Talk:Russkaya Pravda

message: Do the surviving copies actually use the word "Russky" ("Russian") or "Rusky" Russian/Ruthenian.
Because if they were composed in the Slavic heartland of Rus' propria/Velyka Ukrayina, they more likely would use the later term. If they were composed or redacted  to the north in Russia, they more likely would use the second term.
Genyo 14:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "Russkaya Pravda" outperforms "Ruskaya Pravda" 100 times in Google. I think it demonstrates perfectly that Ruskaya Pravda is an invented term for English. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 15:52, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Genyo, it's time for you to understand, that Wikipedia's aim (as encyclopedia) to reflect the knowledge, for people to find high-quality information in familiar words, and not to find the great truth, not to conduct an original research, not to invent words or events. A word "Rusian" doesn't exist in English, I have never met it in any non-Ukrainian texts. However, I don't have any hope that you can accept any reasons. Dr Bug  (Volodymyr V. Medeiko) 20:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Russkaya Pravda. 

message: According to Irpen, User:Mzajac or User:Ghirlandajo my questions have obvious or easy to find answers. 
*1) The image of "Short edition" don't tell the date of the document. Thus is an undated copy. Please do not revert that aspect if you are not able to precise the date of the copy. 
*2) Who are/were the linguists contending the Ukrainian state-backed version?
*3) The same for the unnamed "researchers" that called etc.
*4) The article is telling about linguistics controversy and not about the application of that law except for some recent paitings. I can't find any connection of that law with modern Russian or Ukrainain laws. For example, there is a serious amount of jurisprudence for the ten commendments. For Russakaya Pravda, the article shows few recent paintings as some sort of visual jurisprudence. Actually, this is the main problem: the article is pretending that this is a piece of legal history, but it was presenting a literary work. 
*5) The article about August Ludwig von Schlözer didn't mention anything about Russkaya Pravda.
And question about the method:
*6) Is this article a typical example of Soviet juridical research? 
Please use references.
--Vasile 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not easy or obvious 

message: *The entire chapter "Nomenclature" was about the senseless dispute of the number of "s" in the name of the law.
*The exerpts moved to wikisource, hoping that the translation is accurate.
*There is no sign that Leonid Biletsky book has been used in the article. 
*The article is presenting Russkaya Pravda as a compilation not a codification. 
*There are few things that should be verified. 
--Vasile 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modifications

message: :Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Oppose per WP:UE. Google hits for English references excluuding wikipedia: Russkaya Pravda - 432 hits including Brittanica, etc. ; Ruska Pravda gives 93 hits almost exclusively Ukrainian sites  Alex Bakharev 09:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Stupid that mistake is going to be copied so many times. That why you guys from wikipedia sometimes do wrong steps based on Google search instead of knowlage. What is not the benefit of Wiki project.--Oleh Kernytskyi (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Rus'ka pravda is the original name

message: Yaroslaw the Wise was not the only one who wrote a Russkaya Pravda. Much later the Decembrist Pavel Ivanovich Pestel (1793 -1826) also wrote one. So therefore the title could be changed in such a way that it reflects the original writer. Something like Russkaya Pravda (Yaroslaw). Making it necessary by the way that someone would write an article named Russkaya Pravda (Pestel).
My knowledge about editing a Wikipedia article is minimal, so please could someone else adapt the title of the present article? Edmond V.O. Katusz (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 05:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The names do overlap, but I would see this more as as needing a more intuitive WP:DAB  per WP:TITLE: i.e., :Russkaya Pravda (medieval) / :Russkaya Pravda (Rus') and :Russkaya Pravda (Decembrist). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:17, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, agreed with both of the above suggestions. Renaming the article is overkill for the iconic WP:COMMONNAME where a second article can be disambiguated. A WP:HAT would serve as ample info for readers looking for Pestel's "Russkaya Pradva". --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Cheers, . If you need anyone to assist with your draft/copyedit, please feel free to drop me a line on my talk page. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: Change Name of Article 

message: Hello! Iryna, you have been reverted old version of Russkaya Pravda. I don't think it was right. I returned my version of this article.
For this text:
"It was written at the beginning of the 12th century and remaked during many centuries. The basis of the Russkaya Pravda, Pravda of Yaroslav was written at the beginning of the 11th century. Russkaya Pravda was a main source of Old Russian Law."
I have added the references to scholar works:
1. Yushkov, Serafim. Course of the History of State and Law of the USSR. - Moscow: Yurizdat (Juridical Publisher), 1949. - Vol. 1: Social and Political System and Law of Kievan State. - 542 p. (.
2. Zimin, Aleksandr. Pravda Russkaya. - Moscow: Drevlekhranilische ("Archive"), 1999. – 421 p. ().
If you don't believe you can make sure:
For this image:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Russkaya_pravda_razvorot.jpg
you have written: "Image is taken from two other sources noting that it is the 'short' edition"
In this source  appreciable error is. Read this site and you will see that this is a bad source as a whole.
Do you really believe any website on the Internet? I thought that Wikipedia and its proactive editors primarily prefer scientific sources...
In this source  I don't see any indication of short edition for this image.
I have added the references to scientific edition from which this image have been scanned:
Pravda Russkaya / ed. by Boris Grekov. - Moscow; Leningrad: publisher of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. - Vol. 3: Facsimile of the texts. - 1963. ().
All the same for this image:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_instance_Sinodal%60niy_of_Pravda_Ruskaya_page_1_1.jpg?uselang=ru
There is not digital version of this scientific edition. As I know it isn't a problem for Wikipedia.
But If you don't believe you can see:
"правда роськая. убьеть муж мужа..." in the short version. See: . On this page click "Оригинал".
"суд ярославль володимѣричь. правда русьская.  аже убиеть мужь мужа..." in the vast version. See: . On this page click "Оригинал".
This is also a scientific edition (of Institute of Russian Literature).
And now we look at this picture () and at this picture () and and what can we see? ("оу" is "у". See: Uk (Cyrillic))
"соудъ ярославль володимирица. правда роусьская. ажь оубьеть моуж моужа..." 
Also you have deleted:
* Infobox for this article, which can help for readers, 
* references (section "Some editions") to Daniel H. Kaiser, qualified specialist in the field of Old Russian law, who translated Short and Vast versions of Russkaya Pravda into English, what undoubtedly will be of interest to English-speaking readers who is interested all this subject.
* some Wikipedia links (section "See also") to other articles on this subject (Old Russian law), which also can help for readers.
I don't think it was right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikolay Omonov (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Having done my own comparisons, these (as you've uploaded a photocopy which you've used in the infobox) are the first page of the "extensive" edition. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  On one reversion 

message: this part "if no one takes revenge, then 80 grivnas for the murdered, if he is a knyaz’s man or knyaz’s official;" stands for cases when 80 grivnas payment is requested, the next section will list those that stand for 40 grivnas. (i had to change the order of a: , and an ; in the translation to convey the correct meaning.)80.98.79.37 (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  error corrected 

message: , please stop approaching the content of this article with a battleground, edit warring attitude by simply reverting other editors under the edit summary or  This is not a valid content criticism, but a disregard for WP:NPOV, and merely reflects that you don't like it. If you wish to discuss this further, use this talk page, otherwise, please desist from your disruptive editing or I will have to report you to the administrators' Edit Warring Board. I'm sure you are a reasonable person, and will be happy to cooperate once you look into Wikipedia's policies and guidlines. Thank you. Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit warring of this article 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus.  No consensus on whether the evidence for WP:COMMONNAME is valid. (closed by non-admin page mover) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Russkaya Pravda →  –  
Per wp:common name. The proposed spelling is the most commonly used in wp:Reliable sources during the last five decades. You can see the difference in a G Books Ngram chart, but the advantage and trend is clearer in an Ngram expression plotting the two top spellings proportionally. (I presume this spelling is most common because academic and popular-academic writing uses the modified Library of Congress romanization for foreign names.) In detail:
* Google Advanced Book Search according to WP:SET guideline, restricted to English-language books (accurate results only appear at the top of the very last page of results, when you hide the Tools; G will show you slightly different numbers). In these all-time usage estimates, the most common spellings represent 54% and 42% of n ~= 9,576. 
*# "Russkaia Pravda" -Wikipedia 5,210 
*# "Russkaya Pravda" -Wikipedia 3,980
*# "Ruska Pravda" -Wikipedia 228
*# "Ruskaia Pravda" -Wikipedia 96
*# "Ruskaya Pravda" -Wikipedia 62
* Google Scholar search. The current title has the advantage in academic citations, for 50% and 30%, but the total numbers are much lower with n ~= 2,198.
*# "Russkaia Pravda" -Wikipedia 661
*# "Russkaya Pravda" -Wikipedia 1,100
*# "Ruska Pravda" -Wikipedia 375
*# "Ruskaia Pravda" -Wikipedia 26
*# "Ruskaya Pravda" -Wikipedia 36
If you make the dubious calculation of totalling the Books and Scholar numbers, the tally is Russkaia Pravda 50%, Russkaya Pravda 43%, Ruska Pravda 5%, Ruskaia Pravda 1%, Ruskaya Pravda 1%. If you restrict the G Books results to the 21st century, the same searches yield 3,030:1,990:261:12:15, giving them 57% and 37%, respectively, and indicating that usage of this article’s current title is dropping, while Russkaia Pravda is both most common and increasing.  —Michael Z. 22:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe the point is that google scholar and google books disagree with each other. As for these numbers, they are produced by adding the google books and google scholars scores together. I'm afraid this is statistically invalid. We have no reason to think that there is one rule for books and another for academic articles, yet the results are clearly at odds with each other. Therefore, as constructs designed to measure usage, Gbooks results and Gscholar results are clearly not the same. Adding them together is therefore like adding apples and oranges. I note you earlier made a claim that usage is moving towards Russakaia Pravda. However, the google scholar results suggest the movement is towards Russkaya Pravda, (and on that measure, more strikingly: 2:1 from 2000, 3:1 from 2017). Again, the two measures disagree. (For others: I have already explained my preference for scholar results as a measure of changes in usage over time). OsFish (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well there isn’t one rule for either of these, or for anything. These are both collections of sources, that Google has subdivided according to their interpretation of “books” vs “articles” (and search results overlap them at least a little bit). They represent different segments of the corpus, and we can characterize the latter as more academic or specialized. G Books comprises 81% of the total, with a broader representation, and its eight-decade trend is clear in Google’s Ngram chart (same link from my proposal).  —Michael Z. 16:05, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Except that google books date search does not discriminate between reissues of old texts and genuinely new publications, which google scholar clearly does better for obvious reasons. Articles don't get reissued. Can you explain why there would be a different trend in the two populations? It's not a topic of everyday conversation, so we're looking at specialists. I cannot think of a reason where specialists say "hold on, this is a book. I'll write it differently to how I write it in my research articles". It seems much more plausible that there's something going wrong with one of the sampling methods. To repeat an important statistical truth: a larger sample does not remove problems in sampling methods. OsFish (talk) 02:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Articles do get republished. A book or article being republished, whether a new edition or a reprint, is another instance of usage of its text; it’s part of the current corpus and there’s nothing wrong with documenting what is republished. It’s hardly likely to make any significant difference, anyway.  WP:SET tells us that Google Scholar is “best for scientific or academic topics.” —that’s not even WP:OR, just baseless speculation. —Michael Z. 03:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  This will be my last reply on this unless new arguments are made, but given that these decisions should be done according to policy: WP:OR applies to article content. WP:COMMONNAME requires editors to do research (such as the books and scholar searches we have done) that has not been published somewhere else. It is entirely in order in such discussions to discuss why two different methods of sampling produce such strikingly different results when there is no prima facie reason to believe they should. OsFish (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 13 March 2021 

message: , you did not discuss your move before making it. As anyone can see by looking at this talk page, the name HAS been discussed and consensus was for Russkaya Pravda. What sources even call it “Rus’ Justice” in English? The page should be moved back.—Ermenrich (talk) 11:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move against consensus and common name 

message: For three days so the requested move can be started. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move protected