For future reference the [[Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import]] can be found at [[Talk:Russia/CIA World Factbook 2002 import]].
For future reference the [[Wikitravel:CIA World Factbook 2002 import]] can be found at [[Talk:Russia/CIA World Factbook 2002 import]].
== Etiquette ==
== Etiquette ==
::::::: "Regions of Russia" section is nothing more than a pure vandalism by the people still living in 70's and being rather ignorant even by standards of those days. [[User:Vilnietis|Vilnietis]] 08:19, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
::::::: "Regions of Russia" section is nothing more than a pure vandalism by the people still living in 70's and being rather ignorant even by standards of those days. [[User:Vilnietis|Vilnietis]] 08:19, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Any substantial arguments? [[Special:Contributions/184.108.40.206|220.127.116.11]] 08:25, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
:::::::: Any substantial arguments? [[Special:Contributions/18.104.22.168|22.214.171.124]] 08:25, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
Why "by car" section reverted? At now information in this section is from beginning of 1990. Someone have a time machine? And about 5-10$ bribe its just ridiculous. 50-100 maybe? + DPS not exists since 2003. --126.96.36.199 07:27, 12 September 2013 (EDT)
I think that these points from the Etiquette section are way obsolete or incorrect:
Correct only in case of special events, like birthdayt or NY seleb: If you are invited to somebody's home, bring them a small gift as a form of respect. However, most will end up protesting when offered a gift. Reply that it is a little something and offer the gift again and it will generally be accepted, hopefully.
Correct: It is reasonable to bring a bottle of alcohol if you expect to spend the evening in a less formal way.
Incorrect: In someone's house , Dress in formal clothes. Dressing well shows respect for your hosts. However, this rule may not work among young people.
Incorrect: When having food with hosts, Do not get up until you are invited to leave the table. This is not considered polite.
Better: When having food with hosts, if you want to be really polite, ask permission if leaving the table first.
"beer (not very good usually, usually old and kept in plastic bottles)"
I wouldn't consider Baltika or Stepan Raisin as bad beer. If you don't want to buy plastic bottles you can buy glass bottles it is usually no problem. I ve never had bad experiences with Russian beer.
I agree that the characterization is harsh, there are some beers like that there (which aren't horrible themselves), but most are decent and there are even microbreweries popping up. However, when I first read it, it made me laugh, so I'd like to keep it somehow.
intelligenzija (german wiki)
I would consider Russian beer much better as compared (atleast) to Finnish ones... (and many other Europeans also) I think that comment would be more to Soviet beer. Which does not exist anymore. There should be some kind of note that maybe that is not true anymore, if sentence is wanted to be kept on place. Since now it gives wrong information. TeeMa 03:48, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
"When buying items, make sure money is folded backwards with small bills on the outside and larger on the inside. Try to get bills in 50-500 ruble amounts to keep the numbers on the bills small.
Also, don't take your money out to pay before the total is told to you. This is considered stupid or odd. It also helps to keep your money from being snatched from you."
I've been living in Russia for over 10 years and both these items seem strange to me. Perhaps we should delete them? I do agree a point should be kept that bills of large amounts (RUR 500 and the upcoming 1000) are sometimes hard to spend. -- Johnsemlak 23 August 2005
Blsck people are routinely beaten up in Russia.
It is DPS, not GAI. ?
-- or GIBDD (ГИБДД)
There's a whole story into it. Once in early 2000'es some big brass in Moscow decided that it would be neat to change decades old name of traffic police department, GAI (State Automotive Inspection), into some unintelligible and unpronounceable gibberish, namely GIBDD (State Inspection for Road Safety), to have it sound more official. But this never really caught on -- mainly because local departments saw what it would cost to remake all the signage, repaint the cars, order new forms and papers -- and never lifted a finger. After a year or two of nagging MVD brass relented, and now russian traffic police have TWO officially recognised names. ;) And DPS is just a department whithin a GAI, meaning Road Patrol Service, and they are charged also with manning roadblocks and checkpoints, so this is easily most visible department.
This is just not true: "The further you get from Moscow or St. Petersburg, the worse the water condition gets". Yes, in Moscow even locals have to buy water for drinking and cooking. It may be because of geology of the region, the river regime or pollution, doesn't matter. BTW, I once bravely brushed my teeth with the tap water in Reykjavik (Iceland) and didn't even dare open my mouth after. But in Siberia where I grew up and have been living for more than 25 years the very idea of buying water was and still is ridiculous. Though it is recommended to boil it, I never tried, still alive. wikipedia:ru:User:Neko
Keep in mind that if you grew up there, your body is already accustomed to the flora and fauna living in the water. All around the world, there is little water treatment and in many cases the consequences are unnoticed by the local population. The real question is whether or not the water has been treated and is therefore safe for a traveller. -- Colin 16:35, 15 November 2006 (EST)
Support for Neko: in Moscow water is really dirty for all locals; quality does vary dramatically around the country, but there're both very good and very bad cases in different regions, even within the same city. I would recommend to consult locals before trying, however. Edited to reflect that. --DenisYurkin 17:34, 24 November 2006 (EST)
I deleted the following as it doesn't correspond to reality, and doesn't help a foreign traveller in any bit:
The Russian Mafia is infamous, and has a business of smuggling drugs from and in the country.
Would someone vote for keeping it?
--DenisYurkin 17:22, 24 November 2006 (EST)
I agree that the language that you deleted isn't particularly useful and might as well be deleted. However, I spent a bolshoi part of my life in the 1990s traveling to Russia, and I would very much have appreciated having some information on "organized crime" available at that time -- note that "organized crime" is not the same thing as "Mafia." Could something be done to expand the current, very brief mention of organized crime to make it useful, leaving the "Mafia" pejorative out? -- Bill-on-the-Hill 17:38, 24 November 2006 (EST)
What exactly you'd find useful to have here on organized crime? --DenisYurkin 17:45, 24 November 2006 (EST)
@Bill on the hill: As you said "In the NINETIES"- Mafia activity still exists, no doubt as much as anywhere, but it's misleading to say that it's really a problem for your average traveller going to Russia, and things are certainly not like the were in the nineties in russia these days
police: stems of bribery
Most accounts of bribery stem from the civilian not following common rules, such as carrying identification papers at all times, or drinking excessively in public.
I live in Russia for 30 years now, and it's really a new point of view for me that bribery stems from civilians not following common rules. Personally I think that it's inefficient government mechanics, but that's my personal opinion. I delete the piece because it is definitely far from any consensus possible. Let's discuss it here before putting it back to the article. --DenisYurkin 17:51, 24 November 2006 (EST)
I did the Transsib to Japan this year - and yes - I would say it's definitively a problem, especially the whole issue with registrations - no one agrees on the rules, i personally got 3 different answers on 2 different hostels (and a hotel). And the police feed on this, I met more than a dozen travelers who had problems, and one that had to bribe his way out of it. Sertmann 20:55, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
We definitely need more practical details following from this:
The conflict in Chechnya is also a major problem.
In the current form I don't see how much can it help a visitor. --DenisYurkin 17:54, 24 November 2006 (EST)
Geographic Hierarchy for Russia
OK, here is my approach to an overarching geographic hierarchy for Russia. The top level categories are based on the newish Russian Federal Districts + one for Kaliningrad. I made a separate category for Kaliningrad because a) this makes the subregions for Northwestern Russia total up to a maximum 9 and b) Kaliningrad is really much more in Northern Europe than in Northwestern Russia, at least from a "getting in" or "getting out" perspective. I don't think we need many smaller subdivisions, at least until a lot more Russia content gets developed.
The two aspects of this hierarchy that I find least satisfying are the sub-regions under Central Russia (Golden Ring, Don-Voronezh Region, and Western Russia) and under Volga Region (West Volga Region and East Volga Region). Of all Russia, I am least familiar with the Central and Volga regions so I had to just improvise to subdivide these regions. It would probably be better if someone could come up with alternative subdivisions for these two top-level regions based on something actually related to differences in culture, geography, history, or politics.
Lastly, I do intend to make maps (and articles where they are lacking) for subdivisions, but would of course welcome help ;) --PeterfitzgeraldTalk 01:43, 7 April 2007 (EDT)
Peter, I see that you are creating loads of great Russian articles and lots of "... Oblast" regions. Does Oblast have a reasonable translation in English? Because if it does we should really be using the english version of the name. -- DanielC 16:20, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Oblast is actually considered a loanword in the English language and is usually used in English texts in place of the Russian область. The closest truly English word is province, but that in turn is a very loaded word in Russian (meaning far from the center, less educated and cultured), which could cause some confusion. I'm not a huge fan of having so many "... Oblast" articles either, but it might be the least bad solution. --PeterfitzgeraldTalk 16:58, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Yes. I can see that Oblast is at transliteraton of область. I see from your link that it could usefully be translated as "province", with the next subdivision a "region", although I do appreciate your reservations about it's loaded nature in Russian. On Wiktiravel we do have a policy of using English place names wherever possible, and do use "ZZZ Region" in many countries. What would you think of changing the names of the USSR articles to "ZZZ Region"?, or if ZZZ is not also the name of a city, we could leave "oblast/region" off entirely. -- DanielC 14:08, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
My feeling is that it is best to keep the articles as ZZZ Oblast rather than region only because I haven't ever seen it rendered differently in English and "Oblast" is in my dictionary. I think it is considered not just a transliteration, but a loanword and thus not really a foreign word. Since "Perm Oblast," for example, is the standard rendering in English, I think people may likely search for it directly, but would not search for Perm Region, which sounds more like a hair-care company :) But of course, redirects would make this a pretty slight issue. In any rate, I figured I would move our discussion here in case anyone else would like to comment. --PeterfitzgeraldTalk 22:43, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
I agree that Oblast is the least bad option. "Region" is not suitable, because oblast are often subdivided into raion, which in turns translates as "region"... Jpatokal 23:00, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
In the absence of a suitable English translation, I agree with Peter's rationale for adopting Oblast as an article title: It is the least bad option. WindHorse 23:19, 23 May 2007 (EDT)
As far as I'm concerned, the US has "states", Canada has "provinces", the UK has "counties", and Russia has "oblasts". It's just the local name for "a thing smaller than a country". - Todd VerBeek 00:16, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
Another decisive factor for keeping Oblast is that Russia itself uses the English transliteration in is English documents and maps (and therefore that is the name travelers will encounter within the country), which is different than, say, for example, Japan which translates its smaller geographic units ken (県) as 'prefecture' in its English references, or Taiwan, which translates the same character as 'county.' WindHorse 00:53, 24 May 2007 (EDT)
There should be some discussion using cash, foreign money, exchanging foreign money, credit cards, and travelers' cheque. (TCs are very difficult to use.)
Please do feel free to plunge forward and add your knowledge and experience to the article! --PeterTalk 02:19, 30 August 2007 (EDT)
Azerbaijan Travel Links
I cannot find information on the Moscow-Baku train link. Also, does anyone know about the boat link from Astrakhan to Baku? Feel free to send me the info and I can post it up. Thanks!! Cupcakecommander 08:31, 1 September 2007 (EDT)
"History" is really weak. Russia was already a political nation in the 16th century. It's consolidation under the rule of Moscow's princes was already a fact by the end of the 15th. It is also quite arguable that Russian Empire did reach it's peak in the 18 th century and try checking Tolstoy's and Dostovskiy's biographies to get to know when they lived. These are only the factual mistakes, the opinions are also somehow questionable. Meanwhile the whole article is good, a funny take on russian everyday life which seems at points weird and overcomplicated due to lack of services. Though it's all only surface
Agreed about the history section, it's not just weak, it's incorrect. I'd encourage you to plunge forward and revise it yourself, it would benefit from the attention! --PeterTalk 21:43, 5 October 2007 (EDT)
I've rolled back this edit; there's both good and bad in it, but eg. characterizing the Russian economy under Khrushchev as "focusing more resources in prodcution(sic) of consumer goods" and diking out everything about Putin's power grab is more than a little disingenuous. Jpatokal 00:03, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
I have heard that Russians are suspicious to men with shaven heads, because they look like prisoners. Is that true? /Blist 22:44, 11 October 2007 (EDT)
Not exactly, but there's some merit in this. Head shave is commonly administered to newcomers in most Russian institutionalised settings, like prisons (true), army, etc, ostensibly as a hygienic measure to fight lice and such. But while short hair is usually encouraged in this settings, normally it's not a clean scalp, so when, for example, some inmate have served his sentence and is released, he would have a crew cut or something like this, and buzz cut would mean that he's just escaped.
On the other hand, now there's growing acceptance of head shaving as a fashion statement, and not a sign of a severe lice (or government) problem, so if you don't basically look like thug or skinhead, then everything would be fine.
With the recent addition of Volgograd, the cities list is now at a maximum of 9. It might be best to establish a firm consensus around which 9 cities belong on this list now, so that we don't run into endless cavils in the future. As always, the principal considerations are geographic representation (of the various regions) , perceived "fame" of the city, and the quantity of yearly visitors to the city. Here are my thoughts:
I'm very confident that the following five belong:
Vladivostok - IMHO the best representative of the Far East, and it probably gets the most visitors in the Far East, as the terminus of the Trans-Siberian Railway
Irkutsk - The most popular stop on the Trans-Siberian and the gateway to Lake Baikal is smaller than Novosibirsk, but it has way more yearly English-speaking visitors, so I think it is a better representative of Siberia.
Yekaterinburg - Definitely the best representative of the Urals, and a high-profile tourist destination
I'm less certain of which city(cities) should represent the Volga Region:
Nizhny Novgorod - A city with over 1 million pop. with a lot of interesting sights, but not very frequently visited
Kazan - Another city over 1 million pop., and the world center of Tatar culture, probably visited just as frequently as NN, but we don't even have an article yet!
Volgograd - Again over 1 million pop., hugely important for Mamaev Kurgan, although otherwise not as interesting a destination as NN and Kazan, but then again, it's probably the southernmost big destination in Russia
I haven't actually traveled along the Golden Ring, so I can't say with certainty, but Vladimir seems like a relatively unimportant destination in and of itself. As far as I understand it, the main reason why it gets many visitors is because it is nearSergiev Posad, which is probably too small a destination to be on the cities list.
Novgorod is another great destination and is often visited, but is also fairly small and a visitor can really see everything of interest in just one day.
This all leaves us without a representative for Southern Russia. Rostov-on-the-Don would be the clear choice, but it is not an important travel destination. Sochi would probably be a better choice, but it still is pretty small.
I also do not think that Kaliningrad is an important enough travel destination to be in the cities list, and it is anyway already listed clearly in the regions list.
So, I have bolded the ten cities that I think have a good claim to being on the list. If I were to choose which one to cut (as we may not exceed 9), I would choose to eliminate Novgorod - it is of most importance to visitors to Saint Petersburg and it is already well linked from the Northwestern Russia and Saint Petersburg articles. I would love to hear others' opinions! And if anyone knows of good published data on annual visitors to Russian cities, that would be very helpful. --PeterTalk 02:19, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
The nine above seem reasonable to me. I think claims could be made for Tomsk and Ulan Ude as relatively major destinations, though. Our Ulan Ude guide is in decent shape. Gorilla Jones 14:25, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
Ulan Ude is definitely a major destination, but it represents the same part of the country (and the Trans-Siberian) as Irkutsk, and Irkutsk is twice as big. Tomsk, I think, is a pretty good candidate—it's very well-suited to tourism (by Russian standards) and is several "Germanies" away from Irkutsk at the other end of Siberia. The main reasons not to include it, though, are 1) IMHO, the 10 destinations bolded above are slightly better choices, and 2) Novosibirsk would riot if we list Tomsk and not it. I don't think Novosibirsk should make the list, although it is one of Russia's 5 biggest cities, because it lacks significant tourist-attractions and does not see many English-speaking visitors. --PeterTalk 20:47, 4 November 2007 (EST)
Following the Peter's request, here's my opinion. I'm note sure I am ready to give more strong arguments than the following:
Yes, Vladimir seems too small and unimportand at the country level. Sergiev Posad is good as a member of Golden Ring, but no more than that.
Not sure on choice between Irkutsk and Ulan-Ude: I think we should choose the most frequently used for getting to Baikal; don't know which is such.
From insider's point of view, Kaliningrad is as important as Vladivostok, but I've never had a chance to look from western tourist's point of view. I'm only not sure it is equally popular as an entry point as Vladivostok is.
Sochi would be worth a mention if we write a guide for Russians (and Rostov-on-Don wouldn't); I have no idea however why anyone outside Russia would want to head to Sochi.
I share the opinion that Novosibirsk is not a destination in itself, only an intermediate point on one's way to Altai mountains. BTW, why Altai is not in "Other destinations" list yet? :-)
Overall, I am not a huge fan of wars about shortlisting of cities--as I don't see much sense in having list of cities, and in insisting it should be no more than 9 items. But I don't have too much energy for challenging that.
I'm no Russia expert, but in 2014 there will be lots of people who want to go to Sochi! And I don't think Kaliningrad the city needs a listing, because Kaliningrad is already listed as a top-level region. Jpatokal 23:25, 6 November 2007 (EST)
Whoa! Sochi won the election! That's huge Russia travel news that I missed. Given that, I think Sochi should be in the list—it's also probably the best possible representative of Southern Russia, given that Rostov is not a tourist draw. If we are choosing between Irkutsk & Ulan-Ude, I strongly favor Irkutsk because it is twice the size and has a major international airport. So, my feeling after the discussion above is that the list should contain the following 9 cities:
I've now put this list on the main article so that more casual contributors will notice it. I'm inclined to let this discussion sit for a month, if there are no irreconcilable objections, we'll call this a consensus, and the list will become rather difficult to change. --PeterTalk 01:06, 7 November 2007 (EST)
I would suggest replacing Nizhny with a Golden ring town, alternatively Novosibirsk or Ekaterinburg. I spend two days there this summer, and it was without a doubt, the dullest and most polluted of the cities i visited - definitively not a travel destination. Sertmann 20:52, 4 September 2008 (EDT)
Yekaterinburg is in the list already, and I'd definitely oppose replacing Nizhny Novgorod with Novosibirsk (which is a young Soviet industrial city with no history). Nizhny itself offers pretty much just the kremlin, but the nearby Markaryevsky Monastery is supposed to be fabulous. The Golden Ring cities are all very worthy travel destinations, but are pretty small to list for an enormous country with many cities over 1 million residents. The Golden Ring also works better as a unit of travel, as which it should be listed above in the Central Russia description section.
You might be interested to know that we're discussing which cities to include now on the Russian version, and while that might not align perfectly with our purposes here, it's interesting to see which cities our Russian contributors would pick. The emerging consensus compares to our current list:
Moscow - Moscow
Saint Petersburg - Saint Petersburg
Volgograd - Volgograd
Yekaterinburg - Yekaterinburg
Kazan - Kazan
Irkutsk - Krasnoyarsk
Vladivostok - Vladivostok
Nizhny Novgorod - Yakutsk
Sochi - Kaliningrad
Sochi and Irkutsk should stay, since they are of especial importance for non-Russian visitors to the country—Irkutsk as a base for exploring Baikal and the main airport for doing only the eastern portion of the Trans-Sib, and Sochi because of the 2014 winter Olympics. We could perhaps replace Nizhny with Krasnoyarsk, but I'm not convinced that the latter city is any more interesting (though it is the gateway to very rarely visited, but fascinating regions in north central Siberia). Velikiy Novgorod is a huge draw for foreign visitors, but it's small (~220,000); Tomsk is perhaps more interesting than Nizhny, but is only (440,000). --PeterTalk 00:11, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
The article had a large span of blank white space next to the country panel, I've moved the Understand section there. The original next bit (regions) includes a map, so that couldn't easily move up into the space as we'd have had nested images side by side. The thing I'm unsure of is whether it is okay to muck about with the order of sections - is it okay to have Understand up at the top of the article like this? Andyfarrell 04:11, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
The short answer is no, we are supposed to have a uniform order of the sections across the site... however, I think you're a genius... We've been struggling with layout at the top of our articles, especially since the arrival of the fabulous-but-bulky Template:Regionlist... I'm gonna leave this for now and bring up the issue at Wikitravel talk:Country article template... let's see what others have to say :) – cacahuatetalk 17:51, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
Well I'm just learning so I won't be troubled if a consensus is for a revert. I'll go read those template talk pages you mentioned now. Thanks for the kind words! Has anyone any suggestion how in this article "Regions" including its map could be neatly formatted to fill that dead white space? (Thus keeping within the proper template sequence.) Andyfarrell 19:44, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
Russian visa process
I've made what probably seems to be a major update to the Get In section on Russian visas. The whole section was growing and growing and becoming redundant -- and also redundant with some text in the St Petersburg article, which I've pulled in here -- that I thought it was worth a rewrite. I've rearranged several things, added some of my own comments, and only deleted other users' writing when it was redundant. The product is what I've posted, and I welcome discussion and edits. If you REALLY prefer the previous version, I'm open to discussion on that, too. --Andrewsyria 09:04, 18 July 2008 (EDT)
No link list?
I found very detailed info on traveling in Russia and Mongolia on a private webpage  - worth reading!
Peter has often said that most of the Respect sections on Wikitravel are terrible, and this one is not an exception — particularly the paragraph about keeping political opinions to yourself. I'm not sure what concrete, useful information I'm supposed to be taking from the paragraph about tipping, either. Gorilla Jones 00:22, 9 January 2009 (EST)
Not keeping political opinions private can see you in serious trouble with Russian nationalists (almost neo-nazis). And Americans mouthing-off how THEY won the war - despite 27 million dead Soviet citizens - is a sure way of starting a fight. Just remember that it's not called the Great Patriotic War for nothing. It has as much meaning for Russians as ANZAC Day does for Australians and New Zealanders and common decency means you show respect. Most of the comments are accurate, perhaps they can be worded better, but they are accurate.
Visa advice out of date
"Obtaining a Russian visa is a costly, time-consuming, and often frustrating process. Most visitors should start the process at least two months in advance, but it can be done in a few weeks if you are willing to spend a little extra. For citizens of EU-Schengen countries, this will cost €35 and take three days (or even the next day), instead of the usual 4-10 days."
this statement is misleading..
I have had very little trouble obtaining russian visas (have done 1 private and 2 tourist), tourist can usually be done within 2 weeks at usual cost, and invitations can be ordered very easily through companies online or next day if you pay extra- That said, it's probably best to allow a month for obtaining a visa as with making any travel arrangements. visa cost for schengen countries are probably out of date- UK citizen visa fees have gone up so there is little doubt that the same has happened elsewhere..... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs)
I am sorry to write this on the top but it is time to rewrite the information according to the actual date. Many points in the article are either not valid or not completely valid anymore. I am a Russian from Saint Petersburg and I don't know about what antipathy towards Georgians is article telling. Also an attitude to Putin's regime has changed a lot as the number of people got the higher education rose. Not all Russians are reserved, those who live south from the Don river are more open than those who live in the north. Georgian and Moldovan wines do not meet (at least in general) Russian quality standards and therefore they are not sold in bigger stores at all. Short-term (like a few days or one week) traveling to the republics Northern Caucasus become more popular year after year even though some violent criminal activities against tourists are often reported there. These are only a few points which should be in the article, but still aren't.
And BTW, the mead which can be bought from the shop contains alcohol 4-6% by volume and not definitely 10 to 16! The different kinds of mead you can drink in Suzdal, or may be offered by someone who makes mead for himself in house conditions, maybe contain more alcohol. I'm not sure about it, all I know you can't find 'more alcoholic' mead from the ordinary food shops.
Again, please plunge forward and fix anything that is inaccurate. --inas 21:30, 7 November 2011 (EST)
I live in Russia all my life and I think the phrase :
The "OK" gesture with finger and thumb is considered rude, and Russians may take it as an insult. The word okay is okay. is weird and not true.
I have abstained from correction of this for half a year because of my inborn Russian reserve *L* but now I feel puzzled what "ok" sign+thumb may stand for. I do understand the meaning if one moves to a fro a finger in a hole that means copulation, however "thumb(s) up" is an international symbol of great quality. So I would like to erase the whole sentence, if no one can tell where this gesture was frowned upon in Russia. Grinski 07:28, 16 November 2011 (EST)
That sentence does not appear to be describing the thumbs up OK gesture, but rather an OK gesture that Americans do, which looks like this . I don't know for certain if it is offensive in Russia, but I think it is in some other countries. --PeterTalk 18:18, 16 November 2011 (EST)
Oh, I see. I didn't get the phrase right after it was corrected by inas (and suddenly befuddled me). I think for average Russian the "ok sign" is not offensive. Not sure for minority's reasoning. What nations do consider it rude? Grinski 07:47, 17 November 2011 (EST)
in Brazil it means "up yours". 184.108.40.206 08:00, 17 November 2011 (EST)
Do police bribe drivers?
Why would police want to bribe drivers? This sounds like bullshit:
"If you are pulled over by the GAI (Russian Traffic Police), don't worry — they will simply check your papers. By law, the GAI should not bribe you — if that happens, you are entitled to report it to the nearest police station."
My thinking is the traffic police (GIBDD, not GAI - that is obsolete abbreviation but still more common in usage, sounds like [gah'yee]) they have a monthly plan for number of perperators; on the other hand some dishonest policemen (not all, of course) want money for themselves. Since the problem exists and is voiced by high officials you can turn on a camera in your car while driving, being pulled over and talking to the police, it becomes an evidence if need be; also you can make a call to anonymous number in the station and report the problem, don't forget to ask the police' name, surname and rank (it is written in their credentials). This works pretty well in argumentation when the illegal action takes place. Grinski 13:28, 1 February 2012 (EST)
I have reverted the following edit by ScamExtremist (placed above the list of regions)
Note: Most of the regions below are based on the federal districts, which are created when, for political purposes, the government splits the entire country into 8 divisions. This has nothing to do with the actual administrative divisions of Russia (oblasts, republics, krais, autonomous okrugs, federal cities and the Jewish Autonomous Oblast).
Sorry, but I don't see the point of mentioning this here, because each region has a list of sub-regions, which represent the official administrative division of Russia. Moreover, the federal districts are also a kind of administrative subdivision based on economical rather than political reasons. Altogether, I would understand a note saying that Wikitravel regions are similar (although not exactly the same) as federal districts, but I don't see why this note should take precious space at the top of the article. Atsirlin 05:21, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
I agree. While the divisions are usually convenient for our purposes (I don't think this is true re: Kurils & Sakhalin), they are not of any real importance for travelers, and don't need to be mentioned at this level of the hierarchy. --PeterTalk 08:27, 10 June 2012 (EDT)
"Regions of Russia"
The likes of Georgia, Estonia, etc, are not regions of Russia. They are independent nations, so why on earth are folk acting as though these very disparate countries are regions of Russia? --220.127.116.11 12:57, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
This is not the regions of the Russian Federation, but it is the country's historic regions of Russia, its integral part. You are confusing the concept of "country" and "state". And the article, as I understand, first of all, about the country Russia. Of regions of the Russian Federation ("Erefiya" in Russian), the article also has a section. 13:54, 13 September 2012 (EDT)
This article is NOT about historical Russia, it is about the Russian Federation (most commonly called "Russia" in English). Wikitravel articles are written for the perspective of travellers not historians...some talk about historical Russia is OK in the "History" section, but everywhere else, the article describes the Russian Federation (again, "Russia" because in the English language that is what we call the Russian Federation...the few times someone uses "Russian Federation" in English is usually in diplomacy). Changes to the regions must be discussed here (on the talk page) BEFORE the changes are made and there must be a discussion. The cities list is limited to 9 cities. Please discuss reasons why you want to change this article to focus on the Russian Empire/USSR and discuss with others before making more changes to the article. AHeneen 01:24, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
Diagree. All these countries are predominantly Russian-speaking and keep very tight connections to Russia, so it is natural to mention them on the same list. Don't you know that Kiev is the earliest capital of the Russian state? Don't you know that earliest churches in Belarus are built in the Russian style? Don't you know that Russian hero and Saint, Prince Alexander Nevsky was fighting with German knights for the control over Livonia. Are you going to question any of these statements? 18.104.22.168 12:45, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
Entirely agree. Not only the residents of these areas do not imagine a life of their country away from Russia. Хуй моржовый 13:22, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
Russia as a country is a real-life object, not a historical one. If you want to describe in the article "Russian Federation", you name it - "Russian Federation". And while it is called "Russia", I believe it is necessary to describe the country is Russia, not the regime, "Russian Federation". Хуй моржовый 13:15, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
This is not a historical encyclopedia article, this is a travel guide. The purpose of this article is to assist travellers who want to travel to Russia. The proposed changes would tend to confuse travellers, because politically Belarus, Ukraine, etc. are separate countries, not part of the country that travellers know as Russia. Whether the historical boundaries of Russia are different from the current boundaries is not an issues that needs to be discussed here. JYolkowski 14:47, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
The question is not about political boundaries, and that is the subject of the article. We agreed that this country Russia. So your rollback I had regarded as vandalism. In addition, you rolled and amendments in other sections, for example, about the history. This should first be discussed.
I suppose you do not want these actions offend the Russian people, but just do not pay attention to the difference between the terms "country" and "state". Or am I mistaken, and roll back the "History" is a proof? Хуй моржовый 14:59, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
No, the proposed change will not confuse travelers. It will strongly help the travelers because Belarus, Ukraine and other countries are mostly (if not exclusively) populated by people who consider Russian their native language and who consider themselves as Russians. Try to visit Donetsk and speak Ukranian or say that Kiev is the Ukranian city. I don't think that you will be safe.
Ha! Go to Transnistria and say that they have nothing to do with Russia. That will be real fun. 22.214.171.124 15:30, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
That's right, the population of these regions rightly sees itself as part of their large country. Proof of this, for example, provided by the results of the referendum on the preservation of the USSR (1991), the last state, uniting Russian land: the national average - 90%. Although the referendum was flouted by the enemies of the Russian people, to seize power.
Ukraine and Belarus is a separate issue. The people of these regions - the Ukrainians and Belorussians, in themselves, ranging from the Russian no different, have the same culture, though, and with the features, and languages, which are rightly considered a dialect of Russian. That is, the Russian nation is the union of three peoples - Great Russians (великоросы), Ukrainians (малоросы) and Belorussians (белорусы). And to say that Ukrainians and Belorussians is not Russian, then insulting the Russian people. 23:59, 16 September 2012 (EDT)
"Regions of Russia" section is nothing more than a pure vandalism by the people still living in 70's and being rather ignorant even by standards of those days. Vilnietis 08:19, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
Any substantial arguments? 126.96.36.199 08:25, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
No. I never argue with idiots. And anyone implying former Soviet Union not only WAS Russia (which is not true by itself) but also IS Russia is no more than an idiot. However, as wikitravel is a travel website rather than a place to heal retarted people (or the place for retarted people to make their unfulfilled geopolitical dreams publicly known) I would simply ask administrators to stamp out such vandalism and give lifetime bans to anyone doing such changes to the content of the site. Vilnietis 12:13, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
Referring to people as idiots is a good way of finding consensus. Bravo! Your reply simply confirms that your argument was unsubstantiated. 188.8.131.52 13:51, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
Russian Empire is also not Russia? Perfect logic. 14:03, 17 September 2012 (EDT)
Please don't call people "idiots" or "retarded", it's not nice and you sound like an immature child. The massive changes made to the Russia page need to be discussed before making the changes. You can't make the changes, then make comments on the talk page. Wait at least a few days and get the opinions of several people before making the changes...not make a comment, then make the changes 5 minutes later. Read the comments below to understand why the "Russia" page has been protected. AHeneen 21:22, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
I am sorry but I don't believe you understand what sort of changes have been made to the content of such article. They were meant to insult other nationalities that have been unlucky enough to live in Soviet Union and fought long and hard to regain freedom 20 years ago. Labeling countries that have nothing to do with Russia (historically, language-wise, geographically, ethnically or from a point of view of present day traveler) as part of Russia is both an insult and an attempt to mislead people who may not be very familiar with history of the region. Thus I'm not going to discuss with people vandalizing this page in such manner or search for some sort of consensus as one such fella above had suggested. There can be no consensus and any discussion with people trying to insult you would be just a waste of time. Vilnietis 06:59, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
I don't see how one can insult a "nation". Each nation comprises thousands of people with different opinions and different beliefs. How can you be sure about their feelings? Moreover, we spoke about countries, not about nations.
I must say, though, that you did insult specific persons by referring to them as idiots. I think, you better apologize before continuing this discussion. 184.108.40.206 08:47, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
Oh well, shall we talk about Ukraine? Maybe in a less etnocentric approach? Very well:
"Little Russia (Rus' Minor), sometimes Little Rus’ (Russian: Малая Русь or Малороссия; Ukrainian: Мала Русь), is a historical political and geographical term in the Russian language referring to most of the territory of modern-day Ukraine before the twentieth century. Accordingly, derivatives such as "Little Russian" (Russian: малоросский) were commonly applied to the people, language, and culture of the area. After the collapse of the Russian Empire, and with the amalgamation of Ukrainian territories into one administrative unit the word was phased out of circulation and when used took on a derogative connotation denoting those Ukrainians with little or no national consciousness. The term retains currency among Russian monarchists and nationalists who deny that Ukraine and Ukrainians are distinct from Russia and Russians. Because Ukraine and its people have undergone the process of nation-building over the last seven hundred years, Little Russia, even in the historic context, can only loosely be considered as merely a contemporary equivalent for the word Ukraine. By the late 1980s, the term had become an archaic one, and its anachronistic usage was considered strongly offensive by Ukrainian nationalists."
To speak shortly: referring to Ukraine as "malorussia" is obsolete, offensive and unacceptable.
As for this bit here:
Khuy (Хуй) — ancient Russian musical instrument like a flute, which primarily offered to play visitors and foreigners.
It really shows your true colors. The most offensive, unfunny, etnocentric dirty joke ever. And you can't even write it in proper English.
Non-Russian speakers, don't go for their blah blah blah. Хуй means PENIS, and nothing else.
The term is offensive only for Ukrainian Nazis who hate his people, and Russia. For normal Ukrainian term "maloros" is acceptable, though, rather, it is used rarely. For the rest of your text, the author is incompetent and does not know the reason and timing of the separation of the Russian nation for three people. 220.127.116.11 23:57, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
OK, several points for you:
Try to find your own words and arguments instead of copy-pasting some weird stuff and providing reference  that essentially refers to nowhere
"Ukraine and its people have undergone the process of nation-building" The nation should have its common language. Please, tell me what is the common language of people from Donetsk and Ternopol? Most certainly, it is Russian.
The cornerstone of Ukranian nationalists is the existence of "ukr" nation that preceded modern Ukranians. Do you plan to post this nonsense on Wikitravel?
Belarus (or White Russia) is perfectly fine with its name, which is naturally derived from the word "Russia". Same holds for "Little Russia" and any other historical name.
Based on the recent edit war between users (see discussion above: "Regions of Russia"), I have protected the Russia page from edits by unregistered and new users for one month. The page is about the country known as the Russian Federation—which is referred to by nearly every English-speaker as simply "Russia"—which NOT about former regions controlled by Russia or countries where people of Russian ethnicity live. On Wikitravel pages, the traveller comes first and we use political boundaries as part of the regional hierarchy of pages. Wikitravel is NOT an encyclopedia to focus on the Russian peoples, who live in many Eastern European countries (like Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, etc). We have separate pages for South Korea and North Korea because, for travellers, they are separate countries very different in practicalities (visas, getting in, getting around, eating, accommodations, and more) even though both countries are home to Korean peoples. This is the same reason why Austria is not a part of Germany even though the people of Austria are ethnically German. Adding countries like Armenia or Tajikistan to Russia is ridiculous! The people of those countries are not Russians and the only similarities are the fact that they were once a part of the USSR and the Russian language is commonly spoken and these countries are home to small Russian communities. We also do not add former territories/colonies to a country page...Hong Kong, Australia, India, and Ghana are not a part of the United Kingdom, even though these countries (and the city of Hong Kong) were a part of the British Empire for a long time.
Do not try to re-insert content into the "Russia" page about other Eastern European, Caucasus, or Central Asian countries. These are not a part of Russia, even if some people living in them are Russian. AHeneen 21:22, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
I see you're a noble Russophobe. Not only do not respect the territorial integrity of the country, even dare mock Russian.
Especially "pleased" your mocking Russian culture ("The enormous constructivist buildings and statues of the twentieth century are often derided as ugly monstrosities"), of the Great Patriotic War (up to direct insults: "Non-Aggression Pact with Nazi Germany. The Treaty, which shook Western governments to their core and stunned the Left in Europe and America, guaranteed Hitler a free hand to launch war!", "Western nations was instrumental in the defeat of Nazism in 1945", "Both World War II and Stalin's reign of terror", "eastern Poland"), the Revolution ("the Winter Palace, which the communists stormed to depose Tsar Nicolas II"), over the Russian achievements ("Stalin introduced a ruthless economic system", "the efforts usually failed, and the USSR continued to struggle under the yoke of collectivization and totalitarianism"), over the Russian tragedy ("Russians have achieved a much higher standard of living since the fall of the USSR", " Russia has re-emerged as a dominant regional economic, political and military power"), etc.
Something to answer for your previous post will not, because you do not even bother to read what it all about, and do not have any idea about the concepts of countries, states, Russia and the Russian people as such.
In the end, I'm leaving this jews' site and urge all sensible people do the same. Participate in the humiliation of Russia, its history, people and culture - it is your destiny, you will always be inherent. Burn in hell!
23:43, 18 September 2012 (EDT)
Agree with the above. The article is written from a strong anti-Russian perspective, which is both ridiculous and humiliating. Apparently, you do not appreciate the opinion of locals and prefer to write a travel guide on "what we think about Russia" instead of "what Russia actually is". Now I understand your "traveler comes first" point. Apparently, it has nothing to do with the traveler. It simply protects prejudiced and wrong opinions by preventing edits on the page. Good solution!
Your examples of Korea and Great Britain are most certainly irrelevant to the present case. We discuss Russia and we put forward arguments about Russia, not about other countries that never had these peculiarities of their history (they might have different stories, though). The failed attempt of the discussion yielded a bunch of arguments regarding the language, culture, history, and ethnography. You failed to answer any of those and simply restated your badly justified opinion using your admin tools. Is it a way of finding consensus? I think it is not. 18.104.22.168 03:50, 19 September 2012 (EDT)
I understand, administrators have created this article to pour dirt Russia. So sorry... 22.214.171.124 00:44, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
Aheneen is correct; there is far to much opinion and non-travel information in many of those Russian edits. Please keep in mind this is a site for travelers who are planning a trip. It is mostly full of up-to-date practical travel information. This is not a site for political background (except as it applies directly to travel), opinion, or general information. That's what Wikipedia is for. Nobody is bashing Russia or any other place. It's simply an effort to keep articles focused on their intended use. Thank you,--IBobitalkemail 19:00, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
I totally agree with you, that's how it should be in the encyclopedia traveler. But would not you contradicting yourself, filling the article Russophobic material and showing disrespect to the people of this country and its land?
In my opinion, the authors, against whom you speak, just wanted to be a little more decent and respectful to Russia, but leave the article in the old form, thus showing a profound disrespect for the country.
So I ask you to explain the reasons for their actions. 126.96.36.199 23:38, 20 September 2012 (EDT)
With all due respect, unless you have a compelling reason for doing so, continuing to discuss this with an anonymous ip editor just feels like you're trolling. This is not about disrespecting any country. There are political and historical realities that are generally accepted by, seemingly, everyone in the world but you. If this were WikiTravelTroll.org, you could have it conform to your world view. As it is not, it will conform to the rest of the world instead. Please stop your edit war and move along to something constructive, here or elsewhere, or you will be banned and all your edits reverted. You're simply taking up too much of this community's limited time and resources.--IBobitalkemail 01:52, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
You have strange restrictions on the user names, so I see no reason to register. How will the fact of registration change the nature of our arguments? Will you take them more seriously? Registered users can be trolls as well, but we are not...
I think that your statement on "political and historical realities" is strongly biased by what you see on TV or hear from politicians. It does not look like you, or IBCash, or AHeneen have ever been to the countries in question, so I strongly recommend that you go there before opposing arguments of locals. Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan have formed a so-called "Custom treaty". Borders between these countries are about to vanish, and their further unification is a matter of 2-3 years. Ukraine has recently declared Russian as the second national language, and it is again a matter of near future to see Russian as the official language of the country. Russian navy is firmly settled in Sevastopol and controls any military activity from the Ukranian side. What realities are you speaking about? The reality is that >50% Ukranians do not want to live in a poor and independent country (the poorest European country, according to all recent surveys). They want to have more opportunities, and they will be willing to join Russia as long as they do not get anything from EU. This is our reality on the border between Europe and Asia, not your strange and incompetent "reality" behind the ocean... 188.8.131.52 04:11, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
It is not about what is happening in Russia. The last all-Russian state died in 1991. But the fact is, it belongs to the country the local administration. If they would like to write an article about Russia, they would be writing an article about Russia. But they just wanted her to pour dirt and prevent anyone who tries to remove the dirt. 184.108.40.206 04:47, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
You're wrong. I can log in, but it would mean that I would participate in mudslinging Russia. Or do you want me to participate in the creation of the encyclopedia, which aims humiliation of Russia?
As for the fact that I'm a troll, then you are wrong here. In a second report are quotes that are not only contrary to the truth, and very obviously and flagrantly show your total lack of respect for the Russian people. And you think our indignation (and we've got at least 3 anonymous) trolling? This is all that you can us to answer?
And another question: why did you create a Russian section of his encyclopedia, if you so hate this country? 220.127.116.11 04:41, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
Nobody hates Russia, stop being immature.
1. "I think that your statement on "political and historical realities" is strongly biased by what you see on TV or hear from politicians." And history books, the United Nations, and the official website of each of the independent countries that you are trying to define as part of Russia.
2. "Borders between these countries are about to vanish, and their further unification is a matter of 2-3 years." - The fact is the borders are still there. If, in the future, all these countries become officially a part of Russia, then they can be added to the article. But that is not the case right now, so listing them as such would be inaccurate.
3. "Ukraine has recently declared Russian as the second national language, and it is again a matter of near future to see Russian as the official language of the country." - "Near future" is not the present.
4. "The reality is that >50% Ukranians do not want to live in a poor and independent country (the poorest European country, according to all recent surveys)." - That's an unfortunate and harsh reality, but the fact is that even if some Ukrainians wish that the country was part of Russia, this is not the case at the moment.
Wikitravel articles are supposed to give accurate information that is relevant to travelers NOW. Editing based on wishful thinking and possible future changes is not appropriate. IBcash 13:09, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
Not too often do you use the word "Russia" without understanding its meaning? It's not that there are many political groups in Russia that are truly independent states. The thing is that there is a country, a country in the traditional sense (as opposed to the term "State"), called Russia. And the area that is controlled, for example, the independence of Ukraine and Belarus, and a half thousand years, is a Russian land, regardless of the fact that for many centuries it was under the yoke of occupation, that now it is divided by artificial boundaries, etc.
And what is written above about the integration processes in the territory of Russia, is proof that the Russian people and Russia united country, despite the political picture and the opposition of the authorities.
Want to write about "Russian Federation", name as the article and write. But even if it does not give you the right to insult the country. You write that no one has hated, but did not answer the question about the above quotation. Although it is clear that you have nothing to answer. 18.104.22.168 13:52, 21 September 2012 (EDT)
I see you here mock the Russian people. You know, it's very, very bad thing! History remembers that it always ended with a grand bloodshed. You're so vain, Russia must be respected. What you write in the article, encroaching on the sacred, can not be justified by anything. 05:09, 22 September 2012 (EDT)
Why there is an extensive list of Moscow airports and airlines flying to Moscow and Saint-Petersburg? Wouldn't it better to have this information only on corresponding city pages and have only list of cities having international airports?
What's the difference? This article needs to crap Russia, and not to describe transportation hubs and the like. 06:58, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
This site is doomed to desolation. Administration, wanting to cash in on over your project, driving with both rigid and dull administrative policy, signed his conviction. Their actions in the article about Russia, we can say the last straw: all sensible people out of here. Achieves this decanter! 07:17, 23 September 2012 (EDT)
Dear page supervisors, please consider adding following information:
Note that train tickets bears the name of passenger and the number of your ID. This ID should be presented together with the ticket.
For many inland train routes the ticketless travels is possible. After buying ticket online, go through the electronic registration of your ticket. Then during the boarding your are only required to present an ID that you used to buy ticket. It is anyway recommended to have a printout of your reservation.
I also suggest to put in bold the phrase "Note that all long-distance trains in Russia run on Moscow time (which may be up to 9 hours off local time in the Far East).", because this is a big potential problem for foreign tourists.