Talk:Southern Russia

Merge Adygea and Krasnodar Krai?

How does the (newly created article) Adygea fit into the established region structure of Southern Russia please? I see that the Krasnodar Krai region definition has just been changed to be Krasnodar Krai and Adygea. That does not sit well with the way we usually regionalise at WT (i.e. one region cannot really be two articles). Should Adygea be a part of Krasnodar Krai and Adygea or a separate region altogether? --(WT-en) Burmesedays 11:05, 24 June 2011 (EDT)

Adygea officially is a separate region of Russia, among the smallest ones and the only fully enclaved. Several years ago there were rumors about plans to merge Krasnodar Krai and Adygea, but as soon as this issue was a sensitive one, those plans were cancelled. Continuing the topic of Southern Russia, at the moment there are two official Russian federal districts on this territory: Southern District (includes Rostov Oblast, Krasnodar Krai, Adygea, Kalmykia and (!) Volgograd Oblast + Astrakhan Oblast) and North Caucasus district (includes national autonomies that are currently mentioned as North Caucasus at Wikivoyage + Stavropol Krai). So, ideally, Russian regional structure need to comply with federal districts structure (there are quite many mismatches in other regions as well). But if not, Adygea should anyway be shown as a separate region. (WT-en) Andrey Selskiy 12:03, 5 July 2011 (EDT)

A separate article for Adygea isn't really something that we need for our purposes—at least until we have more content for this region. But people will still probably expect to see one, and will re-create it, so I see no harm in keeping it. --(WT-en) Peter ^Talk 19:08, 6 July 2011 (EDT)

12 years later, Adygea still has but two blue links and very little content. Is there any objection to merging and redirecting it to a Krasnodar Krai and Adygea article that Krasnodar Krai would be moved to? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:57, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Geographically and touristically, this makes total sense. No objection. Ibaman (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The problem is that Adygea has its own ethnicity, which probably is the reason for its separate existence. I think this can be honoured by a sentence in the lead and a separate paragraph or two in Understand, Talk and perhaps Respect. I would like to have w:Adygea linked in some way, I don't know our practice in cases like this, where two Wikipedia entities are covered in the same Wikivoyage article. –LPfi (talk) 06:27, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about the merge. They're politically two separate subnational jurisdictions and it can make Wikivoyage look like it doesn't know what it's talking about (even though this defies Wikivoyage norms), but I wouldn't object to one on the basis of lack of content. SHB2000 (talk | contribs | meta) 07:59, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

The article would make it clear that these are two separate jurisdictions. Ikan Kekek (talk) 08:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Done, but there's some weird error in Krasnodar Krai and Adygea#Cities. Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Bordering areas?

Current text has "bordering... Kazakhstan and the Caspian Sea to the east" but the map shows Astrakhan Oblast on the eastern border and Kazakhstan beyond it, with no border between this region & Kazakhstan. Pashley (talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

9 years later, why don't you just make the edit? Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Done. –LPfi (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

"Violates international law"

It seems to me, this is exactly the type of controversy we're trying to avoid on this site:

"Although this annexation violates international and Ukrainian law, visa and border control issues require the region be treated as part of Russia from the traveller's point of view."

I am deleting the opening clause in favor of a "just the facts, Ma'am" approach, and I hope it's soon enough to avoid arguments arising from this deliberately or recklessly provocative language. This site is not the proper forum for documenting applicable laws, in case of an argument, and we recognize de facto conditions, anyway. Ikan Kekek (talk) 11:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Right. Similar issues have come up before for other areas & there is policy discussion at Wikivoyage_talk:Regions_map_Expedition#Handling_of_disputed.2Fclaimed_territories. Pashley (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The term 'international law' seems to be something that people with a political agenda would use, and as such should be avoided on WV. Andrewssi2 (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

What alternative would you propose when discussing actual international laws? Powers ^(talk) 00:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would propose not to discuss them at all on this site. This is neither Wikilaw, WikiForeignAffairs, nor Wikipedia. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, but agree with Ikan) Well.. none actually. 'International law' is an abstract concept (as opposed, just as an example, to United States Federal Law). It belongs in the domain of diplomacy and international relations. I can see no purpose to discuss it at all on Wikivoyage, a site for travelers.

If you want to discuss the reach of national laws into different countries, for example the implication of recognizing the Crimea as part of Russia and thereby breaking Ukrainian law, then that might be relevant. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering we delve deeply into the topics of visas and passports, I think discussing international law is rather unavoidable in some cases. Powers ^(talk) 19:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think so, Powers. There's a distinction between the laws of different countries, which for example may refuse someone entry if they have entry stamps from Israel or some other entity they don't recognize, and international laws that lawyers at the World Court at The Hague refer to in cases against alleged war criminals. Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Passports and Visas come under bilateral treaties between sovereign states. Although the signing of such treaties would be governed (very loosely) under the framework of 'Public international law' it is not actually relevant from point of view of a traveler.

The Wikipedia article w:International_law describes the different aspects of International Law. Andrewssi2 (talk) 00:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with 'international law' is that it isn't really international and penalties for disobeying are still decided by national governments. If larger governing bodies are relevant, I think it's better to say exactly what they are, such as the UN, that way the reader knows exactly what governing body we are referencing as opposed to the abstract concept of 'international law'. ChubbyWimbus (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Current text reads "As of March 2014, the Crimean peninsula is under the de facto control of Russia, which considers it an integral part of its territory. Most countries do not recognise the annexation and consider it to still be part of Ukraine, though under Russian occupation." and that is just fine, all we need here. There is no need to go into the politics or the legalities. I'd change "Most" to "Many", but that is a minor quibble.

Other pages do need a bit more, & they have it. Crimea has a somewhat more detailed explanation and Ukraine#Visiting_Crimea explains some visa complications. I think everything that is important for travel is covered. Pashley (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)