Talk:Novorossiya (confederation)/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Requested move 9 January 2015

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: 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)

That Washington Post article is fine as far as it goes, although it's a bit old. You say "the current title reads like it is a state", but I don't think it does. The Concise OED defines "confederation" as "a more or less permanent union of states with some political power vested in a central political authority". So a confederation is not a state. I suggest that before we rashly rename this article, we look into whether the entity Novorossiya has some political power vested in it.

A second point. Even if Novorossiya is not a state, it is not just a concept. It is a region of Ukraine which has broken away from that country. So using "concept" in the title would be unsatisfactory for that reason. It would be like saying that Appalachia is just a concept, because Appalachia does not constitute a state. Thus, if it turns out that a good argument can't be made for Novorossiya having some political power vested in it, a better qualifier than "political concept" would be "breakaway region of Ukraine". – Herzen (talk) 09:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to talk about the geographical region, there are articles for that. Can you provide a source that anything has "broken away" from Ukraine? Canada is a confederation, and a political Confederation is a group of states. So a confederation is quite impossible here. Legacypac (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Support per my rationale above: here and here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. 1, According to its leaders Novorossiya is a state. 2, It already has control over territories, therefore it is more than a proclaimed state. However, I agree the word "confederation" may be misleading in the title. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic do seem to at least look like states; "Novorossiya" looks like an idea that never was put into practise... Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic had elections and are trying to create own tax offices and other government ministry's. Novorossiya had no elections and seems to have only 1 government official (Oleg Tsarov) and thus no public offices. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

PS The Donetsk People's Republic website looks professional; the Novorossiya Official press releases website looks very cheap and has advertising on it. The only press releases on it are from the Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic. That is one sign that nobody is building up "Novorossiya" but Donetsk People's Republic is getting efforts. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 20:08, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Weak Support per this source: [1] it seems to repeat the idea but I would put this under "Failed proposals". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It would be "failed proposal" if there were no separatists in Eastern Ukraine. Your article isn't worth too much. The insurgents said a lot of rubbish in the past half a year but the de facto independent separatist state(s) still exists. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:28, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes the Donetsk People's Republic and Lugansk People's Republic; but Novorossiya is not a functioning confederation. I assume because the Donetsk People's Republic leaders and Lugansk People's Republic leaders do not want it to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yulia Romero (talk • contribs)

Moscow is apparently against the Novorossiya project, and that is another reason why it did not get very far. I am recusing myself from this vote by the way, Herzen (talk) 00:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, these are former leaders speaking and there has been inter-factional fighting with the rebels. It would be nice if the current proclaimed leader of Novorossiya spoke out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if there even is a "current proclaimed leader". I just looked at Russian Wikipedia's article, and it is the same as this one: it gives no indication that any kind of political structures were ever set up. Also, officials from the DPR and LPR appear to have stopped talking about Novorossiya as any kind of formal entity last summer. Novorossiya does continue to be discussed in the Russian Internet, however. But if you do a Yandex (the Russian Google) search for the Russian name, no official Web site for Novorossiya comes up: just news sites. – Herzen (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose, prefer redirect to War in Donbass. Novorossiya (political concept) is much too wide - the concept of Novorossiya is more than 200 years old. The modern figleaf of an excuse for what Putin's puppet-terrorists are doing freeloads on the concept. In the sense of the current conflict, Novorossiya (confederation) should be a redirect to the article on the conflict. There is little or no evidence from reliable sources for a 2014-15 Novorossiyan confederation. Wikipedia should be based on reliable sources, and not propaganda fairy tales put out by people who never tell the truth.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, prefer merge to Novorossiya – See my comment in the current AfD. RGloucester — ☎ 04:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Switch to neutral – As the AfD has closed with no result, my opposition is useless. I'm still not keen on this approach to the article, but there is no point in opposing it. RGloucester — ☎ 05:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The current title better explains the concept of Novorossiya. I've never once seen Novorossiya referred to as a "political concept". Google finds 0 relevant hits. Conversely, it is referred to as a "confederation", which gets numerous hits. As per WP:TITLE (recognizability and naturalness) we should title articles according to what people actually call it, not make up alternatives that have never been used. Whether it is functional or not is irrelevant. As found in the AFD, non-existent things can still be notable if they are covered by RS. WP:TITLE does not say anything about needing to mention in the title whether something exists or not. There are literally thousands of articles on things which don't exist, but we don't add a superfluous "concept" disambiguators to them to point this out since this is not helpful. See for example United States of Africa, which reads like a state even though it is just a "political concept". Finally, contrary to what is claimed above, a Confederation can refer to more than a group of "states": "a loose alliance of political units." Is there any dispute that LPR/DPR are "political units"? So whether LPR/DPR are "states" or not is a red herring. TDL (talk) 00:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Danlaycock: Where exactly do your "numerous hits" (actually, there are precisely 81 hits with none in any mainstream media) discuss "Novorossiya" as a "confederacy" or anything resembling this definition? The majority of the 'hits' go back to the middle of last year. This being the case, the onus is on you to provide RS defining it as such. If not, the current TITLE is a fiasco. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:08, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you not think the Associated Press, for example, is "mainstream media": "an unrecognised confederation of the Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic"?

Or what about Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty: "the two have signed an agreement forming the Novorossia confederation"? TDL (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Where do either of these articles discuss "Novorossiya" as encompassing anything further than the Luhansk and Donetsk People's Republics?... or anything about a constitution (backdated to May of last year) where both Ukrainian and Russian are to be the official languages. Any 'constitution' seems to have changed character somewhat dramatically since the conceptual state was first advocated (state religion: now Russian Orthodoxy, Moscow Patriarchy, etc.). How does the "Novorossiya" being parsed here, including maps depicting the entire envisioned new state, relate to what covered in the 'facts on the ground' information in the articles you've found? Sorry, but I see that as being a bit of convenient shoehorning. Mentions of "Novorossiya" as a confederacy in that context being applied here are WP:SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose the proposed name doesn't make any sense to me and is not used in any RS I've seen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cathar66 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - TDL's reasoning seems sound to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

Control over territories does not make an entity a state. An entity is only a state if most other states recognise it as a state. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, no, not being recognized makes it an unrecognized state, no? Stamboliyski (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not really - my yard is not recognized as a State either, but it is not an unrecognized state. Somaliland is an unrecognized state - this article is about a depreciated idea. Legacypac (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

There are states with limited recognition (e.g. self-proclaimed state, de facto state, unrecognised state, pseudo-state, anti-state, insurgent state, para-state, nascent state, separatist state, de facto quasi states etc.) Fakirbakir (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The article of Novorossiya could easily deal with "the political concept of Novorossiya". Fakirbakir (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It could but the nomination to delete is failing badly, so that's not going to happen, unless you want to redirect it. Legacypac (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I don't want to. If Wikipedia contains pages like "Serbian-Hungarian Baranya-Baja Republic" (its existence lasted six days) or "Carpatho-Ukraine" (it existed for a day) then an article for the separatist state of Novorossiya will have a right to exist. Fakirbakir (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your examples are of very much historical states. Using the current nomenclature isn't appropriate per WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. It's highly misleading in light of the fact that the issues are far from resolved (i.e., this is not historical). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The fact is that there is a self-proclaimed state. This entity has control over territories. This matter is just loosely connected to the historical concept of Novorossiya. Fakirbakir (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you've misunderstood my use of 'historical' state: there are two unrecognised entities (DPR and LPR) who have limited territorial claims proposing the concept of Novorossiya, and that concept extends far beyond any territories they've even had a look-in to. How does that align to any semblance of reality? Are you suggesting that, should a group of Koori people seize Redfern, New South Wales, hold onto the suburb (named Kooria - an unrecognised state - for the sake of argument) for a period of time, and propose that the whole of Sydney should be claimed by them and be called Neoawabakalia, Neoawabakalia would be a valid state? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It isn't about "validity". The "Koori state" would be a clearly notable topic even if their self-proclaimed "state" wasn't recognised by any other countries. If we followed your reasoning, the articles of unrecognised states would have to be merged or deleted. The DPR and LPR are break-away states and have total control over their occupied territories (de facto control). The Ukrainian government is ONLY the "de jure authority" in the reality, has no influence over the DPR and LPR controlled areas. However, I think the pages of DPR and LPR should be merged with this article. Its pan-nationalist concept can be discussed at the page of the historical entity of Novorossiya. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What about the name "Breakaway state of Novorossiya"[2]? Fakirbakir (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

How is that better if the non-state entities that want to form this non-state don't even support the idea anymore? Legacypac (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I have read it too in the news. We will know the answer in the future. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Who are these "leaders of Novorossiya" Fakirbakir? Only Oleg Tsarov? — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 19:39, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter who the "leader" is. The separatists declared that they wanted to achieve independence for "Novorossiya". Fakirbakir (talk) 20:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I see the logic in your proposal to merge DPR and LPR, Fakirbakir, however it would not only make for an extremely lengthy article (which would end up in having to be split again), but would make the issue even more convoluted without OR per the discussion below. We simply don't have the RS examining the details and overview to structure an article of this nature: namely due to the RECENTISM. It's outside of the scope of Wikipedia until we have the scholarship to back it up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2015 (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.

Valery Kaurov

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)

I agree, I was thinking of removing it myself. Tsaryov is the only person who is consistently and explicitly associated with Novorossiya the confederation. It's important not to conflate the confederation with the various other groups with the same name like the New Russia Party etc. --Nizolan (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction

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)

There is no contradiction whatever. The Wikipedia article starts by saying that it is a proposed confederacy, the section Formation says, among other things, that Borodai signed the merger to the Novorussian confederacy, but he later said that this signed agreement hasn't really been converted to reality and the two separatist republics continue to exist independently of each other which means that the signed agreement to unite the republics in a confederacy remains a dirty piece of paper. --Lumidek (talk) 17:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lumidek: In other words, you've struck at the heart of the problem. The contradiction is glaring from the outset: it's being written in the present tense, then lapses into past tense in the lead. 'Is' or 'was'? We have a long, detailed article about something that was only ever a concept (see the above RM). I'm going to harp on about it again (because that is my nature): what does "Novorossiya (confederation)" mean in the real world? What do the sections 'Politics', 'Economics', and 'Demographics' have to do with anyone's reality? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said before, I believe the solution is a merger to Novorossiya. Eliminate this obviously nonsense rubbish, like "demographics", and leave it as a political concept with what little RS there is. I'll propose it below.

Merge to Novorossiya

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)

The most we can say about the status of the confederation is that it's unclear. It's certainly not true that "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.

We should bear in mind in particular that Oleg Tsaryov continues to be referred to as "Speaker of the Parliament of Novorossiya/the [self-proclaimed] Union of People's Republics" in the Russian and Ukrainian media up to this very day, a fact drawn attention to in this recent article from Deutsche Welle on the question of Novorossiya's current status (which concludes that it's "suspended, but not closed").

I am actually not entirely sure why the article was changed to call it a merely proposed confederation in the first place. A notional "Union of People's Republics" did get signed into existence in May and operated for at least a period of time, and we know, for one, that the Parliament of Novorossiya existed and functioned; it issued eight laws between May and August 2014, which were signed by representatives of both People's Republics. Bolotov's denial of the "merger" in May ran as follows:

«Ни о какой Новороссии в Донецке соглашений не было заключено. Было заключено соглашение о создании союза народных республик. Две независимые республики. Они самостоятельны и независимы. Мы будем двигаться в этом направлении совместными усилиями», — заявил В. Болотов.

I take this to mean that, again, a notional Union of People's Republics was established, but the DPR and LPR did not surrender their existence as states and they would work together on giving substantive meaning to the union. I'm willing to be corrected on the translation, however.

See also this notable interview from January with a DPR representative, who claims that while overall state-building has been more or less suspended, they are still maintaining it as an aim for the near future and are awaiting the arrival of management cadres from Russia and other countries to recommence the process of constructing the state of Novorossiya. The implication again, supported in the introduction of the article, is that Novorossiya exists, just not in a substantive way.

So much for the existence of the state: it should be clear now that this is a rather fraught question and can't simply be dismissed as being rubbish or nonsense without abandoning NPOV. I don't really see why the article would have to be merged even if the state doesn't yet exist, however. Novorossiya has been a crucial concept in the conflict over the Donbass and there is much to be said about it that doesn't necessarily belong on an article about a century-old Russian imperial province. Going off the criteria in WP:MERGE, this article clearly is not a duplicate of the article for the province, it doesn't overlap much with it, it doesn't require intensive knowledge of it, and it can be maintained at a decent length. I will therefore oppose the proposal to merge the two articles, since it satisfies none of the obvious criteria for such an option.

I would agree, finally, that the Demographics, Economics, and most of the Politics sections should be deleted, since they appear to have crucially confused the political programme of the New Russia Party (unhelpfully also just called "Novorossiya" quite a lot of the time) for the actual Union that was signed. I believe I already mentioned this way back last summer. --Nizolan (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it not possible to accept that the merge argument was lost. Oppose them and now. Too soon for another discussion. Stop wasting valuable energy and be constructive.Cathar66 (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: Cathar66, there is nothing unconstructive about RGloucester's proposal. What was unconstructive was the earliest RM changing the name of the article as it originally stood. Nevertheless, as much as I'm irritated at the original premature title change, I find myself in agreement with Nizolan simply because we've been lumbered with this title. The main issue, at this point, is to proscribe the content in order to avoid the WP:SYNTH problems which have arisen due to the broad usage of the term 'Novorossiya' in the political and military spheres. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Very Strongly Oppose - This discussion is a waste of time. The union has been confirmed via reliable sources. The groups have merged their collective armed forces division, they have merged their constitution, many armed divisions are now using the "Novorossiya War Flag," etc. What more proof do we need to show that this group is anything but merged in a confederation? LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:17, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• • This is not a waste of time. Perhaps you should read some of the earlier comments. I do disagree with the idea of merging it and representing it as a political concept as I do not see anyone actually referring to it as a concept. Regardless, I don't think this is grounds for very strong opposition or even necessarily stronger than normal opposition. Dustin (talk) 16:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

• Neither is it an official RM. It's a legitimate use of the talk page to voice concerns as to how this article fits into the broader scheme of articles dedicated to recent (and ongoing) events in Ukraine, and how the content would be best presented for the readers. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

De facto flag is not the one that's in the infobox

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)

Agreed. There has been no widespread use of the upside-down Romanov flag, and I struggle to think of any instance where it has been seen since it was supposedly adopted. The red and blue saltire is very much the defacto flag of Novorossiya, if not the dejure. JamesBay (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see Flag of Novorossiya, most specifically the state flags section. Some late last year, there was some discussion to establish (via RS, including BIASED sources]] the war flag and the flag chosen to represent "Novorossiya" once the state was established. The video footage appears to be some form of convolution of the war flag since that time. I can only be guided by guesswork as to its having evolved, so I think we need to find sources to explain the addition of the Cossack emblem, etc. The only user I can think of who might be able to clarify what I believe to be a new convolution of the war flag is Elevatorrailfan (or, perhaps SkoraPobeda). If neither can assist, there are a couple of others who have only contributed to English Wikipedia in spates, but can be contacted via their home Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As I understand, the flag in Esn's video is the most common variant of the Novorossiya flag. The flag without the emblem is the war flag. I think the previous flag discussion is correct, the state tricolor flag was just a project. Perhaps sometime in the future they will officially adopt it, but for now it seems that the official flag is the red and blue saltire combined with the emblem. So should somebody create an svg of it? SkoraPobeda (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, the elements needed exist on Commons: the emblem is here, and the basis for the saltire here (although the square white cross cutting across needs to be filled in with red). Perhaps Nizolan or Leftcry would be willing to cobble one together. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll ask MrPenguin20, he's very good at making svg flags. SkoraPobeda (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

MrPenguin20 has created a flag with the emblem here: File:War Flag of Novorussia (Variant).svg Dustin (talk) 17:04, 22 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)

Wait, they made a variant flag for their confederation? I was not aware of this development. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:22, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we were all a bit surprised to see the flag being unfurled in the video. This would have to be tied in with the recent self-perception as carrying on the legacy of the Donetsk–Krivoy Rog Soviet Republic, hence the Zaporizhian Host emblem replaces the previous emblems. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:44, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

There is not official flag of Novorussia. Oleg Tsarev planned saltire as War Flag and white-yellow-black as National flag. But this plans didn't come true. People already got used to a saltire therefore the War flag was approved, and National flag wasn't accepted. Saltire with coat of arms is imagination of some people, the majority of flags are thought out by Internet users and this flags widely extend. This unofficial flags are issued the Chinese manufactories, including this flag[[3]. The saltire without coat of arms is the true de-facto Novorussian flag [4] --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 07:42, 28 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)

Neutrality

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)

Phil070707, understanding that you're new to the project, please allow me to point out that you have a poor grasp of what WP:NPOV actually means. Please read the policy carefully, and familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines properly before assuming you know how the project functions (i.e., see WP:CONTROVERSY and WP:GEVAL). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Iryna, I came here from your user page, since we had some interaction. I don't want ot go into details of editing pf Phil, by he, accidentally or not, right about Prokhanov. Per WP:BLP we should not liberally apply various political labels to people. Any judgements must be confined to the person's bio article, where they may be thoroughly discussed. We cannot repeat the same discussion in numerous articles which happen to mention this person with labels applied. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

The second issue is whether it is NPOV to apply any labels to the name. In this particular case it is justified, since this helps to clarify the political trend of the event. It does not constitute POV-pushing, because political affiliations of the person at hand are easily found from their bio. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:21, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

@Staszek Lem: Yes, I'm aware BLP, and highly aware of Prokhanov's bio since I've been involved with for some time... which means that I am also aware of the fact that he has been characterised as "neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist" by RS, and that the terms are not mutually exclusive, nor do any of them preclude the others. And, yes, in the context of this article, it NPOV and relevant to the content of this article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Background

The first paragraph of the background section contains the following errors:

1) "Novorossiya was the name of a territory." It was never the name of a territory, it was founded as a governorate.

2) "which had been annexed several years after the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca" The treaty of K-K was in 1774, Novorossiya was established in 1764.

3) "Novorossiya initially included today's southern Ukraine". No, that came later, after the K-K treaty.

4) "The major cities were ... Mykolaiv" Novorossiya never had a city named Mykolaiv, the name change to Mykolaiv came only after Novorossiya had been dissolved.

5) "In 1802 the province of Novorossiya was split into three Governorates." A province is not going to be split into three governorates. The one governorate was partitioned into 3 governorates (see point 1, above)

6) There is an unsourced claim that the incorporation was because of demographics, when economics may have been the principal reason.

7) Most of former Novorossiyan governorate (at any time) was incorporated into Ukraine, not just the Novorossiyan governorate of the 18th century. Tachypaidia (talk) 21:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

I don't see anything wrong in "governorate". Every country has unique naming for its administrative divisions or provinces. I think that "governorate" more accurately corresponds with Russian "gubernia" and should be retained. Maybe the word "gubernia" should be used like here. --UA Victory (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the use of "Governate" for "gubernia". Please see the Google results for gubernatorial definition. This was the commonly used nomenclature for administrative units (not 'province'), and was the term used in the field of governance studies and discourse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

8) The paragraph says "some Russian academics discussed the idea" when the source says, "some not entirely academic quarters in Moscow" (bolding added). This means that the idea was not purely an academic exercise, but crossed into some real politic as well--something that the quote wholly misrepresents. Tachypaidia (talk) 03:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Infobox predecessor and successor proposal.

Novorossiya New Russia Новороссия (Russian) Новоросія (Ukrainian)
2014–2015
Flag Coat of arms
Anthem: "Живи Новороссия" Zhivi, Novorossiya! on YouTube (in Russian) (in Ukrainian) "Live, New Russia!"
Territories controlled by DPR and LPR 02/2015.
Status	Self-proclaimed confederation
Official languages	Russian Ukrainian
Religion	Russian Orthodox (official)
Membership	Donetsk People's Republic Luhansk People's Republic
Government	Provisional Confederation
• Speaker of the Parliament	Oleg Tsaryov
• 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
Preceded by Succeeded by Donetsk People's Republic Lugansk People's Republic Donetsk People's Republic Lugansk People's Republic

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)

Predecessor and successor 'states' for infobox

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)

Termination

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)

Let's face the real reality: this thing never existed, and never will exist. This whole article has been a pack of WP:OR from day one, despite the failure of all attempts to quash it. Can we finally delete this nonsense? RGloucester — ☎ 19:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I think my answer to this is self-evident per the section I've opened below. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Doubious "termination"

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

It's not generally the best practice to cite YouTube. Dustin (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

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)

I've just cleaned up the "collapse" section of the article which, according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, was a misrepresentation of the sources. Firstly, discussing what individuals involved in the project have to say on what they envisage for the future of the RS "collapsed/ruined" conceptual state contravenes WP:CRYSTAL. Refactoring the content to fit WP:POV projections as to some form of future incarnations of the 'project' is shoehorning at its worst. The Novorossiya 'confederation' was a conceptual declaration of a non-existent state only actualised in any semblance of reality via partial entities (DPR and LPR), themselves unrecognised states.

When and/or if circumstances change (i.e., another attempt at creating a version of this conceptualised 'Novorossiya'), the entire article will not be this article but another article for that WP:CRYSTAL state, and any information in this article (or any other articles drawing on "Novorossiya (confederation)") will only be referencing this instance as part of an historical context if the content is relevant to a future article.100.36.80.71 (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

In a nutshell: for all editors and prospective editors, please pay attention to the fact that it was a conceptual 'confederation' (meaning that it never existed in reality), and that it is closed (meaning that it's a failed conceptual state). If you can make sense of this entity having existed in any shape or form, this information won't do your nut in. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Imposing a definitional requirement that the Novorossiya confederation be taken as “conceptual” as a criterion for contribution is unsubstantiable. The definition of the term ‘confederation’ is itself quite broad; confederations can be quite loose (as the American Indian confederations) or very limiting as in the case of Switzerland. In any instance, the proposition that to-date that the Novorossiya confederation has no real existence, i.e., nothing but an ephemeral notion of a cerebral fascinations with any actuality would be a futile argument.

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)

Background

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)

You would need to provide RS for these changes. Yes, I agree that the history is a mess, but it needs to be reworked drawing on reliable sources rather than simply overwriting long-standing text that had not been challenged.

Good scholarship requires judicious handling of sources, not all RS are equal. This section, in part, appears to have drawn on a overly simplified (and unsourced) summary. Given the controversy surrounding this topic, as reputable sources are much to be preferred. The challenge is making this summary accurate without becoming overly detailed.

Secondly, you've eliminated sourced content here and added additional sources without any discussion as to whether the previously sourced content was still relevant and, if not, why not.

The New Republic article draws on a readily available source. Resourcing it to the originating source, we find that the current paraphrase is misrepresentative. The original text reads "NOT entirely academic", the article changes this to read only "academic"; altering the meaning. This was placed on the Talk page on 19 May 2015.Tachypaidia (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Finally, while I see merit in "May 2015 Closure of Novorossiya project" as being a better than "collapse", your reworking was on the right track, but additions of Alexander Kofman's and Denis Pushilin (of the DPR) perspectives's on whether it's 'closed', has suffered a temporary setback, etc., etc. are WP:UNDUE for the purposes of a conceptual/'project' of recreating "Novorossiya": i.e., a conceptual state being pushed by a couple of 'unrecognised states'. For the purposes of Wikipedia, "закрыто" means "закрыто" unless it is reopened. It can't be an on-hold or frozen state when it didn't exist in the first place. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. It isn't up to us to offer up speculation as to how it proposes to ressurect itself. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:24, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

A "conceptual state"? First, I know of no such definition of a "conceptual state." Secondly, it does not even claim to be state, but a confederation. One might argue that it is illegitimate or failed, but not "conceptual." The case in law, here, is relevant: there is a legal difference between a null and void contract (e.g., when a party is incompetent, the action to be taken is unlawful, the impossibility of performance of the terms, defective requirements, etc.), and a contract that never existed at all.

Also, "закрыто" does not mean "collapsed". I wrote "closure".Tachypaidia (talk) 02:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Zakharchenko on 24.06.15-Novorussia will be formed

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)

Did Zakharchenko say anything again about how Ukraine is run by "miserable Jews"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:32, 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)

Why would this be WP:OR?

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)

Solzhenitsyn and Novorossiya

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)

Use of template 'infobox country'

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)

Not really a quotation

The article has what appears to be a quotation in a sentence:

On 17 April 2014, during talks in Geneva on resolving the rising unrest in southern and eastern Ukraine, President Putin stated at a question and answer session that "the territories of Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa had originally been part of Novorossiya" and suggested that they were irresponsibly ceded to Ukraine.

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:

• The Grauniard stated on 17 April 2014: "It's new Russia," he told millions of watchers "Kharkiv, Lugansk, Donetsk, Odessa were not part of Ukraine in tsarist times, they were transferred in 1920. Why? God knows. Then for various reasons these areas were gone, and the people stayed there – we need to encourage them to find a solution."
• The Kremlin stated on 17 April 2014: I would like to remind you that what was called Novorossiya (New Russia) back in the tsarist days – Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa – were not part of Ukraine back then. These territories were given to Ukraine in the 1920s by the Soviet government. Why? Who knows. They were won by Potyomkin and Catherine the Great in a series of well-known wars. The centre of that territory was Novorossiysk, so the region is called Novorossiya. Russia lost these territories for various reasons, but the people remained.

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)

I've amended this further in order to avoid problems surrounding WP:WORDS. He did not 'suggest' that the territories shouldn't have been ceded, but used evasive language to make a point about who the territories should belong to. The fact that he used evasive language does not translate as an encyclopaedic resource using the same evasive language, therefore I've replace "suggested" with "according to". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The language that was used had the advantage of quoting directly from the source, i.e., "suggested". But, even allowing for paraphrasing, the sense conveyed as to why the Soviet transfer, Putin says, "God knows" which, oddly, is rendered by the Washington Post (the principal U.S. media to print the interview) as a "Who knows". Also, I don't see the evasiveness...what exactly is being "evaded"? He says straight up: they weren't part of Ukraine and cannot account for why they were ceded. Taking this as too elusive would require inserting our own judgement to vet every speaker's words to a form that we, personally, find palatable. Lastly, the substitution of "according to him..." rings of both undue delimitation and a dismissive tone. The source material should be restored. Tachypaidia (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

"Suggesting" strikes me as being equally obtuse. Perhaps the best way to deal with it is to avoid a redundant descriptor? I.e., just omit the suggest/according to to read as "... had been part of "Novorossiya" and that they were irresponsibly ceded to Ukraine.. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

That seems OK to me, it's straightforward. Tachypaidia (talk) 09:02, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tachypaidia: Do you understand the concept of a quotation? Wikipedia is not the Grauniard; quotations should be accurate, and attributed to a source that actually contains the quotation.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Toddy reverted someone's translation of Putin's remark "царских времён" into the awkward, un-English: "in the tsarist days." Who talks like that? Better (which I put in ) "in tsarist times" (which is still a bit awkward, but passable). Even better, "during the time of the empire..."; but "... in the tsarist days" is just pedestrian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tachypaidia (talk • contribs) 17:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tachypaidia: Yes, all of us could have done a better job on the translation, but we are not the translators because there is an official Kremlin translation into English. We are obliged to quote that translation, not modify it in any way. Despite its being awkwardly phrased, the meaning is clear for the reader. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Status of Novorossiya post May 2014

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)

Okay, I agree with the changes you've made to that subheader as being a better representation of the sources. At this point, however, we can't progress on a trajectory that breaches WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. That which is possible or likely is, from the perspective of our role as editors, not open to speculation until there are RS dealing with the connections and future directions. At this point, the Novorossiya project is "frozen". The imperative is avoiding qualifying it either as being indefinite, or developing further details as to what 'with a view to taking it to a different level' encompasses. Once/if sources tell us that it has metamorphosed, then discussions as to presentation can take place. It's one thing that primary players in the project have qualified their perceptions, but it's another thing to push their political assessments into the content (i.e., watching that we don't overstep the fine line between being informative and WP:COATRACK). For the moment, the Novorossiya project has only been defined as the umbrella movement under which separatist activity initially took shape and cannot be expanded outside of what is WP:DUE within the article's scope (that is, per WP:TITLE): "Novorossiya (confederation)". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)