Requests for new languages/Wikisource Siberian

Siberian Wikisource

main page Requests for new languages (Wikisource 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 02:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Proposal summary
  • Language details: Siberian (Sibirskoj, ru-sib ISO—)
  • Editing community: Yaroslav Zolotaryov (P)
    List your user name if you're interested in editing the wiki. Add "N" next to your
    name if you are a native speaker of this language.
  • Relevant pages: Test project
  • External links:
Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

Test Wikisource - more than 110 pages already: --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Siberian Wikipedia is opened and already has about 4000 articles, we have a large community and now we need a Wikisource to represent different texts in ancient Siberian (Northern Russian) Language. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, at least 2000 of these articles look like this one... JeLuF 11:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Not 2000 but 5000. Edward Chernenko 10:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
4500, 500 years are filled. But the same was with the russian wiki - in the beginning it consisted even 90% of year stubs. Since the wiki is opened, we made the stubs--Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Note to both supporters and opposers: please do not use uncivil expressions. Please at least try following this rules (as in enwiki). Edward Chernenko 20:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And please cease mark my messages as 'uncivil', but the same expressions of the opposite part as civil, cease your double standards. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Please note that Wikisource have theirs own rules for creating a new wiki. See for example 555 14:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


  1. Support - see comments. --Amir E. Aharoni 15:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support -- Antos Kazmyarchuk
  3. Support - --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support -- Mienski
  5. SupportTimichal 16:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Support --Ottorahn 20:47, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Support --Yury Tarasievich 07:26, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Support --Stooky 11:36, 6 October 2006 (GMT+1)
  9. Support --Aboard 20:46, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Support --Kojpiš Anton 12:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Support --Nefis 15:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Support -- Aleksis 13:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Support--A1 09:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Already we have siberian wikipedia so it's no sens to decline wikisourse. And I knew really beautiful poetry in this language.
  14. Support-- Don Alessandro 15:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
  1. -- тот самый-- 13:56, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
    Anonymous and not registered voter --w:ru:Участник:Новый
  1. Support--Yakudza 13:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Support -- --Petro Bato 15:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  3. Support The language, constructed or not, is real. Notability is debatable, but I would rather assume good faith here - 100 entries to begin with is pretty good. "It's POV" is a rather pointless argument when applied to a Wikisource, which is, after all, merely a collection of texts, which by definition represent POVs of their respective authors. From this follows that all "POV pushing / political agenda / hate site" arguments have no foundation to stand on in this case. All in all, I see no good reason to oppose here (opposing "in principle" is not a good reason). -- int19h
  1. Oppose. An artificial language loosely based on Siberian dialects of Russian and native to noone, the very articles about which were deleted with no possibility of recovery both from English and Russian Wikipedias, now claims a WikiSource of its own. (uncivil message removed) --Dmitry Gerasimov 11:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    7 wikipedias still have articles about it, and in Enwiki articles were deleted by russian flashmob. The last of this "argumentation" is only Muscovite national POV against other russian dialects, not-Muscovite. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
    You can fool some guys around, but I happen to be a professional linguist. Once again: an artificial language loosely based on Siberian dialects of Russian and native to noone does not qualify as "other Russian dialects". --Dmitry Gerasimov 14:36, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    We have hordes of qualified linguists in Siberian language movement. All is understandable with you and with my words. You, Muscovites, believe, that only your muscovite mixed church-slavonic-ukrainian slang is true Russian language and you name other East-Slavonic languages "dialects of russian" simply to dishonour them - Smolensk language, Pskov Language, Novgorod Language, Pomor Language, and Siberian Language too. If we will use European concept of "language" in Russia, so you, Muscovites, killed 50-70 languages for glory of your empire, and now, when one of this languages want to revive, you make obstacles with great anger and invent rivers of lie and seas of abuses against this Language --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hords of qualified linguists? Great! So, please, just name them. With the list of their publications in peer-reviewed academic journals. BTW, your words betray your total misunderstanding of the very concept of "dialect".
    Lst but not least, please, stop calling me a Muscovite. I am a St. Petersburger with Pskov roots and certain portion of Chud' blood, and such an address offends me. --Dmitry Gerasimov 11:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    They was separate languages but not dialects of Muscovite language, for sure. How can your native Pskov language be dialect of Muscovite language, when Moscow take Pskov in beginning of 16 century? So you simply repeat criminal Muscovite conception of so-called "russian dialects". Of course, researches on real east-slavonic languages are not supported in Russia, though we have a lot of real scientific material about the ancient and living 70 east slavonic languages, this material is collected just by official russian science. So please did not try to vindicate crimes of Moscow Empire, and by my opinion you are spiritual Muscovite, if not material. But spiritual, this is even worse. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 12:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    Russian wikipedia still writes that Ukrainian Language is "arificial conlang", for example in this article - So what can be said about your so-called "linguists"? For sure, ukrainian language is not conlang, and siberian language is not conlang, but this is lie, developed by Mother Russia in political goals. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 00:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - allthough I think a Wikipedia article about the subject is valid, it's not a spoken natural language Jeroenvrp 17:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
    So what, if it has sources, why should it not have wikisource? Latin, esperanto etc are not spoken or natural languages. Actually dialects on which Siberian is based are still spoken. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 23:59, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. Siberian Language is vandalism. --Pauk 08:54, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    And russian language is vandalism with violence. This is insult, but not argumentation. -Yaroslav Zolotaryov 09:42, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. Doesn't seem to have any documents on the old Wikisource actually. First use this wiki as incubator, and when you will have a few hundred pages, then come back. Yann 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    What do you mean by "old Wikisource"? We have no wikisource yet. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 14:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    "Old Wikisource" refers to oldwikisource:Main Page, where source documents in languages that don't already have their own Wikisources are kept. If there were any source documents in "Siberian" (and there aren't because there is no such language), they would be at ru-Wikisource anyway. Angr 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    Hm, it is easy to fill it with our sources. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 02:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  5. Oppose the creation of a POV fork. Angr 16:51, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
  6. Oppose concur that this is a POV fork.. Baristarim 00:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  7. Oppose per Pauk. Also, there're not so many articles written manually in this Wikipedia; I think that it should at least grow up to 10000 articles first (with 5000 generated articles and especially 8 millions of native speakers this should be easy ;)). Edward Chernenko 10:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Anything that is surrounded by constant lie, insults and propaganda , cannot be accepted.--Inconnu 10:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
    So ruwiki should be closed, eh?)) It is surrounded by constant lie, insults and propaganda. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 11:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: Very quickly, is actually a bot generated wiki with four active users. I don't think about how help in this "strange" language. --Taichi - (あ!) 16:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
    That's not true, about 2000 articles are not generated, with many big articles amogn them. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  10. Oppose For one thing, it's a piece of Yaroslav's phantasy, very debatable both in the way the words are selected and/or created and the grammar is made up. Secondly, the aim of the present conlang is to build up a certain background for some ridiculous claims of the so-called Siberian nation. If Yaroslav wants to play the games with Ukrainian and so-called Pomors, he can find a playground elsewhere. --Caine 17:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    "So-called Pomors" exist for 1000 years, and Lomonosov's official Russian only 250-300 years. And I do not see any real linguistical debates, only political accusations from the opposite part. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
    "So-called Pomors" exist for 1000 years only in your imagination. One has to be on friendly terms with ethnology and history of how nations were formed. Pomors, firstly, were not a nation in full sense of this term, but merely an ethnographic group to later be absorbed and melted within Russian nation. Linguistic debates are being conducted between linguists and over some real concepts rather than weak conlang project. --Caine 18:09, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    You are very funny))) Do you believe that it is possible stop the movement by lie? No, it is imposible))))) Pomors, for your enlightment, have the most archaic language from all the east-slavic languages, even birch barks of 11 century were written in Pomor. Your funny Muscovite slang, which is really Old Church Slavonic but steals his name from Ruthenian language, can not have any comparison with Pomor language and Northern Russian Languages in general. And all the Muscovite official scientists are prostitutes, serving for Russian Empire, and all their words are only lie which have one goal - vindicating of Muscovite crimes. So you are very funny with your powerless malice which already can not help you - both your empire is perishing and real languages and nations are reviving. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 20:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
    How pathetic! This is another reason why ignoramuses shall stay out away from linguistics and history. By the way, I was under impression that uncivil stuff is banned up here? No? --Caine 05:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
    Just the messages of the opposite part are uncivil - they even use words like "vandalism", "so-callled Pomors", and others. Position of ruwiki is clear f.e. in this page - This is list of 1000+ wikipedias, the name of siberian language is deleted, see no. 58. You simply want to stop this by violence. Just your first message is full of insults, and now you ask for bans, which is insult itself. So I am wonder why your uncivil stuff is not banned. --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 10:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. Ru-sib wikipedia is filled with bot-made or humorous and insulting articles. Zolotaryov (also known as Samir) uses wikipedia project to advertise his doubtful veracity project. --ru:Участник:Boleslav1
    1. Blatant lie. 2. This is not voting about sib wikipedia:-)) --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 17:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. (uncivil message removed). --User:Nutmegger
    Please cease personal attacks and discussing siberian language, this is voting about Siberian Wikisource, but not about existence or non-existence of siberian language, which definitely exists and has it's own wikipedia --Yaroslav Zolotaryov 06:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, this nonsense has to end. Turning wikispace into a separatist political tool by Svidomy Ukrainians under a cover of some non-existant Ukro-Siberian freindship... with things like this [1] starting to surface... Kill this wiki project is what I am trying to say altogether. --Kuban Cossack --09:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, Wikimedia should not provide facilities for the disreputable wannabe writers to exersize their writing skills in poetry and prose by publishing obscene poems and their own translations(!) of the great authors, such as Shakespeare and Shevchenko, into a languages those authors invent; especially if such "translations" are filled with obscenities (Shakespeare would have been caught dead saying "Motherfucker" as the "translator" implies he would) and poetry includes the death threats addressed to entire ethnicities: "from Ural to Chukchi all the land will be ours and lest the death meets the rest". Further, Wikimedia should not provide facilities and resources to the web-sites whose main mission is pursuing political agendas, especially when such are controversial and divisive, particularly promoting ethnic hatred and obscenity. If this is allowed, expect Ku-Klux-Klan asking the foundation for its own Wikisource. --Irpen 05:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per Irpen. The Siberian Wiki proved to be a disaster, instead of been a place to experiment with their artificial language it became the collection of bad jokes, obscenities and xenophobia and a really brought disrespect to the whole wikicommunity. Why should we double this with the wikisource? Alex Bakharev 05:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  16. Oppose The "Siberian language" used in the so-called "Siberian wikipedia" does not exist. Nobody uses it for communications in the real life. It makes no sense to waste the Wikipedia and Wikisource resources on the texts that will not be used by anybody. --w:ru:Участник:Новый
  17. Oppose per all of the reasons above. Khoikhoi 02:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per all above. - en:Evv - Ev 15:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  19. Oppose per all above (pro and contra). --Yms 16:20, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per all above. — Svetko 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  21. Oppose per my vote for sib-wiki. This project violates about every policy on WP (NOR, OWN, NPOV, name it, you got it.) -- Grafikm fr 19:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per all above. —dima/s-ko/ 22:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. OckhamTheFox 14:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Vote authorized here.
  24. Oppose per all users above. --Eraser 18:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Vote authorized here.
  25. Oppose per above --DmRodionov 23:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  26. Oppose per above. stassats 11:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
    Vote authorized here.. stassats 11:29, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  27. Oppose per Irpen. User:Kazak 22:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
  28. Oppose --B1mbo 16:58, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
    Vote authorized here --B1mbo 17:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


  • There are texts in this language, original and translated (public domain), which will be more fitting in a Wikisource, rather than a Wikipedia. They are ready to be published. --Amir E. Aharoni 15:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It's ridiculous how some Russian people (not all) try to block the work of Siberian Wikipedia. Even after the OFFICIAL registration of Siberian-Wikipedia they are crying loudly : there is no spoonSib-language:-) And the claims about unnativeness of Sib-lang is also missunderstandable: the Czech language a few hundreds years ago was also unnative for Czech people. Just think about it:-) Mienski
  • I understand it's a constructed language based on actual sources. Logically, it ought to have its own wikisources, then. Yury Tarasievich 07:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please note that Wikisource have theirs own rules for creating a new wiki. See for example 555 14:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)