Talk:Siberia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good Job
"Well-linked encyclopaedia article" — Sunday Times (London), January 2, 2005
Russia Portal
This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the assessment scale.
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Conflicting Statistics

"All but the extreme south-western area of Siberia lies in Russia, and it makes up about 56% of that country's territory." (Beginning of Article)

"With an area of 10,007,400 km², Siberia makes up roughly 58% of the total area of Russia." (Later in Article)

Even though these are estimates, how can both be true in the same article at the same time? This needs to be corrected. Count de Chagny 02:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography Discussion

This discussion was moved from User talk:Maximaximax and User talk:Ezhiki

I do not know much about siberia, and none of the graphics on this page help me know where exactly/approximately siberia located on the map, in relation to Russia and the world. Could someone help? 128.146.160.247 14:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


The correct (geographical) definition of Siberia is "a territory in between Urals mountains and the mountain ridges of the Pacific watershed". While this includes the Sakha Republic (and yes — it was my mistake not to include it when making the original edit of the article), it does not include the rest of the RFE (you sure would not want to be caught saying that Primorsky Krai is a part of Siberia, would you?).

Now, from the historic point of view RFE is considered to be a part of Siberia. This fact is well worth mentioning in the article to avoid confusion in the future. This also seems to be the point of view adopted by most of the western encyclopedias (Webster, for one). Still, using a historic definition instead of a proper geographical definition is not right in an article where Siberia is discussed primarily as a geographic object.

I hope this addresses your concerns. I am going to re-edit the article later today — feel free to review and please let me know if you disagree with any points outlined above.--Ëzhiki 13:54, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad to have such a comprehensive explanation from you, but, unfortunately I sill cannot agree.
RFE is only one of the part of Siberia like Zabaikalie or Yakutia, etc.
See for example: http://encycl.yandex.ru/cgi-bin/art.pl?art=brokminor/36/36372.html&encpage=brokminor
I live most of the time in Siberia and nobody before you told me something like that Siberia does not include Far East. It looks similar to the sentance that Russia is only up to Ural mountains, and Siberia is totally another region :) With best wishes Maximaximax 14:57, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
You may also want to check a BSE article on Siberia (also available through Yandex). It is a bit more current than B&E's version. That article specifically lists what is included into Siberia and what's not.
I don't know if you were maybe tought a different version of Russian geography in school (Siberian conspiracy of world domination, maybe? :)), but as a person who lived in RFE for most of my life I can tell you that we were always tought that Siberia and RFE are separate regions (with the obvious exception of Sakha-Yakutia, which is a part of RFE but also is considered to be in Siberia). After all, Siberia is divided into West and East Siberia for a reason, and East Siberia certainly does not include RFE. If it did, the region would be called Far East Siberia, not Far East :)
Please let me know if you are still not convinced (and, if so, why). Thanks.--Ëzhiki 15:41, Jul 22, 2004 (UTC)
Siberian Conspiracy theory? :)) Rather new invention, you need to write a special article about it :)

Anyway I cannot agree with you just because B&E is older than BSE, it's not an argument. What I suggest to you when you change this article - please make a note that according of some sources and opinions Siberia is the whole Asian part of Russia, but sometimes several parts of it like Altai and Far East for example are considered as a separate parts, not included in it. Maximaximax 16:00, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's not "just older", it is pretty much "just obsolete". When B&E was written, the definitions were quite different. BSE, of course, is not all that modern by now, but this is the best we have at this point of time.
Also, I noticed that you make parallels between RFE and such regions as Zabaykalye and Altai. In terms of physical geography, RFE is actually a superior division of landmass of Russia, on par with North Caucasus or Siberia. Zabaykalye and Altai are well-defined, but much smaller regions. This hierarchy is also very well represented in the division of Russia into economic regions—Siberia and RFE are separate.
I will, of course, make a note when editing the article. The note will state that while in terms of physical geography RFE and Siberia are two separate entities, historically RFE is considered a part of Siberia (which I, as a long-time inhabitant of RFE, personally dislike, but since it's a fact, it should be stated; besides, an encyclopedia is certainly not a proper place to voice personal opinions).
Maximaximax 22:26, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC): Quote from your words: "In terms of physical geography, RFE is actually a superior division of landmass of Russia, on par with North Caucasus or Siberia. Zabaykalye and Altai are well-defined, but much smaller regions." Look on the map please - Altai and Zabaykalye are comparable by area with North Caucasus. But its not a problem. For example in the article http://www.centerru.com/regions/sib.asp they have a point of view similar to your one. But in Brochaus & Efron, in MS Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761556603/Siberia.html) and http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13767b.htm they have another opinion. So, there are several opinions in this subject. I more like the case where Siberia is larger than Canada, you like when it is without Far East :), but our opinions are both correct, and both of them concern of geography, but not of history, sorry - it's only difference between broad or narrow sense.
Zabaykalye and Altai are smaller regions in comparison to Siberia, of which they are a part. North Caucasus is a division comparable to Siberia in the level of division, not in size. Western parts of Russia are traditionally subdivided into smaller territories than the eastern parts.--Ëzhiki 14:46, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
Hm, I did not expect that we still continue this discussion. Why don't you want to use NPOV? If there is an opinion (not only my one, you may see several links) that Siberia is territory form Ural to Pacific Ocean then it must be written in this article and you may not claim in this article that it is incorrect, obsolete, etc. With best regards and a hope for cooperation Maximaximax 18:16, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If you want I can make changes in this article by myself, but I'm afraid that my English is very poor. I can also change the article ru:Сибирь but I cannot promise that I will do it soon because it is not my area of interests indeed. Maximaximax 18:30, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, it was my understanding too... As you can see, I re-edited the article in such a way as to include both points of view. Isn't this what NPOV is all about? I can also mention that some sources (mostly Western) consider RFE a geographic part of Siberia, if you prefer. If you still have some concerns, by all means, please let me know.--Ëzhiki 18:43, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)
Sorry, but I definetely cannot agree with the new version of this article also... For example, when you provide a list of rivers you does not include Amur because by your opinion Amur area is not considered as part of Siberia. And it is not NPOV, believe me. Can you check for example, my changes in ru:Сибирь? I did them recently. I hope that it is a real NPOV, if not - change it as you think more correct. Let's concentrate on this topic and make 2 perfect NPOV articles? :) Maximaximax 18:58, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I also suggest to continue this discussion in Russian part of Wikipedia, in Siberia talk page because of 2 reasons: 1) my rather bad English 2) I guess we will find there other people who is interested in the topic and may be will give us some brilliant ideas :) Or you can reach me directly by ICQ (on my user page) and we can talk online to avoid of large time gaps Maximaximax 19:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Tunguska

I think a link to the Tunguska Event would be appropriate somewhere on this page.

[edit] Etymology

An etymology of Siberia was proposed at Talk:Xibe but sounds absurd to me. How do you folks see it? --Nanshu 03:57, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

I would like to discuss recent events regarding the meling melting of permafrost in Siberia before editing this article to include the topic. I plan to write a new wikipedia article on the topic of RUNAWAY global warming.

[edit] Definition of Siberia

Do Koryaks live in Siberia? I think not, if the map in the article is correct. There is a lot of confusion between Siberia and Far East around Wikipedia and it should be rectified somehow.  Grue  19:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Defining the extent and limits of an exotic region

Hm.. the more I click my way around on these pages, the more I come to realize that perspectives and understandnings on all these exotic regions and continents vary and are highly subjective and even biased. Perhaps the English usage is much more inconsistent, unprecise and overlapping than the native-speakers' usage. If so, this is similar to other vaguely-defined regions that are found in the minds of distant groups of people and mean different things to them. See also Talk:Scandinavia, Talk:Latin America, Talk:Middle East and Talk:Balkans, and also exonym versus autonym for similar discussions of namings and meanings. //Big Adamsky 18:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Imperial" army

"First groups of traders and Cossacks began to enter the area, and then the imperial army began to set up forts further and further east". Russia became an empire only in the 18th century. I've changed 'imperial' to 'Russian'. Shakura 19:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Metaphoric use of "Siberia"?

In the United States at least, there is a wide association of "Siberia" with "punishing exile in everything but name", based on a belief that underlings in the Soviet system failed, they were re-assigned to Siberia. Can we mention something about this association so that if the metaphorical use of the term is linked and someone follows the link to get an explanation, they understand the reference? -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:07, 28 February 2006 (UTC) I agree we should do a section on the metophorical meaning.

[edit] Extended the History of Siberia section

That what was written there in the XX century history, was buncha commonplaces. Ъыь 15:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistancy?

It might be noted that the article states that Siberia is both 56% (in the introduction) of area of Russia and 58% (in the Geography and geology section) of the area. I'm not sure which number is right, but it should be cleared up.


[edit] Vandalism

I just had to fix a bit of vandalism. Nothing major but odd. Someone please double check the article and make sure I got everything back correctly. Thanksrhmoore 19:02, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gulag and horror fiction

I've removed much of the paragraph on Gulag, because it's exaggerated, and repeats the same things from History of Siberia and Gulag articles. For example, some contributors like to emphasize on fact that the conditions give no chance to survive. I'd like to see the _original sourse_ evidence. Even in the camps of polar region people lived without fighting for survival. Then, about the south-siberia katorga and camps read the memories of those who passed through Imperial and Soviet camps: for example, those of the Decembrists.

The article is almost empty, scarse climate and nature description, and instead you add this horror semi-fiction. Somebody has done the same before me, but it was reverted as vandalism. I've repeated this and insist that it's right. --Ъыь (mailbox) 10:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Population estimate needed

The Demographics section is screaming for a good population estimate. You can get a ballpark one via Wikipedia (10 million km2, 3 people per km2, for 30 million people), but a real figure would be beneficial. Anybody? Bueller? --Thatnewguy 16:53, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Growing season

I'm skeptical about a growing season (I assume a frost-free season) of 150-180 days. If it is 180 days anywhere in Siberia, it's not represent of Siberia as a whole or even southern Siberia. For comparison, Topeka, Kansas only has a frost-free season of 175 days,[1] and it is a much more hospitable climate for agriculture than Siberia. Bismarck, North Dakota has a frost-free season of only 129 days, but is still much, much warmer than many southern Siberian towns.[2] Compared to Novosibirsk[3], for instance, Bismarck has slightly warmer winters (21 F (-6.1 C) high in January/-1 F (-18.3) low vs. 9 F (-12.8 C)/-2 F (-18.9 C)) and warmer summers (85 F (29.4 C) high in July/56 F (13.3) low vs. 75 F (23 C)/58 F (14 C)). If Bismarck were compared to Irkutsk[4], there would be an even larger difference. Are there any sources available, or was "150-180" a guess? Or was it referring to a very small, non-respresentative area of Siberia? Ufwuct 23:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Another comparison: Ulaanbaatar apparently only has about 60 frost-free days (see Geography_of_Mongolia#Climate), although this is unsourced too. While this Mongolian city is slightly higher in elevation, it is also further south.

[edit] Location

what is the darker red on the map? I came here to see where is siberia, but could not tell for sure...—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.181.176.189 (talk • contribs).

Was the caption not helpful? Darker red is Siberian Federal District, while the lighter read is Siberia's broadest definition.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The map is completely worthless for someone trying to understand where siberia is in relation to the rest of russia/the world. An overview map, like the one for central asia (see: Central Asia) would be nice.
sorry i dont the proper way to format my comments...i'm learning.
-zack 25 Jan. 2007.
Umm, the map shows whole Russia and highlights Siberia within Russia, so to say that it doesn't show Siberia in relation to the rest of Russia is simply untrue. A map of the word with Siberia highlighted, on the other hand, could be beneficial. Let's hope someone will make a map like that one day.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 13:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
One thing I noticed is that the map seems to indicate that Siberia is the intersection between Asia and Russia. Yet that definition is not given. Wouldn't it be useful to say in the introduction, "Geographically, it is the Asian portion of Russia, including a large part of ..."? Calbaer (talk) 01:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism

Some idiot made the article FUBAR.

Somebody fix it? It's been like this for over a day. 208.68.255.96 05:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. 208.68.255.49 04:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Western Siberia

  • Merge — Jack · talk · 01:14, Monday, 16 April 2007
  • Merge.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge--Son of thunder 04:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Superzohar Talk 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Blueorpheus 04:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - VashiDonsk 23:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge These were separate districts with separate governors, as far as I can make out, and should have distinct pages for historical reasonsHarrypotter 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment. The articles on historical territories should be named East Siberian Governorate General and West Siberian Governorate General (in addition to Siberian Governorate, which pre-dated them), not just "Eastern/Western Siberia". As they currently stand, the stubs are about geographical areas only, and should indeed be merged into "Siberia" as they contain very little new information.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Reply to comment Sounds good to me! Or should we use the term Siberian Guberniya as per Guberniya?Harrypotter 21:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I think this had been raised somewhere before, but in general all articles about guberniyas are titled "XXX Governorate", not "XXX Guberniya". See history of the administrative division of Russia (and lists it links to) for current usage. From what I've seen, people seem to prefer "governorates" over "guberniyas" (as the latter is an obscure term for most Anglophones). Anyway, my point is that you might want to ask around if you intend to change the naming scheme. There are quite a few articles called "XXX Governorate" already. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 22:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes I ahve checked that (and there seem to also be some redundant pages on this topic. What I draw from this is that we should go for East Siberian Governorate and West Siberian Governorate, leaving of the General at the end. Then things would be consistentHarrypotter 12:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Actually, a "governorate" (губерния) and "governorate general" (генерал-губернаторство) refer to different concepts. A Governorate General would normally be comprised of several Governorates. If you aim for consistency, you should take that into account when titling articles. In 1822, for example, West Siberian Governorate General included Tobolsk Governorate, Tomsk Governorate, and Omsk Oblast. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge from Eastern Siberia

  • Merge — Jack · talk · 01:14, Monday, 16 April 2007
  • Merge.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge--Son of thunder 04:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge Superzohar Talk 13:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Merge - Blueorpheus 04:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Don't Merge These were separate districts with separate governors, as far as I can make out, and should have distinct pages for historical reasonsHarrypotter 18:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geography of Siberia

Somebody should write an article on this fascinating subject.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 19:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm

this isn't Serbia, tright? 204.52.215.13 (talk) 06:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Definition

I don't know the exact source of the previous definition that used the Pacific coast, not the drainage divide between Arctic and Pacific as the eastern boundary of Siberia. However, Great Soviet Encyclopedia (and many other sources) uses the latter, and the former contradicts at least the Administrative Divisions section.

By the way, is Vladivostok a Siberian city?

S.B. Odin (talk) 17:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The borders of Siberia are not all that well-defined. Depending on context, the definition of "Siberia" can include only the Siberian Federal District, the Siberian Federal District and the Far Eastern Federal District, those without the Altai region, or even the whole Asian territory of Russia.
As for Vladivostok, I don't have a source to quote, but as a person who lived there for quite a while I can assure you that the inhabitants of the city do not consider themselves living in "Siberia", but in the "Russian Far East". It is one of the points of local pride, actually. Hope this helps.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, even the northern border of Siberia is not definite (some people can say that Russian Far North to the east of Urals is not "Siberia"). I didn't like the non-sourced definition (and the idea that Vladivostok is a Siberian city) and tried to find the definition that is most often used in modern (mostly soviet-era) literature. Maybe it wasn't the best thing to do. The other possibility is to remove any definitions more precise than "the part of Russia to the east of Ural mountains" from the beginning of the article and explain all the possible meanings of this term in Geography section. Or even "the part of Asia", not "the part of Russia" — what about the northernmost areas of Kazakhstan? — S.B. Odin (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If you are willing to do it, go right ahead. Having sources, any sources, is better than having no sources any day. Considering the vagueness of existing definitions and how they contradict one another, having a separate section dedicated to this issue is certainly a good constructive idea.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 01:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
The source of the previous definition looks like Britannica.—S.B. Odin (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2008 (UTC)