Talk:Casimir's Code

Reliable sources

One sould read WP:RS policy before adding:

1. commercial sites (http://export.by/ - more detailed information about the project: citation from here http://export.by/en/o_proekte.html - 'EXPORT.BY Portal has been created by the National Center for Marketing and Price Study in order to render informational support to Belarusian exporters for their products promotion on foreign market, and also advertise export potential of local manufacturers of industrial, intellectual and agricultural products.),
2. personal sites asking for financial support (Наш проект содержится на личные средства энтузиастов?)
3. and non academic publications over 150 years old, that are not representing fact just only opinion.

Have a good day.Lokyz (talk) 18:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

if you have any idea on which other language Casimir's Code was written, you can share us some links. Meanwhile, once again I’m offering you to check the original version of the Code to make sure what language it is. http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Polen/XV/1440-1460/Kazimir_IV/lit_ustav.phtml And there are no sense for 150 y.o. publications of the copy of the Code to change the language in favor of Belarusian, esp. taking into account historical situation at the time.

moreover just check Grand Duchy of Lithuania article or tons of other sources to find out that old Belarusian language was used in state documents. So what are the reasons to believe that Casimir's Code was an exception?

and, coming to the second link i've used http://biblyaz.narod.ru/vyp7/2/522-748.html, it's a sources list published by: АКАДЕМИЯ НАУК СССР, ИНСТИТУТ ЯЗЫКОЗНАНИЯ. So, it's more than academic source. UrusHyby (talk) 07:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The language was most probably called Ruthenian. The Old Belarusian has it's political meaning in Russian Empire's policy logic. Program of Restoration of Russian Beginnings and the idea of Slavo-Baltic state (GDL). There is no such thing as a bit more than academic source in nature. Either it is academic or it is not. I'd reccomend consider reading Soviet historiography.Lokyz (talk) 09:51, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

once again i'm pointing your attention to the sources we have available:

1. http://biblyaz.narod.ru/vyp7/2/522-748.html#617 Soviet Academy of science, Language institute puts Casimirs code in the list of monuments of Ukrainian and Belarussian languages of 14-16 centuries.

Look at the text yourself and identify a language, if you consider yourself as a pro http://www.vostlit.info/Texts/Dokumenty/Polen/XV/1440-1460/Kazimir_IV/lit_ustav.phtml

check Grand Duchy of Lithuania article or tons of other sources to find out that old Belarusian language was used in state documents at that time.

If you have other language, like Ruthenian ideas with sources you can put them on the pace, taking into account neutrality policy.

Please note, that in my last edit i've changed the text so it has been reading: According to the USSR Academy of Sciences the code was written on Old Belarussian language., so if you have possibility to put other versions, according to other sources.

Please stop deleting important information from the article, and you'd better add some. UrusHyby (talk) 10:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Conisder reading the Ruthenian talk page. The original text does not mention Old Belorusian anywhere, hence it is dubious and not WP:RS to support your claim. Soviet source says not old Belarusian, just "Belarusian" which is uttermost absurd (or is it modern adaptation?) and it refers to the outtake or scrap, (it is not a full citation even) from beginning of 19th century newspaper. This is getting tiresome. There is no mentioning of Old Belarusian or Старо or Старинно Беларуский in any of the sources yo've provided. If you till think I'm wrong, please cite any line to prove me wrong. As for now, this wishful thinking is not supported by any means.Lokyz (talk) 11:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about Casimir's Code article here. And i've provided a number of reliable links where it says that Casimir's Code was written on Old Belarussian. I'm not going to go into language discussion here. Please do not forget about WP:NPOV, "^{all majority views and significant minority views published by reliable sources be presented fairly, in a disinterested tone, and in rough proportion to their prevalence within the source material. Therefore, material should not be removed solely on the grounds that it is "POV", although it may be shortened and moved to a new article if it gives undue weight to a minor point of view, as explained below.}"

If you have links proving that Casimir's Code was written in any other Language than Old Belarussian - you're welcome to put it into the article. UrusHyby (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Red Herring accepted. Citation not present. WP:RS failed by default.Lokyz (talk) 13:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we looking at different links? http://biblyaz.narod.ru/vyp7/2/522-748.html#617 Публикация отрывка из Судебника Казимира IV, короля польского, по Кормчей книге Румянцевского музея (на белорусском языке). So what you're saying now is that in Rumyantsev Museum archives they were interested in naming the language of the Code "belarusian", and it was not so?? Since when moscovians are doing something in favour of other nations, belarusians or lithuanians? OR maube you're saying that Russia's Foreign Minister and Imperial Chancellor Nikolay Rumyantsev have translated it in Belarusian for his own archives??UrusHyby (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

на белорусском языке does not mean Old Belarusian (note that I'm using Belarusian, not Byelorusian or Byelorus, that would be actual transcribtion of the 19th century and Soviet times). i will not go into further explanation about Russian Empire policy, because it would take a lot of time, and I'm a bit busy now.Lokyz (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)