Talk:Novgorod Republic

message: The Novgorod Republic had an original form of government.
It was - 
1.the "Council of the Lord" (Soviet Gospod) of the boyars - nobles.
2. "Ivanovskaya Hundred" (Ivanovskaya Sotnya) - a place where you bought for a lot of money and required an annual large contribution to the budget.  She represented the interests of merchants.
3. The role of the Minister of Finance and Treasurer was performed by the Novgorod Archbishop. It was he who controlled the money from the "Ivanovsky hundred" and from taxes. He spent spending on the construction of fortresses, the redemption of noblemen, the tribute to the Horde, education, the maintenance of the infirm in monasteries, the feeding of the poor, the purchase of weapons for the Novgorod militia and the organization of areas for foreign merchants.
4. The Lander (Posadnik) is a burgomaster was elected at the general meeting of all citizens (Veche).100% direct democracy.
5. Velikiy Kniaz - whose title is not properly translated by the Prince. This is a consequence of the fact that the Pope called him so. But the Russians never thought so. Correctly translate in current terms - the Great Leader. And in terms of the 12th century - the king.But he had the power of only two ministers - the minister of defense and the minister of justice. He tried the citizens of Novgorod. He defended it in wars. And by the way, he was not always Rurikovich. Just rurikovich brought their squad (Druzhina) - and they chose because the squad was paid by Kniaz. That strengthened the defense free of fee for Novgorodians.
There was no real 100% of the head of state. But there was a differentiation of powers.
Soviet Gospod controlled patrimonial lands, invited the Kniaz. He determined how many feudal lands would give soldiers and money to Novgorod. Defined the laws for the feudal lords. Defined international relations. But he could not declare war. It was the Kniaz privilege. Determined the size of taxes on the feudal lands. And as laws on the feudal lands. He could nominate candidatures for Posadniks.
Ivanovskaya Sotnya Determined everything related to the organization of trade, including international trade. Heir decisions on trade were higher than the decisions of the Soviet Gospod.
Posadnik - was a full burgomaster. Managed not only the city of Novgorod and was not alone. Among the Posadniks was a simple hierarchy - all recognized the supremacy of the Posadnik of Veliky Novgorod (city). In emergency cases, they rule as kniaz - Martha Posadnitsa. Oh yes, there were women among them. The posadnik was elected for life, but could at any time be deprived of the Veche.What was happening regularly. The posadnik of Veliky Novgorod together with the Ivanovskaya Sotnya determined the amount of taxes on not feudal lands and in trade.
Novgorod Archbishop - He was "Minister of Finance", "treasurer" and administered church lands. But laws on church lands did not establish - it was done by posadniks. He also technically answered for the coinage.
Kniaz - was "Minister of Defense", "Minister of Justice", was the chief judge of Novgorod (city), He declares and ends wars. Accepted foreign ambassadors and announced to them the decisions of Soviet Gospod. Participated in church ceremonies. However, it could at any time dismissed by the veche and was regularly happening. For example, even Alexander Nevsky was displaced three times. He was dismissed and again invited, but again.
And so on all grounds it is democracy. But which one? The right to vote had everything to do with women, too. Moreover, women chose what for medieval Europe is not realistic. However, the feudal lords retained power over their possessions and played a key role in governance. The analogue of the King was chosen by them as in Ireland. But the people could at any time democratically deprive the king. In addition, he did not have the power of European kings. And he was like a minister. At the same time, the real executive power was in the hands of democratically elected Posadnik. At the same time the Church had great power. The Archbishop had the power simply not to give money for any projects.
Since there are no analogues of such a system, it is not correct to talk about a merchant republic. I think that the Novgorod Republic is a special form of democracy. And it's easy to designate it simply - "republic" or "novgorod republic". 109.239.217.70 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: It is required to discuss the form of government.

message: The article has too many anachronisims eg:-
: "[it had a]more participatory government than much of the rest of Russia, and it chose its officials locally, it still was very much a part of the Russian political and cultural landscape"
This would be tricky as Russia as an entity or concept didn't exist at that point...
It is akin to talking about Stonehenge as being part of the English tradition of stone circles.
-----
I don't know if the Stonehenge comparison is a very apt one.  A better one might be to call the Anglo-Saxons, "English" even if they really weren't in the modern sense of the word.  The people who built Stonehenge were not English ethnically or linguistically.  The Novgorodians were from the polity known as Rus' and were "russkii" which we would translate as "Russian"(they were also sometimes referred to as "Slovenes" and perhaps a few other such ethnic terms).  While Rus' and its culture is not exclusive to modern Russia, and the area and peoples became modern-day Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, the not uncommon practice in the scholarship is to use the term "Russia" even to refer to Rus', the Appanage, or the Muscovite periods.  Thus Janet Martin's book, Medieval Russia, not Medieval Rus'. The alternatives (such as "Rus'ian" a rather silly modern construction) or others are rather cumbersome or even more unsatisfactory.  For the sake of simplicity, I have used "Russia" and "Russian" in spite of the shortcomings of those terms.--Mcpaul1998 06:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anachronisims

message: A related vandalism/edit war is going on at Talk:Ingria (and, I guess on hundreds of other pages). -- Petri Krohn 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ingria 

message: Dear admins who protected this page,
This is going too far.
Let's see:
1. You said that you reverted the adding of interwiki links to ru-sib according to policy on external links, but an interwiki link is not an external link. You may think that a link to ru-sib.wiki is external, because you don't recognize it as a part of the international Wikipedia, but for now Wikimedia foundation has a different opinion.
2. Protecting a whole page just because of a revert war with one editor is way too much. If you think that a certain editor is a vandal, you can block the editor. Protecting the page completely for all editing is totally against the wiki idea.
3. In the particular case of Novgorod, there is nothing stupid or obscene in the article about it in the ru-sib.wiki. If you think that it is a disgrace to link Hamlet to its silly Siberian translation, i actually agree with you - i think that the existence of that particular translation on a Wikipedia is vandalism and i expressed my opinion about it there. But there's nothing obscene in :ru-sib:Великой Новгород. If you think that that article has a non-neutral POV or historical inaccuracy, you are welcome to fix it, not to block it or delete it.
Thanks for your attention. --Amir E. Aharoni 08:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: Vast parts of present Norway, Russia, Sweden and Finland were joint "tribute paying land" (Norwegian: skattland) between Norway, Sweden and Novgorod. This included the Kola penninsula, the present Norwegian coast to Malangen west of Tromsø, and the country behind. Would this fit somewhere in the article? Jon kare 09:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kola/Lapland/Finnmark 

message: :Image:Nevsky.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Nevsky.jpg

message: Removed because it's inappropriate here.
:Indeed, a number of western scholars question whether there really was feudalism in the medieval West and if the term is applied to such a variety of phenomena as to be practically useless.Susan Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994) Ufwuct (talk) 15:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Feudalism

message: As discussed at Talk:Battle_of_Grunwald#Participants, a banner from Novgorod took part in the battle, likely as part of the alliance with Poland-Lithuania. This likely should be mentioned in this article, and expanded upon (currently in battle of Grunwald Novgorod banner is simply listed among the banners of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, while it was probably only an allied unit (since GDL did not control Novgorod).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  11:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novgorod and Battle of Grundwald 

message: Good Lord, people! Wikipedia welcomes diverse points of view. Wikipedia welcomes multicultural points of view. Wikipedia welcomes translations between multi-language versions of the online encyclopedia.
Wikipedia does *not* welcome long, un-substantiated, obviously not-NPOV paragraphs written to serve some ho-hum current agenda. Or various agendas of the past.
If the Novgorod Republic was such an amazing state, which did so much over the course of its history -- please, kindly explain how and when and where and why this was done. In simple words. Personally, I'd like to learn about this, if it was so. But most of the current version of this article makes assertions without any evidence of proof.
Let me see if I can make this more clear... "In 1905, a fleet of Canadian Zeppelins appeared above Novgorod and Pskov and bombed both cities into submission. Nine out of ten Novgoradians and Psokians died in these horrible Canadian attacks, and many memorials have been erected in these cities to remember the glorious dead."
But... this didn't happen. No Canadian Zeppelins bombed. I just made that up.
And equally true -- as a Wikipedia reader, I have no way of knowing if anything anyone else has written in this article is equally invented, made-up, and non-NPOV.
To me, this article reads like a polemic. Rather than attacking me personally, or my personal POV, I'd suggest people edit this article to make it make more sense to ordinary people.
Please, if you disagree with me -- express your opinions freely and openly. But please don't imagine you have the freedom to attack me personally for expressing my POV. You don't.
I hope this article will be made better by my comments.
cheers,
Madmagic (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  This Is A Terrible and Wretched Wikipedia Article 

message: This is a classic example of "russification" of the pages in English Wikipedia. All mentions to Finno Ugrians who played important role in foundation and developing this Uuslinna has been deleted away making it totally Slavonic trade center which, in fact, it was not. It was a continuing threat to Moskovite despotismism of powerful internal concentration of ruling power into the hands of one ruling family, with its in origin Finno Ugrian laws and internal order. Votes (Vatjat) played the most important part in eaarly days of the town. The main road toward north was named Vatjaroad and at first the offical language in kerejet / käräjät was Vatjan language, not Russian language. The second language in use was old Slavonic Krivitshi dialect of which many (more than two hundred) borrowings appeared to Finnish, Estonian and Karelian languages used that time in the town. In addition old Swedish language, commercial Deutsch, and Liti and Läti languages were used. Also the map is somewhat questionable. It places whole Karelian Isthmus and East Karelia under Novgorod Commercial Empire, which they were not. The propaganda of Yeroslaff the Great by conquering the lands of Koreli pagans and convert them to be faithful Orthodox Christians since 1015 smells to the nose. This just like that during one robbing excursion to Finland. Thus, the first connections with Baltic Finno Ugrians with Slavs occurred at earlist in 700´s somewhere south of Staraja Russa with the Krivitshi tribe and along Väinäjoki (Russian Zapadnaja Dvina). The race which was later called Big Slavs had not even born at those days. All this means Novogorod (Navaharod) main commercial connections were in south western direction, not with vulgääri Moskova. Hansa had one of its main kontor in Navaharod, trade was fluorishing, Hansa influence become stronger in Torgovaja side of the town, so why make an attack against it by fellow Kalparitarit from Aesteland against Hanseatic commercial interests? Stupidness may one say, but you have to remember that all the history was later written with strong Moscovite bias showing the realm of Muscovite ideas of Greater Russia and its most dangerous internal enemy in Slavoniland had to be blackpainted in all ways. And Moskova managed to it and transfer the main base of power from north west Rushjiland to Center of Oka - Volga land after 1380 and finish it totally in 1478. Au dieu for somekind of demokratia of Russian style. The blood was flooding again on the streets of Navaharod.
The published list of Pjasadnakkis (Posadnaks) do not prove they were of Russian origin. One have to remember the habit of Slavonic Orthodox Church to rename all the baptized "pagans" (pagadnakkis), ie. Finno Ugrians with human new names. Thus, Timofei Jaroslavits can as well be Koreli (Karelian) Timo Jyrinpoika and so on. Those with slav inhired in their father´s name were supposedly of Slavonic origin of (Krivitshi) Crivitianni or Severjanni (The Northeners) tribes. The Kievan influence after Monomachus is really questionable. 
From old oral stories of the life in this multi ethnic trade center (which was totally depending of imported grain due bad soil around the town), are the most lively describtions of everyday life and habits of the towns. The Arab visitors looked "eyes rounded" the drinking, imported Curtisans from all around the Europe, the Venetian women (one may call them the Venetsians) from certain blocks along Grande Canale were in fafour, the both sex going totally naked to sauna together and the native talk of different languages, really the only cosmopolitan town in Rushjiland. Slavonic Bot origanated from Swedish Båt, river pirate ships Uishkuis from Finnish Uisko etc. Regular small armed gang of mercenaries from Swedish en tusen man (one thousand man) which seems to have been the only regular armed force being paid by rich Navaharodian traders on their payroll playing important role in the taxcollecting business of which the chieftain of them rolled and turned in his own pockets the classic tenth of total of collected taxes as his annual reward. That was real Navaharod / Uuslinna in medieval time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.126.143 (talk) 14:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Russifated Article

message: Novgorod Republic was a fief of Polish Crown 1389-1392 and 1401-1412 and it`s historically sourced fact but Russian scope is dominating here changing verified historical sources into fables. Mathiasrex (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody denies this insignificant episode. The only thing which is being opposed here is your effort to put Poland in the center of attention where it is not justified. --Voyevoda (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novgorod as feudal fief of Polish Crown 

message: When researching a great event of the past, especially one that had a crucial effect on further developments, a true historian, like any true scholar, will find it necessary to go beyond superficial vapidity and empty cliches, and to get to the root of certain sharp turns — the sources of victories and defeats of once powerful states. This approach is absolutely necessary if we are to comprehend the grandiose and terrible “gathering of Russian lands” around Moscow in the 14th-16th centuries that resulted in the formation of a centralized autocratic state. This state was extremely aggressive: it enlarged its area by 180 times between 1321 and 1581, and that was just the beginning! It “nourished” its ideology not with European “charters of liberties,” as England did, not with the reforms of the enlightened and liberal dukes, as, for example, Florence did, but with the unlimited right of a “grand sovereign” to deal with his “rabble” and “slaves” (the latter included even the boyars) as he pleased.
But what stood in the way of an unchecked and predatory expansion of grand Muscovite princes and tsars, from Ivan Kalita to Ivan IV the Terrible, which has been equally glorified by pre-Revolutionary and Soviet ready-to-serve historians, was an amazing state — His Majesty Lord Novgorod the Great [the way its citizens called the Novgorod Republic – Ed.], a free veche (people’s assembly)-ruled republic that had inherited the living democratic traditions of Ancient Rus’. At the peak of its power (the 14th-first half of the 15th centuries), this state controlled a northern territory as far as the Urals (called Yugra Rocks at the time), the White Sea, and even Siberia. This power maintained very close trade links with Western Europe, including the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, German free cities on the Baltic and North seas, and the Polish Kingdom. It used a complete Magdeburg Law system of privileges and was, in political terms, diametrically opposed to an autocratic Moscow.
All the important questions of the city’s and republic’s life — be it concluding trade agreements with Europe, electing the posadnik (mayor), mobilizing the militia, raising money for building a new temple, etc. — were usually settled at the assemblies (veche) of free Novgorod citizens. The Novgorod prince himself was in fact no more than a hired commander of the local military force (druzhina).
The Novgorod Republic truly embodied, to use modern parlance, the possible “European vector” of the development of the future “Great Russian” people. The unification of the latter into one state was an objective necessity in the 14th century. Speaking of the future Great Russian lands, the question was: who will lead the process of unification — the authoritarian Moscow or the Novgorod Republic? (It will be noted that a powerful ally, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which also included Ukrainian lands, supported Novgorod, albeit only for a while.) Our prominent historian Mykola Kostomarov once defined this as a rivalry between a “veche-appanage” and a “monarchic” Rus’. He explained: “The ideal of a veche-appanage life was that Rus’ lands be self-sufficient so that each land formed a whole in its local life and all of them were bound with the same, common to all, linchpin.” The idea of a monarchic setup was entirely different. In this case the freedom of constituent parts is sacrificed to a different idea, a single state with the component parts absorbed or destroyed. ... http://www.day.kiev.ua/208416  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.86.13 (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Objectiv article: The fall of Great Novgorod

message: Insufficient references: numerous unreferenced paragraphs. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me 22:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: B-class failed

message: :"Marxist scholars (e.g., Aleksandr Khoroshev) often spoke of class struggle in Novgorod. There were some 80 major uprisings in the republic, which often turned into armed rebellions. The most notable among these took place in 1136, 1207, 1228–29, 1270, 1418, and 1446–47. The extent to which these were based on "class struggle" is unclear. Many were between various boyar factions or, if a revolt did involve the peasants or tradesman against the boyars, it did not consist of the peasants wanting to overthrow the existing social order, but was more often than not a demand for better rule on the part of the ruling class. There did not seem to be a sense that the office of prince should be abolished (it didn't seem to cross the medieval mind to do that) or to let the peasants run the city."
:An all too common objection against Marxist historiography, both crude and straw-man-based. Hardly any Marxist scholar, even in the worst years of Stalinist dogmatism, was stupid enough to think and claim that class struggle in pre-modern times was normally about the lower class consciously fighting to overthrow the existing social or political order. Class struggle doesn't require a clearcut conscious agenda for the transformation of society, it is just about different social classes struggling with each other (pursuing what they see as their interests, of course). Conflicts between non-socialist trade unions and employers are considered to be, objectively, class struggle by Marxists, even if the participants don't share the Marxists' notions. Similarly, Marxist historiography tends to see class struggle in past and present conflicts that the actual participants claim and, arguably, partly believe to be dynastic, ethnic, religious, legal, or ethical in nature. The idea is that the people involved, especially the oppressed classes, mostly don't realize what they are doing, since they are, to a large extent, blinded by the ideology of their society and don't understand its true mechanics. One may doubt and disagree with this approach, it does smack of Freudianism with its reliance on the subconscious, but hardly any historical research can do without the general understanding that historical events aren't always about what their participants have said or thought they're about. Just pointing out that rebels in the Jacquerie didn't issue a Declaration of Human Rights, and thinking that you've disproved 150 years of Marxist thought with that highly original observation, is ridiculous.--91.148.130.233 (talk) 20:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straw-man polemic against Marxist historiography 

message: Novgorod was nominally at least ruled by the Princes. It was therefore a principality not a republic. Is there any pre-Soviet source that calls the territory a republic?122.59.83.216 (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Novgorod Republic is the WP:COMMONNAME. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republic? 

message: 1. No reference to archaeological findings 
2. No reference to Russian chronicles including Novgorodian ones 
3. No reference to pre-mongolian history including rivalty between Novgorod and Rostov-Suzdal  
4. well, no references to any source at all, in fact. Authors invented "massacre" of Novgorodians by Ivan III (clearly mixing Ivan III with Ivan IV) 
The only purpose of this article is to invent "Novgorodian" nation and crash it with "Moscovite" nation. 
But good example why Wikipedia should NEVER be used as a source of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.125.6.1 (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article is absolute rubbish 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Novgorod Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040817113342/http://www.eccentrix.com/members/figge33/inkeri/viking.htm to http://www.eccentrix.com/members/figge33/inkeri/viking.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Moscow did not accuse Novgorod of the fact that they want to become Catholics. Moreover, in 1454 Moscow refused to recognize the restoration of the patriarchate in Constantinople (since it was annexed by the Turks). Novgorod recognized and sent gifts to Kiev (appointed Metropolitan 1458) and to Moscow - the self-proclaimed Moscow metropolitan whom the patriarchs did not recognize.
During the war of 1456 when Moscow vassalized the Novgorod Republic and imposed a demand that the Velikiy Kniaz of Novgorod always be the Velikiy Kniaz of Moscow. Moscow in general did not blame Novgorod for anything religious. Simply claimed "the right of the strong"
In 1478, when the Republic was finally dissolved, Moscow accused Novgorod of heresy.
1. Not honoring the God-given Tsar(the first crowned Tsar was Ivan 4 but the first self-proclaimed Ivan 3 after his marriage to Sophia Palaeologus in 1472, and the Tsar is not the king - a Sacred Emperor as Tenno in Japan)
2. Heresies of the Judaizers (Sect of Skhariya the Jew) - The accusations are false since the center of this heresy was in Tver. And this was ordinary Sadduceism. And the heretic was one of the sons of Ivan 3 - Ivan Young.
3. A conspiracy with Lithuania to overthrow the "Lawful Tsar" - and this was most likely true.
But in the Catholicism Moscow Novgorod never blamed - it was invented in the late 18th century.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.239.220.140 (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  What accused Moscow of Novgorod 

message: Somebody wrote:
The collection of birch-bark texts also includes chronicles of byliny (Russian folklore and epic stories). The heroes of these stories were most commonly men who represented the free and adventurous spirit of the Novgorod Republic. One popular figure of the time was Sadko, a business man and traveler. Another popular figure was Vasilii Buslaev, a young giant who gets into fights with his neighbors.
This is absolutely bogus, the earliest Novgorodian bylinas are recorded in the 19th century and are NOT attested in any birchbark documents. Neither are chronicles. I deleted this claim. It was written either by a misinformed non-Russian or by some hyper-patriotic idiot.89.178.238.116 (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, you're right.--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bogus Info Deleted 

message: As per Russian wiki Novgorodian coinage had started in 1420. Will you add Novgorod Republic Coinage section and Novgorodian currency (=2 chetvertetss = 10 lobetss = 20 s = 2/3  2 belkas/vekshas/veveritas=14th century Denarius.----Numulunj pilgae (talk) 02:23, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added one sentence about the currency. I think there is a fair amount of controversy with regards to the nature of these units and the relationship between them and I don't know this topic well enough. Alaexis¿question? 07:36, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Novgorodian Coinage After 1420 

message: The page lists Old Church Slavonic and Old Novgorodian as official languages, and Germanic and Uralic as widely spoken. First of all, is there any evidence of the official use of Old Novogorodian? If I understand correctly, it was solely a vernacular, and not used in official documents which were written in Church Slavonic. Furthermore, is there any source that explicitly states that some Germanic languages were still commonly spoken during these times? I especially doubt the former one. MichaelTheSlav (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The "official" and "unofficial" languages looked like original research so it is best not to divide it and just leave it as common languages. But Old Church Slavonic was not the sole language for writing. Mellk (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: This article only mentions the Council of Lords as possibly existing though I have seen a lot of details about it in literature and there is some useful information in :ru:Новгородская республика. I think only the name that was used is uncertain. Mellk (talk) 09:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it would also be useful to make references to oligarchy. Mellk (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I made a start on this but it needs more details about later reforms (after the Council of Lords was created). Mellk (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

text: It's hard for me to gauge the scholarly consensus but the Russian Encyclopaedia talks about it as a hypothesis and mentions both supporters and detractors . Maybe we can qualify the description of the council in this article ("According to West European sources, ..."). Alaexis¿question? 21:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, we should probably not write everything as fact. It seems this term was introduced by Klyuchevsky. We could probably mention this being according to traditional historiography (also the composition according to Yanin) and also mention some criticism of the idea. Mellk (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good! Alaexis¿question? 12:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Council of Lords 

message: Regarding , my reading of Battle of Shelon and A Brief History of Russia was that Ivan III stopped short of invading or taking control of the city in previous conflict(s) with Novgorod. Is there a source that he had previously invaded the city? Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed this based on the same source: "In 1478 Ivan once again invaded and seized the city" (p. 25). Mellk (talk) 08:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The phrasing of that sentence is vague, but based on the text leading up to that sentence, the "once again" seems to apply to invading the principality, especially because none of the prior text mentions him invading the city. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 15:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see what you mean now. OK, hopefully it is closer to the source now. Mellk (talk) 15:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Once again invaded"