Talk:Novorossiya (confederation)/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Did Putin Err in associating the Kharkov oblast with historical Novorossiya?

On 17 April 2014 President Putin stated at that even "in the tsarist days – Kharkov, Lugansk, Donetsk, Kherson, Nikolayev and Odessa – were not part of Ukraine"but part of Novorossiya.[19][20][nb 1] The footnote originally assigned to this statement on March 28, 2015 as of 22:09. It read as follows:

“The city of Kharkiv was not part of the historical region of Novorossiya; but of the historical region Sloboda Ukraine” with two sources site:

19. Unmaking Imperial Russia: Mykhailo Hrushevsky and the Writing of Ukrainian History by Serhii Plokhii, University of Toronto Press, 2005, (p.19) 20. Frontline Ukraine: Crisis in the Borderlands by Richard Sakwa, I.B. Tauris, 2015, (p. 9)

These footnotes fail for two reasons: (1) Putin listed a series of provinces (oblasts) not cities. The author of the footnote mistakenly conflates the province of Kharkiv with its homonymic capital. (2) Neither of the two source cited speaks to the question of the bifurcation of Kharkov province between Novorossiya and Sloboda.

A reference to geography or maps indicates that Kharkov province was bifurcated between Novorossiya and Sloboda. Even basic sources will bear this out. Consider:

see: https://reconsideringrussia.org/2014/05/15/historical-geography-of-ukraine/ which reads:

Sloboda Contemporary area: Almost all of the Kharkiv oblast, except for the southernmost parts.

Novorossiya Contemporary area: The Nikolayev and Kherson oblasti … the southeastern most area of the Kharkiv oblast …

One might rightfully argue that President Putin remark was too broad, without qualifying Kharkiv in part. But the footnote as given leaves the reader with the impression that President Putin was just way off—averring a connection where none exists. I would edit the footnote to read:

While the southeastern most area of Kharkiv province was within the historical region of Novorossiya, the city of Kharkiv was not, but part of the historical region Sloboda Ukraine.

Tachypaidia (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Putin did not err. Putin is not an expert in history. His advisors did err. And regardless what you wrote they were sloppy. And their sloppiness was caught. It is not the job of wikipedia to straighten or explain Putin's sloppiness. Unless you find reliable sources which try to read Putin's mind postfactum. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your 1st four sentences are baseless. No sources. Your assertion that "is is not the job of wikipedia to straighten our explain" is precisely what the current footnote (wrongly) does. Your last sentence is without meaning. Tachypaidia (talk) 00:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The geographic relationship of the confederation and the ATO

An editor thought that one of the sentences was "convoluted language".[1]

• Original: "Within Ukraine, the proposed confederation was located in the so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone."
• Tachypaidia's attempted rewording: "The territories claimed by confederation are called the Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone by Ukraine."[2]
• Toddy1's attempted rewording: "The proposed confederation is in Ukraine's so-called Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone."[3]

I disagree with Tachypaidia's attempted rewording because the ATO is very much larger than the confederation. At the point where the sentence starts, the reader has been introduced to the concept that the confederation would have included Lugansk and Donetsk and surrounding territory. There is a map in the infobox along those lines too. This is understandable.

If you wanted to include territory claimed by Father Christmas, then this would need to be explained first. In that case, the claimed territories probably exceed the size of the ATO, because they include about 75% of pre-1939 Ukraine.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Following up on Toddy1's response, the problem with the original text, is:

(a) "within Ukraine" dodges the "who", i.e., subject; it simply claiming a territory, and the poor use of the passive voice.

(b) "so-called" is a weasel word here.

(c) the text is achronological. It appears that the ATO zone already existed and the rebels decided to locate Novorossiya there.

With regard to your objection regarding the boarders, I would suggest the following revision: "Ukraine has designated the confederation as lying within an Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone.

Tachypaidia (talk) 08:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

in my opnion so called is a weasel word here as far as what the passage should say I'm not sure I hope you guys can work it outSassmouth (talk) 20:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest: "Ukraine calls the territory of the confederation and the larger theater of operations: "the Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone."" Tachypaidia (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest: "Ukraine calls the territory occupied by confederation and the surrounding theater of operations: "the Anti-Terrorist Operation Zone."" Just an idea the both of you know much more about this than me so you two are ultimately the ones who need to decideSassmouth (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of source

An editor has deleted a citation to the same source twice. I object to this deletion. The source is useful because it has a video of terrorist leader Alexander Zakharchenko speaking in Shevchenko Boulevard in Donetsk.

1. First time Edit summary = "Alexander Zakharchenko quote/ suspension of project ) Better source more understandable! feel free to revert if you think you can do better or i am wrong"
2. Second time Edit summary = "This info resist site gave me spyware/bloatware every time i start my computer a inforesist tab pops up on the bottom right of my computer if you wish to re add this reference please bring it to the the talk page"

The editor says that the website puts spyware on his computer. But many news sites do this - for example the English newspaper the Daily Telegraph puts tracking cookies on your computer every time you access it unless you do so using private browsing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:21, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the source, and changed http: to https: to try to resist cookies from the site. The site worked on my computer using private browsing.-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Toddy1: OK well i just did do a spyware check on my pc and nothing was found.

I dont care enough to argue with you about the reference. But it was strange when i started my computer on several occasions a inforesist banner ::appeared than receded from the bottom right hand side of my pc desktop. Its not that doing it now though. Possibly there is another site that has a ::video of Alexander Zakharchenko . I will let you know if the problem returns ThanksSassmouth (talk) 09:36, ::10 August 2016 (UTC)

Does YouTube accept him? PLEASE HELP WOUNDED MPRP THAT IS THE MONGOLIAN COMMUNIST PARTY THEY ARE AT THE TAGUS GRIEVOUSLY INJURED AND CALLED POORLY FOR HELP HELP PLEASE THE AMBULANCES ARE 00 351 243 333 122 AND 00 351 243 377 900 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.108.66.156 (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Novorussia

There us no Novorussia.It's Ukraine. Daniloi2001 (talk) 18:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC) Ukraine not exist since 2014, admit it 91.247.119.159 (talk) 20:57, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Is Malorossiya proposal relevant for Novorossiya page?

We have a disagreement with @Cloud200 about relevance of Malorossiya proposal raised by Zakharchenko for this article. Czech Wikipedia even has a special article about this proposal: cs:Malorusko (2017). This is completely different project, which in many way was opposite to Novorossiya project. The only common features were that both projects failed and both were fired from Russia. Let us find a third opinion. --Northumber (talk) 18:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• New-Novorossiya-map-1024x731.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Confusing - “proposed confederation” or not?

The page describes the subject as a “proposed confederation”, but also has infobox parameters that seem to suggest it did, in fact, exist at some point (ex: saying it was “succeeded” by the DPR and LPR, giving a date for the start and end of the confederation). I might just be the only one reading it wrong - and I’m not knowledgeable on this topic - but I found the lead and infobox very confusing. If it’s not just me, I think the existence - of lack thereof - of the confederation should be made more clear in the article itself. HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith (talk) 19:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

You're right that the introduction is a bit confusing. They proposed the confederation, never actually controlled all the territory they claimed, and then dissolved the confederation a year later. You can see more about this further down in the article. You're right that the intro needs to be cleaned upBiktor627 (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

Nominate this page for deletion as it is an entirely imaginary entity. 104.145.77.223 (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I get where you're coming from but Wikipedia has plenty of pages for things that are imaginary; and it's probably a notable topic. GliderMaven (talk) 02:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What happens with other WP pages is not our concern - this article is the topic. The article either meets the requirements of WP:NOTABILITY or it does not. If it does not, then it should be deleted. 182.239.147.173 (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Theoretically, from a pro-Ukrainian perspective, this article is actually very inadvertently useful since it proves that the Donetsk and Luhansk PRs are closely linked, to the point of being a single entity rather than two distinct entities. This is useful for reducing the legitimacy of either state on its own. Honestly, if this Novorossiya Confederation is real, then it was rather strategically foolish institution to establish, because it fully flies in the face of any idea of Donetsk or Luhansk independence as two individual countries. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 14:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's imaginary, it's about the notability (see WP:GNG) Suasufzeb 14:38, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Kirovohrad / Map Update

Wasn't the Kirovohrad oblast included in the claimed territory of the confederation? Why isn't it included on the map?Scu ba (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2022 (UTC)