I would expect a poster nicknamed "Siberian" to know where Siberia is. It really seems a controversial issue. According to the Wikipedia article, old Russians would possibly consider Khabarovsk part of "Siberia", but starting from the Soviet times, modern Russians would call it "Far East", not "Siberia".
Ok, I found some reference where some consider Far East being nor part of Siberia. Fine, but it is still insanely stupid to blame Jortikka because it's not something perfectly defined.
I don't even know if it was Jortikka or the journalists who published this. That wasn't my point. The point is I don't like when the stereotypes take over. "Siberia" is the cliche a lot of foreigners associate with Russia although they don't really know what it is. But overall the whole thing by Jortikka is full of those stereotypical views. I for my part find it hilarious that of all people a finn talks about drinking problems in Russia.
Only historically. But under that map of Siberia in Wikipedia, it says
I know Wikipedia is anything but error-free and professional, but there must be a reason for even putting it that way. The issue does seem controversial and not clear-cut, unlike your examples.
Historically the very word "Sibir" for the region derives from turk people(being also the name of that people) living on siberian plains and not in the far east. Some ppl would probably be OK with calling everything beyond Moscow the Great Tartaria as on some old maps but it wouldn't make any sense obviously. So I would consider calling the russian far east part of Siberia at least outdated.
By the way, under the same map in RuWiki, the large part is named "Asian part of Russia".
I know Wikipedia is anything but error-free and professional, but there must be a reason for even putting it that way. The issue does seem controversial and not clear-cut.
I've never seen a Russian of any age saying that Far East is a part of Siberia. I suppose this controversy is based on foreigners just naming anything to the East from Ural mountains Siberia. It's like saying that Chukchi Sea and Eastern Siberian Sea don't exist as they are all parts of Arctic Ocean: it may look that way, but there's geographical basis for dividing them, just like for allocating Far East differently from Siberia.
I wish someone would produce a geographical overview of KHL teams. I'm not sure which KHL teams can be termed "Siberian". And I bet most non-Russian hockey fans have no idea that Ufa is a Bashkerian hockey team, and that Ak Bars and Neftekhimik are Tartarian teams. Neither would they be able to point to Tatarstan or Bashkortostan on a map of Russia. (I'm ashamed to admit, neither would I!)
Far East is a recent term, very likely Soviet term. Far East is part of Siberia, no question about it. It was like this for centuries, referred in Russia and Western books. It is like if you would be proving that Yekaterinburg should only be called Sverdlovsk. Let's move on, it is embarassing to argue about this when clearly Jortikka had a right terminology.
Far East is a recent term, very likely Soviet term. Far East is part of Siberia, no question about it. It was like this for centuries, referred in Russia and Western books.
Maybe we'll call Antarctica "Terra Incognita" then?
Ever heard about Physiographic division of the planet that bases division of the Earth on geomorphogenesis? Traditions are nice, but sometimes they are incorrect.
May be historically, long ago Far East was considered to be part of Siberia, I don't know it. But in modern usage of these terms I have never heard that somebody would call Khabarovsk, Vladivostok or Kamchatka as a part of Siberia.
This is the map of Siberia period. Enough of these stupid comments.
yellow color (Far East) shows "Historical Siberia (and present Siberia in some usages)".
It already suggests that in some other usages it's not present Siberia.
People in Siberia would never call Khabarovsk a siberian city.
And population of Khabarovsk doesn't call Far East a Siberia. At least I have never heard it.