Talk:Veliky Novgorod

Why is there no map for a significant geography location?

Hi. Why is there no map for such a significant geographic location? Are we supposed to use our imaginations? Or are we supposed to go offsite to another encyclopaedia? Stevenmitchell (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Further reading

TimothyBlue, you're right that the relevant guideline for your addition is WP:SEEALSO and not WP:EL. Still, I don't think that adding wikilinks to bibliography articles is justified. The guideline says as follows

“ links in this section should be relevant and limited to a reasonable number. Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. One purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics; however, articles linked should be related to the topic of the article or be in the same defining category. For example, the article on Jesus might include a link to List of people claimed to be Jesus because it is related to the subject but not otherwise linked in the article. The article on Tacos might include Fajita as another example of a Mexican cuisine. ”

The bibliography articles you've added are not directly relevant as they are about the Russian history in general. Also, if you look at other articles about cities you will never see anything like this so it's also inconsistent. Alaexis_¿question? 07:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Correction?

Notable people lists Sergei Rachmaninoff but his article doesn’t confirm this. Padres Hana (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

He was born and spent his childhood not far from it so that's why he was added probably. But you're right, he should rather be listed amongst the notable people of Novgorod Oblast. Alaexis_¿question? 20:54, 28 December 2025 (UTC)

Novgorod and the misinformation about "mentioned in 859/862"

Wikipedia says that Veliky Novgorod was:

- "First mentioned: 862"🔴

- "being first mentioned in the 9th century."🔴

This is a ridiculous misinformation. Novgorod didn't exist before 930s, this is what russian wiki page about Novgorod says:

- "Founded: in the 930s"🟢

- "However, the chronicles may have retrospectively attributed the city’s existence to this period, since the reliably dated archaeological layers in Novgorod date back no earlier than the 930s."🟢

- "The earliest foreign mention of Novgorod (Nemogard, Νεμογαρδάς) appears in the 949 AD work by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus: On the Administration of the Empire"🟢

Now back to "mentioned in", we have these chronicles:

- Sofia First Chronicle ("is a Rus' chronicle from the 15th century")

- Novgorod First Chronicle (the earliest extant copy of the NPL is the so-called Synod Scroll dated to the second half of the 13th century.)

- Primary Chronicle / Tale of Bygone Years ("it is believed to have been originally compiled in the 1110s.")

- Nikon Chronicle ("was created in the late 1520s")

I don't see a single chronicle that is being even close to the 9th century. So why are we lying about Novgorod being mentioned IN the 9th century, if even archeology disproves it?

Why when it comes to Ukrainian history you have to specify: "appears in the Hypatian Codex of c. 1425 under the year 1187".

And when it comes to russian history you have to mislead and lie?

Even Ukrainian wiki page says the truth:

- "Although archaeological evidence indicates that the city did not yet exist in the 9th century, Russian authorities and a significant number of Russian scholars consider 859 to be the year of the first mention of Novgorod."🟢

- "Date of founding: mid-10th century – turn of the 10th–11th centuries"🟢

- "Conquered by Muscovy/Russia: 1478" 🟢

Because in fact, Novgorod before 1478 is not modern russian history: "Novgorod was absorbed by Muscovy in 1478".

Novgorod page says the same: "Eventually Ivan III forcibly annexed the city to the Grand Duchy of Moscow in 1478."

Moscow is manipulating and using propaganda that Rus' came from Novgorod in the 9th century, which justifies their war in Ukraine because moscow is "taking back what is theirs". And the statement of Novgorod being mentioned IN the 9th century is playing on their hand and misleading people who don't read history deeper than the first quote they see.

But if the wiki says the truth, how it did with Ukraine being mentioned UNDER the year 1187, and will say that Novgorod was mentioned UNDER the 9th century, this will break russian propaganda, because how could Rus' come from Novgord in the 9th century if Novgorod didn't exist?

Even modern russian historian Igor Danilevsky states the truth in an interview:

— Could it be said that modern Russia traces its origins back to Vladimir?

— Basically, yes.

And Vladimir is NOT Novgorod, the city is dated to 12th century: "There are two chronicle accounts of the city’s founding, one dating to 990 and the other to 1108. Archaeological excavations conducted in Vladimir since the first half of the 20th century do not confirm the existence of the city at the end of the 10th century; therefore, archaeological research tends to favor the date of 1108."

Back to the original topic. Mentioned in 862 is a misleading that only gives misinformation to people, who will fall under russian propaganda. Why when its about Ukraine wiki says "under the year" and when it comes to russia it lies.

Novgorod never existed before 930s, a chronicler in 1110s didn't know about what happened 200 years before him because those events were not documented. Novgorod in the 9th century was never documented.

When talking about information like this, it should be specific. Nikon Chronicle mentions Novgorod under the year 859, are we now for real? A text from 1520s, that was written after moscow occupied Novgorod, a document from 16th century, and we will say MENTIONED IN 859? Same for all of the other chronicles. By this logic I can say there was a Ukrainian Empire 1000 years ago, and historians will say "Ukrainian Empire mentioned in 1026"? Ridiculous lies.

Wikipedia is inconsistent in wording, it misleads by implying contemporary record, when all chronicles are 200–600 years later and archaeology shows no city before 930s.

Novgorod's earliest written records are dated to 10th century, not 9th.

The truthful infromation that people should see when they want to know about Novgorod is not "mentioned in the 9th century" but:

"It is first mentioned in chronicles under the years 859 / 862, although archaeological evidence suggests that the city did not emerge until the 10th century at the earliest."

No double standards for history. The interpretation of facts should be correct, currently it is not. Papuha (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I think you are a bit confused about the sources. The Primary Chronicle is the earliest known chronicle (dated to the early 12th century). The oldest surviving manuscript containing the Primary Chronicle is dated to the 14th century. Indeed, we rely on sources written centuries after the fact for the basic history of the region (this is not specific to the founding of Novgorod but everything else as well). However, the archaeological evidence shows that Rurikovo Gorodische was founded in the 9th century. The modern site of Veliky Novgorod is dated to the early 10th century. This is based on archaeological evidence. Ryazan was relocated following the Mongol invasions and Beloozero was relocated after the Black Death, for example, so this is not unusual.

Since there are different dates, saying "first mentioned in the 9th century" is perfectly fine (we cannot use sub anno here). I am also not sure what is the relevance of Russia's war against Ukraine or whether Novgorod is part of Russian history (it is almost universally regarded as part of Russian history and any decent history book will cover the early history of Novgorod). Therefore, this comes across as WP:RGW, especially considering you are intentionally writing "Russia" and "Russian" in lowercase. Mellk (talk) 07:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

I don't confuse the sources, yes Primary Chronicle is dated to 12th century and yes we don't have the original. So why does it say "mentioned in"? If I write now that there was a Ukrainian Empire in 1026, will you or historians say "Ukrainian Empire mentioned in 1026"? Makes no sense. The same way it makes no sense to say that Novgorod was mentioned in the 9th century when it never was.

We are talking about Novgorod, not Gorodische (also it was never called Rurikovo in history), and Novgorod exists since 930s.

Saying "first mentioned in the 9th century" is perfectly NOT fine. Perfectly fine is saying: It is first mentioned in chronicles under the years 859 / 862.

Or under the 9th century, the same way the page about Ukraine says "appears in the Hypatian Codex of c. 1425 under the year 1187". Why is wikipedia being inconsistent in wording?

"it is almost universally regarded as part of Russian history" yeah well that being a thing is wrong. I gave data about Novgorod because it was a separate state, and also gave the words of Danilevsky. where he stated about "where the modern russia came from".

By this logic Constantinople history of 1261–1453 is part of the Turkish history.

Ottoman Empire occupied the city in 1453, so why it is not regarded as part of Turkish history?

Moscow occupied Novgorod in 1478, but it is "regarded as part of Russian history" make it make sense.

I can and will write russia and russian with small letters. That doesn't debunk the facts that I have provided in the article. Information about the war and where did russia atually come from is an additional information.

I still didn't get my answer:

- Why is Novgorod mentioned "IN" the 9th century if it was never mentioned IN that century.

- Why is wikipedia using different wording for Ukrainian history and says that Ukraine was mentioned "under the year 1187" while also mentioning the source being 1425, and it doesn't do so for russian history. What is this inconsistency?

Yeah pretty much nothing was answered, as expected. I mentioned the war because people like you push the propaganda, and when given facts, they ignore them. Novgorod didn't exist before 930s, Gorodische is Gorodische, not Novgorod. Papuha (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

And to mention how you delete the facts about "archeologically not confirmed" to mislead people even more!

Why doesn't russian wiki delete it but you do? "859 год (археологически не подтверждается)"

Why are you not providing me a valid proof about why the wiki text should mislead people and make them believe that Novgorod was mentioned by an individual IN the 9th century? Where is the consistency with wording? What is this cherry picking🤦‍♂️ Papuha (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source (see WP:CIRCULAR). Russian Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and manual of style. I have already told you to refer to the documentation of Template:Infobox settlement. We also have WP:IBP. Mellk (talk) 08:15, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not a reliable source" of course it's not realiable when you interpret lies as facts, like something being mentioned in a year / century, when it never was mentioned in that time. Openly misleading people and not providing information that would verify that statement.

"One of Russia's oldest cities, first mentioned in the 9th century" this is a lie.

If The Concise Dictionary of World Place-Names (Oxford Paperback Reference) says so, what is their proof? Their proof of the two (or both): historians / chronicles.

Historians base their knoweldge on chronicles, meaning that any information about this leads to documents and chronicles that we have. So back again to the original question:

- Why is Novgorod mentioned "IN" the 9th century if it was never mentioned IN that century.

Why are you so willing to mislead people? Papuha (talk) 08:33, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

This is not an apt comparison. You comparing what you write now with historical sources that have been widely researched. Although we don't take everything the chronicles say at face value, they still give us a fairly good idea of the basic history of the region. The Constantinople comparison is also not apt because Novgorod and Moscow were connected by culture, religion, language, and so on. It is not like an alien force appeared out of nowhere and conquered the city. Russia is not Moscow.

I already answered your first question and this is supported by the cited source. The second question is irrelevant here and falls under WP:OTHERCONTENT. No, there is no single authority that is able to enforce how everything is written across all articles. Mellk (talk) 08:11, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"I already answered your first question and this is supported by the cited source" not an answer, you are talking about Gorodishche, that is not Novgorod.

"Novgorod and Moscow were connected by culture, religion, language, and so on." Yeah, different states, different capitals, different Slavic dialects and so on.

"You comparing what you write now with historical sources that have been widely researched." What is the difference between me making up about something 200 years ago and someone in 1110s making up something 200 years ago? Unless you can provide me with information from close to 9th century, when they mention Novgorod in that century.

"Russia is not Moscow." The origins of russia is moscow, or if we go earlier, it's Vladimir (Volodimer), as Danilevsky stated. Because that is where russian history came from.

"No, there is no single authority that is able to enforce how everything is written across all articles." So why cherry picking and misleading? Papuha (talk) 08:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Here is what The Cambridge History of Russia (vol. 1) says about Gorodische: "The likelihood that this event actually occurred has been confirmed by excavations at Gorodishche (3 kilometres from Novgorod), where the residence of the Novgorod princes was situated until the end of the fifteenth century. The archaeological evidence from Gorodishche proves that the site was indeed founded in the middle of the ninth century. It clearly demonstrates that the inhabitants belonged to the social elite, and that the predominant element was Norman." (p. 190). Gorodische is indeed relevant.

However, you are reducing this to "there is no difference between some bullshit I write now and historical sources that have been widely researched". Moscow was also an appanage, so this is about as silly as saying that the history of Germany begins with Brandenburg-Prussia. Mellk (talk) 08:23, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Did I ask about Gorodishche? We are talking about Novgorod. Gorodishche has it's own page with all of the needed information.

"there is no difference between some bullshit I write now and historical sources that have been widely researched"

Indeed, because a chronicler in 1110s can't know what happened in 862 if he had no documents to copy from (and that's only if the chronicler "Nestor" actually wrote about Novgorod and the date 862 in the original document, since we don't have the original)

For the "mentioned in 9th century" there should be 2 things for it to be true:

- A mention from the 9th century (or at least a copy of a document from that era).

- An explanation on where did the infromation about "862" come from originally. Because right now this year is spawned from air. If we are talking about Nestor, where did he take that date from?

First mention of moscow was after Novgorod established their own state, history of Novgorod in 10-15th century is not moscow history. The same way Constantinople history before 1453 is not Turkish history, regardless of religion or language. Two different states and people. Papuha (talk) 08:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Not "there should be 2 things for it to be true", I meant 1 of the two. Papuha (talk) 08:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Gorodische has its own page because it's an archaeological site. If you have a problem with the chronicle referring to Novgorod in the 9th century, then you have a problem with what the chronicle says about the entirety of the early history of Kievan Rus', but we are supposed to rely on secondary sources, and these sources make the connection.

I have already provided a reliable source that supports the current wording. You have not provided any reliable sources that are relevant. You included a link to an interview which mentions that the modern Russian state is directly descended from Vladimir. This is not relevant and either way it is a fairly common viewpoint that the Vladimir grand principality is the nucleus of the modern Russian state. That does not mean that Novgorod was not a Russian state or that it is not part of Russian history. No German history book starts off with Prussia or the German Empire. Mellk (talk) 08:56, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The people of Novgorod and Moscow also considered themselves to be the same people (and externally they were viewed as the same people) so this comparison with Constantinople is silly, but this is besides the point. Mellk (talk) 08:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"then you have a problem with what the chronicle says about the entirety of the early history of Kievan Rus'" not me, any historian who values facts over made up things. In the same interview that I have sent, Danilevsky was asked:

"When does the mythological story end, and when does the real one begin?"

And he said clearly and short: "From Igor"

Of course you can't trust information that was written 200 years before "Nestor" lived so blindly, that's why early history of Rus' is very misty, and when we speak about facts, all of the 859 / 862 / 882 dates are made up.

"I have already provided a reliable source that supports the current wording." No you haven't, you are talking about Gorodishche, I am talking about Novgorod.

I literally sent all of the needed information and two simple questions. You are still unable to answer any of them.

"You included a link to an interview which mentions that the modern Russian state is directly descended from Vladimir. This is not relevant" Ah right, becasue a: "specialist on the history of Kievan Rus'" will just say random things. So where is the core history of russia if not vladimir?

Novgorod was never part of russia before 15th century, not a single time. It was controlled by Kyiv until certain point, then it got independent. Moscow lived it's own life, it's own history.

"The people of Novgorod and Moscow also considered themselves to be the same people" yeah well you are openly lying right now. They could only consider themselves same by faith, that doesn't mean much. There is no logical answer to why can russia "trace" their history to Novgorod.

I am again asking the same proof because it is not provided. For the "mentioned in 9th century" there should a reliable evidence, which is one of the two (unless you have more):

- A mention from the 9th century (or at least a copy of a document from that era).

- A logical explanation about where did the infromation about "862" originally come from. Right now this info is spawned from air in 12th century, based on: nothing.

Stop telling me about Gorodishche, if I find some 500 BCE site near Kyiv, it won't allow me to say that Kyiv is 2500 years old, that's nonsense. Novgorod is Novgorod, Gorodishche is Gorodishche. The wiki page is about Novgorod, which means it should say information about Novgorod. The true information is that Novgorod was mentioned UNDER the years of 859 / 862, not IN those years. I can't comprehend how you don't understand the level of how misleading that is for someone who opens a wiki page for a quick check.

"Oh mentioned in 862, well it means it 100% existed in 862" false. Papuha (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Igor lived 200 years before the first known chronicle was written, so I am not sure what is your point. Other historians have doubts about what is said about Igor's reign because of the gap in the chronological record, but this is irrelevant.

The source cited to support the statement says: "One of Russia's oldest cities, first mentioned in the 9th century". This is referring to Novgorod. The other sources I mentioned above show that there is a connection between the two. However, you keep denying that there is any sort of connection based on your own personal opinion. No one has claimed that the modern city of Novgorod was founded in 862, but this is apparently too difficult for you to comprehend.

You could also have asked for a source instead of accusing me of lying (then again, you are clearly on a nationalist crusade here since you have accused others of writing propaganda from the beginning and cannot bring yourself to write "Russia" with a capital letter). See for example the following source: "Furthermore, brotherly terminology was used not only within Novgorod, but also applied to relationships with other Old Russian polities. For instance, residents of Pskov – another medieval Russian 'republic' – were, from the Novgorodians' point of view, their 'younger brothers'."

But good luck with your crusade. Mellk (talk) 09:53, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"Igor lived 200 years before the first known chronicle was written" he died 100 years before "Nestor" was born, he could've gotten some info from the elderly people, also we have other independent sources that confirm his existence. It doesn't confirm everything about him but at least we know he existed. But dates that I mentioned are made up, there is no logical source that can provide or proof those dates.

"The other sources I mentioned above show that there is a connection between the two." What are we connecting? Novgorod is Novgorod, Gorodishche is Gorodishche. Two different things. If "Nestor" meant Gorodishche was in 862, he wouldn't write Novgorod.

"No one has claimed that the modern city of Novgorod was founded in 862" you clearly do? What does "mentioned in 862" mean? That means one of the two things: Either it was founded in 862 or it was exisiting already at that time. Both are false. People open the page, see 862 and think one of the two.

"You could also have asked for a source instead of accusing me of lying" I did ask for a source or for an explanation about this. Russia is using Novgorod as their history and uses all of this propaganda, talk to any russian citizen and you will get your answers.

I am here for justice, when I asked about wiki misleading and cherry picking on how to do wording, I didn't get a proper answer. "Oh this is like this on this page, that is like that on that page". I can't write russia with a capital? You want me to switch the topic and write you an essay on why that is the case? Pfft.

PSKOV? That is not core of russian history: "The Pskov Republic was annexed by the Grand Duchy of Moscow in 1510" what are you on about? That's even further from moscow than Novgorod.

I need a proof and an argument on why is this page lying to people and makes them think that Novgorod existed in 862. They see Novgorod and think of Novgorod, not Gorodishche.

As mentioned, you removed the "archeologically not confirmed" for pretty much no reason, just to mislead people even more, even tho the russian wiki openly says so without any problems.

My crusade? Yeah it is my crusade to stop russian propaganda that justifies the war, it is my crusade to stop the misinformation and lies that you keep returning on the page without reliable proof. People come and argue with me that Novgorod existed in the 9th century because wiki says so / the chronicles say so, and when I ask for proof and a proper argumentation on that, they vanish. Because they read deeper than what the first sentence say and then can't find any reliable proof, since it doesn't exist. Papuha (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Literally just asking for one of the two things.

WHAT is the proof that Novgorod existed in the 9th century. This question will lead to the chronicles.

Now next logical question is: where did the year 862 come from? You have "Nestor" in 1110s, where did he get this date from? Was there a document that no one mentions? WHO recorded that event of Novgorod being founded?

No one, because 859 / 862 and a lot of other dates and events from 9th to even the mid of 10th century are pretty much baseless and unreasonable. The only logical answer here will be oral traditions, I can't see any other thing which will make sense. And unfortunately for people (not me) that is not a factual statement. Try playing a Telephone game and you will see what I mean.

I would understand verbal information when it's crazy events that are remembered for centuries (volcano eruption, earthquake etc) but defiantly not a YEAR or a QUOTE. The same way russians use in their propaganda the quote of Oleg (who is also not fully confirmed as existed) about how he came in Kyiv and said "let it be the mother of Rus' cities". Another unreasonable information, made up from air (saying this as an example) Papuha (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Once again you show that you are arguing in bad faith. The source says "Old Russian polities" and mentions Pskov as an example and yet you pretend that it is only referring to Pskov and that Moscow is perceived as some kind of foreign nation (what do you think "Old Russian polities" refers to?). I also already explained why we cannot use Russian Wikipedia as an example and once again you ask why we cannot use Russian Wikipedia as an example. But I do not see the point anymore since you have already confirmed the obvious, that you are here for WP:RGW (i.e. you are WP:NOTHERE.) Mellk (talk) 10:32, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

You just ignore like more than half of what I write.

You mentioned Pskov, thats not moscow. Example or not, that's a bad example. Moscow is indeed a foreign "nation" of that time, it's different people and different states from pskov and novgorod.

"I also already explained why we cannot use Russian Wikipedia as an example and once again you ask why we cannot use Russian Wikipedia as an example." You didn't, an answer that is equal to "this is like this in their page, this is like this in our page because it's different" is not an argument.

I told you what I am here for, and you ignore my questions and don't give me the proof of your "facts".

If I wasn't here to "The following may indicate a user is not here to build an encyclopedia" I wouldn't give a single source. But I do indeed.

Again you ignore the fact that you removed the "archeologically not confirmed" to mislead people, with an argument that is not an argument,

Back to the same questions you ignore:

- Provide me with evidence that will prove that Novgorod was mentioned IN the 9th century.

You will say chronicles. Ok.

- Provide me with evidence or any logical answer on how "Nestor" in 1110s could know about 862 if those events were never documented. If Novgorod was not documented in the 9th century as existing.

Clearly your are here to either support russian propaganda or to just mislead people for whatever other reasons. Because again, when its about Ukraine its "mentioned under the year" and its being specific, but when its about Novgorod, its not specific at all. Explain me the wording inconsistency. Papuha (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"Russian Wikipedia is a separate project with its own policies and manual of style" you think this is an answer?!

Facts don't change from style or policies, that has no correaltion. If 2+2 is 4, its 4 everywhere.

If Novgorod was not archaeologically confirmed to exist in 859 / 862, its a fact, not a style. They on the page are being more specific so people can instantly understand that something is wrong, so they might read deeper.

You, on the other side, try to mislead people in thinking Novgorod existed in the 9th century, even though you can't give any evidence of that, all that you do is talk about Gorodishche because "hey look its so close to Novgorod".

And you say I am here "not being here to build an encyclopedia"🤦😂 Very controversial. I am literally here giving evidence on why you should not mislead people so there will be less misunderstanding. Papuha (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

The infobox says "first mentioned" and there is no issue with the current phrasing. For example, this is what is said about Moscow in The Formation of Muscovy by Robert O. Crummey: "First mentioned in 1147, Moscow grew outward from its core, a small wooden fort on a hill on the left bank of the Moskva river" (p. 25). Mellk (talk) 12:36, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

"and there is no issue with the current phrasing" yes there is, because people think that mention was made IN that year, meaning that someone in 862 wrote it down, false. Especially because it is not confirmed archeologically, and because the date 862 is a made up number in whatever century, with no reasonable evidence. When you say "Battle of Shelon 1471" you think this battle happened in 1471, same thing with "mentioned in".

I still didn't get my answers Papuha (talk) 13:58, 16 April 2026 (UTC)