Talk:Russkaya Pravda

Untitled
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)

The name "Russkaya Pravda" is a simple russification, even a simple google search (russkaya, ruska) shows it's barely used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.43.164 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Along similar lines I am sitting in front of a history text book that spelling/ saying that it is really called the Pravda Russkaia. --Anvilx (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC) --Anvilx (talk) ) The European historiography has copied the Russian sources. In the Russian sources all objects of Kievan Rus' this Russian. This historical nonsense and just historical fiction. At 9-10 a century of Russia (as the name of the territory) wasn't in general https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rus%27_people You watch history of Russia. use "the Russian truth" it simply isn't present professionalism and demonstration that authors of article don't understand at all about what write. Or deliberately garble data by deception and the incorrect translation to expose Russia as the country with ancient statehood. And in Ukraine to steal historical heritage.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohdan Bondar (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.133.119 (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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).
 * "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 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)
 * 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 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)

mikka (t)and other participants of a discussion Over time when will appear new sources - to renaming bkudy to come back to Ruska Pravda. Ruska Pravda is the general history of Belarus of Ukraine and Russia. These three countries were in Kievan Rus'. If Russians have published in English many historical books = that it doesn't mean that there the truth is written. Therefore please it isn't necessary to break to be engaged in discredit of alternative versions and to write threats to authors of alternative version you it violate the rule about a neutrality. Such behavior is forbidden. Just demand new sources on this subject. There is an ancient wisdom: in a dispute the truth is born.

Your offer on an occasion Belarusian is a transitional stage to understanding - that Russia not main in the history of Kievan Rus' and that it is necessary to listen to a position of others country of ex Kievan Rus' Bohdan Bondar (talk) 10:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.154.130 (talk) 06:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 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)

Not easy or obvious
According to Irpen, User:Mzajac or User:Ghirlandajo my questions have obvious or easy to find answers. And question about the method: Please use references. --Vasile 02:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * 6) Is this article a typical example of Soviet juridical research?

Modifications
--Vasile 03:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

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. —Michael Z. 2006-11-24 21:16 Z 


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no move Patstuarttalk 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Russkaya Pravda → Ruska Pravda — a russification (note, originall submitted to WP:RM by user:82.181.43.164 -Patstuarttalk 07:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC))

Survey

 * ''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)
 * Similarly Google scholar gives 22 hits for Russkaya Pravda and 3 hits for Ruska Pravda; Google books search gives 298 hits for Russkaya Pravda and 22 for Ruska Pravda. Alex Bakharev 09:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose in substance and in form. First, it is a nom made by an IP that has no other contribs, so it could be anything and maybe not even serious. Second, it is a POV-pushing attempt because, as the article says, "the modern Ukrainian viewpoint is intended to claim that it refers to something else, implying there were no Russians in the Kievan Rus", which is blatant nationalism and revisionism. Third, per WP:UE and google hits, the current spelling prevails. -- Grafikm  (AutoGRAF)  10:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose for umptieth time. Sick and tired of this bullsh*t. Do something useful for Wikipedia!!! KNewman 11:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rus'ka pravda is the original name
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)

This is a modern fantasy...
- The Norse way of thought - a blood feud(vendetta)! Read the saga: Olaf Tryugvansson. - Nothing to do with the laws of the Slavs of Rus, and also of contemporary East European states... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.180.239 (talk) 09:47, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a modern fantasy: "The laws of Rus' were more humane than the legislation of contemporary East European states. The absence of capital and corporal punishment rather reflects the Norse way of thought" - Ha!Ha!Ha!
 * Yeah :-) The article even says as much later. Pretty sure that handing you over to someone else to be killed qualifies as capital punishment! --192.75.48.150 (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 192.75.48.150, a 'Ha!Ha!Ha!' expression of doubt by an IP user in January of 2012 (whose only 178.94.180.239|contribution to Wikipedia was this comment), along with your smiley face expression of doubt in March of 2014 do not constitute a valid tagging of a cited and verified source, particularly as it is not the appropriate template in the first instance. The use of and edit summary of, " on the "absence of capital punishment" and all that." is hardly an encyclopaedic rationale for tagging something, full stop. All that constitutes is WP:OR. If you doubt this to be true, the onus is on you to find WP:V and WP:RS in order to demonstrate that verifiable, reliable sources (in this instance, experts/scholars in this field of research) have expressed their doubts in a neutral manner.
 * As a final point, "Pretty sure that handing you over to someone else to be killed qualifies as capital punishment!"... er, where exactly does this feature in the article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and as a PS, I most certainly agree that this entire article has serious problems and needs a thorough clean-up. Unfortunately, it's right down the bottom of my priorities list as I'm involved in far more problematic areas in Wikipedia. If you'd like to fix the article, please do so... but concentrate on the major issues of sources purportedly used. There's an extensive references list, but no translations of the sources and no page numbers. This always bothers me as it smacks of tokenism. It doesn't mean that the corresponding assertions are even mentioned, or whether the interpretations are WP:CHERRYPICKed... or even blatant misrepresentations. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Change Name of Article
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)
 * 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)

If I remember right the most prominent and most known use of the term/phrase is treated as the main article, the less known as a secondary. If you want to write about the Pestel's work you just create Russkaya Pravda (Pestel) and here add things like that: or

--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

And here we see an example from Russian Wikipedia: Русская Правда, Русская правда (значения), Русская правда (Пестель). --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

The proposed renaming is unnecessary per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:NATURAL. Pestel named his draft after the law code of the Old Rus, not vice versa. --Ghirla-трёп- 16:15, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

Dear All, Thank you very much for your comments. I see that I have to do a lot of reading: WP:DAB, WP:TITLE, WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, WP:NATURAL AND WP:HAT. So give me some time for a reaction. For the moment I would say we follow the example of the Russian entries about Ruskkaya Pravda.

BTW, I also have been thinking about Russkaya Pravda (Decembrist), but because of the essential differences between the Northern and the Southern Society, I opted for Russkaya Pravda (Pestel), after all Pestel is the author. Thanks again for your comments Edmond V.O. Katusz (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 04:43, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 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)

--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin and others Good Day About discussion above. To write articles about created by the Kiev prince Yaroslavl (that is from the Ukrainian city) and at the same time to discuss the Russian Wikipedia simply not professionally.

The Russian Wikipedia has no relation to Kiev - therefore Kiev the capital of other state. I ask all to ignore the Russian Wikipedia in this article and to remove what has been copied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bohdan Bondar (talk • contribs) 11:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

On one reversion
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. (Юшков С.В. Курс истории государства и права СССР. – М.: Юриздат, 1949. – Т. I: Общественно-политический строй и право Киевского государства. – 542 с..

2. Zimin, Aleksandr. Pravda Russkaya. - Moscow: Drevlekhranilische ("Archive"), 1999. – 421 p. (Зимин А.А. Правда Русская. – М.: Древлехранилище, 1999. – 421 с.).

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. (Правда Русская / Под общ. ред. акад. Б.Д. Грекова. - М.; Л.: Изд-во АН СССР. Т. III: Факсимильное воспроизведение текстов. - 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)
 * 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)

and Nikolay Omonov These books can't be the full proof of a .ona break a neutrality because all of them are published in Russia. According to the rule about a neutrality it is necessary to study the sources published in other countries. Especially as Russia party of the conflict.

error corrected
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).

Recent edit warring of this article
, please stop approaching the content of this article with a battleground, edit warring attitude by simply reverting other editors under the edit summary or "Stay away from Galitsian nationalist nonesence." 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)

Requested move 13 March 2021

 * 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 &#124; c, l) 09:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Russkaya Pravda → Russkaia 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: 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) —Relisting. BD2412  T 21:01, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * 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


 * Comment – I agree that the stats show a gradual tendency from the current transliteration to the proposed new one. But I'd like to hear more about the reasons before weighing in on a move. Dicklyon (talk) 07:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Conforming to WP:COMMONNAME is the immediate reason. That guideline helps reinforce the wp:Article titles criteria of recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency, which in turn support the wp:Five Pillars. The change of y to i is one tiny little thing, but it works together with all the other article titles and their use in the text, and so makes the encyclopedia better. —Michael Z. 17:03, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * (And what the stats show is the proposed title has been preferred since 1972, and the gradual tendency during our lifetimes has been from it, to still more of it. —Michael Z. 17:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC))
 * Support per detailed and strongly sourced nomination. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 07:36, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I'm convinced by the sufficient sourcing Mzajac has provided. Gnominite (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2021 (UTC) CU-confirmed sock, please see Sockpuppet investigations/CuriousGolden --Blablubbs&#124;talk 16:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per nom--RicardoNixon97 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Wikipedia usually adheres to WP:RUS, not to ALA-LC romanization for Russian. A google scholar search shows "Russkaya Pravda" has twice as many hits as "Russkaia Pravda" both post 1970 and post 2000, and three times as many from 2017. I would say Google scholar is more reliable about actual date of publication than Google books. Of course, WP:RUS specifically warns against using search engines to decide, but if we're going down that route, I'd trust Google Scholar more on recent usage.OsFish (talk) 09:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RUS, not a guideline, says nothing like that; you must mean WP:NCRUS, an abandoned proposal untouched since 2012. Wikipedia doesn’t adhere to any romanization system; it falls back on its own original-research romanization system when the most common name is not or cannot be determined (ensuring that some of its naming corresponds to no common name). G. Scholar is not better than G. Books, it is just a different, smaller, set of sources. In Google Books Russkaia Pravda results outnumber the alternative by more than the entire Scholar corpus of Russkaya Pravda. —Michael Z. 14:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry - you are correct, I meant NCRUS. I hadn't noticed it had become dormant. My reason for preferring google scholar is that google books counts reissues as being in the year the edition is published, not the year the work was originally published. So it is a less reliable guide to the year of actual publication and thus actual recent usage (feel free to search for 21st century hits for an obscure passage from a famous old work eg "Morris sat down beside me and looked as happy and jolly as he could" from Dracula. A larger sample does not remove such sampling problems. Google books and google scholar disgree. One of them is wrong. I think it's likely that Google books is.OsFish (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * They are counting different things, and I see no reason to insist either is “wrong.” One is part of the corpus consumed by a much broader readership, while the other is more specialist and more peer-reviewed. I suppose a new print edition of an old book is still part of the current corpus, but good to keep in mind that these are included. —Michael Z. 13:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * New editions of Chaucer or Spenser appearing shouldn't influence the measure of modern English usage. Books and articles about Russkaya Pravda are going to come from the same community, aren't they? In that sense, we are using Books and Scholar for the same purpose: to sample modern scholarly usage. The question is, which measurement is more valid for this purpose (ie which one more accurately measures usage over time)?OsFish (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We don’t know which is more accurate, however that is defined. But they sample two different datasets, so I total them up to get a broader estimate of the relative usage. Since G Books is the bigger sample, it naturally has more weight (and perhaps better reflects overall usage). —Michael Z. 05:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We'll have to agree to disagree on which measure reflects scholarly use better, but the (low-grade) statistician in me wants it noted that, despite common misconceptions, a larger sample size does not solve sampling bias. Both samples are big enough to have confidence in, other things being equal.OsFish (talk) 06:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. With the Google books and scholar split on the issue, I think we should use WP:RUS romanisation. Alaexis¿question? 18:03, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’d argue that 57% to 37% is not a split in the way you mean it.
 * But romanization is for using a foreign name in the absence of an English WP:COMMONNAME (WP:TRANSLITERATE when there are “too few reliable English-language sources to constitute an established usage”). We don’t hold up romanized Russian to arbitrate our choice between different English spellings (and if we did, then why WP:RUS and not WP:UKR, Belarusian, Church Slavonic or, especially, Old East Slavic?). In this case we have several established English spellings and names (including Rus’ Justice, Russian Truth, etcetera) appearing in many thousands of results, and we should use the most common. —Michael Z. 15:07, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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.” there's something going wrong with one of the sampling methods—that’s not even WP:OR, just baseless speculation. —Michael Z. 03:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose per WP:TITLECHANGES: If an article title has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should not be changed.. I fail to see how readers would be better served by a different romanization of the same Old Russian title, both of which seems to be in common circulation. I don't really buy appeals to WP:COMMONNAME when it's just a different stylization of the same original title. No such user (talk) 12:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Move against consensus and common name
, 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)

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

Requested move 27 September 2022

 * 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: Not moved. There is a clear consensus against moving to the proposed title. There was some suggestion that the above rejected suggestion to move to some other variant such as "Russkaia" or "Ruskaia", but not enough support for that to see a definite consensus in that direction, there's no consensus on that question. If someone wants to repropose that, given it was a no consensus last time and a year has passed, that would probably be reasonable now. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 11:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Russkaya Pravda → Rus' Justice – The rules of naming manuscripts clearly state: "If a manuscript has an English name, the manuscript's article should be under that name." This one DOES have an English name, and it should be referenced as such. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 13:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to provide WP:reliable sources for this assertion.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources to the rules of Wikipedia? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read the link, it explains a basic policy of the encyclopedia.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:48, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This link does not explain at all as to why this manuscript should not be referred by an English name, so please provide anything more substantional than sharing links which does not help your argument. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You have not shown that the manuscript has an English name. That's what WP:RS are for. You aren't going to convince anyone to move the page by making an unsupported claim.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First, the article itself references variations of English names.
 * Second, for example https://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/russian-justice
 * That is not an "unsupported claim." Please, try to stay within the topic of conversation and do not let your bias to get the better of you. DoctorWhutsup (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was an unsupported claim until you offered a source - please note that Encyclopedia.com is unlikely to be a reliable source, however, even though it might be useful for a naming discussion. Please remember to be WP:CIVIL and focus on content, not contributors, and avoid a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. Now can you show that a majority of English-language sources use this form? If you can't, then Russkaya Pravda, as the most common name in English sources, remains the best name for the article. To take another example, the Nibelungenlied is also known in English as "The Song of the Nibelungs," but most English-language sources do not use this name so we use Nibelungenlied. Russkaya Pravda is a similar case, in my estimation.--Ermenrich (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you not consider the fact that vast majority of English-speaking sources that refer to it as "Russkaya Pravda" are not actually a part of English scholarship and mostly written by Russians, who are, obviously, more inclined to use the name in their own language rather than English translation?
 * I find it quite irrational to keep this name since for a long time Russians were the only ones at all writing about this. Does their version of a name is more valuable than Ukrainian version, or, for example, Belorussian version? I think not. We should follow the rules but we also should consider common sense.
 * Very good example. See, "the Nibelungenlied" is actually a Middle High German name given by contemporaries, whereas Russkaya Pravda is a mere transliteration of Russian pronunciation. I see why you may be against using English name, which may sound relatively obscure, but dont you agree that we should at least discuss renaming it according to its original name? DoctorWhutsup (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The original name is irrelevant - only the name most commonly used in English-language sources is. We don't care about Russian-language sources. Just English-language ones. And re: Nibelungenlied - no, that is not a contemporary name, that is the name that was given to the poem by modern (18th-19th century) German scholars.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The English language sources currently used by the article provide the following names:
 * Encyclopedia Britannica "Russkaya Pravda (“Russian Justice”)"
 * Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine: "Ruskaia Pravda", with "Rus’ Truth" offered as an alternate.
 * Orest Subtelny, The Ukraine-a History, p. 16: "The Russian Right" (Russkaya Pravda)
 * Brancato, Markets versus Hierarchies p. 66: "Russkaya Pravda"
 * Kaiser, The Laws of Rus' - Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries, (Translation of the text): I have only snippet view on google books, but this seems to use Russkaia Pravda  (since this appears to be the standard English translation of the text, this carries a bit of weight)
 * Leonid Biletsky, The Ruska Pravda and its textual History uses "Ruska Pravda"
 * Encyclopedia.com uses "Russian Justice", with "Pravda Russkaya" or "Rus Justice," offered as alternative names.
 * So, none of the sources cited in the article use "Rus' Justice" as the standard name of the text. Only one source "Encyclopedia.com" uses the term at all. It very much looks from these sources like there is no standard English name for the text (each author seems to differ on Rus vs Russian and on how to translate Pravda). At the moment, "Russkaya Pravda" or perhaps "Russkaia Pravda" (per Kaiser) seem the best forms [Nb. I see from the earlier discussion that Russkaya is preferred to Russkaia under WP:RUS]. But perhaps you can provide other sources which paint a different picture.
 * (side note for later: in general, this article could use a thorough overhaul - it shouldn't include "excerpts" from the text at the length that it does, the main text cites no sources for any of its claims, we don't really get a clear overview of its contents, and the claim that it was a precursor of forensic science seems overblown to me) Furius (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The Internet Encyclopedia of Ukraine article’s (2001 [1993]) lead says, in full, “Ruskaia Pravda («Рускаа Правда»; Rus’ Truth [Law]).”
 * The first edition (1988, p 35), and the latest, fourth edition (2009) of Subtelny both say “Ruska Pravda (Rus’ Justice).” (The title of the book is Ukraine: A History.) —Michael Z. 13:19, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification on the IEU and the update on Subtelny. The variation between editions tends to support my tentative conclusion above that there simply isn't a standard English name for this text. Furius (talk) 16:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Furius, Ermenrich and the previous discussion. It's not our job to argue what is sensible as a title in this circumstance. It's our job to reflect what scholars writing in English use. For that we need surveys of current scholarly texts and authoritative reliable sources. The mere existence of an English title in a few publications isn't enough, especially where there are competing English titles. Looking at google scholar:
 * there are 95 hits for "Rus' Justice" and 1390 for "Russkaya Pravda". Some of the Rus' Justice mentions are of the form "...Russkaya Pravda (Rus' Justice)..." indicating that the term "Rus' Justice" appears as a courtesy translation and not the name to be used in the text.
 * Limiting it to title results, there are 78 for "Russkaya Pravda" and only 1 result for "Rus' Justice" which itself is a courtesy translation of the title of a work in Russian.
 * Attempting to remove Russian language text hits using "-поэтому" as a filter ("therefore", a word likely to appear in Russian-language texts, but not in the listed Russian sources in the bibliographies of English-language articles), we get 74 for Rus' Justice and 1,040 results for Russkaya Pravda.
 * A search on "Russkaya Pravda" "Russian Justice" yields 83 results, but "Russkaya Pravda" "Rus' Justice" only 17, suggesting that Rus' Justice may be in even less use than "Russian Justice".
 * I just don't see a contest here. Russkaya Pravda is used much more in English, and the proposed change may not even be the most used English version. (I would also be against a move to "Russian Justice" because it isn't used as much as "Russkaya Pravda" and has ambiguity issues.) OsFish (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment The current title should be re-examined in depth. I see that editors are referring to Google Scholar search results above. When I search for "russkaya pravda" on Scholar, the first page of results returns nine Russian-language items and one Wikipedia copy. In every one, the title comes from an English-language abstract where the title is transliterated from modern Russian by Russians in Russia. It is a 100% skewed result and reflects a Russian colonial WP:BIAS on a subject that originated in Kyiv. (For the bias in Western scholarship, see, for example, chapters 1 and 3 in Kuzio 2020.) —Michael Z. 13:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Support move to Ruskaia Pravda. It does appear that most references to the subject use a version of its native title in one of the East Slavic languages, and only gloss it with an English translation. The most neutral title would be a romanized version of Old East Slavic, Ruskaia/Ruskaya/Ruskaja Pravda, and not Belarusian Ruskaia/Ruskaja Praǔda, Russian Russkaia/Russkaya Pravda, or Ukrainian Ruska Pravda. —Michael Z. 20:04, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds reasonable to me and I don't really understand why it was rejected last time you proposed it. That discussion centred on commonname and which transliteration of Russian wiki generally uses, but never seems to have questioned "why Russian?" Given that Russian, Ukrainian, and Belarusian transliterations appear in the sources listed above and that choosing one of them has become a more serious npov issue since 2021, going with the OCS seems like a neat solution... It's probably sensible at this point (1) to notify the people who participated in that previous conversation, to see what they have to say and (2) to check whether there is any bigger policy discussion of this issue going on (given that this issue must arise for a lot of Kievan Rus' topics). Furius (talk) 00:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d say the NPOV issue hasn’t changed nearly so much as awareness and acceptance of it. —Michael Z. 01:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The previous move discussion was about moving from Russkaya to Russkaia, not Ruskaia. That is, it was about moving from one Russian title to another. (The double ss means "Russian" either way, the single s, Rus'.) Both Russkaya and Russkaia would fail under the NPOV argument put forward by Michael. If we are going to use the East Slavic name to achieve NPOV, then I believe according to standard transliteration from Old East Slavic, Правда Руськая should be Pravda Ruskaja. As luck would have it, "Pravda Ruskaja" gets a couple more scholar hits than either Ruskaya or Ruskaia. However, it's low forties compared to "Russkaya Pravda" getting well over 1,000, so I'm a little uneasy at going quite so strongly against COMMONNAME. (Michael raises the issue of Russian article hits on Scholar. "Russkaia Pravda" suffers from the same problem. All of the potential names do.)OsFish (talk) 03:44, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The European romanization style with j in Ruskaja is not very accessible to an English-language audience. I prefer the i form which is used by the ALA-LC system very commonly used in academic and popular–academic publishing, and in bibliographic cataloguing, and also closely compatible with our romanization for WP:UKR and WP:RUE. The y form is more common in British standards that have mainly been superseded (and our homegrown WP:RUS, which is no standard at all, and should be replaced). —Michael Z. 21:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RUE has been created and edited solely by one user: Michael Z ;-). The letter я does not appear in the Ukrainian name Руська Правда, so appealing to Ukrainian transliteration can't apply. I would dispute the assumption that people would find ia easier than ya, especially because I dispute there is a move away from ya to ia in the scholarly literature. The opposite seems to be the case (see previous Move discussion).OsFish (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:RUE is based on reliable sources and approved by consensus of participants. ;-)  You have a problem with it, please start a conversation in the appropriate place. Someone might mistake your zeal for combing edit histories to formulate some kind of ad hominem argument about this page title.
 * Did I say “easier”? What does that even mean? I find the letters i and y, and even j equally easy to use, but I like to use them consistently according to a single standard. Scholarly literature has used the ALA-LC system since the early 20th century in North America (ALA 1908, Catalog Rules) and since at least 1975 in the UK (when the British Library officially adopted the same system). That includes the clear majority of secondary reliable sources on the subject (the “modified Library of Congress” method used in texts was standardized by Shaw 1979, The Transliteration of Modern Russian for English-Language Publications). The next most common Cyrillic transliteration method in academia is the linguistic system that gives us Mixail Gorbačëv and Pëtr Ilʼič Čaikovskij, and it is not suitable for general use in Wikipedia.
 * The logic about я not appearing in one Ukrainian word is unsound. In fact, the letters ѹ and ꙗ in Old East Slavic Рѹськаꙗ Правда (Ruskaia Pravda) don’t appear in Modern Belarusian nor Russian either. So what? There are compatible transliteration systems for these alphabets of related languages and their ancestor. There are good reasons to use a compatible set and no reason to use incompatible systems, and articles like this one exemplify this.
 * (The community essay WP:RUS is an overcomplicated, made-up non-standard and ensures that our default romanization is hard to use and compatible with nothing: we are not bound by it and we should select an actual standard to replace it. The only suitable and most widely used standard that includes all Cyrillic-alphabet languages and is suitable for English-language readers is ALA-LC.) —Michael Z. 17:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There just isn't a standard translation of pravda in this context. If it is to be moved per Mzajac's reasoning, the simplest solution is just the elimination of one 's' (i.e., Ruskaya Pravda over Ruskaia Pravda) and I prefer that. Srnec (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Current frequency comparison in Google Advanced Book Search:
 * "Ruskaia Pravda" -Wikipedia “Page 20 of about 6,620 results” (actual count 191)
 * "Ruskaya Pravda" -Wikipedia “Page 7 of about 602 results” (actual count 67)
 * In Google Scholar:
 * "Ruskaia Pravda" -Wikipedia Page 4 of 37 results
 * "Ruskaya Pravda" -Wikipedia Page 5 of 41 results
 * —Michael Z. 17:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Now do Russkaya Pravda. Srnec (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we’re considering not choosing that because of national or colonial bias. Doesn’t mean frequency of usage must be ignored. But you can get an idea in the previous March 2021 move request, above. —Michael Z. 19:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is in no way is meant to be exhaustive or definitive, but searching for the terms on JStor, one of the most popular digital repositories of academic journals, gives the following number of hits:
 * Russkaya Pravda: 91 hits
 * Russkaia Pravda: 209 hits
 * Ruskaya Pravda: 1 hit
 * Ruskaia Pravda: 8 hits Note: 7 of the 8 hits are texts about Ukraine. Four of them are from the "Concise Encyclopedia of Ukraine". Two are from the "Encyclopedia of Ukraine". Both publications were edited by the University of Toronto Press. This may indicate a preference for this transliteration on the part of Ukrainians, or the encyclopedia's editor, or the publishing house.
 * I was surprised by Russkaia beating Russkaya, and will think of giving that a more in-depth look later, but either way (and although it goes without saying that there are more publications using these terms than those available on JStor) and as has been pointed out by other users, notably OsFish, the preponderance of Russkaia/Russkaya is undeniable. To try and replace it for other terms (that have very minimal currency in comparison) due to perceived colonial grievances falls under WP:RGW. It's also an anachronism and a bit disingenuous: at the time of promulgation, there was no Ukraine nor Russia, no Kiev or Kyiv (instead we had something along the lines of Кыѥвъ, but I'm not a medievalist, so I might be screwing the evolutionary timeline of the city's name), and both nations, as well as Belarusians (the name in Belarusian, by the way, is completely absent from the lead), can rightfully claim to be rightful heirs to this legacy (i.e. there is no "appropriation"). Furthermore, at least part of the document ("Yaroslav's Law") is thought to have originated during Yaroslav's time as prince of Novgorod, in present-day Russia, so even if we were to commit the cardinal sin of anachronism and place this document in the middle of a tug-of-war between Russia and Ukraine, there cannot be a clear, deserving "victor". Would we see more "Ruska pravda" and less "Russkaya pravda" had the Ems Ukaz never happened? It's a possibility, yes. But by sheer number of speakers in Russia alone (i.e. excluding the Russian diaspora) it is likely that the preponderance of Russkaya/Russkaia would still exist. And one way or the other, we're playing with counterfactuals that get us nowhere. Ostalgia (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Russkaia pravda is more common than the -aya form because professional academic publishing in Slavic studies uses modified Library of Congress romanization in the text and titles. You don’t see this on Google Scholar, because it is cataloguing the wild and woolly open Web, while JSTOR has a set of more disciplined peer-reviewed journals. —Michael Z. 02:42, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s note fair to invoke WP:righting great wrongs. That prohibits inserting personal or biased views that have nothing to do with reliable sources. It says “we follow.”
 * Please read WP:BIAS, which is about countering bias in the editorship of Wikipedia, and even in the body of reliable sources. There are national biases in academic writing, and there is academic writing that explicitly rejects them, and Wikipedia should be able to be aware of the former, and follow the latter.
 * For example, if you look at the top sources on Ukrainian studies or Ukrainian history, you might see an author’s note about use of names. Prototypical is the big English translation of Kubijovyč (1984–93), Encyclopedia of Ukraine, with a detailed explanatory note that reads, in part (pp xii–xiii):
 * Paul Robert Magocsi, A History of Ukraine has a similar note, and the practice is common in books on Ukrainian subjects.
 * On the other hand, works on Russian subjects, including from Western “Russian studies” departments, reflect the imperial bias of Russian historiography, and tend to use Russian names for all Ukrainian place names. It’s only in recent years that this is no longer universal. I can provide reliable sources describing this (the issue is mentioned in History of Ukraine).
 * It is not “RGW” to follow good academic practice exemplified in consciously post-colonial sources. We should not continue to remain wilfully ignorant of outdated but still highly present biases in a large sector of academia. —Michael Z. 03:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, thanks for fixing my links - I was in a hurry, didn't even check the preview, and by the time I did it was too late.
 * Now, regarding the discrepancy between -aia/-aya, I merely expressed surprise at it because Google Scholar (which, as you mention, scours the entire web) has the proportion virtually reversed. As it also carries lots of articles in languages other than English (in several of which the use of -aya, to the distress of English speakers, is virtually anathema — in my native language -aia is preferred, in my second language -aja is preferred, and so on...), I would be interested in knowing if this results in the "lead" for -aya, or if it can merely be explained by, as you say, JStor publications adhering strictly to ALA-LC while others following a more loose standard for romanisation, if any. It's more about curiosity than anything, and I thought it was clear (but apparently wasn't!) that it was an entirely peripheral question since I was after all grouping Russkaya/Russkaia together in my argument, as changing from one to the other merits a discussion of its own, or a discussion about transliteration in general (after all, this discussion was about moving the article to a virtually made up English term with no currency other than courtesy translations, at least until your suggestion of moving it to Ruskaia).
 * As for your objection to RGW (and your reference to BIAS), one of the tenets of it is "Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow", and that he should be "giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion" (stress my own). Going by the JStor search, switching from a preferred name that numbers in the hundreds (Russkaya/Russkaia - 300) to one that gets less than 10 hits (Ruskaya/Ruskaia - 9) is a massive quantum leap. Furthermore, only 8 sources privilege Ruskaia, 7 out of 8 are Ukrainian, 6 come from the same publishing house and 4 come from the same book. Even if we were to entertain (which I do not) the notion that, in fact, the 300 hits for Russkaya/Russkaia are all biased, and that we should stick to the 9 hits for Ruskaya/Ruskaia because they are not, to privilege that transliteration is to give undue weight to a specific, very small set of sources skewed by national origin and publishing house. It's a big ask, but fundamentally it is also one that is based on a false premise. The only thing I can infer from your quote from the Ukrainian encyclopedia or your mention of Magocsi following a similar line is the idea that English scholarship adopted everything from the Russian language, as it was the official language of the Russian Empire, thus obscuring the "local versions" of things. That might be correct in some cases for placenames, or names of individuals belonging to minority groups, but as I attempted to stress, the Russkaya/Russkaia/Ruskaya/Ruskaia/Ruska Pravda is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Ukrainian document, it is not written by a Ukrainian, and it does not concern itself with Ukraine, because no such thing as Ukraine existed at the time, and centuries passed before even the idea of Ukraine existed (the exact same thing can be said about Russia, by the way). To call it a "subject that originated in Kyiv" is also incorrect on two accounts - first, part of it originated in Novgorod (now in Russia, but back then in definitely-not-Russia), and secondly, there was no such thing as Kyiv (or Kiev). You seem to suggest Russians "took this away" from Ukrainians, like Russians (and Belarusians) didn't have every bit as much right as Ukrainians to call this document part of their past. Ostalgia (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As for your objection to RGW (and your reference to BIAS), one of the tenets of it is "Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow", and that he should be "giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion" (stress my own). Going by the JStor search, switching from a preferred name that numbers in the hundreds (Russkaya/Russkaia - 300) to one that gets less than 10 hits (Ruskaya/Ruskaia - 9) is a massive quantum leap. Furthermore, only 8 sources privilege Ruskaia, 7 out of 8 are Ukrainian, 6 come from the same publishing house and 4 come from the same book. Even if we were to entertain (which I do not) the notion that, in fact, the 300 hits for Russkaya/Russkaia are all biased, and that we should stick to the 9 hits for Ruskaya/Ruskaia because they are not, to privilege that transliteration is to give undue weight to a specific, very small set of sources skewed by national origin and publishing house. It's a big ask, but fundamentally it is also one that is based on a false premise. The only thing I can infer from your quote from the Ukrainian encyclopedia or your mention of Magocsi following a similar line is the idea that English scholarship adopted everything from the Russian language, as it was the official language of the Russian Empire, thus obscuring the "local versions" of things. That might be correct in some cases for placenames, or names of individuals belonging to minority groups, but as I attempted to stress, the Russkaya/Russkaia/Ruskaya/Ruskaia/Ruska Pravda is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a Ukrainian document, it is not written by a Ukrainian, and it does not concern itself with Ukraine, because no such thing as Ukraine existed at the time, and centuries passed before even the idea of Ukraine existed (the exact same thing can be said about Russia, by the way). To call it a "subject that originated in Kyiv" is also incorrect on two accounts - first, part of it originated in Novgorod (now in Russia, but back then in definitely-not-Russia), and secondly, there was no such thing as Kyiv (or Kiev). You seem to suggest Russians "took this away" from Ukrainians, like Russians (and Belarusians) didn't have every bit as much right as Ukrainians to call this document part of their past. Ostalgia (talk) 09:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.