Talk:Siberia

Culturally and ethnically European

What the f- does this mean? There is no homogenous European culture or ethnicity, people on the European side of Russia share a lot of genetic continuum/admixture and cultural influence descending from the people in Siberia. Not to mention a lot of native Siberians were absorbed into the settler and later migrant populations..

Transliteration

This discussion was moved from User talk:Cantus: Please continue this section at Talk:Transliteration of Russian into English page

Hi, Cantus! I am a little stumped with what "Sibír'" means. It surely isn't a transliteration, and you do not mention what language this is in. Can you satisfy my curiosity, please? Also, why did you remove the accent mark from the Russian version?--Ëzhiki 15:42, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Yes, it is a transliteration. It is not in any particular language. I removed the accent from the cyrillic text and placed it in the transliteration instead, as the Russian original does not carry such accent mark. --Cantus 19:17, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
Russian original spelling never includes an accent mark, with three notable exceptions: dictionaries, encyclopedia definitions, and texts for little kids or learners of the language. As for putting an accent mark on transliterated version of the word, it is quite a novelty to me. May I ask which system of transliteration uses this convention?
The variant I originally put into the article conforms to the rules of transliteration from Russian into English, which have been used throughout the English part of Wikipedia. If you need links to the articles that use this particular system, I will gladly provide them to you.--Ëzhiki 19:49, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

OK, now please tell me what was wrong with the Transliteration of Russian into English link that you kindly removed from the article's intro?--Ëzhiki 22:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Dear Cantus—I will have to revert you change unless you explain what the reason for removal was. So far it looks like minor vandalism (removing info without explanation). If you have a reason—I am more than willing to hear what it is. Thanks.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:34, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Will you please stop removing bits and pieces from this article? Or at least try to explain why you are doing it.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:15, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

The manual of style you are referring to has nothing on transliteration placement. The Naming conventions guidelines indicate the following:
Convention: Name your pages in English and place the native transliteration on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form.
As you see, it says nothing about not needing a clarification that the variant given is a transliteration and it says nothing about Cyrillic(comma)(space)Transliteration layout. Plus, the transliteration variant of Sibir' instead of Sibir can technically be used, but it does contradict with the transliteration guidelines used across the vast majority of other Russia-related articles. I would assume you would understand that contradiction since you are so zealous in following the guidelines. Now, would you please revert your changes or further explain why I am wrong. Thank you.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 14:47, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
Would you please reply?--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 13:43, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

I'm aiming for consistency here. You would have to change ALL pages with cyrilic text in it. They're all in this same format. Stop this, Ëzhiki. --Cantus 02:59, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Consistensy, eh? Well, how about consistenly explaining people what the heck "Sibir" stand for? Unless one knows Russian, it is impossible to figure out that it is a transliteration. Plus, I am more than willing to change ALL pages with cyrillic text in it. That has been exactly my goal, as a matter of fact, and that's what I am working on most of the time. Could actually use a little help there, not just blatant meaningless opposition I've encountered so far from your side. So please, please, please, do not just ignore this discussion again. Deal?--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 04:10, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)
It is pretty OBVIOUS a text in ITALICS following a different alphabet is going to be a transliteration. People have more common sense than you do. --Cantus 21:04, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
How's that OBVIOUS? I am not going to go into the weird "Sibír'" notation you used to insist on, but since you are so much into consistency, would you at least mind to remove the trailing apostrophe to bring the transliteration in accordance to the standards which are most commonly used around here? Then, we can discuss the matters of OBVIOUS, hopefully through more civilized ways than reverting each other (surveys and mediation are two options we still have not tried; then, there is arbitration, which you already have experience with). And, while we are at it, do you mind not starting throwing personal insults around?--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:15, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
The apostrophe is necessary because this is a proper transliteration, and not an anglicized transliteration, which is what is used normally across an article. The proper transliteration is only given once. --Cantus 00:04, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
The proper transliteration would be a transliteration of a Russian word into a generic format using the Latin alphabet; it would not be specific to the English language at all. That kind of transliteration, unsurprisingly, is used on the Russian Wikipedia. This, however, is an English Wikipedia, so the standards of transliteration of Russian into English (and NOT to a generic form, and NOT to some other language) must be followed. While systems that use apostrophe for a soft sign do indeed exist (for Russian-English transliteration), they are not widely used across this particular fine encyclopedia. If you are aiming for consistency (and I sure hope you do), then the most commonly used standards should be used. I hope this clarifies matters a little bit. Please, respond.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 02:14, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)

I second the position of User:Ezhiki on this issue.

  • If you have a chance to look into the Apostrophe article, you will note that its usage depends on the language, and it is already confusing with latin-alphabetic non-English words. Not to say that in a closely related Belarussian language the meaning of apostrophe is exactly opposite: removal of palatalization. To my memories, the usage of apostrophe for russian words started from the word "Rus" introduced by "fighters against Russian imperialism".
  • Let's recall the purpose of transliteration here: (1) to show an idea of Russian spelling (not pronounciation) for users without Cyrillic fonts (2) to enable searches. Usage of apostrophe is useless for web searches: <Sibir> and <Sibir'> gives exactly the same numer of hits in google.

There is no way to imitate Russian palatalization in English. Similar problems exist in opposite direction. E.g., in Russian, both 'v' and 'w' are rendered by Ve (Cyrillic), but no one tears his hairs off his head to invent a way to distinguish them despite the fact that 'v' and 'w' sometimes bring semantic diference not less important than "Р" vs. "РЬ" (e.g., cover<-> cower).

My suggestion is to forget the apostrophe but for certain "special" cases, such as Rus' goremychnaya. Mikkalai 03:16, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, there is Library of Congress Slavic Transliteration and three other commonly used ones. I am wondering why no one took troubles to report these here.

My brief searh shows it is common to use prime for soft sign and double prime for hard sign.

Mikkalai 21:45, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hmm, I thought that was not needing discussion, as I thought both of you were either Russian or were very familiar with the language. I am surprised you people didn't know about the widespread use of primes in cyrillic transliteration. --Cantus 22:32, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
See Talk:Transliteration of Russian into English for more surprises. Mikkalai 23:44, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am wondering why this discussion is here and not at the Transliteration of Russian into English page. I am copying it there. Mikkalai 21:58, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please continue this section at Talk:Transliteration of Russian into English page

Well, good luck with luring Cantus to continue discussion. It is my understanding that this guy (gal?) would not discuss anything until thoroughly pissed off. Anyway, I'll post comments there tomorrow. Thanks.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 01:33, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Merge proposal (2)

I propose merging North Asia into Siberia. Siberia and North Asia are the same region, Siberia is just another name for North Asia and vice versa. Many Wikipedia articles use the term "Siberia" in their title to refer to North Asia. All of the sections in this article use the same territorial definition as the North Asia article does, it is most apparent in the geography and history sections. Since "Siberia" is the common name, it will be the page that is kept. Merge per WP:DUP. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:33, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Matuko, Brateevsky, IPs are people too, and Super Dromaeosaurus: Pinging contributers of previous merge discussion. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely strong oppose And it's a complete waste of time for me to explain why. 🤦‍♀️ AuroraANovaUma (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't expect your "extremely strong" oppose to be weighted more than other votes when you can't even bother to provide any rationale... JM (talk) 23:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Regardless i see no reason why this should be done. AuroraANovaUma (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Ural region and Russian Far East are sometimes considered separate from Siberia, and it would cause issues in listings of the regions of Asia where the other regions are called West Asia, Central Asia, South Asia, Southeast Asia and East Asia. Vesperius (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vesperius:
  1. The Siberian Federal District is not the same as the region of Siberia.
  2. It would not cause issues when listing the regions of Asia, we can use this code: [[Siberia|North Asia]].
– Treetoes023 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG OPPOSE No one knows what will happen in the future. Russia may break up, Siberia may become its own country or it may become several new countries, who knows? On the other hand, North Asia will always be North Asia, just like Africa will always be Africa, they are not going to suddenly disappear without a trace.
Furthermore, in political geography, North Asia = Siberia, but in physical geography, Siberia actually includes Northern Kazakhstan too (see West Siberian Plain). In cultural geography, North Asia also includes Mongolia and Inner Mongolia. Saying North Asia and Siberia are exactly the same thing is just wrong. James Ker-Lindsay (talk) 01:04, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with @James Ker-Lindsay and generally oppose the merge. W9793 (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough in the abstract (although the definition of Asia has changed throughout time) but this argument is entirely absent in the actual content under discussion. Could it be written into one of the articles with some sources? CMD (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
look at the map and the pages. right now, they are defined as being exactly the same and even reference this fact in their respective articles in their leads. also, your first paragraph is a severe case of WP:CRYSTAL; your grandmother may get wheels and she'd be a bike, who knows? JM (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean if something is gonna happen we're gonna be there to edit it. TheTwiceler (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support in their current forms in which they are defined as being the exact same thing right now and seemingly considered interchangeable. I stumbled into the identicality, and may have proposed this myself had it not been already proposed. It's a lot easier to just merge the articles, we shouldn't wait around for someone to MAYBE change the North Asia article to something more broad than Siberia. Just merge them. JM (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is nothing separating the two articles. James Ker-Lindsay's appeal to WP:CRYSTALBALL isn't helpful. WP describes things as they are and were, not as they might be. As it stands, North Asia and Siberia are interchangeable. Mongolia is generally regarded as either East or Central Asian, and the existence of an area of Kazakhstan which is considered part of Siberia is already mentioned at that article. At it stands, they are duplicate articles. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was taught that Mongolia is a part of North Asia.
Link: https://library.scotch.wa.edu.au/Year6GeographyADiverseandConnectedWorld/northernasia 2001:8003:9100:2C01:110B:5058:3F5A:723B (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well that's not what Wikipedia says, right now these two articles cover the same thing. If you feel that the North Asia article should be changed to include Mongolia, go ahead and edit it, making sure the consensus of reliable sources is that Mongolia is part of it. JM (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What I want to point out is that geography has no universially agreed standard. Mongolia can be either a part of North Asia, East Asia or Central Asia. Afghanistan can be either a part of Central Asia, South Asia or West Asia. East Timor can be either a part of Asia or Oceania etc. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:110B:5058:3F5A:723B (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If we can have South Asia and the Indian subcontinent coexist, why can't North Asia and Siberia coexist too? 2001:8003:9100:2C01:110B:5058:3F5A:723B (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a few seconds to see that the maps of those pages cover different overlapping areas. Looking further its clear that South Asia is about human geography, politics, history, society, and culture, while Indian subcontinent is about geology and physical geography. So already I can tell that it's not at all a good analogy to North Asia and Siberia. But you can propose a merge of those too. No one here said they should be separate either. JM (talk) 23:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean we could do the same here, make North Asia an article about history, culture and geopolitics, make Siberia an article about physical geography and geology etc. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:110B:5058:3F5A:723B (talk) 00:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that it would take time and energy that people are unlikely to commit to, the best way forward is to simply merge the articles to immediately solve this problem, and then if someone wants to, they can create a new North Asia article and carry out your plan. Merging these articles does NOT mean there can never ever be a North Asia article. JM (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't keeping these two articles separate an easier task than merging them? Just delete the irrelevant parts and keep both articles. If we merge these articles, chances are some information will be lost. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:110B:5058:3F5A:723B (talk) 00:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was the original page image for Siberia before someone changed it, which defined the Federal District (red), geographical Siberia (orange) and the parts generally considered North Asian but not Siberian (yellow), but someone changed the page image: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Siberia-FederalSubjects.svg. Perhaps we can change it back to that image to help clear up the differences between Siberia and North Asia? Vesperius (talk) 13:23, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vesperius: The image was changed because it does not match the common definition of Siberia or the content of this article. I oppose re-adding this image to the article (at least as the main image) because it does not match the common definition of Siberia. If we have to resort to uncommon definitions to justify these articles being separate, they should not be separate. – Treetoes023 (talk) 14:16, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They should be separate articles. Siberia is generally considered larger than North Asia. Siberia includes North Kazakhstan and Outer Manchuria. North Kazakhstan is a part of Central Asia. Outer Manchuria, from a historical point of view, should be considered a part of East Asia while the rest of the Russian Far East can be considered a part of Northeast Asia. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:D015:BF4E:5E4C:B752 (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Once again feel free to find a consensus of RS that show that to be the case and then use them to change the articles. But right now, with the info we have, they are the exact same. JM (talk) 01:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As physical-geographical entities, Siberia and Northern Asia are one and the same. And how the administrative authorities are now permanently shredding the region or what the political future of the region will be is not important for this discussion and decision. DayakSibiriak (talk) 14:36, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Keep both articles separate please. Siberia is a region of Russia, North Asia is a region of Asia. There is a fundamental difference between these terms. 203.46.37.2 (talk) 04:04, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the articles cover the same topics. Meaning they should be merged anyway. Unless someone wants to spend time differentiating them. Feel free. JM (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Russian region I think the IP is referring to is a different topic, it is at Siberian Federal District. CMD (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huge Oppose Those people who proposed merging North Asia into Siberia is trying to eliminate the idea that North Asia is a subregion of Asia as Russia is generally considered a European country. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:181A:D10A:9C8F:2922 (talk) 03:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read the first sentence of Russia. Also, you're not assuming good faith. JM (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - Per all above Abo Yemen✉ 09:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per arguments above. Skitash (talk) 12:36, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, but name the merged article as "North Asia"; in other words merge Siberia into North Asia instead of vice versa. The term "North Asia" not only applies to Siberia but also other regions like the Russian Far East, Mongolia, and parts of Kazakhstan. Plus, it's a fairly common name. TheTwiceler (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose As per above. 120.21.126.164 (talk) 08:32, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is worse than merging Siberia into North Asia. I reckon the best practice would be keep both articles, define North Asia as a geopolitical region and Siberia as a phyiographical region and rewrite both articles with different focuses. 103.228.188.122 (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide sources making that distinction which can be used for these rewrites. CMD (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huge Oppose As per arguments above. 121.120.71.41 (talk) 20:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE Per all above. 120.21.17.201 (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Shouldn't even be discussed. Both articles should be retained. 218.189.35.206 (talk) 09:46, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - North Asia is not Siberia. You should never have made another merge request after your first failed one. Wheatley2 (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. 121.120.71.41 (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose North Asia is the world's largest continental subregion. It deserves to have its own article. Siberia is just a physiographical term similar like the Indian Subcontinent (which co-exists with South Asia). 2001:8003:9100:2C01:2876:7DAF:7894:543 (talk) 06:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE Per above. 58.152.51.59 (talk) 01:08, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Merge done Rahio1234 09:14, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered any arguments given? I see more "oppose" votes. Vanyka-slovanyka (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way we could report this guy? It was such a controversial move. 2001:8003:9100:2C01:2876:7DAF:7894:543 (talk) 06:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose 2001:8003:9100:2C01:2876:7DAF:7894:543 (talk) 06:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC) double vote JM (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

@Are2The2: It does not make sense to use one definition in the lead while the rest of the article uses the limited definition. Currently, the article simply says "Other sources may use either a somewhat wider definition". Please prove that most sources use the wider definition (which includes parts of Kazakhstan) and get consensus for your changes first. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Russia's Frozen Frontier says that Siberia covers 13 million square kilometres (which is smaller than that of the wider definition) and extends "to the borders of Central Asia". Mellk (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

This article is just bad. It fails to inform on the principle facts in a clear and concise way. First: Siberia is very roughly the area of Russia East of the Urals, at about 60° E and above 50°N extending East to the Pacific and North to the Arctic Oceans. On the West it includes part of the Russian Urals Federal District and borders the Northwestern Federal District; by Kazakhstan, China and Mongolia on the South. Why is this so difficult to say? It is a historical term without a consensus definition. It includes the Far Eastern and Siberian and part of the Urals Russian Federal Districts. It also needs to be said that the term may be used to include parts of those bordering countries. It should also, I think, be pointed out that the Russian Far Eastern Federal District is (or may be?) generally considered to be part of Siberia, although it seems to me that the usage is changing and more modern accounts would place Siberia away from the Pacific.75.117.50.55 (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear anonymous colleague, we also have a badly defined North Asia. You might want to look at Talk:North Asia#Either North Asia is Siberia, or it is not and its part titled Talk:North Asia#Russian geography. To keep all arguments together, it might make sense to continue the discussion on the other talk page. Викидим (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Siberia