Talk:New Russia Party

Convert flag to SVG

The flag could probably be converted to an SVG, so I have tagged its page on Commons; replies are unnecessary here and this comment is only to notify capable people for this conversion who are watching this page (but might not be watching the flag's page on Commons). Dustin (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a difference between the current flag and this one? If there isn't any technical difference, I think the SVG is superior simply because it is an SVG. I might be able to see a slight difference; in this case (and only in this case), I will again ask that someone with the skill convert File:Flag of new russia party.png to an SVG format under file name File:Flag of New Russia Party. Dustin (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

NPOV violation

"The first congress was attended by pro-Russian separatist officials of the Donetsk People's Republic, Donbass Militia. Notable figures belonging to the political far-right were involved, including: Donetsk Republic leader Pavel Gubarev, anti-Semitic and fascist writer Alexander Prokhanov,[6] fascist political scientist and Eurasia Party leader Aleksandr Dugin, and Valery Korovin"

The above is a clear NPOV rule violation. The source links even point to an opinion pieces. This should be fixed. 192.92.94.23 (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

what part is opinion? gubarev was in the RNU party, prokhanov is what he is, and dugin is cited as fascist by many sources. --Львівське (говорити) 20:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed some issues to reduce the emotionally loaded/disputable language. Would express my concerns in detail, but some kind of filter prevents me from elaborating on that. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Cheap agitprop in the article

I noticed some problems with the article last week. It's kind of ridiculous to see people denying Svoboda or even the Right Sector are 'far-right' attaching the very label to an organization that was founded only recently. Cheap Soviet style agitprop. It was removed from the infobox, but the main text still reflects such exaggerations.

First, Alexander Prokhanov is strictly speaking not fascist. He was pro-Soviet and still is, blending procommunist and ultranationalist attitudes. But if you want to have a short description, he is not a fascist neither in the Western nor in the Soviet sense. The same goes for the supposed fascist political scientist and Eurasia Party leader Aleksandr Dugin. The best description for Dugin would still be (Neo-)Eurasianist, but because this word is descriptive and not emotionally loaded, the creators of this article of course prefer the curse word fascist used in an inflationary manner.

As for Pavel Gubarev, then it is also tendentious and outright dishonest to label him as 'a figure of the far-right', while his previous more important affiliation was with the Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine, a hardleft party. All the figures I mentioned here may be thoroughly unpleasant, but really, folks, an encyclopedia should not be written in a primitive style of История Всесоюзной Коммунистической Партии (Большевиков): Краткий курс. Wikipedia can do better than that! Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Ideology Confusion

The text is really confusing when claiming that someone is neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist. How on earth someone can be all three of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.214.193 (talk) 21:53, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why is it confusing? They are all very similar: State control of people's lives. Secret police spying on people. Favour sending opponents to concentration camps or just killing them. Nationalist and expansionist. Generally anti-semitic (for example the USSR started persecuting Jews in August 1919 and continued until its dissolution in 1991). It is just propaganda that they are opposites - it is more like the difference between Persil and Ariel.

During the period of German-Soviet cooperation in World War II, the Soviet Union was Nazi Germany's most important ally; Nazi and Communist officials found that they had a great deal in common, which surprised them, as previously they had been told how different they were.

In any case, whether it is confusing (to you) or not, sources cited in the article describe them as such.

If you disagree with how the sources describe the people in the party, then please find sources to back your view discuss here.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This is mostly nonsense. The fact the Soviet government may have controlled people's lives and been oppressive just makes them authoritarian or totalitarian which is not equal to fascism. I would disagree that the Soviets were generally anti-Semitic (considering how many were from Jewish backgrounds). Police spying on people again is authoritarian or totalitarian. Fascism may be totalitarian but it is opposite; a fascist wants corporatism, class collaboration (lead by the middle classes), ethnic regeneration and a return to the old order; Socialists do not regardless of any similar methods; they want nationalization, a dictatorship of the proletariat (initiated by the working class), classlessness and an overthrow of the traditional order.

The part about the USSR being the most important ally of Nazi Germany is of course false (hopefully ignorance and not an outright lie) as the USSR had a non-aggression pact much like Poland (who signed one before the USSR), Turkey and the United Kingdom. The most important allies of Nazi Germany were Japan, Italy, Romania, Croatia and Finland.

I would suggest you find sources to back up your claims; also the sources cited in the article do not meet Wikipedia's standards for impartiality and truthfulness; describing someone as a "Stalinist/fascist" is problematic for one thing as is the fact they are opinion pieces and as it stands are not being treated as such in the article. Sigurd Dragon Slayer (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No doubt you are completely unaware that the Red Army invaded Poland in 1939 (see any standard history of World War II), that the USSR provided economic aid to Germany up to 22 June 1941 (see for example the "Germany and the Second World War" series of books), that Communist cells in various countries aided Germany (see for example I lived Three Lives by H Philbrick), the way that Romania was partitioned in 1940 with the Germans pressuring the Romanians into giving into the USSR (see Relapse into Bondage by A Cretzianu), that the USSR allowed German warships to operate from bases in Soviet waters in 1940-41 (see for example the "Germany and the Second World War" series of books).

The article cites reliable sources for the statements about politics.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 13 June 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

---

New Russia Party → Novorossiya (political party) – Article about state was renamed to Federal State of Novorossiya. Historical region named Novorossiya. Party also named Novorossiya (ru:Новороссия), not New Russia Party (ru:Новая русская партия). NickSt (talk) 11:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose - This is English Language Wikipedia, not Russian Language Wikipedia. IJA (talk) 11:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is English Language Wikipedia, not Russian Language Wikipedia. For the same reason, we don't call the Party of Regions the "Party of Reginov", exceptions made in the case of common use, like Svoboda (rather than Freedom). Also per WP:OTHERSTUFF, the New Russia article being moved doesnt mean this should, as that one shouldn't have been moved in the first place. --LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 14:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It would be best if we use an English name on the English Wikipedia; otherwise, we will be making it more difficult to understand for the reader. If the language was Russian for this Wikipedia, then I would support the move, but I will not support this move because this Wikipedia's language is not Russian. Ping me if additional input becomes necessary. Dustin (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – WP:NATURALNESS and WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE make it clear that the English title is to preferred, as it quickly makes clear to the English-speaking reader what it is that the person is reading about. "Novorossiya" is a foreignism that does not convey the meaning of the word, that is, "New Russia". There is no reason to obfuscate the reader by providing a non-English title for something that has an English-language clear alternative, as favoured by historical usage and translation. RGloucester — ☎ 15:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose – it doesn't look like proposed title can be considered as common name in English language sources currently, so there is no good reason to prefer it to English language title.--Staberinde (talk) 10:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

---

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.

Ideology Confusion take 2

I've just been compelled to tag various claims about their political ideology and position for citations. It seems that their political position is whatever the most recent editor believes it to be, commonly known as WP:OR. In all honesty, I'm quite prepared to remove every one of these in the next few days unless reliable sources, as opposed to blatantly WP:BIASED sources are introduced. If there are reliable (but biased) claims from both sides as to their position and ideology, then the only way to handle it is by WP:INLINE attribution which is not appropriate for the infox. That being the case, information as to their political ideology and position needs to be addressed specifically in the body of the article... although there isn't much in the way of an article, anyway. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I second all that. The main reason I made the this edit is that it is absurd to call Alexander Dugin a fascist. As for Pavel Gubarev, he certainly comes across as a Russian nationalist (in the sense that he supports the idea of the "Russian world"), but he also comes across as a socialist. His wanting to nationalize oligarch property was probably the main reason he got pushed out by Moscow. (Sorry for a little OR.) Also, I hope that everyone can agree that calling someone a "neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist" is also absurd. It is more absurd even then "Islamic fascism", because the country which defeated the Nazis was the USSR, under Stalin's leadership. So let's try to keep this kind of silliness out of the Ukraine-related articles, including this one. – Herzen (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

it is absurd to call Alexander Dugin a fascist - It's reliable sources that call Dugin a fascist [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. And those are scholarly sources we're talking about. We can find plenty more of popular sources as well. Hell, he called *himself* a fascist [6]. Your original research is no reason to remove well sourced material from the article. And how in the world can you complain about the article lacking sources on one hand, and then be busy *removing* reliable sources on the other?

This is something I believe we've already talked about as well (maybe it was some other user). Yes, to a normal person the idea that one can be a Stalinist AND a Fascist or a Neo-Nazi may seem absurd. But that's the thing about extremist politics - they don't make sense, except in the heads of the people who subscribe to them. And that's what Dugin's ideology - shared by pretty much all the founders of this party - is National Bolshevism. It's got the word "Bolshevism" in it. And it's got the word "National" in it. And their symbol is definitely a shout out to the Nazi flag.

(Also one could argue, and not be too far from the truth that USSR vs Third Reich was a conflict between two different flavors of fascism. There's no "law of nature" that says that one fascist state will never fight another fascist state).

Anyway, restoring, as that's pretty much the best sourced part of the article. Volunteer Marek  05:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

And Gubarev is obviously described as a Neo-Nazi because he ... belonged to a Neo-Nazi group Russian National Unity. Volunteer Marek  05:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that guy advocates “ . . . not a faded, brownish-pinkish national capitalism, but the blinding dawn of a new Russian Revolution, fascism – borderless as our lands, and red as our blood . . ." [7] My very best wishes (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As there are several academic sources who explicitly name Dugin as being a fascist (at the most moderate!), I don't see that these references can be dismissed unless there are equally reliable sources defining him as being something other than his own particular brand of a representative of extreme right-wing nationalism. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not censored, there is no argument for toning down such an evaluation, nor should well sourced representations be deemed in violation of the timidity with which WP:BLP's are usually written. My disdain for the Shekhovtsov blog being used elsewhere was related to the context of the subject of that article. While I'm not entirely convinced of the RS value of the Lippman article, both of Shekhovtsov's articles in this context are a referenced academic paper by a recognised academic in the field, as is Stephen Shenfield, Andreas Umland, and Alan Ingram (who specialises in critical geopolitics). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

So, I believe that actual "ideology" of the Party in the infobox should be indicated as Radical nationalism in Russia, not simply Russian nationalism. Or perhaps these two "Russian nationalism" pages should be merged? My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Only one of the sources cited can be considered to be reliable. The other two are self-published (not peer reviewed), and thus not reliable primary (scholarly) sources. (The book cited, by the way, was published by Sharpe, which specializes in fringe scholarship, so even that book isn't a reliable source by the usual Wikipedia standards.) Does Dugin consider himself to be a fascist? No. See the article on The Fourth Political Theory: "Dugin claims to construct an entirely new political ideology, the fourth political theory, which integrates and supersedes the three past 'theories' of liberal democracy, Marxism, and fascism." Since Dugin considers his political theory to supersede fascism, he cannot be a fascist. Thus, calling him a fascist is a grave violation of LIVING. But evidently, some editors don't believe that LIVING does applis to Russians, who can be smeared with impunity. – Herzen (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Uh... 1) an article through ScienceDirect isn't "self-published", what are you talking about? Political Geography is an academic journal. 2) The second source is published by Routledge. Also not "self-published". 3) Why would the book by Sharpe be considered unreliable? Sharpe is also part of Routledge. While they may specialize in studying fringe movements, that does not make them fringe themselves. In fact it makes them an expert, about as reliable as a source can get. Please don't remove text based on high quality scholarly sources, nor mischaracterize these sources as you do above. Volunteer Marek  05:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't actually matter what Dugin calls himself (though he does call himself a fascist). There's all kinds of neo-Nazi writers running around who claim that they're not really neo-Nazis but just "racial realists" (sic) or something like that. All that matters is how reliable sources describe it. Volunteer Marek  05:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Anytime you make a comment or edit, it is always to smear Russia or Russians, as opposed to building an encyclopedia. Why is that? And you base yourself on a diary from a blog the main purpose of which is to engage in apologetics for the Demorcrtic Party and Obama in particular. In the past couple of months, Obama has twice called Russia the gravest threat to humanity after ebola. So how objective do you think Daily Kos diarists are going to be about Russia?

That quote is incomplete. Here is the complete quote:

Французский фашистский писатель Робер Бразийяк перед самой смертью произнес странное пророчество: "Я вижу, как на Востоке, в России восходит фашизм, фашизм безграничный и красный".

Заметьте: не блеклый, коричневато-розоватый национал-капитализм, а ослепительная заря новой Русской Революции, фашизм безграничный, как наши земли, и красный, как наша кровь.

The French fascist writer Robert Brasillach closely before his death made a strange prophecy: "I see how in the East, in Russia, fascism is emerging, a limitless and red fascism."

Note: not a faded, brownish-pinkish national capitalism, but the blinding dawn of a new Russian Revolution, fascism – limitless, as our lands, and red as our blood.

That Daily Kos diarist presented that quote as it were Dugin's own view, whereas it was in fact a restating by Dugin of an assertion made by another writer, who was executed for collaboration for his work as an editor of a fascist journal. A crude smear technique, but effective nonetheless. – Herzen (talk) 04:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• OK, let's check more sources. I can not (and should not) analyze myself writings by Dugin. Those are extremist primary sources. However, I can check other (secondary) sources about Dugin. For example, this Russian publication, which seems to be an RS, was entitled "Is Dr. Dugin really a fascist?". It tells: "В статье „Фашизм - безграничный и красный", опубликованной в 1997 году в интернет-версии его книги „Тамплиеры пролетариата", Дугин предсказывает возникновение в России „подлинного, настоящего, радикально революционного и последовательного, фашистского фашизма". При этом он уточняет, что было бы „совершенно неправомочно называть фашизм ‘крайне правой' идеологией. Это явление гораздо точнее характеризуется парадоксальной формулой ‘Консервативная Революция'" - то есть тем самым термином, с помощью которого Дугин неоднократно определял собственную идеологию и программу своего „неоевразийского" движения." Well, this is all consistent with other sources claiming his views to belong to certain ideology. My very best wishes (talk) 04:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Dugin no doubt has fascist tendencies, but it is a weird fascist who associates himself with the National Bolshevik Party. Most readers of Dugin appear to come to the conclusion that his system of sociopolitical theory is incoherent, judging by the Russian Wikipedia article on Dugin. Thus simply calling him a fascist is an oversimplification and misleading, and hence serves no other purpose than to smear him. It is one thing to make observations that his thought has fascist elements, as the source you link to does; it is another to stick the word "fascist" in front of his name and not say anything else about his thought. That is not encyclopedic. – Herzen (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Anytime you make a comment or edit, it is always to smear Russia or Russians - Herzen, you've been warned multiple times against making these kinds of personal attacks and false accusations. Nobody here is smearing Russia or Russians. We're talking about a specific person whom reliable sources describe as a fascist. This person happens to be a Russian nationalist. Do not repeat these kinds of attacks again. This is your last warning on this, I've really let it slide before. Volunteer Marek  05:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Herzen, aside from resorting to blatant personal attacks, do you have any RS (preferably demonstrably peer-reviewed, since you are claiming that these peer-reviewed articles aren't peer-reviewed!?) characterising Dugin as being something other than how he is depicted here? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:57, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The reference My very best wishes gives at 04:59 seems to be OK. But as I said, why say anything at all, when there is an article about Dugin that we link to? Calling him a fascist and not saying anything else about his political thought is misleading and tendentious. I really don't see why this article needs any sources dealing with Dugin's politics at all, given that there is a separate article about Dugin. – Herzen (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Because his politics are relevant to the politics of this party. Are you now backing off from the claim that the sources are unreliable?  Volunteer Marek  06:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Why would I back off the claim that two of the three sources are unreliable, because they are self-published scholarly works? Are you not familiar with Wikipedia policy on sources? – Herzen (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As for describing Putin's politics because they are relevant, neo-Eurasianist describes Putin's politics much more precisely than fascism. I substituted that term, but somebody undid that. I assert that the reason this article calls Dugin a fascist instead of a neo-Eurasionist is to discredit the rebels. That violates neutrality. – Herzen (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Did you miss my comment above? How in the world are these "self-published" works? Please explain, I'd like to hear it. And you can assert whatever you wish, but an assertion is not an argument. What is an argument is that if reliable sources describe him in a certain way then NPOV *requires* we describe him as such. Volunteer Marek  06:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess I have to spell out everything for you. OK, I see that the first source cited was published in a journal, so that can be considered reliable. But the second was not: it was uploaded by the author to Academia.edu, "a social networking website for academics". Anyone can do that. Same as Wikipedia, except that you are supposed to use your real name, and the name you give is made public.

Instead of just reverting my edits, if you like the first source so much, why don't you make it be cited properly, instead of with just a naked URL? So people can see the name of the journal, name of publication, etc. – Herzen (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ay, ok, I see that your claim is made in good faith (not that I ever assumed otherwise). But it is erroneous. Yes, Academia is a social networking website for academics where people upload their ... published work (also some unpublished, like working papers or conference presentations). It's basically a way to alert other academics about your latest research. But it is not "self-published". The articles - and these articles in particular - are ones which were published somewhere else, by third parties, after a peer review process. So no, not "anyone can do that" (I guess you could pretend and all, but that's not the case here). But you're right, the full citation for the papers should be given. How about I'll do that shortly (it's late here, I need to go to sleep), and you don't revert the well sourced info until then. Ok?  Volunteer Marek  08:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: From what I understand, Academia.edu does not require papers that get uploaded to its site to have been published. If it did, you would expect bibliographic information to be listed when you go to the URL for a paper, as is the case with the first paper. But thank you for agreeing to fill in the citation details. I myself don't like sites like Academe.edu that won't let you access works on their site without registering, so I don't want to register there. That goes against the principle of freely sharing information. (Wikipedia not only allows you to read it without registering, but also to contribute.) – Herzen (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Are you ever going to fix those references, instead of just edit warring? – Herzen (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The references need additional information, true, and I'll add it shortly, but the sources are reliable and verifiable, hence there's no excuse for trying to remove them.  Volunteer Marek  05:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you really do believe that Dugin is a fascist, I don't know, but as I say in the comment above that I am making at the same time as this one, the way this article sticks the word "fascist" in front of Dugin's name is unencyclopedic. And yes, that Daily Kos diarist that My very best wishes quoted did smear Dugin, by giving a misleading quote of him. So the comment at 02:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC) is a smear. Do you actually deny that? – Herzen (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Iryna Harpy: Also, that reference My very best wishes gave says that Dugin's fascist tendencies are most pronounced in his earlier writings, before he took his Eurasian turn. That's another reason why if one word is going to be used to describe his thought, it should be neo-Eurasianism, not fascism. Describing how his thought is fascist is one thing; giving the impression that the one word that best describes his politics is "fascist" is, yes, a smear. – Herzen (talk) 06:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. Herzen, maybe you could write a book - if you did, we could use it as a reliable source. Until then, we stick with what current reliable sources say.

As for "neo-Eurasianist" - very few English speakers have heard of this term. There is an article on Eurasianism, but this is amazingly poor in terms of cited text; it is not really evidence for the existence of the term in the English language. It is therefore not a notable or meaningful term for our readers.-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Saying that if an article uses a term that Wikilinks to another article, that term is not meaningful for readers, utterly contradicts the idea of building an encyclopedia. – Herzen (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Herzen says that "it is a weird fascist who associates himself with the National Bolshevik Party" (06:05, 17 November 2014). Maybe this will help him/her understand.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Don't you know who Alexander Herzen was? Why do you think someone going by the name of Herzen might be a she? I always make sure not to use gender-neutral handles, but I guess that that is wasted on some people. As for the Nazi style of the designs used by the National Bolshevik Party: my point still stands that the case that Dugin is a fascist was easier to make for Dugin before he took his Eurasian turn than for Dugin's latest "theorizing". Someone can just go through a fascist "phase", and then stop being a fascist. – Herzen (talk) 07:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

You need sources for that claim. There's no indication that there's been any kind of change. The Eurasia thing goes back to at least 1997 (Foundations of Geopolitics) so there was no "turn" to make. It was there from the beginning. Just a different flavor of fascism right at the start. Volunteer Marek  08:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Herzen. No, "the comment at 02:37, 16 November 2014 (UTC)" is not "a smear". This is a quotation of a published source. Moreover, this is in essence something claimed by majority of other sources, including Russian source I also quoted. This Russian source discusses first quotation you are trying to dispute based on you own original research. My very best wishes (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

recent edits

User:Leftcry - please stop removing text sourced to high quality reliable sources from the article per some personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Volunteer Marek  05:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Leftcry - for the second time, please stop removing text sourced to high quality reliable sources from the article per some personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The information is sourced to scholarly articles published in peer reviewed journals. You cannot get more "reliable source" than that. Volunteer Marek  19:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

They are not reliable sources, this has nothing to do with my "personal WP:IDONTLIKEIT". We can't rely on text for Wikipedia based on a biased article written by "Cathy Young". If you find an actually reliable source with this information then you are free to place it in the article however right now you are just WP:POV Pushing! --Leftcry (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they are reliable. These are peer-reviewed academic journals. And Cathy Young is a well known and respected writer. Please explain in what universe academic articles are not 'reliable sources'. Additionally, if you have a problem with any of them, the proper thing to do is to take it to WP:RSN rather than starting an edit war. Volunteer Marek  19:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That simply isn't true. I remember a while back people were adding the terms "fascists" and "neo-nazis" to many of the articles about people in the Ukrainian government with the same type of "reliable" sources. Those had to be removed because it simply isn't NPOV, this is the same case. Please just stop POV pushing as this isn't the first and only time I have encountered you POV pushing on articles related to Ukraine. --Leftcry (talk) 03:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

You did not explain why peer-reviewed academic journals are not reliable sources. My very best wishes (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the same thing. In that case there were no reliable sources. Here we have high quality academic sources. In that case the claim was false. Here the claim is true. Again, please explain how published scholarly articles are not reliable.

Also, I don't remember ever discussing or interacting with you before. Care to explain how "this isn't the first and only time I have encountered you"?

Also, don't make baseless accusations of POV pushing. If you have a problem with what reliable sources say, per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, that's not my problem. Volunteer Marek  06:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

People's Soviet vs. Supreme Soviet warring

AsharaDayne, please do not continue to edit without providing edit summaries or even bothering to seek consensus for changes on correlating article talk pages. If you are convinced that "People's Soviet" is correct, please bring corroborating reliable sources and engage in the consensus process rather than WP:EDITWARRING. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm the one that instituted "People's Soviet", Iryna. The article is at that title, and he is merely bring the link into line with it. Please see the Soviet's page. RGloucester — ☎ 22:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Well then, come closer to the monitor so I can flick your nose... I haven't kept up to date, but have just caught up with the edit warring and haven't found anything to indicate consensus on any of the related articles. In all seriousness, though, I've been encountering AsharaDayne's editing everywhere related to this area of interest for some time and requested that s/he provide edit summaries. No article talk page engagement to speak of + no responses to anything on their own talk page + frantic contributions, page moves, new templates, etc. speaks to WP:NOTHERE (and difficult to believe the user is a newbie). Under normal circumstances, I wouldn't post my suspicions to an article talk page, but the shambolic editing on articles surrounding recent events in Ukraine is, as you're well aware, stuck on high on the WP:REDFLAG dial. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Contradicting context

I do not understand. The article claims that this is a party, but then the next sentence states that it was banned and merged. Second of all, was the party even registered somewhere? Just because there is a constituent congress of organization that claims to be a party, it absolutely means nothing until it will be registered. What is the status of the organization? Is it illegal party, underground party, former party? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Lvivske, Iryna Harpy, Boguslavmandzyuk, Yulia Romero, please, check my argument. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, Toddy1, please, check my address on the party. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I see no contradiction. There is a political organisation (or party) formed by the Santa Claus impersonator. It is not registered with the Ukrainian Government as a political party; since the Ukrainian Government is unable to hold elections in Donetsk, lack of registration with the Ukrainian Government does not matter. For reasons best known to its leaders and sponsors, the political organisation did not stand in the so-called "2014 Donbass parliamentary elections". If you have read books on insurgency, you will understand the insurgents' need to create the appearance of political organisations.

Any attempt by us to guess the status of the organisation would be original research.-- Toddy1 (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that this article is still here. This is a "political party" that was never "founded". In that case, it is an IDEA, NOT an actual political party. Therefore, it fails WP:NOTABLE. Receiving media attention/media hype is not enough to warrant an article. There is NO SUCH PARTY or organization. This should be deleted.--BoguSlav 03:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Per Toddy1 and BoguSlav, the article is WP:OR. "The New Russia Party (Russian: Партия Новороссия; Partiya Novorossiya), is a political organization in Ukraine"? No, it's not: it's in the equally non-existent Novorossiya (confederation) — another article that should be deleted, renamed to reflect that it isn't part of 'the real world', or merged with one of the main articles surrounding the subject matter. Please see the section I opened in November of last year as to what I could make of the sources. I know we have numerous editors arguing for keeping the Novorossiya confederation article because WP:ITSIMPORTANT but, just as with this article, if they're to be retained, they must follow the WP:MOSFICT guidelines. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FICT pertains to elements of works of fiction like films and novels and is irrelevant to this page. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The party held a (rather well-attended) founding congress on 24 May 2014, so I don't really see how it can be claimed that it was never "founded". However, even if your claim were true, WP:NOTABLE does not preclude ideas from having notability, as you seem to think ("it is an IDEA ... Therefore, it fails WP:NOTABLE"). There are no specific guidelines on the notability of political parties, but given that there are plenty of independent reliable sources attesting to the New Russia Party (including a sanctions list by the US Department of State!), it is manifestly a notable topic. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The party was banned from running in an election, it was not banned as such. Regardless of whether or not it's registered in the DPR—I don't know if it is—a party does not need to be officially registered in order to be notable. —Nizolan ^(talk) 10:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations for working out why invoked MOS:FICT. Yes, it exists. What is it? No reliable sources seem to know. We have all sorts of WP:BIASED sources for defining it, but they're going to leave the reader even more confused as to its having anything to do with any form of reality (other than some RS having alluded to it). At the moment we a have what is, essentially, a stub screaming for citations that simply aren't available, leading us to the land of other stuff exists. A 'notable' topic with no information is not informative or notable enough for an article. It really should have been merged to the elections... but it remains because of its 'notability' according to the community. As you have such a strong opinion on the matter, perhaps you can develop it (using RS sources). I really don't know why you're in such a panic about defending it as it's certainly here to stay. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:03, 14 February 2015 (UTC) [EDIT] Sincerest apologies, Nizolan. It was one of those days/weeks/years where new POVers and trolls from both sides had me tearing my hair out. Result: I lashed out unjustifiably at one of the good editors (i.e., you). Feel free to toss a whale at me as part of your justified reprimand. Bad form on my behalf. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you invoked MOS:FICT, which, like I said, pertains to works of fiction, not political ideas or organisations. There doesn't seem to be any dissensus about what the organisation is among the reliable sources—I can't find a single RS calling it anything other than a party or political movement. Can you? Finally, I don't think a few brief responses to some criticisms constitute a "panic", any more than you're in a "panic" about rewriting the article. Thanks, —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Categorization

The article is categorized as a banned party in Ukraine. It does not say anywhere in the article about the fact. How could a non-existing party be banned? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:08, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Aleksandr Grigoryev I can't find any sources stating that the party is banned in Ukraine. -Darouet (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Novorossiya, a union

No such union exists.Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the point Nizolan missed when I commented on the fact that this article should be treated as MOS:FICT. The only thing that is verifiable is that such a party declared itself to exist for X amount of time. The fact that editors have had to scour the web for any information about it (other than what it said about itself), and can still not come up with nothing outside of some commentary of the Novorossiya 'union' (officially defunct as of 1 May 2015) means that this article doesn't even meet with WP:GNG. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on New Russia Party. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140522232839/http://novorossia.su/node/1750 to http://novorossia.su/node/1750

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)