This article was nominated for deletion on August 4, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Russia: History / Demographics & ethnography Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the history of Russia task force. This article is supported by the demographics and ethnography of Russia task force.

This seems to "Siberian separatism" rather than "Siberian nationalism". Rename?Biophys 05:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, do you really believe that "Siberians" is a separate from Russian ethnicity? Of course there is a dialect...Biophys 06:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Siberians have turkic origins too am pretty sure 2001:1970:55E8:7F00:0:0:0:4900 (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per m:Talk:Proposals_for_closing_projects/Closure_of_Siberian_Wikipedia#Zolotaryov_reveals_the_truth, mentioning of "zolotarism" is removed from the text. `'Míkka 03:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article linked together (via lnguage interwiki links) with possible coarticle Сибирское областничество? Does the proposed coarticle cover exactly the same topic, or is only related?

If so, should the article renamed to "Siberian regionalism", so that the titles of the coarticles become etymologically correct translations of one another?

One more possible reason to write about Siberian regionalism (either by rename or a in a separate article): a source claims that Siberian regionalism lead by Potanyin had more moderate goals: “only” to reevaluate the role of Siberia inside Russia, while supporting modernization, accepting Russian colonization as a way for it (Znamensky 2005: 117). Unfortunately, I do not know anything about the topic, thus I can neither verify nor falsify it. I suppose Potanin had to manage in the shadow of trial. The book describes the movement as a complex phenomen, comprising both romantic and enlightment features:

• accepting and promoting modern science and modernization, but maintaining a sensitivity to "ancient", "original" cultures of Siberia.
• inviting shamans to show their séances, speak about their beliefs on public lectures held to intellectuals. These "ethnographic evening"s were accompanied by ethnographic and medical explanations. But Potanin promised retreating when orthodox priests expressed their fear that these lectures might reinforce shamanic revivals, thus disturb missionary work.

Znamensky, Andrei A. (2005). "Az ősiség szépsége: altáji török sámánok a szibériai regionális gondolkodásban (1860–1920)". In Molnár, Ádám (ed.). Csodaszarvas. Őstörténet, vallás és néphagyomány. Vol. I (in Hungarian). Budapest: Molnár Kiadó. pp. 117–134. ISBN 963 218 200 6. The chapter means: “Beauty of anciency: Altai Turkic shamans in Siberian regional thinking (1860–1920)”; the book title means: “Miracle deer. Ancient history, religion and folklore tradition”.

Physis 21:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Viktor Pepelyayev, a well-known oblastnik and founder of Siberian Army in 1918.

May I point out that Viktor Pepelyaev, who was a Minister of Internal Affairs and Prime Minister under Kolchak in late 1919, had nothing in common with the formation of Siberian Army. It was formed by the order of Colonel A.N. Grishin-Almazov on June 13, 1918.Miecz Kaina (talk) 02:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since Grey rev'd me, figured I'd start this up. The topic lede and title seem very broad (Siberian regionalism). Is this topic meant to be only about a specific historical form of Siberian regionalism, or is it about Siberian regionalism altogether, past and present? As it is right now I don't see why current events relating to the topic should be omitted. If historical phases of regionalism took on a character of their own then it should be made clear of that in the article, and if its more than that, those sub-topics should split into their own articles, separate from the general catch-all one.--Львівське (говорити) 20:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As Grey is now saying in the diffs, "the sources do not relate these two developments and simply combining them is OR; the long-terminated regionalist movement of a century ago and the results of the last census are not necessarily related". So how is this different than, say, Scottish separatism? Why is there an arbitrary year cutoff of 1918? It's the same phenomenon/movement/topic.--Львівське (говорити) 20:24, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the article is just the translation of the Russian term "ru:Сибирское областничество" which is applied to the century-old and ceased movement led by certain well-known personalia. All the old sources in the article deal with it in this way. If the recent developments are somehow related to that old story, the soorces should draw a direct connection between them, otherwise this is OR. GreyHood ^Talk 20:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what the Russian translation of the name has to do with anything here. Its a broad, general title. How else could a general topic on the subject of Siberian regionalism/nationalism/separatism be made without discussing this obviously relevant chunk of history. Would it not be more apt to just put the historical stuff under a header called 'Siberian regionalism movement' or something of that nature to maintain that it was a specifically defined chunk of history?--Львівське (говорити) 20:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not "Russian translation of the name", it is translation of the name from Russian. The whole article seems to have been translated from Russian and the sources were transferred to English wikipedia. And "Областничество" is an old-fashioned Russian word non-applicable to modern era. GreyHood ^Talk 20:38, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So split the historical stuff to another article called "Siberian regionalism (1850-1918)" and leave this as a catch-all. That or transliterate the name from Russian to avoid confusion. Nonetheless, a general-topic article on Siberian regionalism would include all of this material anyway.--Львівське (говорити) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far the notability of the modern Siberian regionalism as a topic is under question. Using a cite of a Siberian web community as a source and opinions of a pair of sensationalizing journalists isn't strong enough evidence. The very fact that many people after a blog campagn called themselves "Siberians" doesn't necessarily speak about existence of any serious movement, nor it doesn't speek about connections to the old one. We haven't even any formal regionalist organisations and we won't have any scholarly sources on this. GreyHood ^Talk 20:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't call Goble a a sensationalist by any means. I consider him a reputable source on these kinds of matters and, if anything, the fact that he's picking up on it IMO shows that there's something to this. That the Moscow Times is acknowledging what happened during the census now shows that this wasn't just some web activity, or a single reporter, but a legitimate spike in census activity with this self-identification and regionalist sentiment. I dont get why you want to sweep this under the rug. It happened, it should be presented within accurate context.--Львівське (говорити) 21:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what happened that happened. But was it something truly notable, of large enough scale, and to what context it place remains a question. GreyHood ^Talk 22:07, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that possibly the article may needs to be updated, due to the fact that there is such activity of Siberian regionalism even after August 2014. Evidences like this: ^[1]

Now the question is. I still do not know, in fact. I am unsure if this counts as an original research. Because I think it isn’t, now back to the regionalism. There are countless new activities over Siberian regionalism post-2014 and it is so obscure that most of the info is only available in the Russian language. And I’m not sure if the page Siberian Republic should also be updated as well. If you somehow do have a reply or response, please reply. Thanks sincerely. ExplodingPoPUps 18:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, one more thing. As possibly explained above, the modern Siberian regionalism and it’s information may needs to be updated or added anything post-2014.