Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2022 November 23

= November 23 =

Russians in Crimea
With the liberation of Kherson by Ukrainian forces, liberating Crimea becomes a very real possibility that could happen relatively soon in the future.

During the past 8 years of military occupation, have the ethnic Russian people in Crimea ever displayed any significant resistance effort or protests against Russian aggression?

What are the opinions of the general public in Ukraine on the ethnic Russian people in Crimea? StellarHalo (talk) 06:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind that Sebastopol before 2014 was a Russian naval base leased from Ukraine. I expect that even Russian civilians there support Russia.
 * During the occupation, there was some protest from the Crimean Tatars minority (15%). Republic of Crimea mentions accusations of jihadism but is not very up-to-date.
 * --Error (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * See Transfer of Crimea in the Soviet Union which "in 1954 was an administrative action of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union that transferred the government of the Crimean Peninsula from the Russian SFSR to the Ukrainian SSR". Crimean people have no historic, cultural or linguistic connection with the Ukraine, other than that created during the Soviet era. This is the root of the problem, or more immediately, Putin's method of solving it. Alansplodge (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, as the second biggest nationality in the Soviet Union, you could find Ukrainians anywhere in the Soviet Union, so some ethnic Ukrainians, just as some ethnic Poles, or Lithuanians or Koreans or whatever, would reside in Crimea before 1989. They would be Russified to some extent. --Error (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also see Deportation of the Crimean Tatars, one of the more egregious examples of a long process of forced Russification in Crimea. Crimean people have no historic, cultural, or linguistic connection with Russia, other than that created by the Russian empire starting in 1783. Not directly relevant to the current situation/question, but it becomes important in understanding Ukrainian attitudes towards Crimea and their reasons for claiming it despite the current prevalence of ethnic Russians. Zoozaz1 (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Whilst there were Ukrainian nationalist ambitions to Crimea in pre-Soviet period, it's important to remember that there were plenty of overlapping territorial ambitions of various nationalist projects. The map of Ukrainian territorial claims presented to the Paris Peace Conference included Crimea but also Kuban and down to Abkhazia. If we look at the 1917 election results in Taurida Governorate (which included Crimea plus areas on the mainland) the Ukrainian list got about 10% (which is likely indicative of relative size of Ukrainian population in the area at the time, plus a small percent of Ukrainians that would have voted for Russian parties). If we go by the election result, we look at 11.93% Tatars, 10.71% Ukrainians, 4.82% Germans, 2.73% Jewish, leaving the remaining 69.81% to All-Russian parties (now these parties had members and supporters from various communities, but the overall trend across Russia in the 1917 election was that national minorities tended to vote for their own lists when possible). I presume Ukrainians would have lived more on the mainland of Taurida and Muslims on the peninsula, but that's just a guess on my behalf. --Soman (talk) 15:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

These "just asking questions" questions are tedious and probably best ignored, but here in this thread we have arguments being made that mirror those of a brutal regime justifying their actions. Accepting a framing based on the ethnic Russian people in Crimea accepts the basis of the Kremlin's argument: their pretext for starting this war and now for keeping what they can. Measuring the will of the residents of Crimea by looking at only ethnic Russians, ignores other ethnicities, other forms of identity beyond ethnic, and Russia's intervention and subsequent actions.

Understanding the history of a region is important but history can be easily manipulated in ways to support irredentism and this view of history and "rights" that has been put forward. The idea that Khrushchev's "gift" was ever his to "give" and the root of the problem is one such manipulation. There are complex and difficult questions concerning Crimea, but the fantasies and repugnant views of the Kremlin should not be made the basis for examining those questions. fiveby(zero) 16:45, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The question is IMO legitimate, and I do not see why one should think it reflects the Kremlin's public point-of-view. However, it should indeed be clear that the issue is complex. The ethnic Russians in Crimea have a variety of backgrounds, which may be reflected in their opinions. And the Russians in Russia are also not of one mind regarding the occupations, especially if they have access to other information than through official media channels. But, as the situation is now, expressing one's opinions is not without risks, one way or another. There are no reliable sources on which we could base an informed reply. --Lambiam 20:52, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Enough evidence to doubt a genuine request for information. fiveby(zero) 21:49, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what is being insinuated here. Is the OP's edit to Immanuel Kant the factor here? Or his/her interest in South Asian monarchs? The OP's question is by no means irrelevant nor in violation of RD norms. And to respond to it, I don't think we have records of significant opposition in Crimea post 2014 to integration with the Russian Federation. I presume that on a more personal level, the change of state-hood would have presented both dilemmas and opportunities. For individuals with significant family links to other parts of Russia it might have been beneficial, for those having more ties to Ukraine it would been much more problematic. But neither would have been as traumatic as the loss of Soviet citizenship back in 1991-1992, whereby families across the USSR faced living in separate countries from one day to another. People in Crimea certainly resisted the break-up of the USSR, in much more noticeable ways than any of the processes in the last decade. --Soman (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That, as explained in the first link, sentences such as Is the OP's edit to Immanuel Kant the factor here? Or his/her interest in South Asian monarchs? are in interrogative form, yet are not "questions" because you already know the answer. fiveby(zero) 17:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

'Recast' church bells
A local church has bells that were made in 1776 and "recast" in 1958. What does that mean? Are they still the 1776 bells, or were they melted down and new one made from the same metal? Our article, Church bell seems silent on the matter. Is there a source we can use to clarify? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:39, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's the latter. Recasting is done when a bell is broken or otherwise damaged, and reuses the existing metal in a new mould.  This short article from an American bell foundry is quite informative.  "Bells that are cracked, and those that are of such poor shape that tonal improvement through tuning is impossible, can be recast. Recasting means that the usable portion of the metal of the old bell will be used in making a new bell of like size. In many cases, historic inscriptions can be copied on the recast bell."  The Church of England has a code of practice for bell repair and conservation: it's available as a PDF (search Conservation and repair of bells and bellframes).  Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  23:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, a bit of a Trigger's broom conundrum. Alansplodge (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a similar tale about George Washington and his hatchet. It does raise the question of how much can be replaced in a building or other entity and still argue that it's the same building? In the case of the Liberty Bell (which has been recast more than once), presumably they at least used much of the same metal as in the original bell, but once it's melted and recast it's not the same actual bell. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:27, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Liberty Bell has been recast... AnonMoos (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Back issues of The Ringing World might have useful articles, if you know any bellringers/towers with archives. There's an index which is helpfully online https://www.ringingworld.co.uk/indexes/RW-index 1911-2004.pdf. There were articles on recasting in 1999, page 562 and 2004 p5, and on Perry Barr in 1969 p218 and in 1972 pp331, 435. AlmostReadytoFly (talk) 14:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)