Talk:Russkaya Pravda

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Russkaya Pravda is within the scope of the Russian History WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Russian History. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

The name "Russkaya Pravda" is a simple russification, even a simple google search (russkaya, ruska) shows it's barley used.

Contents 1 Ruthenian 2 Russkaya Pravda. 3 Clash of nationalisms 4 The S's on the Talk Page 5 References 6 Not easy or obvious 7 Modifications 8 Grivna? 9 Requested move 9.1 Survey 9.2 Discussion

[edit] Ruthenian

Do the surviving copies actully use the word "Russky" ("Russian") or "Rusky" Rusian/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 liekly would use the second term. Genyo 14:53, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Russkaya Pravda.

"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)

Actually, it demonstrates tha 2 "s"-es are more popular than one. Personally, I'd rather be right. Genyo 19:35, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

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)

Vladimir (recently become Volodymyr), stop slandering Wikipedia! Genyo 02:18, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Once again, those who want to "restore" "Ruska Pravda" must at least attempt to demonstrate that this was the original spelling. mikka (t) 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Fix the title to Ruska Pravda, it is an enormous error to call it Russian, since it simply wasn't Russian. People reading this would assume it has to do with Russia, not with Rus(Ukraine). It's not a matter of spelling, but of it belonging to one or another nation, in this case to Ukraine, not to Russia. Thanks!

[edit] Clash of nationalisms

(moved from Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements by me. mikka (t) 16:10, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

• Disclaimer: what's below is just my POV. I tried my best to be objective but others may disagree:
• Crossposted here and at RU-portal: user:AndriyK started a nightmarish pushing of Ukrainian nationalism into several well-settled (as well as not yet settled) articles. The articles he messed up so far (list not exhaustive) are: Ukrainian language (I am still trying to include some of his weird ideas without totally deleting them, see history and talk), Ukrainization (damaged beyond repair and a wholesale reversion needed, can't get to that yet), Lviv (I tried to repair some but may soon find it again reverted), the huge mess with Russkaya Pravda as an attempt to move it by cut'n'paste to Ruska Pravda, later making it a fork, which I repaired best I could), and the whole bunch of Slavic tribes moved (also by cut'n'paste without WP:RM) from the names they are known in English to the names they are called in Ukrainian. Maybe I forgot to mention something. He does wholesale revertions, often ignores talk, is pretty rude and doesn't care about 3RR. Please help watching his contributions. I myself often tried to add UA-views to many articles but pushing some obviously nationalist ideas in WP articles woild make a disservice to the coverage of Ukraine. --Irpen 23:06, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Irpen obviously lies! Everybody can check it. I used the talk pages plenty of times trying to convince Irpen folow the Wikipedia policies, specially to cite creadible sources. But it did not help. S/he continues put back her/his own fantasies without any reference. Everybody can check this (see Talk:Ukrainian language).

Everybody can also check that what I propose is not "weird ideas" but rather a scientific point of view based on the books of respectable scientists (one of the is a professor of the Coulmbia University (USA), the other one is a mamber of Nationa Academy of Sciensies of Ukraine).

Everybody can check that I do my best to cite reliable sources, while Irpen never even tried to do it.

I cited an English-language book, writen by a Canadian professor where English name Ruska Pravda is used in the title. "Russian Mafia" reverted me, but did not provide any evidance that "Russkaya Pravda" is a "common English name". Why Canadian professors do not use "common English name"? The do not know "common English"?

Instead of providing relyable sources and switch to a constructive work, Irpen preffers to use "brutal force" of "Russian Mafia". S/he convinced, for instance Alex Bakharev to go into the edit war about Ukraine related topics (see User talk:Irpen#Ukraine related topics).

"Russian Mafia" tries to use Wikipedia as a "propaganda machine". I've just tried to stop it and got blamed for "Ukrainian nationalism".--AndriyK 13:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ondryusha, your attacks are irrelevant to the urgent announcements section. There is another board reserved for discussions. You should be aware that the nationalistic stuff you allow yourself in the national wikipedias is unacceptable in the international English wiki, where editors and readers of all nations come together. You should learn to respect points of view other than your own. And please remember when using "Russian Mafia" as a derogatory term intended to offend, that the real-life "Russian Mafia" consists primarily of Ukrainians, Georgians, Azeri, Chechens, but there are very few ethnic Russians there. --Ghirlandajo 14:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Ghirlandajechka, read carefully. The attack was started by your friend Irpen. You should be aware that the Russian chauvinistic stuff is unacceptable in the international English wiki, where users of all nations come together. You should learn to respect points of view supported by creadible sources, instead of your own fantasies.--AndriyK 14:33, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Once again, those who want to "restore" "Ruska Pravda" must at least attempt to demonstrate that this was the original spelling, otherwise there is no reason to change centuries established English usage. So please stop it right now, or I will start pushing Belarussian language name "Ruskaia Pravda". Belarus has the same rights of inheritance :-). mikka (t) 15:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... This is interesting. I thought that Ruskaya Pravda was not applied in the Belarusian territories (except Brest and Turov), because the Polotsk dynasty didn't recognize the authority of Yaroslav and his descendants in the legal matters. But I may be wrong. --Ghirlandajo 22:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

"Правда Русьская" and "Правда роськая" was in old texts, I have an impression. So the question which is right: "Russkaya" or "Ruska" could be nonsensial. I suggest you guys in disputable cases seek for originals. mikka (t) 16:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

• Andriy, the point they're all trying to bring out to you is that once you make a proposal for name change, you gotta patiently WAIT until every interested party states their POV. Sometimes, it takes WEEKS to listen to what people have to say. You can't just go postal and rewrite or rename stuff that you deem "inappropriate". Even though Wikipedia policies encourage you to be bold, do not abuse this rule. Patience is a virtue, after all. So once again, wait until we hear from ALL the parties involved, and then we ALL decide what to do about a certain article. Thank you. KNewman 16:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

You behave like a teenager gang or even like a lynching mob. You do not here any arguments, you do not check sources but just use your "brutal fource". OK, I think, what I can do about it.--AndriyK 07:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Just a minute here! What I did is just this: checked the very original sources. Where are yours? mikka (t) 07:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that "the very original soure" was in English ;). I cited a book of a Canadian researcher who uses "Ruska Pravda" in the title. But this reference was blanked by the reversions made by the Russian gang.--AndriyK 08:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Your irony is misplaced. I provided names in cyrillic from original texts transcribed into modern cyrillic. Of course, the "russian gang" could have applied their hairy russian bear paws to the transcription; I did not see the photocopies of the manuscripts myself. So I shall restate my question: where did this canadian take the name from? And by chance is he of Ukrainian origin? mikka (t) 18:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

OK. It looks like the title of your canadian author is simply the translator's ill will when translating from the ukrainian title:

Леонід БІЛЕЦЬКИЙ

РУСЬКА ПРАВДА Й ІСТОРІЯ ЇЇ ТЕКСТУ

За редакцією Юрія Книша

Because the bibliographical description of the book contains the following:

I. Knysh, George D. II. Russkaia Pravda (l1th cent.). III. Ukrains’ka vil’na akademiia nauk. IV. Title. V. Title: The Ruska Pravda and its textual history

This means that "Ukrains’ka vil’na akademiia" is very much aware of the correct title of the manuscript. Case closed. mikka (t) 18:44, 16 October 2005 (UTC) The last stroke: it turns out the the book of Леонід БІЛЕЦЬКИЙ is available online in ukrainian language, and it contains photocopies that clearly say "правда роусьскаiа". AndriyK's drive against "russian gang" far exceeds his diligence, and hence his contributions must be watched carefully. mikka (t) 19:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

In fact, there are several versions of this document and they use different names

• ПРАВДА РОСЬКАЯ
• Правда Рускаа
• Правда роускаѧ (The last character is "yus malyi")
• Правда Руськаӕ (The last character is "ya", but looks different from "я")

The name "Русская правда" is not the original name, this is translation into the modern Russian. There is no traditional English name for this document. "Russkaya Pravda" is not a traditional name. This is just a transliteration from modern Russian. Why transliteration from Russian should be used for the document that was created on the therritory of Ukraine? Just because "Russian gang" has enough people to revert articles? Why should not we trust the Canadian translator? Just because he has Ukrainian name? --AndriyK 19:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

The document was not created on the territory of Ukraine. There was no such thing as Ukraine when it was created. Should the Declaration of Independence not apply to the US because it was created on British territory? And there's no 'Russian gang' here. There are simply people who look at facts and arrive at conclusions, rather than the other way around. 24.164.154.130 11:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The S's on the Talk Page

Let me add a voice of reason to this discussion. The spelling of the word 'Ruska' in the title is of absolutely no consequence. It's merely a part of a misguided, poorly researched schtick. Spelling of the word "Russian" with one S was commonplace in medieval Russian, and can be found in such sources as Ivan the Terrible's correspondence. The spelling with two s's only became more common in the 17th century, and was made standard by Lomonosov's grammar in 1755.

'Ruska' with one S in a pre-17th century source can only be interpreted and translated as 'Russian'. There's absolutely no basis for interpreting it as anything but; as a matter of fact I'm only aware of its separate interpretation when linked to modern Ukrainian attempts to separate their history from Russia.24.164.154.130

Please clarify the addition. It seems that the first paragraph states that Ukrainian and non-Russian historians use one s because it is a historical spelling. Then the second paragraph states that the view is challenged by linguists, but they also say that it was commonly spelled with one s before the seventeenth century. I'm confused. —Michael Z. 2005-12-4 09:26 Z

Ah, you're right. I misred the part of the article saying "There is a disagreement about the correct English spelling for the term" as reading "the correct English translation". The whole agreement really stems from that; more precisely, from its political ramifications. Ukrainian scientists, and some Ukrainian-born foreign nationals, state that the term should not be translated or understood as "Russian" in their attempts to separate the Ukrainian history from the Russian. These scholars claim that the term "Ruskaia" in the document's title means something entirely different. Their two most common theories are that "Rus'" meant only the knyaz's foreign druzhina, and thus these are the laws that apply only to the Viking rulers and not their Rus... err, Ukrainian subjects. The second explanation is that a Ruski is a separate nation from a Russki, and Ruskaia Pravda is intended for these one-s Rusians, i.e. the separate independent absolutely completely different nation of Ukrainians. Both those 'theories' are not supported by fact; they are not actually scientific theories. They clearly attempt to pluck some facts to support a predetermined conclusion based on a political viewpoint, rather than arrive to a conclusion based on a review of facts.24.164.154.130 11:14, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

Please do not remove yet the tag Verify. The editor that included the references is invited to use them in order to improve the quality of the article. --Vasile 23:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"Another form of trolling can occur in the form of continual questions with obvious or easy to find answers."

Source: Wikipedia:What is a troll#Pestering. --Irpen 05:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not easy or obvious

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)

[edit] Modifications

• 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)

[edit] Grivna?

What is a grivna and its equivalence nowadays? If I look it up all I get is the Ukranian grivna, spellt hryvnia, from 1996. Were they as the article states silver/gold ingots? Bug 20:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

See Hryvnia#Name. —Michael Z. 2006-11-24 21:16 Z