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. 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. 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? aburda 10:24, 2 Jul 2005 (EDT)
Quotes are allowed (within reason, fair use and all that), just cite the source and its author. 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. -- 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? -- aburda
Sign with three tildes like this: ~~~~ -- Colin 12:44, 3 Jul 2005 (EDT)
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. Rachelfleet 17:05, 7 Jan 2006 (EST) Plunged ahead and removed the "the"s myself. Rachelfleet 00:42, 9 Jan 2006 (EST)
Wikitravel has an established policy to reflect the realities and practicalities on the ground as they effect the traveller.
We tell it like it actually is with regard to border controls, visas required, currencies used and transport connections rather than arbitrate on sovereignity or take sides in political disputes.
It is because of this purely practical stance that we have country level articles on territories such as Somaliland and Transnistria that are recognised by few national governments.
Since the visa regime, time zone and currency are now changing to those of Southern Russia, our breadcrumbs and travel guides should now reflect the situation that travellers will encounter.
If that situation changes, then naturally our guides should change again - just as quickly and as many times as necessary. One of our distinct advantages as a crowd-sourced wiki is the ability to rapidly move and react to changing events.
How the regime change happened should be dealt with in a "History" sub-section of the "Understand" section.
Meanwhile I propose shortly changing the warning box to this:
WARNING: In March 2014 much of Crimea was occupied by Russian armed forces and a hasty and flawed referendum followed on the proposal to join the Russian Federation. On 18 March 2014, the entire Crimea region became effectively part of Russia. Armed conflict is a possibility and travel to the Crimean region is not recommended. Many countries advise travellers to be vigilant in this region. If you plan to go to Crimea in the next few weeks you should research carefully your travel plans.
Public transport links between Crimea and Ukraine are disrupted, and scheduled flights are being delayed and cancelled without prior notice.
If you object, please state your reasoning and alternative proposals. --Ttcf (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2014 (EDT)
Good. I would just add one more sentence that depicts better the current situation. I suggest adding something like Ukraine and most of the international community do not recognize Russia's claim to Crimea and consider the republic to be the Autonomous Republic of Crimea within Ukraine. I believe that in the travel warning we should add the Ukrainian and international perspective of the current situation. Ok? Best, IBAlex (talk) 18:48, 26 March 2014 (EDT)
Those kind of facts are better dealt with in the "Understand" section, IBAlex. There we can go into more detail than is appropriate in a short "Warning". The practical consequences of this non-recognition of the annexation (land transport, phone and internet links, consular assistance, etc, etc) can also be dealt with in depth in other more appropriate sections.
Like it or not, it's likely that the Crimean annexation is irreversible in the near future and we may not need a blood-curdling red warning box in a few weeks time as the situation becomes less fluid and/or dangerous or disrupted - so it's best to keep the warning box brief, relevant and timely. --Ttcf (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2014 (EDT)
What an appallingly biased piece of text, a partial revolution against corruption and backed by diverse interest groups occurred in Ukraine. Crimea, already an autonomous oblast within Ukraine held a democratic referendum and returned to Russian control. —The preceding comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs)
I agree with the above commenter. The information should be brief and neutral, not political. --386-DX (talk) 11:52, 11 April 2014 (EDT)
Contributions in the duration of the Russia-Ukraine dispute
Hello, everyone; Jose here. This article understandably falls into back and forth edits as the dispute is ongoing. Wikitravel should have the latest information just as any other travel guide on the Internet, but we should avoid reaching conclusions. I propose we avoid editing Crimea as either part of Russia or the Ukraine and leave it as disputed territory on the guide until the conflict comes to a resolution. Any suggestions and opinions are highly welcomed!
You are incorrect, Crimea is a part of Ukraine there is nothing to discuss on the matter, simply annexing another country's territory does not change its status. There is no dispute here, unless of course you support calling Poland and a host of other countries a part of Germany because the Nazis annexed it in the 1940s. Simply put Crimea is part of Ukraine, end of discussion. —The preceding comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk • contribs)
Wow!Wow!Calm down guys!My Crimean friends dont think that Crimea is a territory of Ukraine!I think Jose is right.Avoid editing Crimea as either part of Russia or the Ukraine and leave it as disputed territory on the guide until the conflict comes to a resolution.
Hi guys. My name is Alex, I'm ukrainian citizen born in Vinnica. Visited Sevastopol and Simferopol at this summer vacation and I have to admit that there is no conflict at all because Crimea is not Ukraine anymore. Seen some Russian and our soldiers at the border but people were very polite and benevolent even when I've tried to troll them with ukrainian speech and flag. I hate to say that but seems that some parts of article should be rewritten to remove politically biased/related stuff. Otherwise we'll have to include political context there which won't be interesting for readers. For example, I myself putting the blame for bloss of Crimea to Yats-Rabbit and other idiots in our government. It's also all their fault that we've lost significant part of our military personnel who have switched the side and joined putin's army. 126.96.36.199 12:55, 20 October 2014 (EDT)
I think that article provides a fair assessment of the situation. Personally, I think that the scare mongering about this "occupation" is completely unfounded and really has no place at Wikitravel as it does not reflect reality. Political bias is understandable as there's been recent turbulence and it is indeed very sensitive matter to some people, but try to keep it at a minimum and please don't outright distort things. Basically what I'm saying is: try to stick to hard realities, ie there are lots of general difficulties and above all judicial issues pertaining to entry and exit and so on. Apart from those things, little has changed, people are generally happy, local life and everything Crimea has to offer fo tourists remains as usual.