossija Parliament did not gather anymore, the "Federal State of Novorossija" has no head of state and no prime minister and no cabinet ministers and no civil servants; it only seems to have an army... If you are not biased (I believe you are not) you will see that this "Federal State of Novorossija" is not a frozen project; it is a project that never really got started... Wikipedia is not the place to make things look full grown while they are an embryo... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: the editing of the heading to “May 2015 collapse of project": the only reliable source cited for this entry (and not simply secondary references to it is: Проект «Новороссия» закрыт [Project "New Russia" is Closed].Gazeta.ru (in Russian)). Taking the quoted material from article, excluding anonymous commentating/editorializing and headlines (often not even made by the author and intended as an eye-catcher), the word “collapse” does not appear at all in the actual quoted text. Here is what does appear:
Tsarev: activity of the Joint Parliament of Novorossiya are “frozen [заморожена]”. Kofman: “the project "New Russia" is closed [закрыт] for a while”
The deletion of the actual quoted citation and its replacement by editorial comments of ‘collapse’ on the grounds of playing semantics in that (a) all RS call this a ‘collapse’(none cited), and (b) the direct quotation (freezing/suspension) constitutes the use of WP:WEASEL and WP:CRYSTAL). How a direct quotation can be counted as weaseling of the original text by the contributor is self-contradictory, and if anything, the prediction that this is tantamount to a ‘collapse’ is the use of a crystal ball. Moreover, the quoted predicating stipulation of ‘for a while’ i.e., 'temporary', was deleted on the grounds of WP: UNDUE. That was the principle point. 100.36.80.71 ( talk) 14:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Errors with the Background section (1st paragraph only follows):
(1) "Novorossiya was the name of a territory of the Russian Empire formed from the Crimean Khanate." No, it was originally formed from the territory occupied in by Cossacks and the Hetmanate in 1764.
(2) "which had been annexed several years after the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca concluded the Russo-Turkish War in 1774" 'several years' suggests a lack of sources. The 2nd annexation, of the Crimean Khanate, occurred in, not after, 1774. The Crimean annexation occurred in 1783.
(3) "Novorossiya initially included today's Southern Ukraine." No, the Southern Ukraine came subsequently, not initially.
(4) "as well as some parts of today's Russia (including Novorossiysk)" Novorossiysk (=Dnipropetrovsk) was in Azov Governorate (in modern Ukraine); later, 1796 in Novorossiya. Not to be confused with today's Russian Novorossiysk.
(5) "In 1917 most of 18th century Novorossiya was incorporated into the newly proclaimed Ukrainian People's Republic" No. In 1917 the Ukraine declaration made no claim of Novorossiya. "18th century Novorossiya"? What happened to the whole of 19th century Novorossiya?
(6) "because ethnic Ukrainians constituted the majority of the population." No, because of Soviet policies of (a) korenizatsiia, (b) economic linking coal and shipping.
All this in a 7-line intro (wholly unsourced) paragraph. These are easily verifiable from readily available reliable sources. If someone could take this up using RS, the readers would be greatly benefited. I am at a loss on how this paragraph came to such an unhappy state. Tachypaidia ( talk) 04:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Zakharchenko stated in Russian media on 24.06 that Novorussia will be formed.So I guess that news of its demise were premature. I will see which source we can use that is reliable enough to source his statements.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 06:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Zakharchenko is not a man of his word.... Late January 2015 he stated “There will be no more ceasefires” (at a meeting with students) and in February 2015 he signed Minsk II (which includes a "Immediate and full ceasefire"). I think Zakharchenko's statements about Novorussia can be included in this article; but only as his personal opinion(s). Besides Zakharchenko does not want a Novorussia state; he wants the DNR to be annexed by Russia....; should that not be mentioned in this article? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In response to a request for more detail on the development of Novorossiya in the period prior to 2014, I had information from the three(3) sources below (I give the source with comment and the text that added to the article. The attempt is to fill in the early chronology (dates here bold, not bold in original post). This was deleted as WP:OR. Can someone clarify for me why my posting this information constitutes WP:OR. Thank you.
[1] Source: Solchanyk, Roman. “The Politics of State Building: Centre-Periphery Relations in Post-Soviet Ukraine,” Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (1994), p. 48, 59-60.
Comment: Europe-Asia Studies: academic peer-reviewed journal.
Text: The Novorossiya movement made its appearance in Odessa In August 1990. The movement, known as the Democratic Union of Novorossiya, argued that given the separate ethnos of the region it should have an autonomous status within a federated Ukrainian state. It campaigned for 'special state status' within 'the historical boundaries of Novorossiya (today's Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Dnipropetrovs'k and Crimean oblasts, and also part of the Dniester region of the Moldavian SSR). By November 1991 representatives from the Odessa, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Crimean oblasts had met in Odessa to discuss the question of forming a new state, 'Novorossiya'. This was necessitated, they explained, by the growth of 'nationalist tendencies' in Ukraine, its increasing isolationism, and diminishing ties with Russia. Three days after the referendum on 1 December 1991, Ukrainian independence, the mayor of St Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak, argued that Russia had handed over to Ukraine “a whole series of Russian provinces, the so-called Novorossiya, whose population is for the most part Russian” and that the Russian minority in Ukraine was threatened with forcible 'Ukrainianisation'
[2] Source: Global Security (www.globalsecurity.org) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/novorossiya.htm.
Comment: A weaker source, but not the information provided was uncontroverted and benign.
Text: As late as September 1992, in Odessa, several organizations such as the Civic Movement of Odessa, Rus', the Socialist Party, and Novorossia are campaigning for the establishment of a separate Novorossian region, the exact borders of which were still being debated.
[3] Source: Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Documents, Data, and Analysis,” edited by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Paige Sullivan, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., 1997. p. 639.
Comment: Reputable source. Brzezinski Zbigniew is an internationally recognized contributor. Center for Strategic and International Studies is a recognized Washington policy center.
In June of 1994 the chairman of the Dniester Republic’s supreme council made reference to Crimea, Odessa, and other oblasts as “Novorossiya". Tachypaidia ( talk) 21:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Amongst the nascent emergences in post-Soviet era of the term "Novorossiya" in a political context was that of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in an article entitled ‘Как нам обустроить Россию” “Rebuilding Russia”, written in July 1990, published September 1990. While the formation of the Novorossiya movement in Odessa occurred roughly simultaneously (August 1990), that movement was registered as a ‘cultural organization’ for the preservation of local customs. Its newspaper, the Novorossiiskii telegraf, closed its doors the next year. The movement never generated much of a following and was primarily of historical note.
Solzhenitsyn's reference to the historical import of Novorossiya (and his re-issuance of this reference his 2006 remarks in “Saving the Nation Is the Utmost Priority for the State") play out differently. A succinct re-cap of A.S. position is warranted here, he: (a) advocated for Ukrainian-Russian cultural unity against Western intrusion, and (b) that Novorossiya & other areas should remain part of Ukraine. If, if, there were to be a separation, it must be by the “self-determination of peoples.”
An allusion to Solzhenitsyn remarks (especially his 1990 and 2006 reference to Novorossiya) occurs in Putin’s first reference to Novorossiya, i.e., his interview of 17 April 2014; making Solzhenitsyn position of singular relevance.
On an editing note: Alex Bakharev blanked this addition on the grounds that “Solzhenitsyn did not support establishing of Confederation in Novorossiya.” But what he blanked said that Solzhenitsyn was in in opposition to the cultural partition of Ukraine and Russia; including Novorossiya & et. al. Moreover, the text was blanked without recourse to the talk page. On this basis, I am restoring the text. Tachypaidia ( talk) 03:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
As I considered a theoretical country did not constitute the use of Template:Infobox country in the first place, is there any justification for retaining it in light of the fact that the 'project' became 'defunct/frozen' back in May?
This being the case, are there any suggestions as to what infobox template is appropriate. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The article has what appears to be a quotation in a sentence:
But I cannot find the exact words: "the territories of Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa had originally been part of Novorossiya" in the sources cited.
There are statements quite like it:
I would imagine that the Kremlin is a more reliable source for what Putin said than a newspaper famous for its misprints.
I have amended the quotation to make it accurate and put the citation to the reliable source being quoted immediately next to it. When you have a whole list of citations all with different wording, the reader needs to know which source the quotation is from.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"... had been part of "Novorossiya" and that they were irresponsibly ceded to Ukraine.. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The section currently labeled "May 2015 collapse of project" poorly represents the sourced material. Bringing it into conformance requires the following: 1) Distinguishing between actual quotations and news headlines which represent the news media editor, not the source. Headlines are often written to attract the reader's eye (and sometimes the labeling is to the chagrin of the article's author.) 2) Distinguishing between (a) the Confederation as a legal entity, and (b) the media and technical appurtenances (websites, TV broadcasts, social media, etc.) 3) Distinguishing between various Confederation spokesmen. This noted, there is NO quote of "collapse" or "closure" by any spokesmen. The article's heading and the quote marks that follow in the article are unfounded. Only the following terms are used: 1) Oleg Tsarev: (a) the activity structures [Деятельность структур ]are frozen [заморожена]; (b) the activities of the Joint Parliament of Novorossiya are frozen [заморожена]. 2) [Alexander] Kofman: the project Novorossiya is closed [закрыт] for an indefinite period in other regions - in Odessa, Kharkov. 3) Unnamed source in reference source: Parliament and other similar projects were curtailed [свернуты]. 4) Oleg Tsarev: as a result of developments, a final [окончательной] freeze [заморозке] of the New Russia came in May. 5) Denis Pushilin: Novorossia project had not been frozen as much as moved to "another plane" from confrontation to political power. Evident are that "collapse", "closure", and "dissolved" occurring in quotes in the article and not found in the quotations from the sources It also appears clear at this point that Novorossiya status will be a point of negotiation (likely, I think, traded away for something else). Note how this rendering of the sources now harmonizes with the following (and independently written) paragraph regarding the future status of Novorossiya. A more representative text based on the sources is needed. Tachypaidia ( talk) 20:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
The result of the move request was: page not moved. Rider ranger47 Talk 15:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Novorossiya (confederation) → Novorossiya (political concept) – the current title reads like it is a state but it is clearly not. Legacypac ( talk) 06:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
See delete discussion here for more input received and this Washington Post article for background Legacypac ( talk) 06:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Who are these "leaders of Novorossiya" Fakirbakir? Only Oleg Tsarov? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The article had stated that Bakery Kaurov is the president. The reference does not back this up. While looking through news articles, I noticed that he is not president of the confederation that this article is about, but heads one with a similar name. The only official of the confederation this article is about is the speaker of parliament. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Sorry this was not linked here but in the lead it says: On January 1, 2015, former Donetsk Republic Prime Minister Alexander Borodai stated that "there is no Novorossiya" and that the proposed state was a "dream that was not brought to life". This bit of information is not discussed at all in the body of the article and contradicts the "Formation" section information. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above. This article is a bit absurd, treating something that even proponents of the concept say doesn't exist as if it did. Let's kibosh the rubbish, and merge the remainder of RS reportage to the existing Novorossiya article as a "modern political concept" section, or something like that. The present circumstance is unworkable. RGloucester — ☎ 01:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
"even proponents of the concept say [it] doesn't exist", at least not without qualification—I take it the evidence for that claim is Borodai's statement currently in the lede, but Borodai was not speaking in any official capacity and has not been a ranking official of the DPR since October (pace the out-of-date article on the English wiki). This should also answer Knowledgekid87's question above: Borodai's statement simply has no legal bearing.
As seen in this video of "the flag of Novorossiya being raised over Debaltsevo", and in many other places, the de facto flag is not the black-yellow-white one (which seems to be little-used on the ground). Esn ( talk) 16:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The red and blue flag is the confederation's war flag. As such, unless there are reliable sources proving that it is also the Novorossiya "National Flag," it should not be adopted as such in this article's infobox. LightandDark2000 ( talk) 01:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Actually, the flag still doesn't match the one in the video, neither does the coat of arms. The coat of arms in the video is this one (which is going to be deleted in two days because it's not currently being used in any articles). However, the coat of arms seen on the flag in the article is this one (with a blue colour underneath, instead of red). Also, the coat of arms is bigger. See 0:04 in the video, and you'll see that the bottom curve of the ribbon extends about halfway into the white area. Were these a mistake, or are there other flag variants that use the blue colour instead of the red, and have a smaller coat of arms? Esn ( talk) 06:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The article has several shortcomings as to the neutral description. It is absurd to insist on labelling someone as ″neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist writer″ based on one dubious opinion piece, namely this one [5]. The person probably has influences of all these ideologies, however, details about his views belong to the special article about him. Only simple and undisputed qualification goes here.
I've also removed the allegation ″far-right″ from the political party Novorossiya - I see here no consensus on how to label this party.
Hope this helps. Phil. -- Phil070707 ( talk) 19:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
The first paragraph of the background section contains the following errors:
Province is a perfectly acceptable English-language translation of the Russian word "губерния". English-language books often use the term "province" in such expressions as "St Petersburg province" or "Yekaterinoslav province" (about half the time the initial "Y" in Yekaterinoslav is ommited). The awkward non-English term "governorate" comes from an overly literal translation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Nikolaev (a.k.a. Nikolayev) was founded in 1789. That is before 1802 isn't it? The city is still called Nikolaev by the city council.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Novorossiya New Russia | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2014–2015 | |||||||||||||
Anthem: "
Живи Новороссия"
Zhivi, Novorossiya! on
YouTube (in Russian) (in Ukrainian) "Live, New Russia!" | |||||||||||||
![]() | |||||||||||||
Status | Self-proclaimed confederation | ||||||||||||
Official languages |
Russian Ukrainian | ||||||||||||
Religion | Russian Orthodox (official) [1] | ||||||||||||
Membership | ![]() ![]() | ||||||||||||
Government | Provisional Confederation | ||||||||||||
• Speaker of the Parliament | Oleg Tsaryov [2] | ||||||||||||
• Head of the DPR | Alexander Zakharchenko | ||||||||||||
• Head of the LPR | Igor Plotnitsky | ||||||||||||
Confederation between Donetsk and Luhansk | |||||||||||||
History | |||||||||||||
• Established | 24 May 2014 | ||||||||||||
• Disestablished | 15 May 2015 | ||||||||||||
|
I have made a proposal to add the Lugansk People's Republic and the Donetsk People's Republic as predecessors and successors within the infobox so the infobox can show that the Lugansk and Donetsk People's Republics both existed before Novorossiya was established and after it was disestablished. I also think we should add a note ( {{efn|group="note"]] ) that states that the Donetsk People's Republic and the Lugansk People's Republic were not disestablished when Novorossiya existed. Please let me know what you think Elevatorrailfan ( talk) 19:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD, I've removed the addition of the predecessor and successor states from the infobox, added by Dragovit. These parameters are not mandatory and, per the template instructions, are for "official predecessor/successor (under international law)". Considering that Novorossiya was a conceptual/idealogical state in the first instance, as has been discussed at length on the talk page, depicting unrecognised states of an unrecognised theoretical state is misleading and WP:OR.
The relationship to the DPR and LPR is in the lead of the article, therefore such a depiction is redundant at the least. Feedback is welcome. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
The posted "termination date" of the Novorossiya confederation is apparently unofficial, as the individuals cited would lack the authority to do so of their own accord, and there is no claim of the execution of official instruments to do so. That is not to say that Novorossiya confederation will not terminate, it is unlikely to endure without recognition from Russia. The recent statement by George Soros well capsulize this when he avers that Putin prefers not to obtain "a military victory that leaves him in possession of–-and responsible for–-part of Ukraine. He has shown this by twice converting a military victory into a ceasefire." http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/ukraine-eu-last-chance-by-george-soros-2015-03. Whether this estimate, or the claims by Oleg Tsaryov and Alexander Kofman prove accurate, the current reports of Novorossiya's termination are unofficial and should be noted as such. Tachypaidia ( talk) 19:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
There are very limited sources that suggest that the Federal State of Novorossija has ceased to exist. In fact, According to Alexander Koffman (Minister of Foreign Affairs) and Denis Pushillin (Vice-Chairman of National Council) it has not ceased to exist, but merely the push for the joining of new regions into it (as they call the project) is "on hold". They argue western journalists have misinterpreted their words and Federal State of Novorossija still exists and excersizes effective control over its land.
Based on this I am disputing the legitimacy of so-called "termination", but want to bring it up for discussion before editing the article.
Sources (Russian): http://www.oplot.info/content/v-dnr-oprovergli-dannye-o-zamorazhivanii-proekta-novorossiya https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7-Clu7k4UQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.238.69.71 ( talk) 17:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
References
welcomenr
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).The source 77.238.69.71 provided is Oplot; which is a separatist organizations that takes part in this War in Donbass, so it is very likely to be bias. Oplot is not a journalistic or academic source and hence also not a reliable, published sources (see: WP:RS).
Besides the article in its current state does not claim "the Federal State of Novorossija has ceased to exist". It claims: "On 1 January 2015 founding leadership announced the project has 'been put on hold', and on 20 May the constituent groups announced the 'freezing' of the confederation 'project'."
Besides 2 since the 2 November 2014 Donbass parliamentary elections the Novorossija Parliament did not gather anymore, the "Federal State of Novorossija" has no head of state and no prime minister and no cabinet ministers and no civil servants; it only seems to have an army... If you are not biased (I believe you are not) you will see that this "Federal State of Novorossija" is not a frozen project; it is a project that never really got started... Wikipedia is not the place to make things look full grown while they are an embryo... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:41, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
Re: the editing of the heading to “May 2015 collapse of project": the only reliable source cited for this entry (and not simply secondary references to it is: Проект «Новороссия» закрыт [Project "New Russia" is Closed].Gazeta.ru (in Russian)). Taking the quoted material from article, excluding anonymous commentating/editorializing and headlines (often not even made by the author and intended as an eye-catcher), the word “collapse” does not appear at all in the actual quoted text. Here is what does appear:
Tsarev: activity of the Joint Parliament of Novorossiya are “frozen [заморожена]”. Kofman: “the project "New Russia" is closed [закрыт] for a while”
The deletion of the actual quoted citation and its replacement by editorial comments of ‘collapse’ on the grounds of playing semantics in that (a) all RS call this a ‘collapse’(none cited), and (b) the direct quotation (freezing/suspension) constitutes the use of WP:WEASEL and WP:CRYSTAL). How a direct quotation can be counted as weaseling of the original text by the contributor is self-contradictory, and if anything, the prediction that this is tantamount to a ‘collapse’ is the use of a crystal ball. Moreover, the quoted predicating stipulation of ‘for a while’ i.e., 'temporary', was deleted on the grounds of WP: UNDUE. That was the principle point. 100.36.80.71 ( talk) 14:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Errors with the Background section (1st paragraph only follows):
(1) "Novorossiya was the name of a territory of the Russian Empire formed from the Crimean Khanate." No, it was originally formed from the territory occupied in by Cossacks and the Hetmanate in 1764.
(2) "which had been annexed several years after the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca concluded the Russo-Turkish War in 1774" 'several years' suggests a lack of sources. The 2nd annexation, of the Crimean Khanate, occurred in, not after, 1774. The Crimean annexation occurred in 1783.
(3) "Novorossiya initially included today's Southern Ukraine." No, the Southern Ukraine came subsequently, not initially.
(4) "as well as some parts of today's Russia (including Novorossiysk)" Novorossiysk (=Dnipropetrovsk) was in Azov Governorate (in modern Ukraine); later, 1796 in Novorossiya. Not to be confused with today's Russian Novorossiysk.
(5) "In 1917 most of 18th century Novorossiya was incorporated into the newly proclaimed Ukrainian People's Republic" No. In 1917 the Ukraine declaration made no claim of Novorossiya. "18th century Novorossiya"? What happened to the whole of 19th century Novorossiya?
(6) "because ethnic Ukrainians constituted the majority of the population." No, because of Soviet policies of (a) korenizatsiia, (b) economic linking coal and shipping.
All this in a 7-line intro (wholly unsourced) paragraph. These are easily verifiable from readily available reliable sources. If someone could take this up using RS, the readers would be greatly benefited. I am at a loss on how this paragraph came to such an unhappy state. Tachypaidia ( talk) 04:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Zakharchenko stated in Russian media on 24.06 that Novorussia will be formed.So I guess that news of its demise were premature. I will see which source we can use that is reliable enough to source his statements.-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 06:10, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Zakharchenko is not a man of his word.... Late January 2015 he stated “There will be no more ceasefires” (at a meeting with students) and in February 2015 he signed Minsk II (which includes a "Immediate and full ceasefire"). I think Zakharchenko's statements about Novorussia can be included in this article; but only as his personal opinion(s). Besides Zakharchenko does not want a Novorussia state; he wants the DNR to be annexed by Russia....; should that not be mentioned in this article? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
In response to a request for more detail on the development of Novorossiya in the period prior to 2014, I had information from the three(3) sources below (I give the source with comment and the text that added to the article. The attempt is to fill in the early chronology (dates here bold, not bold in original post). This was deleted as WP:OR. Can someone clarify for me why my posting this information constitutes WP:OR. Thank you.
[1] Source: Solchanyk, Roman. “The Politics of State Building: Centre-Periphery Relations in Post-Soviet Ukraine,” Europe-Asia Studies, Vol. 46, No. 1 (1994), p. 48, 59-60.
Comment: Europe-Asia Studies: academic peer-reviewed journal.
Text: The Novorossiya movement made its appearance in Odessa In August 1990. The movement, known as the Democratic Union of Novorossiya, argued that given the separate ethnos of the region it should have an autonomous status within a federated Ukrainian state. It campaigned for 'special state status' within 'the historical boundaries of Novorossiya (today's Odessa, Mykolaiv, Kherson, Dnipropetrovs'k and Crimean oblasts, and also part of the Dniester region of the Moldavian SSR). By November 1991 representatives from the Odessa, Kherson, Mykolaiv and Crimean oblasts had met in Odessa to discuss the question of forming a new state, 'Novorossiya'. This was necessitated, they explained, by the growth of 'nationalist tendencies' in Ukraine, its increasing isolationism, and diminishing ties with Russia. Three days after the referendum on 1 December 1991, Ukrainian independence, the mayor of St Petersburg, Anatoly Sobchak, argued that Russia had handed over to Ukraine “a whole series of Russian provinces, the so-called Novorossiya, whose population is for the most part Russian” and that the Russian minority in Ukraine was threatened with forcible 'Ukrainianisation'
[2] Source: Global Security (www.globalsecurity.org) http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/para/novorossiya.htm.
Comment: A weaker source, but not the information provided was uncontroverted and benign.
Text: As late as September 1992, in Odessa, several organizations such as the Civic Movement of Odessa, Rus', the Socialist Party, and Novorossia are campaigning for the establishment of a separate Novorossian region, the exact borders of which were still being debated.
[3] Source: Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States: Documents, Data, and Analysis,” edited by Zbigniew Brzezinski and Paige Sullivan, Center for Strategic and International Studies, Washington, D.C., 1997. p. 639.
Comment: Reputable source. Brzezinski Zbigniew is an internationally recognized contributor. Center for Strategic and International Studies is a recognized Washington policy center.
In June of 1994 the chairman of the Dniester Republic’s supreme council made reference to Crimea, Odessa, and other oblasts as “Novorossiya". Tachypaidia ( talk) 21:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Amongst the nascent emergences in post-Soviet era of the term "Novorossiya" in a political context was that of Alexander Solzhenitsyn, in an article entitled ‘Как нам обустроить Россию” “Rebuilding Russia”, written in July 1990, published September 1990. While the formation of the Novorossiya movement in Odessa occurred roughly simultaneously (August 1990), that movement was registered as a ‘cultural organization’ for the preservation of local customs. Its newspaper, the Novorossiiskii telegraf, closed its doors the next year. The movement never generated much of a following and was primarily of historical note.
Solzhenitsyn's reference to the historical import of Novorossiya (and his re-issuance of this reference his 2006 remarks in “Saving the Nation Is the Utmost Priority for the State") play out differently. A succinct re-cap of A.S. position is warranted here, he: (a) advocated for Ukrainian-Russian cultural unity against Western intrusion, and (b) that Novorossiya & other areas should remain part of Ukraine. If, if, there were to be a separation, it must be by the “self-determination of peoples.”
An allusion to Solzhenitsyn remarks (especially his 1990 and 2006 reference to Novorossiya) occurs in Putin’s first reference to Novorossiya, i.e., his interview of 17 April 2014; making Solzhenitsyn position of singular relevance.
On an editing note: Alex Bakharev blanked this addition on the grounds that “Solzhenitsyn did not support establishing of Confederation in Novorossiya.” But what he blanked said that Solzhenitsyn was in in opposition to the cultural partition of Ukraine and Russia; including Novorossiya & et. al. Moreover, the text was blanked without recourse to the talk page. On this basis, I am restoring the text. Tachypaidia ( talk) 03:12, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
As I considered a theoretical country did not constitute the use of Template:Infobox country in the first place, is there any justification for retaining it in light of the fact that the 'project' became 'defunct/frozen' back in May?
This being the case, are there any suggestions as to what infobox template is appropriate. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The article has what appears to be a quotation in a sentence:
But I cannot find the exact words: "the territories of Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa had originally been part of Novorossiya" in the sources cited.
There are statements quite like it:
I would imagine that the Kremlin is a more reliable source for what Putin said than a newspaper famous for its misprints.
I have amended the quotation to make it accurate and put the citation to the reliable source being quoted immediately next to it. When you have a whole list of citations all with different wording, the reader needs to know which source the quotation is from.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:18, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
"... had been part of "Novorossiya" and that they were irresponsibly ceded to Ukraine.. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The section currently labeled "May 2015 collapse of project" poorly represents the sourced material. Bringing it into conformance requires the following: 1) Distinguishing between actual quotations and news headlines which represent the news media editor, not the source. Headlines are often written to attract the reader's eye (and sometimes the labeling is to the chagrin of the article's author.) 2) Distinguishing between (a) the Confederation as a legal entity, and (b) the media and technical appurtenances (websites, TV broadcasts, social media, etc.) 3) Distinguishing between various Confederation spokesmen. This noted, there is NO quote of "collapse" or "closure" by any spokesmen. The article's heading and the quote marks that follow in the article are unfounded. Only the following terms are used: 1) Oleg Tsarev: (a) the activity structures [Деятельность структур ]are frozen [заморожена]; (b) the activities of the Joint Parliament of Novorossiya are frozen [заморожена]. 2) [Alexander] Kofman: the project Novorossiya is closed [закрыт] for an indefinite period in other regions - in Odessa, Kharkov. 3) Unnamed source in reference source: Parliament and other similar projects were curtailed [свернуты]. 4) Oleg Tsarev: as a result of developments, a final [окончательной] freeze [заморозке] of the New Russia came in May. 5) Denis Pushilin: Novorossia project had not been frozen as much as moved to "another plane" from confrontation to political power. Evident are that "collapse", "closure", and "dissolved" occurring in quotes in the article and not found in the quotations from the sources It also appears clear at this point that Novorossiya status will be a point of negotiation (likely, I think, traded away for something else). Note how this rendering of the sources now harmonizes with the following (and independently written) paragraph regarding the future status of Novorossiya. A more representative text based on the sources is needed. Tachypaidia ( talk) 20:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)