Talk:Novorossiya (confederation)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Novarus ?

shouldn't the state be called novarossija or novarus?--Crossswords (talk) 06:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? Where? --Львівське (говорити) 06:51, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Question

Just curious, why this map, not that one? --80.7.87.151 (talk) 15:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The maps don't seem to be from an RS source, or at least the RS source isn't stated.Haberstr (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

95% of the article content isn't from an RS source. It's all self-published crap and very much POV to boot. Also violates WP:ADVOCACY and WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

how is it not a reliable source? its a primary source in their official news wire. --Львівське (говорити) 18:18, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem: WP:SPS, WP:PRIMARY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with quoting state media about state positions. This is from the horse's mouth. --Львівське (говорити) 00:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Title should be Federal (or Federative) State, not Federal States

Irrespective of the above debate on New Russia vs. Novorossiya: the document referenced in the article and the article itself only refer to a federal 'государство' of Novorossiya, or state. States, plural, would be 'государства'. --Nizolan (talk) 02:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Also I note that Lvivske above has said:

In google translate it says "федеративного государства Новороссия" is "Federal States New Russia" so I added the "of".

Google Translate is wrong here I'm afraid. федеративного государства Новороссия is a genitive singular, not a plural. --Nizolan (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

someone changed the russian langauge in the intro from what i said above to a different wording, is the new wording correct or what i posted above? --Львівське (говорити) 03:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

The new wording is correct. What you were translating means "of the Federal State of New Russia", and the new wording is simply "Federal State of New Russia". --Nizolan (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Third note actually: the title should probably also be 'federative' (since it's федеративное, federativnoe, and by analogy with the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic), and not 'federal' (which would be федеральное, federal'noe). --Nizolan (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

google trans says федеративного is 'federal'. Maybe wait on common use for this one but 'federative' is a very uncommon word in english (and as you said, RSFSR is the only such example of its usage i can think of) --Львівське (говорити) 03:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It gives federative when you search for the dictionary form (see here). But I agree, it's not much of an issue (compared to States vs. State, which does change the meaning). --Nizolan (talk) 03:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot even begin to explain the ridiculousness of using Google Translate as an authoritative source on correct translation... - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing my best here. --Львівське (говорити) 22:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree in general, but if you search for the dictionary form of a word it just acts as a lexicon, which is fine for what it does. --Nizolan (talk) 13:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this page should be more protected

..Like the one about the pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine was. By the way, I've noticed you are or were a sympathizer of the Svoboda Party!... I didn't know it actually when I told you something about POV. Well, as you don't actually live in Ukraine and your support is merely spiritual, as you keep being objective it's fine for me. I've described myself as a socialist/social-democrat in my user page, so our political positions are very different, but it's as I said. I hope Poroshenko can do something to reconcile both Western and Eastern Ukraine, which, you must aknowledge, Svoboda couldn't do!Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

This is more meant for my talk page but my political leanings are diverse and not set one one party or ideology. I'm pragmatic. --Львівське (говорити) 22:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Map(s) needed

It would be nice to have some or all of the following maps:

• Combination of map of territory occupied by Donetsk People's Republic and map of territory occupied by Lugansk People's Republic.
• Map of Donetsk Oblast and Lugansk Oblast combined on the map of Ukraine and/or Europe.
• Map of oblasts with significant intersection with historical region Novorossiya, which happens to correspond to a great extent with oblasts with significant pro-Russian unrest. Or superposition of this with over some of above mentioned maps.
• Superposition of historical region Novorossiya over some of above mentioned maps.

It should be stressed out that last two, if used, should be used for comparative purposes only, so that readers don't get wrong impression that those territories are being controlled by the separatists. Feon {^t/_c} 09:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes maps are needed. Most important is a map of the territory affected by the uprising, whilst it is somewhat difficult to know exactly where this entity actually exercises control, it is easier and more accurate to simply have a map of the area affected by the uprising. If we can have some maps from reliable sources presented here then we will be able to create a map based on those example. Given the extent of the uprising, it is imho too difficult to rely on individual news reports given that some places are changing "control" daily or in some cases several times a day, that is why I am proposing a map of the areas affected. Provide RS for discussion so that I can start working on a fresh map (the current map is indeed quite dated now). Lunch for Two (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Introductory remarks

Why is this "Federal States" and not a "Federal State"? The Russian name is singular, not plural.

Also, it's Novorossiya and not New Russia. New Russia would be Новая Россия. We aren't using the name White Russia for Belorus/Byelorussia, even though White Russia to Byelorussia is about the same as New Russia to Novorossiya.

89.215.193.252 (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• New Russia is the English name, and always has been. There is no such thing as "Novorossiya" in English. I can't comment on the "Federal States" business. RGloucester — ☎ 01:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

In google translate it says "федеративного государства Новороссия" is "Federal States New Russia" so I added the "of". As for "Novorossiya", this will all depend on common use in English. We don't call the country "Rossiya" we call it "Russia", but as you said we call the other "Belarus" and not "White Rus'". Personally, I'm against mixing and matching languages and having the "federal states of" part in english but the "new russia" part in transliterated Russian. As it stands we have the English version right next to the transliterated version, and can move/rename if things change. —Львівське (говорити) 02:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

"Belarus" was originally called "White Ruthenia" in English, until it was specifically requested that it be called "Byelorussia", and then "Belarus". Germans still call it "Wit-Rusland". In this case, given that we have not be explicitly told to call it otherwise, I believe it makes sense to use the historical and English "New Russia", as this also provides more information to the reader, who otherwise would not understand the connection with regard to "Rossiya". RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

correct and I agree with your reasoning. --Львівське (говорити) 02:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally haven't seen one source that calls the self-proclaimed state "New Russia". Every single one calls it "Novorossiya" http://rt.com/news/161304-donetsk-lugansk-unite-state/ http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/04/29/who_will_be_the_president_of_novorossiya http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_05_24/Donetsk-Lugansk-Peoples-Republics-unite-in-Novorossiya-1012/ http://en.apa.az/news/211813 The fact that Wikipedia calls the state "New Russia" while most of the media calls it "Novorossiya" may be very confusing to the reader. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 05:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We use English. It isn't confusing. Those sources all mention "New Russia" as well. "Novorossiya" unfairly denies the reader the naturalness of the English "New Russia" for a foreignism that means nothing. RGloucester — ☎ 05:19, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Two of those four links use 'New Russia' (fp and apa). --Львівське (говорити) 05:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

also:

• [1] National Post "refers to eastern and southern Ukraine by the old czarist term of “New Russia.”
• [2] Businessweek - Why Putin's Ukrainian "New Russia" Could Be an Ungovernable Mess
• [3] The Hindu - "The formation of Novorossiya, or New Russia, as the eastern part of Ukraine was called in the 19th century, was announced"
• [4] Foreign Policy - "declared the return of "Novorossiya" ("New Russia") earlier this month"
• [http://en.apa.az/news/211813 APA.az - "have united in a state called Novorossiya (New Russia)"
• [5] Reuters - "branded eastern Ukraine "New Russia" last month"
• [6] Toronto Sun - "NEW RUSSIA"

• [7] Voice of America - "a region some separatists want to call Novorossiya, or New Russia."

• [8] Boston Herald - "referred to eastern and southern Ukraine as “Novorossiya,” or “New Russia.”

• [9] Globe and Mail - “I would like to remind you that what was called Novorossiya [New Russia]"

• [10] Sydny Morning Herald - even greater swathe of territory which it has dubbed New Russia."

• [11] Daily Herald - "by the old czarist term of “New Russia.”

--Львівське (говорити) 05:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what Pushilin is saying here but [12] "We've named the united regions as the union of people’s republics,” --Львівське (говорити) 07:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

See below on this --Nizolan (talk) 02:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

About the "Federal State/s" issue, I think a better translation of "федеративного государства Новороссия" should be "FEDERATED STATES of New Russia" - that would make more sense than "Federal States". Soriehlam (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that "Federative State" is the best translation, personally. It seems to be trying to harken to the RSFSR. RGloucester — ☎ 21:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Not finalized yet; DNR and LNR are still existing independently according to LNR leader

Have a look at the comments from the leader of the Lugansk People's Republic, from May 26: [13]

He says that nothing is finalized, and even after the two republics eventually form a confederation, they will continue to exist independently. --Tocino 13:11, 26 May 20114 (UTC)

My impression from the news is that the Lugansk and Donetsk leaders have different opinions on this, with the DPR being more pro-Novorossiya. There is a statement from the DPR's Foreign Ministry on the Novorossiya website to the effect that they have established a new sovereign state etc. I will have to find an appropriate source, though. --Nizolan (talk) 13:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Update on this: This is the most extensive thing I could find, though I'm not sure about the credibility of the source: http://www.newsru.com/world/26may2014/novoros.html According to this, it appears there is disagreement among various groups of separatists. The merger document was signed by Alexei Karyakin, the "leader" of the LPR, and not Bolotov. I'll tentatively put this in the article since NEWSru does have a page here. --Nizolan (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

LPR leader can only speak on behalf of his group. Just as the DPR and LPR claim Ukrainian territory, it seems the DPR/New Russia are claiming LPR territory. Let them fight... --Львівське (говорити) 22:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if they manage to work out all of the details to became a functioning, confederate state, then it doesn't mean that the DNR and LNR will suddenly cease to exist. That's not how a confederation works, see Serbia and Montenegro for a modern example. --Tocino 10:00 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but they have ceased to operate as independent states. The DPR and LPR continue to exist but they should be treated as sub-national entities. This is more akin to Republic of South Carolina → Confederate States of America. Lunch for Two (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

correct. and if indeed its mostly the DPR leadership running the confederacy, the DPR might end up as you said, a sub-national entity like the Republic of Tatarstan is in the Russian Federation.--Львівське (говорити) 16:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the most direct analogy is probably the good old USSR, where the constituent units were nominally sovereign states -- given that the Soviet Union was a 'union of socialist republics' and with New Russia they're talking about a 'union of people's republics'. Difficult to say until there's more information on the proposed constitutional structure of New Russia. --Nizolan (talk) 17:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Well I guess that's the dispute now. DPR wants Russian-style 'federation' with a capital in Donetsk, and LPR wants a USSR style "Union of Republics" --Львівське (говорити) 18:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Incidentally Pavel Gubarev's new video certainly suggests he thinks New Russia is a present reality (!) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3w51JrdBbo#t=48 --Nizolan (talk) 02:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The DNR is clearly flying the confederate flag outside the RSA [14] (or was, until the coup today) --Львівське (говорити) 17:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Also worth noting that the coup appears to be in favour of Borodai, who signed the proclamation, so I expect the putschists will take a pro-New Russia line. --Nizolan (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Also on their official statement [15] they refer to the "Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of Donetsk and New Russia", so is the government itself merged? Odd how they arent referring to LPR --Львівське (говорити) 17:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that, and I suspect you're right. It looks like, since the capital of New Russia is Donetsk, the Donetsk government is also functioning as the federal government of New Russia. But that's just speculation on my own part. --Nizolan (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Federal State or Union of People's Republics

On reviewing carefully the various relevant sources it appears to me that there has not been any "Federal State" proclaimed at all -- there was a proposal for a Federal State of New Russia/Novorossiya put forward by the New Russia Party. As far as I can tell "Union of People's Republics" is probably closer to an official name, but there's nothing officially stating as much either way. In view of this ambiguity my personal recommendation would be to follow the Russian Wikipedia and move the page to New Russia (state), or Novorossiya (state) depending on the outcome of the discussion above. I would simply do this myself but given the tensions over the page's title at the moment I thought it would be best to submit this for discussion. --Nizolan (talk) 05:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but I will agree that we would be best off waiting for at least some discussion to occur. I don't currently have much of an opinion on this at the moment, but I think I may comment on this again later after I give it some thought. Dustin (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Translation of Novorossiya

Novorossiya is not the English name as far as I am aware, but I believe that the infobox is meant to show both the native and the translated name. I may be incorrect here, but I believe Novorossiya is nothing more than a transliteration, and the infobox ought to display a translation regardless of the article's title. Dustin (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Eh, I may have possibly confused some of what I said above, but regardless, ought not the infobox display the translated name, independent of the title? Dustin (talk) 23:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I feel this is kind of undermining the consensus reached above, can you point out an article where the info-box and the article's title do not match? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

There was no consensus, firstly, and secondly, a foreign name is a foreign name. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Yes, I actually can. Go to the Taiwan article for an example. It's a different situation, but it is still applicable. Dustin (talk) 23:14, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay fair enough. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, if that's it, then we can close this discussion early. I am just saying that I believe that it is better to provide a translation than a transliteration. Dustin (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion won't end as soon as I hoped. Dustin (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) "Новороссия" transliterates to "Novorossiya" but translates (in English words) to "New Russia" from what I can understand. Because of this, the infobox situation ought to be clear. I am still open to some good reasoning, if you can provide it though. Dustin (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Can this be summed up in the article maybe? Or place "Novorossiya" above (New Russia) in the infobox? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if that would be preferred. Novorossiya, as I said earlier, is only a transliteration, so if it absolutely must be included, "Novorossiya" should go in the parenthesis. Dustin (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I will let you make the call, as I said earlier I have no strong preference for the infobox given your example I was just throwing out ideas to have it make sense is all as you pointed out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be best for us to leave the infobox as is. Regarding the in-body text, we should wait for others to comment. No matter what the outcome may be, if it doesn't say so somewhere already, we should have a mention somewhere that "Novorossiya" is a Latin alphabet transliteration of "Новороссия", the name in cyrillic alphabet. Dustin (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding Novorossiya's usage

"The result of the move request was: moved to Federal State of Novorossiya." With the title settled now comes the part where I am seeing Novorossiya being removed from the article based in part of reasons stated in the above move discussion against the title. My proposal is that we leave New Russia in the infobox and have Novorossiya in the text of the lead as WP:NPOV here. Another suggestion is to do what is in the Taiwan example above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

No, as that would be misleading to the reader. The title is what it is, but that doesn't change that "Novorossiya" isn't English. It is Russian, transliterated into English. Including it in bold text at all seems to be undue weight, as foreign words should be italicised, but given people's concerns, I will consent to the bolding. However, I will not consent to the misleading status quo of presenting Russian words as English, or of the artificial mixing of "Federal State", English, with a Russian word, "Novorossiya". The article should be moved to Federativnoye Gosudarstvo Novorossiya, or Novorossiya (New Russia confederal state). RGloucester — ☎ 02:38, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

The odd part is that outside the initial proposal, the debate was between Novorossiya and New Russia, but not a single person advocated the mixed-language "Federal State of Novorossiya" option, as such form is literally used nowhere in English. This makes the move even more confusing to readers. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 04:57, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

@Lvivske: I agree that this is a bit confusing. At the very least, it should have been moved to "Novorossiya (descriptor)" to at least remain consistent with the fact that a transliteration was being used. Dustin (talk) 05:03, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 05:10, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed that it makes no sense. The lead and infobox have become problematic. Seriously, the whole RM should have been thought out properly before it was proposed. Now the content has to work around the new name. As there are no English language parallels to work from via scholarship or the media, this is going to rely of WP:OR. Great job, folks! We've just created the "Federal State of Novorossiya". I wonder how long it'll be before the secondary sources catch up with us? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

I also agree but only tentatively. The problem with "Novorossiya (descriptor)" is the descriptor. It would spark a whole extra and probably acrimonious debate what to put inside the descriptor parentheses. At least now we can move off the talk page and get back to editing and improving and especially updating the entry. In recent days I hear less and less of the state of Novorossiya, and more of the two "people's republics."Haberstr (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Which was one of the main concerns expressed regarding the move, Haberstr: we didn't know what the naming convention would become per secondary sources (and we still don't know), but the push for WP:OR decisions was interpreted as being the 'correct' decision. The moral of the story is "don't throw around crystal balls". Contributors are so immersed in personal perceptions that they run ahead with the ball leaving the game behind. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedic article, not journalism. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a rather bizarre discussion as far as I can tell. There are plenty of examples of such "mixed" usages involving a non-Anglicised toponym, for instance there is an article for the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (not "the United Provinces of the River Plate"); we also talk about the Democratic Republic of São Tomé and Príncipe and not Saint Thomas and Prince.

The "Federal State of New Russia" was as much a Wikipedia invention as the present title, so I don't buy Iryna Harpy's argument above at all, nor do I think RGloucester's incredibly (and presumably deliberately) awkward title suggestions are particularly helpful.

As I stated above, I feel the article should be moved to Novorossiya (state) for other reasons (namely that the "Federal State" appears to be a proposal and not the title of the current state). —Nizolan (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

They have always been called the "United Provinces of the River Plate" in English, especially contemporaneously. That was where that article started at, but Wikipedia has gone rather insane with replacing perfectly good exonyms. I imagine much of this derives from the fact that many non-native English speakers edit the project. RGloucester — ☎ 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Nizolan, this is not the point in time at which to start a new wishlist for a naming convention. The Federal State of Novorossiya has gone through and there's little point in doing anything other than trying to work around it in the article until such a time as secondary sources provide a naming convention for us independent of personal preferences. Personally, 'I feel' that Novorossiya (state) is not an intuitive disambiguator. How many readers are going to be acquainted enough with the subject in order to know whether they're looking for Novorossiya or Novorossiya (state)? You were also one of those who expressed concerned with "the baggage" that comes with the name (and so it should: where do you think it came from, if not based on irredentist concepts and movements in place well before the current crisis). If you're busy noting that ""Federal State of New Russia" was as much a Wikipedia invention as the present title ... nor do I think RGloucester's incredibly (and presumably deliberately) awkward title suggestions are particularly helpful.", how do you justify your preference? It's both OR and highly unintuitive. Unrecognised state is a POV attempt at legitimising a state that simply isn't recognised. Suggestion: Novorossiya (illegitimate state). Are we getting closer to a good choice yet? Fact: the jury we're supposed to be sourcing is still writing about it and it's going to be quite some time before a verdict is made. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:01, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Anyone who is looking up the state called Novorossiya will be able to disambiguate between the historical region Novorossiya and the self-proclaimed country. It should be obvious that "illegitimate state" is a flagrant violation of NPOV. Again, I feel you and RGloucester are being deliberately passive-aggressive and obtuse in a rather unhelpful way.

With regards to my preference "Novorossiya (state)" (or "New Russia (state)" but that boat has now sailed) there is nothing OR or unintuitive about it. I don't really see how you could say there is without, again, being obtuse. Sorry. —Nizolan (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Given that this "entity" isn't even being covered in English-language western media, I wonder if it is notable at all, per WP:PERSISTENCE. Regarding the title, the best potential option is Novorossiya (New Russia state). The English must be included, so that English-speakers understand what it is being spoken about. RGloucester — ☎ 14:59, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

You've hit the nail on the head, RGloucester. I've been concerned about the number of child articles (such as the brand new Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin Il-76 shoot-down) springing up at every turn, but based on a short-lived newsworthiness. Everyone is running ahead with a crystal ball assuming that what they want to create an article about actually meets WP:GNG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Rename "Union of Novorossiya"

I stumbled upon a source [16] calling the breakaway state "Union of Novorossiya" and I personally think that it would be better to use that title. --WhyHellWhy (talk) 01:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is entitled "Fighting for “New Russia”", and the reference to "Union of Novorossiya" is exactly as you have depicted it: being in quotation marks. It's the same reason why the article name should not have been changed from "Federal State of New Russia" to its current name. Now you want to pull out your crystal ball and create a Union which doesn't exist as yet, if it will ever exist. Try reading the copious arguments for and against changes to the WP:TITLE bursting out all over this talk page before you venture into the realms of WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:27, 30 June 2014 (UTC)