Talk:Crimea

Quotes

I'm just back from a trip through Western Ukraine and The Crimea and am really excited about adding the information to WikiTravel as getting any information about the place before going was really difficult. On the other hand I'm totally new at this so as I post information any advice or commentary on the quality of my work is appreciated. (WT-en) aburda

A very good start for a region page, but please consider moving the individual cities into their own pages — for example, Yalta already has a stub. Also, I think just "Crimea" would be better as the name, we don't usually use "The" in article names here. For reference, so does Wikipedia, and it's just Krym in the original. (WT-en) Jpatokal 02:51, 2 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Thanks for the info. I have a question though. The cheep guidebook I bought in the Crimea on the street was a blast to read as it was so, hmmm ... un-western in its directness. I included several humerous quotes from it on the page in 'understand.' From a copyright perspective are quotes allowed and if so what information do I need to add in order to make it legal? (WT-en) aburda 10:24, 2 Jul 2005 (EDT)

Quotes are allowed (within reason, fair use and all that), just cite the source and its author. (WT-en) Jpatokal 06:15, 3 Jul 2005 (EDT)

I agree, a good start for a region page. I agree with dropping The from the title. I also done some copyediting and changed the headings into boldings and wiki links for articles that could be written.

I have only bolded the sub regional names because I think there needs to be some thought go in to what these smaller divisions get called. Calling a region Coastal cities, Coastal mountains or Inland plains is very generic; is there a more specific name for these regions, like the coast line or mountain range? As for the Far East, that name is totally confusing, and already means another place in the world. Even callin g the regions Coastal Crimea, Upland Crimea, Inland Crimea or Eastern Crimea is better than the current division names. The Sea of Azov is potentially a good name, but we do not usually write about bodies of water, unless it is also the name given to the region around the body of water. This case may be an exception to the body of water rule. -- (WT-en) Huttite 20:38, 2 Jul 2005 (EDT)

From a political perspective The crimea is not divided up into regions at all but from a tourist perspect there are definately at least three distinct areas. The northern section is totally flat like Iowa and just boring farmland (I'm assuming, just passed through it by train. The mountainous region to the south, but before hitting the coast is spectacularly beautiful, has almost no tourists and is about as developed as I would imagine Mongolia would be. Once you hit the Coast its all Florida. The Eastern section is a mix of some tourism with industrialism, although could be included in the coastal section. Kerch, the farthest east I think is supposed to be very different from the Coastal area, altough I didn't go there so am not sure. Anyway, I'll think about it and try to come up with some better names sometime later this evening. I still have a ton of really usefull information I need to add to this article, when I get a free couple hours so expect a lot more....

On a side note, how do I automatically add the date and my name to each edit I make in this discussion session? I did some hunting in the help but didn't find anything (quickly). Also as per my section on genealogy is there a policy about putting email addresses into the content, such as the address for the archive in Simferopol? -- (WT-en) aburda

Sign with three tildes like this: ~~~~ -- (WT-en) Colin 12:44, 3 Jul 2005 (EDT)

just testing (WT-en) Aburda

A few suggestions for the geographical divisions: the locals refer to the southeast Black Sea coast from Alushta southwards (through Yalta and on to the tip of the peninsula at Forros) collectively as the South Coast (Южный Берег, juzhnij bereg). That would help travellers specify to locals where they want to go. I agree that "Coastal Beach Cities" needs to be changed; it could theoretically also refer to Feodosiya, Evpatoria, and several others, which are nowhere near Yalta, and that might be confusing. There are administrative divisions in Crimea, each is known as a region (район, rajon), and are generally named after the biggest settlement in the region -- such as Bakhchisarai region (Бахчисарайский район) which could theoretically be helpful to a traveller. Thus, the area on the Kerch peninsula is referred to as Kerch region (but they often do cross-reference with the Sea of Azov), the area going up the western coast from Forros is genally connected with Sevastopol, and the areas around Feodosiya and Evpatoria are so called. The locals refer to the mountains that encroach upon the sea as the Coastal Mountains, but the mountains around Bakhchisarai (southwest of Simferopol) are often called just the Mountains, or they will specify "the mountains around Bakhchisarai". I think Inland Plains is perfect; the locals refer to the areas around Dzhankoj as the Steppes. I will try to dig out my big Crimea map later to refresh my memory on other possibilities. Just a few thoughts. Also, I would suggest removing "the" from "the Crimea" throughout the article,as has been done with the title page; Crimea is an autonomous republic within Ukraine with its own mini-national government. (WT-en) Rachelfleet 17:05, 7 Jan 2006 (EST) Plunged ahead and removed the "the"s myself. (WT-en) Rachelfleet 00:42, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)

Crimea now part of Russia?

AFAIK, referendum to be held on 16th March but it's already being said by Pakistani media that Crimea is now become part of Russia. How true is that from a traveller point of view and should we flip the IPO if status quo has been changed. --Saqib (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Should not do anything before things are clear. And they won't be clear for a while even after the referendum. --Alexander (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for quick answer. Off-course you know the best as you hails from the federation but I wonder if foreign travellers still need a Ukrainian visa if they want to travel to this peninsula and what's the situation of travelling and public transport between Ukraine and Crimea right now? --Saqib (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Who knows? It's probably best to stay out of there if you can, just as the warning at the top of the article says. Jjtkk (talk) 18:12, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Definitely, everyone should avoid travelling to Crimea right now but don't forget, we're a travel guide not a travel advisory site thats why I asked the questions because we should update the article accordingly as well rather than only putting a warning box atop. --Saqib (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You probably couldn't get a straight answer about the visa question if you called every government agency on the peninsula. I don't think anybody can say for certain what exactly the situation there is right now, or what it will be like tomorrow or next week or the week after that. We'll have to wait for some stability, because no official source is going to be giving us hourly or daily updates on visa requirements. Texugo (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Although it is too soon to change the country categorization of this article, I think it worth discussing what to do if the this situation remains long term (which is likely).

I think we will have to at some point make Crimea its own country, something akin to Northern Cyprus. (Internationally recognized as part of Cyprus but practically a separate country). Just FYI here is the disclaimer box used there:

As the two regions are nearly completely separate from a traveller's point of view, this article will concentrate on the northern territory governed by the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. This is not a political endorsement of claims by either side in the dispute. For travel information regarding the remainder of Cyprus, visit the Cyprus article.

Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:21, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't foresee Crimea claiming independence, but more likely, becoming part of Russia. If it does, we should recognize the de facto situation when it's held for a while, just as we do in the Israeli-annexed areas of the Golan Heights and the Indian- and Pakistani-ruled portions of Kashmir. (Actually, I think we should recognize the Israeli control over the Golan Heights more ,by showing it as a part of Israel, period, in the map in the Israel article, the reason being that it is treated completely as part of Israel by the Israeli government, as much as or more than East Jerusalem is.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The most likely analogy would be South Ossetia, which is Georgian territory under de-facto Russian occupation? K7L (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it's a de facto independent state. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see what they decide in the Russian parliament - if Crimea becomes a de facto independent state, Transnistria is an example how the region should look like, if it becomes a part of Russia, then it's just an oblast (region), just as it's now a region of Ukraine... ϒpsilon (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

So Russia now recognizes the Crimea as a sovereign state (a potential step towards absorption into Russia). It is becoming increasingly hard to see how a return to Ukrainian control can be achieved, and with it the correct categorization of this article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: Crimea has switched to Moscow Time, and couple of breakaway states have recognised Crimea as part of Russia. What else, Transnistria wants to become other Crimea. --Saqib (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting pretty heated on this subject and is making headline news. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Heat or no heat, whenever Russia recognizes Crimea as part of Russia, we need to do the same, in the interest of people who might have to travel there and will need a Russian, and not a Ukrainian visa. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:57, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Although we don't advise people to travel there presently, if they did then what visa would they actually require right now? What implications for travel between Russia and Ukraine? Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I really have no idea, though I do know that there are flights to and from Russia, but I believe no longer between Crimean cities and the (rest of) Ukraine. Ikan Kekek (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Flights still operating between Crimea and Ukraine. Flights were operating between Crimea and Ukraine until yesterday and chances are they'll be resumed by tomorrow. Russia has started giving Russian passports to people of Crimea. On the other hand, Ukraine is planning to introduce strict visa requirement for Russians and I believe for residents of Crimea as well as they're no more part of Ukraine. I've contacted one of my friend in Russia who travel a lot and he told me that recently he was in Crimea and YESTERDAY he left Simferopol for a European country. He got Ukrainian exit stamp on the passport not the Russian one when exiting. Off-topic, there's an online petition starred to give Ukrainians 90 days US entrance visa upon arrival. --Saqib (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Update — A VoA reporter has just arrived in Simferopol from Moscow and tweeted "Customers officer at Simferopol airport trashed my filled-out arrival form, after looking at my Russia visa, said not necessary." I think we can now changed the IPO of this and every Crimean destination article. --Saqib (talk) 15:38, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I undid a recent edit that changed the country for Crimea from Ukraine to Russia. Although I understand the reality on the ground means that the Russian position looks stronger and probably unassailable, we did agree a 'wait and see' approach from the discussion above.

Is now the time to change the country based on the reality on the ground for the traveler, or considering that events are still ongoing and definitely not concluded should still wait and see? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I realise that you have only been editing here a relatively short time, Andrew, but if you go back and read the discussions on previous regime changes in other countries you will realise that we have historically very quickly reflected the reality on the ground that effects the traveller. In this we are very unlike the US State Department which often pays a lot of attention to what it would like to see and the rights and wrongs of a political situation. For us the test has always been quite simple: what are the practical realities for the traveller and there is no need to "wait and see". While travellers have to travel from other parts of Russia and can not access the Crimea via Ukraine and, consequently, have no need of a Ukrainian visa to visit the Crimea then we regard it practically as part of Russia. If the situation changes, then our article changes to match the practical reality. After your reversion, our article grossly misleads the traveller by providing out of date information. What exactly is it you are waiting for? For prices to be shown in Russian rubles? For the time zone to change to Moscow time? How much more definitive do you want things than Putin formally signing the incorporation decree and the Ukrainian armed forces abandoning their bases?

It's a bit sad when we're playing catch up to traditional print media such as National Geographic magazine, who added Crimea to Russia (in a special colour) more than 100 hours ago with Juan Valdés saying "We map de facto, in other words we map the world as it is, not as people would like it to be," --118.93nzp (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a sensitive issue and the discussion above has not yet reached a consensus for making a change. This is an ongoing situation and therefore you need to get some agreement before changing a country. I'm sorry if the consensus building exercise seems too slow for you but that's what we do here.

I'm not sure where you would get authoritative visa information from whilst this region is in a rapid transition, but if you can then there is no issue in describing that visa information in the article. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you're a little bit confused about how things ought to work here, Andrew. If things are as clear cut as this situation on the ground (our concern is not the legal or diplomatic niceties) then any editor (as I did) can just plunge forward and make the obvious changes. Only if there is an objection to the edit (as you made) do we need to discuss things further. Only if you genuinely believe that, from a traveller's perspective, the Crimean peninsula is still an integral part of Ukraine do we need to reconcile the two positions. If, in your heart of hearts you realise that the Crimea is now part of Russia, then I simply invite you to use your broom and undo your reversion.

Authoritative visa information can be obtained from Moscow. However, on a practical level, since all travel to Ukraine is currently via unequivocally Russian territory, travellers simply need to follow the same visa regime as the rest of Russia - the authorities in the Crimea are certainly not asking to see Ukrainian visas... --118.93nzp (talk) 02:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

If anyone is confused about how 'things ought to work around here' then recent history would suggest that it is you 118.93nzp, therefore I'm comfortable not taking your condescending and unconvincing 'advice' on this.

Anyway, the way to move this forward is actually quite simple and just needs other contributors to express their opinion about changing the status of this region from Ukraine to Russia, and if so should it be done right now? Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The invitation stands, Andrew. Especially as I've yet to see anyone (including yourself) arguing that, on a practical level, the Crimea remains under Ukrainian control. This delay seems both pointless and futile. --118.93nzp (talk) 05:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've added this to Requests for comment. That might speed things up. Andrewssi2 (talk) 02:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I see no chance of Crimea reverting to Ukrainian control in the reasonably foreseeable future, so I would support placing it under the Russian breadcrumb hierarchy at this point. What is the purpose in keeping it under Ukraine? Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I also see no chance of this region returning to Ukrainian control. My concern is that the situation, although seemingly final, has not been fully played out. If someone were to query later why we did this then we should be able to point to a discussion about it.

If a consensus can be reached to change the status of this region to Russia right now then I will agree to it. I just want process to be followed and not jump the gun. Andrewssi2 (talk) 06:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

In so far as no single person (including yourself, Andrew) has popped up to say that Ukraine remains in de facto control, we have a "consensus". I also defy you to find any policy that says we have to wait a decent interval before reflecting reality, so I'm going to reinstate substantially the same warning message that I thought you had already agreed to on the Ukraine country article. --118.93nzp (talk) 07:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We, I'm not going to spend time with your circular arguments. WV is not a 24 hour news service. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

One of the advantages of a travel guide in the wiki format is that it should be able to react quickly to changed circumstances. I am a bit disappointed by your reluctance to recognise the facts on the ground, Andrew. If the facts ever change so that Russia is not in control, we can change things back again just as quickly. Please do the decent thing and change the breadcrumb trail if no support materialises for the idea that, from a traveller's perspective, the Crimea is still part of Ukraine. --118.93nzp (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Your disappointment could easily had been averted had you actually read one of my comments, none of which claimed anything of the sort. It seems that you eagerness to ignore the comments of other contributors that don't match your crusades really causes a lot of unnecessary drama. Andrewssi2 (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

We could just as easily go with Crimea isPartOf Europe as its current status (disputed territory under occupation as a de-facto war zone) means that to the traveller an attempt to visit Crimea is not the same as an attempt to visit Russia or Ukraine, but carries additional restrictions or problems. K7L (talk) 08:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Couldn't you make the same argument about Chechnya or Dagestan? Visiting those republics is not the same as visiting Moscow or St. Petersburg, yet they are part of Russia. We recognize de facto conditions on this site. And the difference in this case is that I don't think there's any question, given that a large majority of Crimeans speak Russian as their mother tongue, that a majority of them consent to being part of Russia, even though a strong argument can be made that the referendum wasn't free or fair. I'm not so sure Crimea is a de facto war zone, either. Where's the armed resistance to Russian occupation? Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

At this moment Crimea is effectively not part of Ukraine for the reasons stated above. But shouldn't we rather treat Crimea like North Ossetia and Abkhazia? They aren't part of Georgia since the war in 2008, but are not regions of Russia either. As is stated in the next thread, you do not at the moment need a Russian visa for Crimea (Ukraine visas are also useless). As a side note, right now I suspect any westerners (especially Americans) showing up at the Crimean border will be regarded as spies by the local authorities. ϒpsilon (talk) 09:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Given your point about visas, Crimea is in a different travel category than a place like Dagestan. However, it is not in the same category as Abkhazia because it does not claim to be an independent country, and to date, no move has been afoot to incorporate North Ossetia and Abkhazia into Russia. Where we should be looking next for an analogous place is Transnistria. In any case, though, I think it makes most sense to breadcrumb Crimea to Russia and explain the anomalous visa situation within the artice. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the breadcrumbs should reflect the reality on the ground - but this is less noticed by (and, therefore, less important for) most travellers than the practical realities of the visa(s), if any, required. If and when direct flights from non-Russian territories are restored and the two thin land borders with Ukraine re-opened to road and rail traffic, the visa regime will need to be dealt with as a matter of urgency.

To the probable dismay of most of its inhabitants, Russia continues to neither recognise nor show any willingness to incorporate the Transdniestrian Republic into its federal territory... --118.93nzp (talk) 20:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

We'll have to watch what happens with this. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It does seem that we are entering a stronger period of shifting territorial claims and control in both Ukraine and eastern Europe with regards to Russia. This highlights the need for breadcrumb changes to regions, including Crimea, to take a transparent and consensus driven approach. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

The article needed some cleanup and update. I did an edit, removing a disclaimerbox which was stating "Crimea is under the de facto control of the Russian Federation and moving towards operating as a region of Russia. " and corrected the introduction with geographic indication of the position of Crimea relatively to both Ukraine and Russia. I did the edit because since 21 march 2014, Crimea is a part of Russian Federation: administratively two entities, the Republic of Crimea (22th republic of the Russian Federation) and the city of Sevastopol. Source for instance here: Russian Federation Council ratifies treaty on Crimea’s entry to Russia.So the status of Crimea is juridically clear and simple: it's Russia. It means that to travel to Crimea one needs a russian visa. It means that time zone has changed, it's now Moscow time. It means that postal shipments to Crimea, as well as express carriers like DHL, Fedex, TNT, etc, will from now be transiting through Russia. Russian postal service will carry letter from Crimea to elsewhere, and people wanting to send a letter to Crimea will need to write "Russia" as country, not "Ukraine". Russian ruble is being distributed and will be the sole currency after a transition period with ukrainian currency. I'm not going into any kind of political discussion, I simply point to the facts. Politcal postures about Crimea are diverse depending on the countries, and USA and European Union governing bodies made official annoucements where they clearly express that they don't recognize the whole processus of secession, referendum, application for reintegration into Russia, etc. But these are polical postures. Juridical reality, not only "de facto", is that from now to travel to Crimea means to travel to Russia. Foreigners being by now in Crimea don't need a visa, but it's just a temporary transitional allowance. More practical aspects of legal reality for a traveler is that, for instance, if one drives to Crimea, the insurance "green card" does apply in case of traffic accident, relatively to Russia, not to Ukraine. Country code for phone operations is switching to Russia's code (+7) with some delay needed for the mobile phone operators to shift routing of networks. And so on. From a traveler's point of view, thinks are very clear: it's plain Russia. An annoyance for some time will be telephone landlines and wired internet, because it's connected to Ukraine. Irregular power outages can also be expected, as energy infrastructures was tied to Ukraine and is being redesigned. I also did an edit in the warning box from As a consequence of occupation by armed personnel, the entire Crimea region became effectively part of Russia in March 2014. Armed conflict is a possibility and travel to the Crimean region is not recommended. ...If you plan to go to Ukraine or Russia in the next few weeks you should research carefully your travel plans. to As a consequence of a regime change in Ukraine, the entire Crimea region became effectively part of Russia in March 2014. According to some countries an armed conflict is a possibility and travel to the Crimean region is not recommended. ....If you plan to go to Crimea from Ukraine or Russia in the next few weeks you should research carefully your travel plans. The reason of the edit is objective accuracy: whatever the details and opinions about the events, there was a regime change in Ukraine and a sovereignity shift of Crimea to Russia. Yet there was and there is no war. That's no war zone at all. Russian military is huge locally, first as dissuasion force and then to swap personals in military bases from ukrainian to russian. Warnings about possibilities of a war are political statements from few countries. Also there's no need to research carefully travel plans to Russia nor Ukraine in general, but only to Crimea from Ukraine or Russia, as connections from Ukraine have been mostly severed. Specially only way to fly to Simferopol by now is only from Russia, as all air traffic is cut from Ukraine.

Hi User:AntonioB. You appear very knowledgeable about the practicalities of travel with Crimea, and frankly we need that. At the same time do you not recognize that this change is actually very controversial? If you dismiss this controversy as a 'western political agenda' then you actually are taking a political position yourself that is not consistent with our neutral standpoint.

If you read through the discussion above then I don't think you will find anyone actually protesting that the Crimea should still actually belong in the Ukraine, but how to maintain the neutrality of Wikivoyage in any dispute. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Andrewssi2 . Well it's very simple: since the 21 march, Crimea is plain Russia, as per the ratifications by the Russian government's bodies. I dismiss nor take any standpoint. I focus on facts and the legalities as a traveler. That's what wikivoyage is about? I do travel often in Russia and was curious about Crimea now. To travel to Crimea one needs now a russian visa (for the nationalities needing it, of course), because Russia has (re)-integrated Crimea in its territory, as the 22th "republic" (administrative federal subject for regions of originally non-russian nationalities, in the case of Crimea, southern Tatars). You can visit or call you local russian embassy to check it. So a traveler can know useful facts:: timezone is Moscow, official currency is russian rouble besides ukrainian hryvnia in a transitional period up to 2016. Because the swap from ukrainian to russian sovereignity is fresh and because Ukraine doesn't recognize it, communications are mostly severed or unpredictable from Ukraine for the time being. But you can buy an airline ticket from/via Russia. Etc. Current problems in the short term are telephone and internet landlines, because they are from Ukraine, and power supplies, in part for same reason. See I stay on the very factual level, not in political rhetorics. I'll illustrate in a practical way the juridical legality, with a picture: a russian visa [1]. That piece of paper is an official document issued by the Russian Federation, allowing the bearer to enter the country. It's sticked on a page of the traveler's passport. The passport is an official document issued by the country to the bearer. How is the russian visa obtained: you go to a russian embassy with your passport and the application form. The consulate writes the visa and glue it in the passport. Done. Whatever officials statements from the governement of the traveler or any governement about Crimea. The authorities who have issued the passport have no say in the issuying of the visa. From the Russian point of view, Crimea is, juridically, legally, a part of the country. It has no separate status. It isn't either one of the "forbidden" or "access regulated/restricted" areas (mostly sensible military areas). See? AntonioB 15:40, 24 March 2014 (CET)

Objective accuracy? The objective facts are that all Ukrainian defence forces have recently been chased from Crimea at Russian gunpoint. There are also huge Russian troop build-ups on Ukrainian borders which NATO believes to pose a real and immediate ability to launch further attacks against Ukraine or other nations in the region. If a place is occupied territory or a war zone, we do not pretend that everything is business as usual. The traveller comes first and, if armed conflict or occupation affects the traveller in any way, we do have a duty to warn... even if it offends Mr. Putin's political propaganda agenda. The same would be true if Iraq were turned into a very dangerous place by George W. Bush's illegal invasion and occupation... for instance. We're not here to cheer for either side. K7L (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

facts are: ukrainian troops in Crimea are illegal since 21 March. It's not my agenda nor opinion. It's just that Crimea is now russian. Is that too hard to get? The freshest press reports that anyone can check online do also confirm that Ukraine has ordered withdrawal of its remaining troops. So Crimea is being emptied of all ukrainian troops, without a fight. All the huge military there is russian, so they are not invaders, they are home. Crimea is not occupied. AntonioB 15:40, 24 March 2014 (CET)

Media is reporting a handful of Ukrainian military leaders taken captive by Russia and at least one fatality, maybe more. Crimea is indeed occupied. If the Russian military is there lawfully, why did they remove their insignia? Legally, US UK RU provided specific assurances of Ukraine territorial integrity in 1994 (in return for Ukraine nuclear disarmament) which have now been breached. The "some countries" who are issuing the travel warnings appear to be most of the nations from which English-speaking Wikivoyageurs are likely to hold passports. Everyone but Russia itself is either identifying this as armed occupation or (in mainland China's case) being very carefully silent. If a traveller needs diplomatic assistance abroad, who are they going to call? The ambassador of their own country, which issued their passports. That could be problematic if a Western embassy has no means to assist their citizen travelling in Crimea because of the situation on the ground - an armed occupation - and it's that sort of info we need to know. K7L (talk) 15:03, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I put it again: Crimea is, since 21 March 2014, a region of Russia. Russian Federation Council ratifies treaty on Crimea’s entry to Russia: MOSCOW, March 21. /ITAR-TASS/. Federation Council upper house of Russian parliament has unanimously ratified the interstate treaty on reunification of the Republic of Crimea with the Russian Federation and formation of new constituent entities in the Russian Federation on Friday. The republic is considered admitted into the Russian Federation as from March 18, the date of the treaty’s signing. From this day on, the citizens of Ukraine and stateless persons permanently residing at that moment on the territory of the Republic of Crimea and in Sevastopol are considered citizens of Russia. In addition, a deadline of one month is set, during which the Crimeans wishing to keep Ukrainian passports should notify about it.The official languages of the Republic of Crimea are Russian, Ukrainian and Crimean Tatar. It's not about a personal opinion or taste of mine. It's not a political discussion. Simply that: Crimea is now in Russia. Period. There is no occupation. Troops are russians. Former ukrainian troops have been removed. Travelers, who are not already there, will need from now on, a russian visa. Very simple. AntonioB 24 March 2014 (CET)

It is by no means that simple. Ukraine still claims the territory and various other nations are backing them, so it clearly remains a disputed region, not a clear case of "Crimea is now russian". Our text should say it is disputed, but the messy details and political arguments do not belong here.

We do have an established policy for dealing with disputed areas; see Wikivoyage_talk:Regions_map_Expedition#Handling_of_disputed.2Fclaimed_territories. What that means in this case is that if you currently need a Russian visa to go there, we should treat it as part of Russia for our purposes. Pashley (talk) 20:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

If the area is effectively a part of Russia, then we should treat it as a part of Russia. And as the Ukrainian government asked the troops to "come home" from Crimea it looks like it is. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we are getting there, although AntonioB appears to be claiming that this annexation is completely legal, it is now historical fact and the rest of the world accepts this. This is not true.

We should categorize this region as part of Russia, but with the caveat that the region is probably going to be highly disputed for a long length of time and that the traveler may face issues when dealing with Visas and other travel issues when dealing with other countries. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

On Wikivoyage, we don't pass judgment on legalities; we just acknowledge de facto facts on the ground. Crimea is part of Russia, and we need to recognize that, just as we recognize all other de facto conditions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly Wikivoyage is not judging legalities, although the legal status of this region is certainly not clear from an international perspective and therefore the traveler needs to know this.

Shall we just move to change to change country to Russia now? Clearing this up would probably help the discussion. Andrewssi2 (talk) 03:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If the territory is still claimed by the Ukraine then the dispute should be given mention just like disputes are given mention in other articles, especially when it states that armed conflict is possible. Otherwise, it does indeed sound like we're endorsing Russia. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The dispute should be mentioned as a point of information, but the region should be shown as part of Russia now. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:52, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but the dispute is not given mention and seems to avoid mention of the Ukraine which there is no reason for. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 05:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, not mentioning the dispute and continuing claim of Ukraine is manifestly stupid at best and crass propaganda at worst. Travellers need that background and context. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm with you once again. It is necessary to insert this information. Ukraine did not disappear by any means. and also highlights a need for a proper 'History' section in this category. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

(indent) I have altered the article to what I believe is more balanced and informative instead of propaganda. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 06:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

the page by now is a complete inaccurate mess. It's not even in "Russia". I had a look at this article by curiosity, while browsing other sections, and as I am often travelling in Russia, so I wondered about the infos relatively to Crimea. I have already documented, Crimea is now a region of Russia. It's not a political statement, it's a legal fact. For instance on the official Russian governement site, in english, a statement of prime minister Medvedev: Dmitry Medvedev on the reunification of Crimea and Sevastopol with Russia . That's a political statement which translates on the ground by the fact that law enforcement, military, flags, currency, border controls, administrative bodies, etc, are switched from Ukraine to Russia. It's legal means: it's in russian jurisdiction. Crimea and Sevastopol are not a separate region, a special status region, but plain regular russian region. Like Michigan and Detroit are USA, or Sheffield and Yorkshire are UK. It's plain regular Russia. And there's no war, no troubles. A traveler with a russian visa can enter Russia, and go to wherever, Moscow, Ekateringburg, Kazan, Pskov, wherever, and also Simferopol, Yalta, etc, ie. Crimea. A russian visa is delivered by Russia, not by the country of the passport bearer. So legality is there, and it's on the side of the host country. That's basic stuff, shouldn't even need to be mentionned. Unless countries do issue laws forbidding their citizens to enter Russia, then legally-wise, there's nothing special. Ukraine and many countries (basically USA , UK and british spin-offs and UE countries) have published official annoucements where they state that they don't recognize the self-determination and secession of Crimea from Ukraine and anything after, and they label the whole as 'illegal'. That's a pure political statement, backed with nothing legal, because there's no universal legal framework about sovereignities. Their usage of the word "illegal" isn't of any juridical value, it's simply a political posture. See the difference political/legal? For instance, Spain doesn't recognize the british sovereignity over Gibraltar. Now some three centuries. It's the official political posture of Spain relatively to Gibraltar. Legally it's zero, because Gibraltar is in UK's hands. When you cross the border line you leave Spain and enter a UK territory. Crimea is even not like Gibraltar, because Gibraltar is a special status, but not Crimea, which is, again, plain regular Russia. The political dispute is to be mentioned in the historical section of the article: Byzantium/Tatars/Russia/SSSR/Ukraine/Russia, ... For all practical purposes of a travel it makes no difference: you travel in Russia. You are covered by an insurance if it covers Russia, in case of need for consular services you deal with your nearest consulate in Russia, etc. What needs a box are warnings about the current potential problems because the very fresh re-integration: power outages, landlines for phone and internet, flights only from Russia. Antoniob 20:43, 25 March 2014 (CET).

This still leaves a huge mess of "Get in" or "Go next" entries in other Ukraine articles which mention rail, bus or air links direct to Crimea. Those services are likely disrupted or shut down outright due to the Russian occupation of Crimea, and there are also travel warnings for Crimea. At what point do we start pulling these links? Crimea has multiple individual city articles, which will all be affected. Every mention of Crimea anywhere (such as the one Nuclear tourism entry which has been edited from Balaklava, Ukraine to Balaklava, Russia to (now) Balaklava, Crimea... who was that masked man, anyway?) is potentially outdated, incorrect or disputed as the situation on the ground deteriorates. K7L (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

An anonymous user changed to Russia. I will change back to Ukraine ONLY because I do not see a clear resolution to this question here. Andrewssi2 (talk) 09:35, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we remove the huge red warning box from Kiev#Stay safe warning of the Euromaidan protests? The linked US State Department warning is now error-404 and the protesters are the least of Ukraine's worries at the moment. K7L (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should be so hasty as to just delete everything about how to get into the region in every article. The situation is unstable, so I'd prefer not altering the article content in "Get in" yet directly. Instead, a warning box or some box would be better until the situation has stabalized somewhat or been going on for enough time that we can accurately determine what the status is. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 11:51, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, changing the hierarchy for Crimea back to Ukraine doesn't make sense, because that's something all of us (I think) except perhaps you are in agreement not to do, for the simple reason that Ukraine will not recapture Crimea in the foreseeable future. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

If you check my earlier comment (03:35, 25 March 2014) a few comments ago, you may note that I proposed changing the country to Russia. I did not see anyone clearly supporting making that change afterwards.

I support to change to Russia. Do we have clear consensus to do so now? Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

The only other option is {{isPartOf|Europe}}, mirroring the handling of South Ossetia. K7L (talk) 16:28, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

There are some parallels, although not even Russia (officially) recognizes South Ossetia as part of Russia, so I guess in that case it is a separate country from the travelers point of view. Andrewssi2 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

• Support change to Russia. As noted on the counterpart Wikipedia article somewhere, Ukraine maintains de jure claims to Crimea only, and all Ukrainian official personnel have effectively been removed; on the other hand, Russia maintains both de jure and de facto claims to Crimea, and so for all intents and purposes it is in the viewpoint of the traveller a Russian state. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Andrew, I don't understand how you would have thought that I didn't "clearly support" changing the breadcrumb hierarchy to show that Crimea is now part of Russia, but if you'd like a formal statement that I support the proposed change, now you have it. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Done Andrewssi2 (talk) 08:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

This will affect other articles, including the parent articles Ukraine, Southern Russia, Russia and any articles for points either within Crimea or listing it as "Get in" or "Go next". Fine mess. K7L (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Considering the actual effects this change will have on people (for example, gays in Crimea), I don't think we should feel so bad about a few needed edits on this site, just saying. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Visa situation update

As of 2014-03-20, it was reported by the Moscow Times that third-country nationals in Crimea who did not need visas before still don't need them, and won't need them for a while. Perhaps (just my guess!) the Russian authorities will run the place the way Americans used to run (and to an extend still do) Guam and the North Mariana Islands, with a different (more permissive) visa regime than the mainland... -- Vmenkov (talk) 01:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

General Russian visa requirements apparently have just been introduced in the peninsula, but the local authorities are preparing the proposals for visa-free entry for certain types of short-term visitors. See references in the article. -- Vmenkov (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

McDonald's are leaving

No doubt this will cause the Russian government to collapse. McDonalds Has Decided to Move Out Of Crimea. Pashley (talk) 22:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Want some publicity ?

Swept in from the pub

Wikipedia is receiving good press coverage over edit wars going on with Crimean articles. I think this is high time when even Wikivoyage could get some press coverage. Crimea is almost become part of Russia and it is very likely that nobody need a Ukrainian visa anymore to visit Crimea. (A VOA reporter has today arrived in Simferopol from Moscow and tweeted "Customers officer at Simferopol airport trashed my filled-out arrival form, after looking at my Russia visa, said not necessary." ) My idea may sound very premature and stupid but I thought of sharing with you guys what's happening in my mind right now. Can we flip the IPO of Crimean destination articles and perhaps try our luck whether we can get some press coverage as well? Perhaps, we can prepare a press release as I believe we've some good writers here or we can ask someone to write a new story on it. -Saqib (talk) 19:24, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I think we should stay away from questionable tactics like this. First of all, it's possible that it could backfire on us and we could be accused of crassly taking advantage of a political crisis for the sake of cheap publicity (which, after all, essentially is what you're proposing to do). Secondly, especially at this early stage of the game in the Crimean situation, flipping the IPO in and of itself could be seen as taking sides in a contentious political dispute, which is problematic per Wikivoyage:Be fair#Political disputes. Sure, there's a potential ttcf counter-argument to that second point, but if at this time it's based on nothing more than a single tweet from a VOA reporter about what could very well be an isolated incident, it wouldn't be a very strong one. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

About all we have to offer uniquely is the ability to respond quickly to changes in the situation on the ground which would take the full one-year cycle to appear in some printed guides. For instance, we could look at Lac-Mégantic days after the train wreck and prepare a list of what's still open; we can update warnings on the situation in Crimea (or the collapse of the Cypriot banking system, or whatever other nouvelle du jour) almost in real time. That doesn't necessarily give us boots on the ground or an inside track on what's going on in these places - just a slightly better response time. K7L (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Moved in from Wikivoyage:Protected pages:

• Crimea There is an ongoing change in the Crimea at the moment that hasn't settled down yet. There have been a few edits and reverts and some angry comments in Talk:Crimea‎. I would like to propose protecting this article for one week. Andrewssi2 (talk) 12:56, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  Semi-protection wouldn't have much effect as all of the recent editors of the article have accounts. Powers ^(talk) 17:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

  Luckily I haven't had to be involved with this aspect of WV much before. I do recall that we protected Northern Ireland from registered users during an edit war. What category would that be? Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Warning box still needed?

Although a hot topic a year ago, it seems this region is relatively stable and has been integrated fully into Russia.

Sovereignty issues aside, is there any reason to warn the traveler not to go here anymore? Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear why we're warning people not to visit in the coming weeks, especially as the warningbox says that armed conflict in Crimea is a "remote possibility." Does anyone object to removing the warningbox and simply putting the relevant text in "Understand"? Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the box can be removed, but it probably needs text in both Understand and Stay safe. Pashley (talk) 00:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, if travelling from Moscow to Sevastopol to Kiev means a run-in with the Ukraine immigration authorities, there should be a warning... but the text that's there now needs an update as any fight isn't so much "in progress" as sadly already lost. K7L (talk) 15:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

That's the same kind of warning you'd get for Muslim countries that won't let you in if you have Israeli stamps in your passport. It shouldn't be at the top of the page, but should at most be a cautionbox in "Get in". Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

I moved to 'get in', changed to a caution box and removed the text that recommends not traveling. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 20:55, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Are there problems going Kiev to Setvastopol or vice versa? Presumably you need both R and U visas, but is there any problem beyond that? Does it depend on citizenship? Can a U citizen go to Crimea? R citizen to U? R speaker from Crimea? Pashley (talk) 04:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Quite possibly, although I think the point is that you are in any physical danger attempting to do so. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Could someone with knowledge on the subject please fill in the details of this situation on the page on visa trouble? Hobbitschuster (talk) 01:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Done --Alexander (talk) 08:40, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Comment

"This article does not represent a political endorsement of the claims of any side of the dispute." but then goes on to call the referendum a sham —The preceding comment was added by 85.154.180.25 (talk • contribs)

It means the existence of this article and its placement in the hierarchy, not the entire contents of the article. Powers ^(talk) 01:52, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

tcf about crimea

It seems, every traveller is homo sapience, i.e. zoon politikon.

Suppose a businessman wants to come to Crimea. He reads Vikivoyage and believes that the Crimea is a part of Russia. So he signed in the Crimea agreements, gives interviews. After that it falls under US and EU sanctions, becomes bankrupt.

Every traveller who says "the Crimea is a part of Russia", by international laws, supports the aggressor, and, strictly following the principles of law, has difficulties with visiting many of countries (visas and so on).

So, we have to write in the first lines: Crimea de jure is a region of Ukraine, but it was annexed by the Russian Federation in March 2014, and now de facto it is a part of the Southern Russia.

— Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 21:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC).

Wikivoyage accepts de facto conditions. I think that the important fact that you bring up is that anyone conducting business in Crimea might face trouble in dealing with Ukraine or any nation that has adopted sanctions against Russia in the wake of the annexation of Crimea. Stating that fact does serve the traveler. Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Every traveller in Crimea must know about sanctions, and be aware of very serious consequences. Please, acquaint with explicit and clear information (Aug 20): The Embassy reminds U.S. citizens that the United States and European Union have instituted broad sanctions on activity in Crimea, in response to Russia’s continuing occupation and attempted annexation of this region. U.S. citizens are prohibited by law from providing services to the territory of Crimea. Please review Ukraine-/Russia-related Sanctions for more information. On July 16, the Department of State renewed the travel warning for Ukraine recommending that U.S. citizens defer travel to the Crimean Peninsula. The Russian Federation maintains an extensive military presence in Crimea. There are continuing reports of abuses against the local population by the occupation authorities in Crimea, particularly against those who are seen as challenging their authority on the peninsula. For more information please consult: Ukraine Travel Warning. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 10:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

I rewrote the boxed text. Comments? Pashley (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, it seems much better now. But I am not expert in law or diplomacy, and only claimed attention to a significant gap, lacuna. Obviously, very important information was absent. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 12:49, 21 August 2015 (UTC).

status de jure must be presented in the first instance

(offender logics)

It seems, Wikivoyage is a tutorial for ignoring the law. The logics of offenders: "de jure isn't exist, I am interesting only de facto". May be, Crimea was written by smugglers ?

As we can read above, US authorities (Embassy, Government etc) said, the defence of offensive are forbidden. It is very dangerous to imagine and believe that de jure isn't exist, and words of US authorities are nothing.

— Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 09:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

If you'd like to argue about the rights and wrongs of de facto conditions, this simply isn't the place to do it. The fact that we recognize de facto conditions on this site doesn't mean that individual members like you (or perhaps me) don't have opinions about those situations, but asserting whether it's right or wrong for a given country to control a piece of territory is not of use to travellers and is exactly the kind of thing that would waste a lot of volunteer editor time for no useful purpose, as nothing said on these boards will persuade any army to withdraw from anywhere.

Moreover, in no way does this article ignore the fact that the Russian seizure of the Crimea is not recognized by most of the world. That fact is clearly stated.

Also, the US is not in control of the rest of the world, so it's rather dubious to hold them up as the world's authority on international affairs.

If you would like to edit this site for the benefit of travellers, please do so. If instead, you'd rather complain about the fact that a travel guide doesn't take sides on international disputes, it's unlikely that many other people will even spend time arguing with you.

Thank you.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Yuriy V Dzyadyk, suggest you scroll up this page to Talk:Crimea#Crimea_now_part_of_Russia.3F and have a read of that conversation. No point repeating the same points in a new conversation --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Now is not March 2014, but August 2015. There is entirely different situation. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 13:30, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

I am loath to get into political debates on a travel guide (for exactly the reasons stated above; politics simply don't and shouldn't matter, unless they affect travel and than they should be observed upon in neutral terms), but how is the situation any different? Hobbitschuster (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

They can affect travel, indeed; now is entirely different situation. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 21:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

"It seems, Wikivoyage is a tutorial for ignoring the law." - Exactly what law is being broken and what are the consequences that the traveler will face by heeding the advice of the article? WV aims only to aid travelers. If the situation on the ground and the official laws are at odds, it has to be mentioned. There are in fact plenty of places in the world where the laws and reality are not the same and unenforceable laws are not meaningful when other ways of doing things are operating in real-life with real consequences should you try to circumvent them (or in some cases, follow the law). ChubbyWimbus (talk) 16:09, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not simple, I'll consider. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 21:18, 22 August 2015 (UTC).

"now is entirely different situation" - reality would beg to differ --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

After March 2014 international sanctions are installed for any connivance of Russian aggression, particularly for recognition of the Crimea as a part of Russia. We know about these prohibitions and sanctions. Can we deceive the traveller? — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 21:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC).

Where is the deception? If the article lacks information that's truly of practical use to travelers, insert it. Otherwise, what is your purpose in this discussion? What seems to this reader to be your tone is very grating, and I don't think your emotion and the aspersions you're casting have to do with travel. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much, that's all I need. My only purpose is to insert in the first sentence of the article a lacking new information which is extremely important for all travellers to Crimea, partly to “Koktebel Jazz Party” (August 28-30): US Embassy forewarns: de jure Crimea is still Ukraine, but de facto Crimea is under "Russia’s continuing occupation and attempted annexation". — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 11:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC).

No! We should & do state that Ukraine still claims it, that other nations (we could argue about "some" vs "many" vs "the US, EU and others" vs a more detailed list) support that claim, & that some have sanctions in place (same argument). Beyond that we absolutely should not go.

Sanctions or travel bans that affect travel should be covered. The question of the legal rights & wrongs definitely should not, for several reasons: it is covered in plenty of detail elsewhere, it does not directly affect travel, there are at least two versions of the legal story and we are not competent to judge between them; that needs an international court.

The Russian government say their claim is legally sound, citing self determination provisions in the UN Charter. Crimea has lots of Russian speakers, there was a referendum, ... Lots of other governmentes reject that claim, and personally, I'd say it is obviously nonsense. However, neither that nor the competing claims need discussion in the article. Pashley (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted an edit by user:Dzyadyk that made claims about de jure. Pashley (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I note that Dzyadyk has not prosecuted his point of view on the Crimean peninsula on Wikipedia at all, least of all the apparent views of any US embassy on the subject. Is WV seen as a softer target? --Andrewssi2 (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Dunno, but why were the words "de facto" removed from the first sentence? A reader will see this, read the first line and conclude that WV is taking a side in this dispute before they even get to the disclaimerbox. With that as a reader's first impression, the rest just ends up being damage control. K7L (talk) 19:23, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

My edit summary. Do you really disagree? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I do. The disclaimerbox has to avoid taking sides in this dispute, but the rest of the article (including the lede) must also meet this standard. If the first line of the article exclaims "Crimea is Russia!, Crimea is Russia!" instead of neutrally saying "the de-facto situation on the ground..." without siding with either side, apologising after the fact seems a bit belated. The page needs to start off without endorsing either side. K7L (talk) 13:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikivoyage makes no apologies for not taking sides, so I completely reject any notion of an apology. However, since you feel strongly about this, go ahead and reinsert what I consider to be redundant language, unless anyone else objects within 24 hours or so. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In the meantime Pashley plunged forward and came up with what strikes me as an ideal solution. Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

It's progress, but I'm not a fan of having a disclaimer outside the disclaimer box. I'd prefer a wording along the lines of "Although disputed, Russia currently controls the entire region." We use disclaimer boxes so that we can visually separate site consensus opinions and explanation from actual travel content. Powers ^(talk) 00:22, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me which version, yours or Pashley's, is used, but I'm having trouble with the idea of a disclaimer box on a political dispute representing "consensus opinions," unless that means "international consensus opinions" or something other than a consensus of political opinions on this site, because that's something we don't do. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we are at serious risk of over complicating an issue which is rather less complicated from the traveler's perspective. If I want to visit Sevastopol tomorrow then I would be going to Russia, and that is just reality no matter how unpaletable it is to many people.

We are not legitmizing the Russian annexation in any way, simply stating the truth. Just because it is an ugly truth (for many) doesn't actually make it any less true, and a consensus driven approach by those above does not serve the traveler. Andrewssi2 (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

• About Wikipedia (13:30, 24 August). Please, read w:#International status, w:Political status of Crimea:
  Ukraine and the majority of international governments consider both Crimea and Sevastopol as w:administrative divisions of Ukraine, whereas Russia and some other countries consider both to be under a Russian federal district ; other countries are: Afghanistan, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, Russia, Syria, Venezuela (and Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria). The vote on w:United Nations General Assembly Resolution 68/262 (supporting the position that Crimea and Sevastopol remain part of Ukraine) was 100 to 11 in favor, with 58 states abstaining.
  — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 18:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

What relevance does any of that have to travel? You are apparently on the wrong site if you want to argue that Crimea belongs legally in Ukraine.

As far as I can tell WV is not pro-Russia, but we are not going to mis-lead the traveler just so that you feel better about the current situation. Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

about standardization in WV

My only target in WV is the article Crimea. It is unique and nonstandard in the WV. Indeed, it is missing important information, by comparison with Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Transnistria and so on. In English Wikipedia article of this kind is impossible; IMHO, these gaps is contrary to the goals and basic principles of WMF. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 18:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC).

Sigh.... Could you please be a little bit more concrete as to what your problem is and in which way this article differs from the other ones you mentioned? Also, there are few - if any - overarching principles of WMF apart from the goal of providing free content for everybody for ever. We here at WV have one prime directive and I think said prime directive is served by stating the de facto situation and it is not served by satisfying nationalists on either side of a dispute. Best wishes Hobbitschuster (talk) 18:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Certainly nobody here who's read this talk page would deny that your only target here on WV is the Crimea article. Here, BTW is Wikivoyage's policy on how to describe political disputes at the destinations. Please read it through...even twice if you like.

We already explain the situation on Crimea well enough in this article, perhaps even too extensively. It's out of question to add paragraphs and paragraphs and paragraphs about it to this article if this is what you would like to do. The reader can go to Wikipedia if he/she would like to learn more. ϒpsilon (talk) 19:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be the crux of the issue. Wikivoyage is not Wikipedia . --Andrewssi2 (talk) 23:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

private reminiscences

Sorry, you didn't understood me at all.

I love Crimea.

Since 1956, I have visited many times Crimea. It is a crossroads of many civilizations, the only one in the world. The Greeks, Royal Scythians, Goths, Romans, Byzantines (Romaioi), the Genoese, about 200 years (XIII-XV centuries) Golden Horde, 298 years (1485-1783) the Crimean Khanate (descent from Genghis Khan, in alliance with the Ottoman Empire), 1783-1917 Russian Empire (with the exception of 1855-1856 occupation, see Traité de paix de Paris, Article 4). Since 1783, especially after the 1862 policy of expulsion of the autochthonal population (Greeks and Crimean Tatars). Now, the remains of the Greeks living in Donetsk and Odessa oblasts, about 5 millions of the Crimean Tatars (exiled in tsarist times) live in Turkey.

In Crimea, there are many monuments of the centuries-old history and culture.

Museum exhibits of Tauride museum, as I understand it, basically are looted and sold, under the guise of the consequences of fire.

On the stolen money (e.g., from the sale of the ships) were built luxury villas.

The people of Kiev (in the person of the mayor) gave money to recreate Vladimir Cathedral in Chersonesos. This can be seen only in small print in the history of the Cathedral. After the reconstruction it is one of the finest cathedrals in Ukraine.

But Sevastopol went old decommissioned trolley buses with a huge sign "a gift from Moscow."

I remember the way the Crimea, the train Moscow-Simferopol and Kiev-Simferopol (*-Sevastopol, *-Yevpatoria). At each stop the train approached the locals, very cheap proposed apples, plums, grapes, melons, watermelons, boiled corn, milk, etc. At one of the stops were sold cheaply huge plush baby toys - lions, dogs, cats, bears.

It's all been destroyed. Trains do not go. North Crimean channel (1961—1971) is not repaired, it does not flow on the Dnieper water.

The situation has changed a lot sometime after 2004. Once, when we started talking in Ukrainian, around the crowd of excited women.

The idea of ​​the Russian Empire from Warsaw to Alaska and California (I know many of her supporters, even in Wikipedia), IMHO, destroys all living things.

— Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 06:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

I think we all sympathize with you, but stories with similar wistfulness could be told about all kinds of places that changed hands (I won't even begin to write a list of those), and even to a degree about some that have not. I think you could write a very touching and informative blog about your experiences, but that's not one of the goals of this particular site. We just report on what is, with some background thrown in for context, but nothing exhaustive. No offense toward you is intended, but the very nature of this site means that your purpose cannot be satisfied here. However, I would sincerely encourage you to make your case and tell your eyewitness version of history in some other corner of the internet, and feel free to share your URL on this talk page, so that anyone who wants to can read it there. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

This article does not give the necessary information for the traveler in the Crimea, and even disorienting him. Sorry. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 07:22, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

You may be disoriented, but our hope is that whomever chooses to travel to the Crimea will be less disoriented after reading our articles than if s/he had not. Since you are not interested in improving current information for the benefit of whomever chooses to travel, I would cite my earlier remarks:

If you'd like to argue about the rights and wrongs of de facto conditions, this simply isn't the place to do it. The fact that we recognize de facto conditions on this site doesn't mean that individual members like you (or perhaps me) don't have opinions about those situations, but asserting whether it's right or wrong for a given country to control a piece of territory is not of use to travellers and is exactly the kind of thing that would waste a lot of volunteer editor time for no useful purpose, as nothing said on these boards will persuade any army to withdraw from anywhere.

We are wasting our time, exactly as I said we would. Enough. With all due respect to you, it is time for all of us to ignore your further remarks. Ikan Kekek (talk) 07:30, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Mutually, with all due respect to you, it is time for all of us to ignore your further remarks. — Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 09:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

WV standardization. 1.

The next sentence is standard and necessary in the preamble of WV articles about the regions of the disputed (i.e. partially recognized) status:

• The only UN members that recognize the <de facto> are <list>.

So,

• The only UN members that recognize the Crimea as a region of Russia are Russia, Nauru, <what others>?

— Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 09:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC).

We don't care who recognises what! Please can you kindly desist from discussing Crimea anymore. Your point has been made and the community consensus has clearly rejected the changes you want to see. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

---

I am very grateful to Pashley, Atsirlin and K7L for considerable additions. Now a traveller have practically sufficient and undistorted information.

Unfortunately, there are some rough mistakes (e.g., 'south-western' and others), but now, in practice, they are not principal. Nevertheless, I hope for further more constructive collaboration, and all errors and deficiencies will be removed.

So, good by.

— Yuriy V Dzyadyk (t • c) 00:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC).

Go next?

The article is quite full, but the 'Go Next' section is empty, presumably because it is not presently possible to travel to Ukraine from here.

Are there any destinations in Southern_Russia that will be compelling? How do you get to them? (by ferry/flight?) --Andrewssi2 (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sochi comes to mind. Ibaman (talk) 11:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Are there currently any boats from Crimea to other places that you can conceivably take without running into major problems? E.g. a ferry to the Turkish black sea coast? Hobbitschuster (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, there aren't. --Alexander (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sochi is at least 12 hours away by bus, so it's not really next destination. Moscow is much easier to reach assuming that one takes the plane. Novorossiysk (voy:ru:Новороссийск) and Taman (voy:ru:Тамань) in Krasnodar Krai are not too far from the Crimean ferry and certainly worth visiting. --Alexander (talk) 15:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I added Sochi anyway, with the long distance disclaimer. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 22:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Traveller's cheques?

The article says Western bank & credit cards don't work in Crimea. What about traveller's cheques? Or cash in euros, dollars, pounds, ... Pashley (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Problematic - euros and US dollars will be grabbed; pounds sterling are as problematic as hryvnia... 80.234.185.120 15:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean "grabbed"? Hobbitschuster (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Seized hold of eagerly in the belief that you are a big spender and less prone to haggle. Euros and US dollars are held in high regard as "hard" currencies that are less likely to depreciate rapidly (unlike the Russian rouble or Ukrainian hryvnia). Euros have the advantage that forgeries are easier to spot. 80.234.185.120 16:37, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Do you really think the currency you pay in will do more to enable common scams and being ripped off than other factors? (e.g. speaking the language or not, looking wealthy and the likes) Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

No.

I was really just trying to quickly answer Pashley's question. Do you think my answer was misleading? 80.234.185.120 20:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

How should we handle the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics?

I've started a discussion about how should we handle the Donetsk and Luhansk Republics (provinces of Ukraine that declared independence) at Talk:Eastern Ukraine. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 13:57, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Notes on the political situation in every article about Crimea

User:195.62.68.228 seems intent on putting notes about the political situation in every article on everyplace in Crimea. See user contributions. I think this is inappropriate. We don't do this for every article on Kashmir or Kosovo. I agree that many of these articles need updating, to remove mentions that they are in Ukraine and give the Russian-language name first, but simply breadcrumbing and linking the Crimea article should be enough. Your opinions? I've blocked the IP user's editing privileges for 2 hours to give us a bit of time to discuss this; a block for a day might become necessary. (To the IP user: No punishment is intended; I just want to avoid having to revert potentially dozens of edits or more.) Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Pretty clearly a case of overkill. Crimea itself is the place to go into detail about the political situation, to the degree that it's travel-relevant, but we don't need to go into it in the articles below it in the hierarchy unless there's some piece of information that's relevant to a certain city or sub-region only. -- AndreCarrotflower (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree completely. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree. Too much. Ground Zero (talk) 00:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Alright, let's start reverting, but let's keep the useful changes while undoing the notes about the political situation. I'll start with the edits. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Speaking of overkill, that block was unjustified. What was so urgent about reverting these edits that you needed to prevent the IP from editing at all? There are only 15 articles breadcrumbed under Crimea - not the 50 you were evoking on the user's talk page - it would have taken minutes to revert all of them if it had come to that. I wasn't going to comment here, as I do agree with removing the note, and it all seemed wrapped up, but I am really uncomfortable with a "block of convenience" like this, where the user has done nothing wrong. The message given, whether you intended it or not (almost certainly not, in this case), is "your edits are less important than my edits, and while I decide what to do with your edits, you are not allowed to edit at all".--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 09:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

It was a 2-hour block to slow the user down, a few minutes after I had posted a message saying I didn't think it was appropriate to put a note about the political situation in every article about everyplace in Crimea, followed up 7 minutes later by another post saying that I'd be glad to end the block early if they'd like to participate in this thread and hold off on making similar edits while we come to a consensus. And it wasn't as simple as rolling all the edits back - most of them required manual editing because the notice at the top was accompanied by good edits below. However, I have to admit, I didn't know that there are only 15 destination articles in Crimea. If that's the case, I needn't have blocked the user. Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Your comments on the user's talk page were well-worded and informative for sure, and fortunately (judging by the contribution history), the block didn't put the person off from editing here, which has almost certainly got to be down to the fact you took the time to reach out on their talk page. I hope you don't think it rude of me to suggest that those of us who have the admin buttons also need to "slow down" occasionally to think about what we're doing when using the buttons.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I did at first, but that's because I hadn't absorbed the fact that you mentioned that only 15 articles are breadcrumbed to Crimea. It would be a different situation if, for example, someone was putting the same note into every article about the United States. Ikan Kekek (talk) 12:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, plus that would take someone hours, so if they didn't respond to any talk page messages in that time, a temporary block would be warranted.--ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Part of Russia?

Since 2014, Crimea has been de facto part of Russia. While the international community has another opinion, we follow tcf and describe the practical situation for the traveller. As of today, there are rapid territorial changes between Russia and Ukraine. Crimea is certainly part of the war theatre, and facts on the ground can shift very quickly. We can consider to categorize Crimea as a "country" of Eastern Europe, just like Donetsk People's Republic and Luhansk People's Republic. /Yvwv (talk) 15:11, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

• Ukraine has not attempted to retake any part of Crimea, and Crimea does not purport to be independent, as DPR and LPR claim to be. There is no need to change anything at this time. Crimea remains functionally a part of Russia. Ground Zero (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be alert to changes, but no part of Crimea has yet been retaken by Ukraine as of this day. Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

+1. The fact that it's under Russian control doesn't change. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 22:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Whenever Ukraine or some non-Russian faction occupies some part of Crimea, I hope we can reconsider. /Yvwv (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Of course! I expect us to revisit this within a year or two. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Some hours ago, Ukrainian troops raided Crimea and withdrew. The frontline has yet to change, but as soon as some part of Ukraine is no longer functionally part of Russia, it is time to recategorize. /Yvwv (talk) 18:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

We should recategorize when Ukraine has restored control over all of Crimea. Until then, it would be divided and it would seem possible that Russia could re-occupy the peninsula. If Ukraine retakes parts of Crimea, it will be a war zone and no-one will be going there, so we needn't waste time changing things back and forth. Wikivoyage should not try to keep up with changes on the battlefield. Ground Zero (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems sensible, although if they have control over 90% of it or something, we could reconsider. Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think when it returns to a stable >75%, then we could consider; until then, nobody will be travelling to Crimea so I agree with Ground Zero. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 02:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Basically, I agree as well, but I think the criterion should not be a percentage. When you can visit (part of?) Crimea with a Ukrainian visa, then we need to change our text. Pashley (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Pashley's test is the most reasonable. Ukraine won't starting issuing tourist visas if there is still an active conflict in the peninsula. Ground Zero (talk) 21:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree on Pashley's test, but it is not about visas. I don't need one, and those that need them get one for Ukraine, not for Crimea. The question is whether some part of Crimea is accessible from Ukraine without special (war-zone) permits. LPfi (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the more reasonable test. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

As we speak, thousands of foreign journalists, diplomats, volunteers and foreign aid workers are in Ukraine, some of them in the active war zone. In a future situation where Ukraine (or some other non-Russian entity) occupies part of Crimea, it will be as relevant as a travel destination as mainland Ukraine is today. While this is still hypothetical, there comes a day where we will reconsider the geographic hierarchy of eastern Europe from the traveller's point of view. /Yvwv (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)