Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Chaldon-Siberian

Chaldon-Siberian WikipediaEdit

See also the second request (closed).
main page Requests for new languages (Wikipedia Chaldon-Siberian)
submitted verification final decision
  This proposal has been closed as part of a reform of the request process.
This request has not necessarily been rejected, and new requests are welcome. This decision was taken by the language committee in accordance with the Language proposal policy.

The closing committee member provided the following comment:

This discussion was created before the implementation of the Language proposal policy, and it is incompatible with the policy. Please open a new proposal in the format this page has been converted to (see the instructions). Do not copy discussion wholesale, although you are free to link to it or summarise it (feel free to copy your own comments over). —{admin} Pathoschild 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.


  • Support --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Steel, Steel Archer,
  • Support -- Pavel Levushkan
  • Support -- Aleksej Tajlakov
  • Support -- Roman Baiduk
  • Support -- Vadim Shtepa
  • Support -- Nefis
  • Support -- Helgi Litvin
  • Support -- totsamjy
  • Support -- Михаил
  • Oppose - None references in Google nor Wikipedia, doubtful about the approximate number of speakerse because the absent of ISO 639 code.--Taichi - (あ!) 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC) is the reference about if this language exists, is a lie about the 5-10 millions, exists languages with few speakers (hundreds or dozens) and has a ISO code. I suspect about the support of the IP annonymous, because only Yaroslav is the unique registered user. --Taichi - (あ!) 22:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
They are not annonymous, because they give their email adresses and sites. Russians considered the language as dialect of their own, but now we develop it to the full language--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

sib but not slb --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Just please type "Chaldon Siberia" in Google, and we can show a lot of people how know the language, and promote it. All the three east-slavonic wikis (russian, ukrainian, belorussian) have articles about the language --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Test wiki:

  • Oppose. Language itself is original research. Does it exist somewhere beyond LJ? Does any scientific institution codify it? --EugeneZelenko 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in real dialects of the Chaldons and in literary form in and other sites beyond LJ. Do you want to say that Chaldons do not exist or that do not exist?--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that, and User:Yaroslav Zolotaryov are same person. Please avoid self-references. It's still original research.
According to ru:Сибирский язык (still not NPOV): Chaldon-Siberian is project of constructed language ... Created in 2005. (Сиби́рский язы́к — проект искусственного языка, создаваемого на базе восточнославянских диалектов Сибири, в основном старожильческих говоров XIX века, с участием тюркских, монгольских и арабских заимствований. Возник в 2005.). I don't know how much common it has with language of Chaldons. Other linguists could answer this question. Please give any credible references.
EugeneZelenko 03:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1. Chaldon dialect exists:

2. The literary form exists: 3. Russian wiki lies for political reasons, hating any language except russian for siberian slavonians. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

According to "Сибірська мова — літературна мова, створена у 2005 році на основі східнослов'янських діалектів Сибіру, здебільшого старожитецьких говірок XIX сторіччя" (Siberian language is literary language based on dialects of Siberia", but russians they themselves consider their article not NPOV. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:36, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Please move the request to Requests for new languages/Non-natural, because this is an artificial language. --Taichi - (あ!) 05:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
It is not, but it is possible to create the wiki if it will be considered artificial? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
  • STRONG Oppose -- Andrzej Czierkowski

This whole concept of the so-called Siberian language is a fake thing promoted by Yaroslav. It's just another conlang based on a corpus of 2k Russian and local dialectual words.

  • Support -- Сергій Вдовиченко, Київ
  • STRONG Oppose -- Nikolai Klenov,
  • Support -- Виктор Николаев, Санкт-Петербург
  • Support -- Елена Львова, Санкт-Петербург,
  • Support -- Роман Еримеенко, Луганск,
  • Support -- Jan Marozau, Miensk,
  • Support -- Maria Sadzhenytsya , Lviv,
  • Oppose now - not yet a language indeed, just attempts to create it. When it's ready and if it becomes quite popular - why not. MaxiMaxiMax 12:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
1.It is ready now - vocabulary of 15 thousand words and developed grammar, many texts, newspaper, sites.
2. It is quite popular, just type 'сибирский язык' in Yandex and you will see. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Fun. The thing is that most of the links both in Yandex or Google lead to your site or LJ, which proves that it's just another conlang, if it had been a natural language, it would have attracted attention of language researchers. Yet you mentioned some imaginary millions of native speakers, though we know, Yaroslav, how you created this language in your LJ, and how you discussed how it should look like. Shall i cite links? Admit it, it's a conlang with very weird way of corpus formation. -- Andrzej Czierkowski
No imaginary millions, because the language is based on real dialects. Discussions were just about what the literary form should be. So it is literary form of dialect, but not conlang. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
And do not lie, most of the links do not lead to Volgota or LJ, it were many publications in Ukraina and Kazakhstan, a lot of discussions in forums in all the three east-slavonic countries. Some paper magazines also write about the fourth east-slavonic language. So do not lie by such a stupid way, it is easy to proof that this is lie. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
10 000 pages of written text, and "not yet a language indeed"? Why russians constantly lie about the chaldonian language? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
10,000? Why not a million? Yaroslav, modesty is a merit. -- Andrzej Czierkowski
Because this is true, anf you can see this at Volgota. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:45, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- Taras Manolov, Lund (
  • I am ready to write in the native Siberian language as soon as the section will be opened - Pavel Levushkan
  • Support -- Kojpiš Anton, Minsk
  • Support - I'm ready to write and read. -- --Nickitos 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

--Alex yesod 18:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Support -- --ChaldonFighter 04:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC)--Kivan 16:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Support -- (Oleksiy, Odessa) (
  • Oppose --Caine
  • Support --Kivan 16:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- Ivan Sibiriakov,

Что там за Иван Сибиряков из Челябинска? Еще из Рязани к нам сюда не завезут сибиряков? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Челябинск географически находится в Сибири, так что не лечи. Отвечай за свой Томск, а за других не расписывайся. Еще посмотреть надо, кто настоящий сибрияк, а кто пришлый эмигрант с какой-нибудь Украины. Ivan Sibiriakov

Бугога, да я ваще местный чукча наполовину, как и все чалдоне, кстати. Ну ладно, против ты так против, голос посчитан, знать такая твоя позиция. Я больше насчет Челябинска спросил. А чо ет он в Сибири, разве не на Урале? А давно родня-то из Рязани приехала? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Граница Сибири и Урала прямо по нему проходит (географы так на неком своем съезде решили), одна часть в Сибири, другая в Урале. Что касается родни, перебралась она с незапамятных времен, и не с Рязани, а Новгорода Великого. Кое какие родословные памятки остались.Ivan Sibiriakov

И почему против самой идеи реставрации новгородского? Если конкретная реализация отталкивает, так я и страницу открыл для обсуждения предложений и введения новых слов. Что плохого в возрождении древнерусского языка на базе самых архаичных его диалектов, поморских и сибирских? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Зачем нужно искусственный язык выдумывать, мне непонятно. Он или сложился, или не получился. Такова история и фарсом ее не перевернешь.Ivan Sibiriakov

Многие чехи тоже так думали, когда подобным же образом реставрировали чешский. Вполне очевидно, что в языке не выдуманно ни одного слова. Слова просто взяты из диалектных словарей и поставлены вместо именно что выдуманных в 18 веке Ломоносовым и прочими слов, слов, взятых из церковнославянского, французского, немецкого, и поставленных вместо русских. Кроме того, задача языка не коммуникативная, а демонстрационная. Поэтому мы и пробиваем википедию, а не кружок устного общения на сибирском. У проекта культурные цели. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Литературный русский язык, это ведь не диалект какой-нибудь местности. Он является единым выработанным эталоном языка. И как показывает опыт других стран (например Германии) такой эталон был и есть важным элементом успешного развития нации (а в случае с Россией можно говорить и цивилизации). К такому эталону сложно прийти, но если уж пришли, откатываться назад нет никакого смысла.Ivan Sibiriakov

По-моему, тут голосование не за запрещение московитского языка, а за разрещение википедии на сибирском языке:-)) Вы не перепутали кабинки? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Зачем википедии нужен язык на котором никто не говорит? Только для пропаганды некой своей идеи? Википедия вроде не то место где этим занимаются.Ivan Sibiriakov

На языке говорят, просто разговорный язык развит до такого уровня, что на нем можно и писать, в этом и смысл Википедии на нем. Но ваши постоянные отсылы к нации и цивилизации говорят о том, что реальная подоплека ваших мотивов политическая, то есть вы хотите просто запретить создание литературного языка на базе диалекта, в чем мы и обвиняем русских националистов --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 03:36, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support (Petro Batozhenko) ( I think siberian has to have presence in wikipedia. It's interesting and truly folk democratic language.

  • Support (Petro Batozhenko) ( I think siberian has to have presence in wikipedia. It's interesting and truly folk democratic language.

--Kvasimodo 12:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong oppose per WP:NOR, WP:NOT and anons onslaught. MaxSem 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Original research is a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source." But it is published in many sources through the Net, and no Original Research is made here. The vocabulary and grammar were discussed in apropriate places, not in Wikipedia. Words itself are taken from neutral sources such as dialect vocabularies --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

For example: The same words, the same grammar described by Rovinsky, researcher of 19 century. Dal vocabulary. Many words reported as "siberian", "north", "cossac". This words now are in vocabulary of the siberian language, so this is NOT original research. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The same grammar, the same fonetics described:

Russians testify, writing about me: "Он ничего не изобрёл, просто свалил в одну кучу все старожильческие диалекты сибиряков" ("Nothing was invented by him, but he collected all old dialect words of siberians and combined them").

So no Original Research here.--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 22:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose -- Pantoja 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC) So called 'siberian' does not exist. It was artificiaslly created only year ago and has nothing common with dialect of ancient Novgorod. The main trace of colonization of Sibir was inspired by Moscow, that is why the language of russians that live in Sibir cannot differ great from that one of the Central Russia. The idea of Zolotarev's language to eliminate all church slavonic borrowings was influenced greatly by the process of the creation of Ukrainian or Byeloruassian languages, the aim of which was to achieve maximal difference from the Russian language.
Colonization of the old Siberia was made by pomors and cossacs, and all reliable sources report this. Percent of moscovites was very low, and church slavonic has no relations with the language of the common people --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Colonisation was made by russian peasants. Pomors also has no proper language, their dialects do noot differ greatly from that ones of Central Russia. Neither do the dialects of Siberia, all of them are found on the ground of russian 'koine' of the XVI--XVII centuries, i.e. moscovite. When you talk about 'all reliable sources' - let us know them. And if "church slavonic has no relations with the language of the common people", how could the great amount of chuch slavonis words penetrated all east slavonic languages and even dialects -- Pantoja 12:41, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of sources - "Эти наблюдения уместно предварить напоминанием о том, что колонизация Сибири, на ранних ее стадиях по преимуществу севернорусская...", etc. I may quote Okladnikov here, but it has no relation to the vote. This is common place in all researches about the colonization of Siberia - cossacs and pomors, and no moscovites. Dialects of Moscow and of Northern Russia was different, and church slavonic was spoken in churches only --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:00, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Monographies are not sources. Dialects were different, but the language is unique. All siberian dialects are late and descend from central russian 'koine'. Your 'language' is a falsification and it has nothing common with the real dialects of Siberia. Once and again you changed lexics, phonetics, morphology - all this indicates that 'siberian' is an artificial, lifeless investigation, that refuses the great thousand-year history of Russian language -- Pantoja 13:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Why monographies are not sources, but your own imagitation is source? Provide ANY source of descending of Siberian dialects from central russian? Some lexical discussions were, but mainly about scientific and other words, which cannot be found in folk speech. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Guys, this is an irrelevant argument. The distinction between a language and a dialect, or between natural and non-natural, is only slightly relevant here. If there are people who would rather communicate, in written form, using this standard than any other method, then we can, should and will have a Wikipedia for it eventually. Its relation to Russian or Church Slavonic or anything else is only relevant in as much as it has a bearing on who would rather use this form of communication than any other. Tuf-Kat 22:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Pantoja makes offtopic. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
This is twice, Dmitry Nikitin, Moscow was in top. -- 15:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
Базару ноль. Всё по-честному. --Dmitry Nikitin 13:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose. What a mess, this page! And what a remarkably well-performed puppet show! In any case, Siberian (hadn't heard of the name "Chaldonian" yet) is most definitely a constructed language, or a semi-constructed language at best. I can't really judge the ancient dialects on which it claims to be based, so I'll just take its creator's word for that. But that doesn't change the basic fact that we are dealing with a languages constructed in 2005. I've visited its pages at several occasions and what I've seen from it looks really interesting. Even if the whole thing is one big hoax, and even if all discussions about it originate from the same source, I still believe the language itself is remarkably well-built. It has a particularly nice look-and-feel. I'd love to know the truth about it! On the other hand - and I can say that as an experienced conlanger - creating a Wikipedia in a language that it only one year old is quite impossible. Even if the language has 15,000 words, an excellent achievement indeed, a language thát young simply can't be ready for a project like that. And let's be honest: all evidence of the language's notability is at least doubtful. Entries about it in the English and the Romanian wikipedia have been deleted. In all honesty, this whole discussion evokes reminiscences of the High Icelandic affair. Anyway, before we have a solid article about it on Wikipedia.en, containing useful info about the language and solid evidence regarding its notability, I think it is really too early to create a wikipedia in it. But if that changes, I'll happily change my vote. --IJzeren Jan 20:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (see this discussion for more)
I think it would be hard to defend such article for the same reasons which you can see here - non-slavonians do not know what is the matter, russians oppose for political reasons, and part of ukrainians and belorussians support because it is similiar to the liberation of their own languages. However, I think that long working in the test wiki and continous discussion in this place can help everybody to find the truth. We have a group of wiki-writers now, and can write. This is no promotion of the lang, which is sufficiently promoted by its own sites. But we think that our language deserves the wiki, maybe test wiki for the beginning --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
And one more. If the language has previous folklore tradition, why is it not ready? Our goal was to prepare literary lexics, but we have many folk texts of the dialect, which were considered as examples for siberian translations and literature --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Sure thing, that. I'm absolutely not unfriendly disposed to the language; in fact, I quite admire its creator. And the websites are very pretty indeed! But I'm looking at this from a different angle: if a language is not even able to have an article about it in Wikipedia.en, then how can it be able to have its own wikipedia? I know there is quite some stuff in the Conlang Wiki at Wikicities, all added by one and the same person. So my question: why not use that instead? To me, an article in Wikipedia.en (which contains articles about over two hundred constructed languages) is a conditio sine qua non for supporting this request. At present, there are just too many questions unanswered. Who is the creator of the language? How many people speak/write it? Etc. --IJzeren Jan 21:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I can prepare the article and fight for it. But the thing is known in russian-speaking audience (see for example, high statistics of visits to, and is almost not known in english-speaking audience. I can moblize my followers and lead them here - what else can I do to prove that the language is necessary? The same thing which you see here, will be there - americans do not understand, russians lie, ukrainians fight. I do not believe that I am some kind of creator, but yes, working with dialect vocabularies, I have collected about 15000 words of northern russians, which are different from modern russian language, but belongs exclusively to siberians and cossacs. All this words were collected to the language, Bible, Koran, etc translated. Groups of developing and learning Siberian consists of 50-100 persons, 35 of them were be able to vote in this place. Newspaper and promote site are working continuosly, every day we speak a lot about the stuff --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 21:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC) - the article, but please pardon my English))
It's really a pity that it has been deleted so swiftly. Indeed, there had been an AfD against it previously, but that was more than a year ago, and a lot can change in the meantime. Besides, the moderation in question should have looked at the original version. He could have seen that this was a different text, written by a different author. I believe a normal AfD discussion would be warranted in such a case, but no, the moderator in question speedydeleted it and then went on wikibreak. The deletion review discussion was suddenly closed now as well... It's really sad, all that. The text at present is available in my user space: en:User:IJzeren Jan/Siberian language.
Disgusted by all this, I'm changing my vote from "weak oppose" to support. IJzeren Jan 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
So you can see, that my words and words of my ukrainian friend Steel_Archer are true. Russians simply want to prohibit it, by any way. As it were said in Russian wiki discussion a day ago "We must kill this in the beginning". And they try to kill it by lie and politically motivated voting. I brang at least three links to articles about the language that surely do not belong to me. I brang at least 8 links of neutral dictionary and grammar sources which are also surely so not belong to me. Siberian wiki lives, and at least 4 persons write to it, not only me. What proofs can I make that this is not OR? If the voting will be stoped because of moscovite attack, can we rerequest later? Can we have at least the test wiki until the rerequest? I do not know the policies exactly, so I ask you. Our number increases, but number of the russian nationalists decreases, so the time is on our part --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Would you please do me a favour and add áll those independent links to that page I mentioned (in my user space)? Also, if Siberian has been mentioned in the press, please give the names of the newspapers/magazine along with date etc. I want to prepare an article about Siberian in the Dutch wikipedia; as far as I can tell, it does meet our notability criteria. In my humble opinion, it might be a little early for a Wikipedia in Siberian, but I'm pretty sure it meets all the criteria necessary for inclusion in the English wiki as well. In this case you're just unlucky: in a normal AfD discussion, there needs to be consensus about deleting an article (so 13 delete votes and 9 keep votes means "no consensus", so the article stays), but when it comes to undeleting an already deleted article (in this case based on a pretty old AfD), and absolute majority for keeping is required. IJzeren Jan 18:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
ok, I begin to collect them and write there. Imho, the test wiki should be tested fully, until 1000 articles or more, we can do this in 2-3 months. The links soon will be in your page. Discussion in the english wiki was simply stopped by moscovite hordes who only cried "oppose, oppose" whithout any argument except "the language do not exist"--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
This I have found in 20 minutes, soon will be more:

Articles not from Volgota group: (APN news agency, positive) (Komi news agency, positive) (Kazakhstan article, positive) (Ukrainian article, positive) (Tomsk news agency Inform Tomica, positive) (Tomsk magazine "Computerra") (Ural tatar artıcle, positive) (russıan natıonalısts dısturbed) ("Zavtra" russian nationalst newspaper, call to destroy Volgota group) (Donbass news) ( advertising) (Latvian site) (Today's artucle in "Russian Magazine", main net-magazine of Russian Internet Community - discussing contents of test sibwiki --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC))

--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

So 13 times metioned in independent sources, what OR it can be? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Support --Yakudza 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose There is not such natural language. --Nxx 04:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Support --Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


General results (summarizing both natural and non-natural sections: 48:15.


1. Support --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Support -- Steel,

3. Support -- Pavel Levushkan

4. Support -- Aleksej Tajlakov(N)

5. Support -- Roman Baiduk

6. Support -- rutopist

7. Support -- Nefis (N)

8. Support -- Oleg Dudnyk

9. Support -- Alexei aka Axios

10. Support -- Helgi Litvin

11. Support -- --ChaldonFighter 04:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

12. Support -- Siarhiej Bałachonaŭ

13. Support --Alex_Yesod 18:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

14. Weak Support. -Rydel 14:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

15. Support - --Kivan (N) 17:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

16. Support --vaenn; 00:28, 08 June 2006 (UTC)

17. Support -- Dmitry Petuk 00:28, 08 June 2006 (UTC)

18. Support -- totsamjy

19. Support -- Михаил

20. Support -- Сергій Вдовиченко, Київ

21. Support -- Ihar Trafimovicz

22. Support -- Sergey Sechiv sergeyv4 @

23. Support -- Виктор Николаев, Санкт-Петербург

24. Support -- Елена Львова, Санкт-Петербург,

25. Support -- Роман Еримеенко, Луганск,

26. Support -- Jan Marozau, Miensk,

27. Support -- Maria Sadzhenytsya , Lviv,

28. Support -- Taras Manolov, Lund (

29. Support -- Kojpiš Anton, Minsk

30. Support - I'm ready to write and read. -- --Nickitos 18:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

31. Support --

32. Support (Petro Batozhenko) (

33. Support (Yan Roginevich)( --Kvasimodo 12:34, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

34. Support -- Volodymyr Forostyna 00:28, 08 June 2006 (UTC)

35. support. IJzeren Jan 16:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

36. * Support --Yakudza 15:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

37. Weak support. Why not give them a try? OckhamTheFox

38. Support --Aliaks 21:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

39. *Support --218

40. Support -- 00:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

41. Support. Ghzhnfh 17:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

42. Support. --Maviulke12 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

43. *Weak support --AndyVolykhov 20:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

44. *Support Jcb 22:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC) .

45. *Support. This language is an interesting thing to learn and to try speaking it is even more interesting.Ghzhnfh 17:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

46. *Support -- Every language should have the ground to protect and develop itself whether it's documented or not. -- Maviulke12 03:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

47. *Support - Asmen

48. Support --Fratele lui Bonaparte, il cunosti? 13:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

49. *Support - Anclation

50. *Support - I do not pass judgement on the status of this language. Whether or not it is real doesn't concern me. What does, is that they have hundreds of articles already, and they are dedicated to building a Wikipedia. --Node ue 20:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

51. Support - Anclation

52. Support - Mienski

53. *Support --A1 09:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) (Kiev)

54. *Support --Shao 12:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


1. Oppose - Taichi 18:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

2. Oppose. EugeneZelenko (only as natural) 20:51, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

This nomination includes too much politics and very little linguistics. So opposes as non-natural too. Don't believe in following NPOV policy if Wikipedia on this language will be created. --EugeneZelenko 13:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
What linguistics do you want? Maybe, provide neutral source for each of 15 000 words in the dictionary? I can do this just now. I know where the words were taken from. May I begin? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
You get this set of words, somebody else could get other corpus and claim "true Siberian language" too, so what? Waste Wikimedia resources for every such "researcher"? --EugeneZelenko 13:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
But the year passed, some tradition and promo were made. Well, if you consider the big Wiki is too early, it is enough for us to work in the test wiki, where I am not alone, btw, and number of the contributors increases. Maybe after year we can redo the vote or not? I do not know the policies exactly --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
If you don't understand en:Wikipedia:No original research policy, I don't sure that you'll understand and follow other policies. If you'd like to play with wiki - setup MediaWiki software on and have a fun. --EugeneZelenko 13:15, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Siberian is not OR, because information is published over all the Net during a year --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
And proof of the fact Siberian is not OR is also located on :-) --EugeneZelenko 14:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
No, in many sites, I have listed them. If the thing was published outside the wiki, why it is OR? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Which independent scientific institution reviewed your language? Any papers on this subject? --EugeneZelenko 14:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Two journal wrote about this, "Tomsk-Computerra" and "Foreign languages in the school". What do you mean speaking "independent scientific instition". Is it necessary if you consider the language non-natural? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
"Tomsk-Computerra" is world known linguistic magazine :-) I didn't see any support for your claim Siberian is not OR yet. --EugeneZelenko 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is defined how many scientific linguistic magazines should publish until the thing will be not OR? There are many things in wikipedia unpubliished in world known magazines, but published somewhere else)) Maybe begin to list them? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Languages are supposed to be studied by linguists. --EugeneZelenko 15:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

There are a lot of certified linguists in the group, and I am certified linguist. But there is no need to be linguist for creating a good language - Zamenhof was not linguist, Shevchenko was not, even Lomonosov was not linguist. So the argument is irrelevant. More, everybody can found the words in Dal dictionary. Do you believe that Dal was not linguist? It is fun how much lie is invented by imperial part about us:-) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Since when is being studied by an "independent linguistic organisation" a requirement for having a wikipedia project in a language? Unless you can point me to the paragraph where such a criterion is mentioned, I think this whole point is moot. What we know is that these dialects have existed, and we also know what they looked like. Several books have been written about them. Why would we need an independent linguistic organisation to prove that Yaroslav is working by the books? Is there any independent institution that checks whether the Volapük used in the Vükiped is correct Volapük? Of course not!
What we know is this: presents the Siberian language, including dictionary and grammar. Which is enough to prove that the language exists. Then there is a whole list of mentionings in the press. Which is enough to prove that the language has a certain degree of significance.
So what's the problem then? The small number of speakers? May I remind you then that we have Wikipedia projects in languages like Anglo-Saxon and Gothic as well? How many people can actually write in these languages, how many people dó actually write, and how many people will use it for reference? Another interesting case in point is Cornish (Kernewek). It used to be a dead language, it has been revived by enthousiastic people who almost killed each other over choices that had to be made. Yet, there is a Wikipedia project in Kernewek. Does it really matter if the Kernewek used there is "according to the book". And if so, according to which book? And which independent scientific institution will be the judge of that?
All in all, I'm pretty sure that if somebody has a different idea of what the Siberian language should look like, his contributions to the Siberian wiki will still be welcomed. There are certain differences between British and American English, and yet, they manage to share one Wikipedia project as well.
I should perhaps also point out that the Test Wiki has already a lot more articles than many, many existing Wikipedia projects.
IJzeren Jan 20:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
If you'll read thread from beginning, you'll see that Yaroslav Zolotaryov claim that his language in not original research. But he was not able to proof that. If he requested creation of Wikipedia on Yaroslav-Zolotaryovian, I will not care. However he made much broader scientific claims (millions of speakers, native speakers (for language constructed in 2005?) and so on). Sorry, science is not religion or politics were believing is enough. --EugeneZelenko 13:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Native speakers of the dialect, and the language has words and grammar from the dialect. All scientific refrences were shown, you need only read these books. If you will more ingnore them, I shall post here Dal's dictionary, because you perhaps can not find it himself. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Just please read these sources:

1. Блинова О.И., Мартынова С.Э. словарь образных слов и выражений народного говора. – Томск: Изд-во научно-технической литературы, 1997 – 206с.

2.Богословская З.М. Словарь вариантной лексики сибирского говора. – Томск, 2000. – Т.1 – 303с.

3. Вершининский словарь/ Гл. ред. О.И. Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998-2001. Т.1-5.

4. Полный словарь сибирского говора/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1992-1995. – т. 1-4.

5. Иванцова Е.В. Феномен диалектной языковой личности. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та,2002. – 312с.

6. Словарь просторечных русских говоров/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова 1998. – 320с.

7. Раков Г.А. Диалектный идеографический словарь. – Томск. – изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998. – 345с.

The same words, the same grammar as in wiki. More, if anybody will find any words in the sources which are not yet in the language, I will include the words in the language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Again. Languages are studied by linguists. Which credible independent linguists compared your constructed language to these dialects? All your claims unsupported by independent studies are still classified as original research. --EugeneZelenko 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, if words are taken from dialect vocabularies, and thie can be verified, and "construction" consists pnly in using them in modern topics, what OR it can be? Может, у меня английский поганый, и мы друг друга не понимаем? Мне кажется, слова "основанный на диалекте" однозначно верифицируются тем, что слова из языка можно найти и в научных словарях диалекта, и я не понимаю, зачем тут справка из Академии наук, когда это каждый и сам может верифицировать. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Можно и по-русски (извиняюсь, но "по-сибирски" не умею). Наука основана на независимом подтверждении результатов экспериментов и исследований. Этим она отличается от религии, политики, маркетинга. Если Вы не можете найти подтверждения своих теорий в независимых научных источниках, не делайте подобных заявлений, или не претендуйте на их научность.
Заявлять Вы имеете право что угодно, но это не повод для того, чтобы Вам слепо верить. А вдруг в "сибирской математике" завтра окажется, что 2 + 2 = 5? :-)
EugeneZelenko 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
В данном случае имеется применение в общественной практике каких-то результатов, достигнутых независимыми исследователями в науке. Ведь никаких новых теорий я не выдвигаю, а просто применяю тот материал, который имеется в словарях, сделанных научным методом, к созданию текстов. То есть здесь 1) мы имеем скорее творчество на лингвистическом материале ранее открытом, чем создание новой теории или нового материала 2) значимость данного творчества определяется теми показателями, которые приняты в искустве, а не в науке - числом публикаций, количеством поклонников, их активностью и так далее. На науку же собственно никто не претендует. За данный список слов, который сейчас принят, я не держусь, если ученые будут предлагать новые слова, которые по их данным в сибирских диалектах есть, то я буду их использовать. Если я найду новый научный источник с новыми данными, я пересмотрю свою литературную практику согласно данным науки. Поэтому я думаю тут между нами имеется некоторая путаница в дискурсе: я полагаю, что занимаюсь скорее литературой, а вы меня относите к лингвистам. Ссылки же на работы тех лингвистов, которыми я пользуюсь, я привел. Тут не может быть ОРа уже потому, что это не исследование вообще. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Please give results of independent scientific research how close your constructed language to really studied dialects.
If there are so many professional linguists in your group (again it's only your words, why we must believe you?), why only 2 publications were made? Any PhD on subject?
About comparison with Zamenhof, Shevchenko, Lomonosov and Dal (you will definitely not die due modesty :-): I think they didn't cried for international recognition after 1 year of work and publication in "Tomsk-Computerra".
EugeneZelenko 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
1. The books are sources of material. We are speaking about the "language" just in context of writing scientific articles and fiction on the dialect. But the words are the same, just open the books and you will found them. I can tell you about any specific word what is it's source.
2. We have no necessity in publications. Publications about the dialect are many; the language have no differences with the dialect; we need only to develop it, write sites and wikies of them. What new can be in scientific publications when the language has no differences with the dialect? So there is no new in the science, no OR, but just implementation of dialect studies of others to Internet reality.
Again. Please give results of independent scientific research that language has no differences with the dialect. --EugeneZelenko 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Because every word is taken from the sources provided. The texts are written by dialect words, but on modern topics. Everybody can check it himself. Please give results of independent scientific research that you are user Eugene Zelenko, or that some copy of Bible contains text of the Bible. Please give results of independent scientific research that you have your age and nation and biography. There is no need of them, because everybody can see it himself--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please give results of independent scientific research that words "Сибирская свобода" are from russian language. I will say: "I do not believe you - you are politically motivated. This is not russian words. Please give results of independent scientific research" But I can give you all the necassary links that words "Сибирска вольгота" are just taken from siberian dialect, I have many independent scientific sources about this. The same I can do with any word in the vocabulary - the vocabluary is only compilation from dictionaries mentioned above. The grammar is compilation from book Блинова, Русские старожильческие говоры Сибири, Томск, 1983. So what about independent scientific research that words Сибирская свобода are russıan words? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want discuss scientific questions, you should discuss them scientifically.
I didn't see any new arguments from your side in this conversation: only repeated self-references and political stamps. So this trend could be closed, for avoid infinite loop.
EugeneZelenko 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
A lot of refrences to real scientific sources, and you consider them self-references? You simply ignore the sources for your political stamps --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Again. Which credible independent scientific organization made comparison between your constructed language and Siberian dialects? If you can't answer this question, please don't continue this thread. --EugeneZelenko 19:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Again, are you himself not able to read? If I give a refrence to vocabulary to you, why do you need credible independent scientific organization to read the vocabulary and see that the words are taken from it? All your argumentation make me laugh. When you leave your home to the wrok, do you ask credible independent scientific organizations will be rain or snow, or you himself see it? Just open the credible independent scientific sources which I have provided. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Don't lie. Links that you added is mostly political/promotional articles or quotes from Not single of them are scientific.--EugeneZelenko 13:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Again -

1. Блинова О.И., Мартынова С.Э. словарь образных слов и выражений народного говора. – Томск: Изд-во научно-технической литературы, 1997 – 206с.

2.Богословская З.М. Словарь вариантной лексики сибирского говора. – Томск, 2000. – Т.1 – 303с.

3. Вершининский словарь/ Гл. ред. О.И. Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998-2001. Т.1-5.

4. Полный словарь сибирского говора/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та, 1992-1995. – т. 1-4.

5. Иванцова Е.В. Феномен диалектной языковой личности. – Томск: Изд-во Том. ун-та,2002. – 312с.

6. Словарь просторечных русских говоров/ Гл. ред. О.И.Блинова 1998. – 320с.

7. Раков Г.А. Диалектный идеографический словарь. – Томск. – изд-во Том. ун-та, 1998. – 345с.

8 Словарь русских старожильческих говоров Среднего Прииртышья. В 3 т. Томск, 1992.

9 Садретдинова Г.А. История заселения русскими Западной Сибири в связи с изучением сибирских старожильческих говоров. //Диалектологические и историко-лингвистические проблемы. Омск, 1999.

10 Даль В.И. Толковый словарь живого великорусского языка: в 4 т., М., 1989.

Do you see the letters? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Because you gave me very much fun, I can send you some vocabulary from Siberia, maybe there are no libraries at your place and you simply can not find them? :-))))--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Ha, APN.RU - today's article about us:
There are only 2 sentences which mentioned your project. --EugeneZelenko 14:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
But it is mentioned, see also 12 articles above. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 18:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I can provide many links -"language from LJ" is complete lie.--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Yes, and I do not cry for international recognition, but only for long testing of the test wiki, do not worry:-) We have the language, we have the group. We want to test the wiki. You know, that the 32 persons who are interested, exist in reality. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for reminding your, but many of these persons are your LJ friends just asked to add support to Meta page. And many of them politically motivated. --EugeneZelenko 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The same thing is with persons who vote against siberian, very many of them politically motivated. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 16:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

3. Oppose ARBE0 12:26, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

4. Oppose. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 12:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

5. Oppose Kuban Cossack.

6. Strong Oppose. (only as natural). Edward Chernenko 15:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

That's politics :). Oppose as non-natural too. Edward Chernenko 19:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

7. STRONG Oppose -- Andrzej Czierkowski

8. STRONG Oppose -- Nikolai Klenov,

9. Weak Oppose. MaxiMaxiMax 12:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

10. Oppose -- Ivan Sibiriakov,

11. Strong oppose per WP:NOR, WP:NOT and anons onslaught. MaxSem 20:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

12. Oppose -- Pantoja 12:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

13. Strongly Oppose. This is fanatic slang called language and was made up in 2005. There are just several people speak it on their community. There are many much more popular slangs, like Zh and F, but nobody call them languages. Elk Salmon 08:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. We are fanatics. And you will see this. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

14. Oppose - fake. Boleslav1. 20 June 2006

15. Oppose There is not such language.--Nxx 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Test wiki - 1000+ articlesEdit

I do not understand what proofs should be done to show that the persons with emails are not anonyms, because we know each other and know that we all really exist) So if the procedure will be defined, we can show, that we are real and separate persons. More, we can mobilize more people, if it will be necessary --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 19:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Test wiki is growing with the speed about 30 articles a day, and number of contributors still increases. Sure, it will be 1000+ articles soon. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 04:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Groups of supportEdit

Siberian group of support consists from 79 persons:

General east-slavonian group of support - 186 persons

Ukrainian group of support - about 500 persons

See anouncements to vote for Siberian in all this communities, and see many texts in siberian language in them, especcially in learn_siberian.

The majority of them simply do not know how to vote in the wiki. What is proof of non-anonimity? If our supporters must register, I can appeal to them, anf they will register. But you can not stop them, everybody from us know, that they all are real men. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well they need to be established editors on at least one Wiki before trying to create another. Votes from new/anonymous users are ignored, that's default policy. Otherwise, I could just make a trillion accounts and vote. Sorry. +Hexagon1 (talk) 05:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
1. The law was not mentioned in the FAQ's for request, so we did not know it.

2. In practice, I see many such votes in other requests liki Zazaki, Bavarian, etc.

3. It is impossible to create trillion votes from different IP's.

4. Otherwise, it is possible to create trillion accounts from one IP, modify some wikis, and vote --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:08, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

In fact, I can appeal them to do such a strange flashmob: to register, to modify some wiki, adn to vote. But this is fun:-) they just want to work in siberian wiki, not in other. See, 4 participants in incubator wiki in first 5 days of its existence - We really want our old language to be revived, and we do not understand the agression of russian admins about that. What harm would be to anybody if we shall develop the language of our ancestors? --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 07:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a device for promoting linguistic change. When the language becomes well established, with literature in it and schools teaching primarily in it, we'll consider it. I strongly suggest you try creating a Wikicities wiki, and if all goes well, apply for some sort of data migration to a Siberian Wikipedia. +Hexagon1 (t) 10:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

May be long existence of the test wiki would be a fine compromise? All the same, if the request will approved, wiki will wait for its creation for a long time. So if people were gathered in incubator, why redirect them to the Wikicity? So we shal develop our language and do not disturb anybody. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's a good compromise, however the anonymous editors bellow need to establish themselves as editors on the Siberian wiki before their votes will have any bearing. +Hexagon1 (t) 13:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, and some of them already did it, but I need some time to teach my group wikipedia. Co-existence with other languages of the same level as siberian is very good for us. We have sufficient sites for promote the language so I do not consider Wikipedia as device for promoting - and it is not good for this purpose, it is rather hard to teach a person how to write here:-)--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 13:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)