How we work with materials

This page explains how the encyclopedia selects topics, verifies claims, and turns raw material into Russian and English articles.

The project has a stated position. Sources are not used to imitate neutrality. They are used to ensure that editorial conclusions rest on verifiable facts.

The project’s position

The encyclopedia treats responsible patriarchy as a system of family responsibility.

In this model:

• the man is responsible for family protection, external relations, long-term strategy, and the consequences of major decisions;
• the woman manages the family’s internal life, resources, child-rearing, relationships, and practical implementation of the shared strategy;
• children gradually join the family’s common work, take age-appropriate responsibilities, and learn to continue the intergenerational project;
• the family is not only an emotional bond but also an economic unit, a system of protection, inheritance, and capital accumulation across generations.

Authority is tied to responsibility. A demand for obedience without protection, stability, and accountability does not represent responsible patriarchy.

The project criticizes ideologies, institutions, laws, incentives, and double standards. It does not assign collective guilt to all women or all men, and it does not replace analysis with insults.

Evidence standards

We use external evidence as extensively as possible. A verifiable claim should not rest only on the author’s confidence or on persuasive wording.

The preferred hierarchy is:

1. current legislation on official legal portals;
2. court decisions, judicial reviews, and official registries;
3. official statistics and open datasets;
4. systematic reviews and meta-analyses;
5. peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals;
6. publications by academic presses, universities, and research institutes;
7. primary historical documents and original texts;
8. official reports by public bodies and international organizations;
9. high-quality journalism when the primary document is unavailable.

An original scientific publication is preferable to a media summary. For research, we look for a DOI, journal page, university repository, or stable publisher link.

A source must support the specific claim next to which it appears. We do not present correlation as causation, one country’s data as a universal rule, or an editorial conclusion as the conclusion of the cited researchers.

Used materials are added to the general Sources page and, when useful to the reader, directly to the relevant article.

Geographic scope

The Russian and English versions preserve the same core thesis, but they do not need to use the same laws, statistics, court decisions, or public examples.

Russian version

The Russian version gives priority to:

• Russia;
• Ukraine;
• CIS countries;
• other post-Soviet countries when the topic concerns a shared Soviet or post-Soviet system.

Ukraine is listed separately from CIS countries. Legal comparisons must always name the specific jurisdiction and the period in which the rule applied.

English version

The English version draws evidence from:

• the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, and other English-speaking jurisdictions;
• the European Union as a supranational legal and political system;
• individual EU member states;
• Japan;
• India;
• China.

Countries are selected for the strength and relevance of their evidence. We do not use the phrase “international experience” without naming the countries, periods, and sources involved.

Shared Russian-speaking context

Both language versions also examine countries with substantial Russian-speaking communities, participation, or migration. Serbia and Israel are leading examples, but the rule is not limited to them.

These cases are used when the Russian-speaking environment affects family practice, law, public debate, demographics, migration, or the experience of men and women.

From raw material to an article

Before editing, the editor:

1. locates the Russian and English versions of the page;
2. reads both articles in full;
3. checks neighboring materials and possible duplication;
4. determines where the new argument belongs in the existing structure;
5. separates fact, source, interpretation, and editorial conclusion;
6. verifies numbers, dates, laws, quotations, studies, and causal claims;
7. edits the Russian version;
8. prepares an English adaptation rather than a literal translation;
9. updates links, metadata, and internal navigation;
10. runs language and technical checks.

If the material repeats an existing article, the existing section is expanded. A separate page is created only when the topic has an independent thesis and enough evidence to support it.

Russian and English editing

Russian text is checked with Antiokh/humanizer--ru. This fork preserves correct Russian em dashes and removes bureaucratic language, filler, repetition, and formulaic AI rhythm without damaging normal typography.

The English version uses the separate blader/humanizer after the substantive adaptation is complete. It must not change the thesis, facts, numbers, names, quotations, or links.

Both versions should sound natural to their audiences. The English article does not need to reproduce Russian syntax, while the Russian version should not replace local reality with American examples when relevant Russian, Ukrainian, or post-Soviet evidence exists.

Style

We begin with the thesis, name the actor, and use direct sentences.

We avoid:

• empty introductions and conclusions that only repeat the article;
• bureaucratic language and academic padding;
• compulsory “on the other hand” passages that dilute the project’s position;
• formulas that erase the relevant subject behind words such as “partner” or “person”;
• insults in place of analysis of laws, institutions, or behavior;
• unsupported numbers and false precision.

A hard conclusion is acceptable. A weak evidence base is not.

Proposing material

A useful submission includes:

• the page or subject to which the material belongs;
• the central thesis;
• facts, examples, and links;
• the country and period covered by the evidence;
• an explanation of what the material adds to the existing article.

Raw dictation is also acceptable. The editor removes repetition and false starts, builds a logical structure, and verifies factual claims while preserving the original position and sharpness.

Starting prompt for an editing chat

Below is the public version of the working prompt. Private repository addresses, local paths, and internal technical details are omitted.

Show the starting prompt

We are working on the bilingual Patriarchy encyclopedia.

First read the project’s editorial policy and internal instructions. Follow them without repeating the rules back to me or asking for confirmation when the task is clear.

Current task: [insert the page, thesis, or dictated material].

After receiving the task:
1. locate the Russian and English versions of the article;
2. read both in full and inspect neighboring materials;
3. decide where the new material belongs without duplication;
4. verify numbers, dates, laws, court decisions, quotations, and research;
5. use external evidence as extensively as possible, especially official documents, scientific journals, academic publications, and primary sources;
6. for the Russian version, prioritize Russia, Ukraine, CIS countries, and other post-Soviet jurisdictions;
7. for the English version, use English-speaking countries, the EU and its member states, Japan, India, and China;
8. for both versions, consider countries with substantial Russian-speaking participation, including Serbia and Israel;
9. edit the Russian text and prepare a natural English adaptation;
10. run each version through the appropriate Humanizer;
11. update references, metadata, internal links, and the semantic index when required;
12. run technical checks, make a focused commit, and publish the changes.

Do not neutralize the project’s position. Do not turn editing into an argument with the author. Correct factual errors without replacing the original thesis with a different one.