Talk:Novogrudok

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fork[edit]

The history of the "second prong" of the fork is in Navahrudak/old article. `'mikkanarxi 16:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ghirlandajo[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place to evaluate historiography, so I've changed wording that disputes lithianian historian works, keeping all the statements intact. Truthseeker 85.5 - it's not a place of national pride or disgust. It's aplace for facts - i you care to participate, provide reference to Maciej Strijkowki's work, and do not delete facts, you don't like - for example that stone castle was built in 14 century.--Lokyz 19:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "like" or dislike any "facts" related to this settlement. What makes you think that I don't like castles built in the 14th century? I must confess that I don't like "the Mendog's castle", because it doesn't make much sense from a grammatical point of view. --Ghirla -трёп- 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite an interesting wording - somehow i cannot see no GFA no Neutrality in it, and unnamed Lithuanian historians seem to be more biased than the author who put down this wording.--Lokyz 20:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Such statements as and make it the capital of his expanding state is only proof of editors lack of skills in this period. The best thing that contemporary Mindaugas docs suggests is Datum in Lettowia in curia nostra anno domini MCCLIII mense Julio; =Latava stream + hill fort.= some location - capital(?) M.K. 09:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)p.s. aaa and one more thing - Navahradak was placed as "capital" by steriy. also by acts of Polish friends, because he wanted to prove that Navahradak is inextricable part of Lithuania, that territorial disputed should be forgotten for all times.[reply]
Sorry, I can't parse this gibberish. Could you articulate your arguments (if there are any) more intelligibly? --Ghirla -трёп- 11:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the meaning and importance of "coronation" ceremonies in pagan times is not very clear. - not very true, because we are perfectly aware of coronation ceremonies of this kind in Lithuania (new cathedral, crown, bishop arrival, proclamation Catholic texts/prayers etc.) , plus he was already baptized before coronation, so no more paganism, at least for a while. M.K. 13:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the pagans had a crown, a bishop, and a cathedral? I was not aware of that. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
you made statement about Mindaugas case and I answer that he built/ordered cathedral, organized bishop matters etc. for his coronation, a little bit more when - meaning and importance of "coronation" is not very clear M.K. 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ruling Princes[edit]

Capital?[edit]

An anon recently questioned it being a capital of GDL in the "Belarus" article. Please substantiate the claim (here and at Belarus). Mikkalai 20:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have some historical books in Belarusian (in paper) here... and I found few links: [1] [2] [3] [4]... --Monkbel 07:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
These links are representing just one of POV, in this case belorussian, ant than POV is not really good argumented. To avoid insults and anger, i'd ask you to give your argumens, and by that I mean valid argumentated scientific research and documents.
AFAIK, idea of Novohradek being capital was born in late XVIth century, by the time when GDL was still hoping to regain Volyn and Halich from Poland. Supposed first capital was moved due south east to prove, that above mentioned lands were non separable part of GDL (by the time in Novohradek was built really impressive castle). For that sake Strijkowski has written a politicly biased chronicle, based on variable sources, among them highly disputed at the verge as non existant. Among other things, in that chrionicle was also a statement, that all dukes of GDL are of Roman origin (as an argument were used similiarities between lithuanian and latin words). Such arguments were used to validate GDL separatism from Poland. If needed i can provide full list of historiografy on this in at least 4 languages. --Lokyz 20:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that only Belorussians says this city was capital of LGD; Lithuanians says capital during Mindaugas rule was Voruta, which place is unknown (others says there was no capital then, and that Grand Duke was just moving with army through local dukes and taking tribute and spending time at them: such practice was common elsewhere), then Kernavė, then Trakai, then Villnius. In fact, I heard the first time of claime about Navgaradak being capital once from here, . I dont know how much Belorussian claim differs from this, but there is certainly proove for e.g. Trakai being capital (now the town is called Senieji Trakai). I think when I'll have time I will make an article Heritage of Grand Duchy of Lithuania where would be discussed influences by Lithuanians to LGD, influences by Eastern Slavs to LGD, Belorussian and Lithuanian claim differences on certain historical events, their prooves, also explaiantion between relations of different nations in LGD (that theere wasn't one nation ruling another but rather existing in same country), ethnic compositions (I have some info on that) at different times, etc. and also where such common heritage could be seen now/recently (e.g. common coat of arms of pre-Lukashenko Belorussia and Lithuania, Litvins / Lithuanians, etc.) . In that case it would be possible to link to that article after mentioning about the capital so people would be informed about dispute. DeirYassin 21:26, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NPOVed article a bit. please note that there were no nations as such during time of early LGD. Lithuanians were cosnisting of a few tribes speaking in different dialects, Eastern Slavs weren't just Belarussians and Ukraineans either as they are now; and what is most important, people probably didn't thought of themselves as belong to some certain nation, but rather as of people living in LGD or it's respective territoral units. Also, at the time of LGD there was almost no influence to culture of each nation from other nations, as nations were living in separate parts of the country, while nobles at the time, unlike in the time of Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth during polinization, used to "adopt" the way of life of locals, e.g. Lithuanian nobles who would marry Slavic nobles and move to live in Slavic territories would adopt Orthodox faith and start speaking Slavic and vice-versa. Therefore language had political influence, but not cultural, as the great majority of non-Easten Slavic lands wouldnt know Old Belarussian. And religion (paganism of Lithuanians, Islam of tatars) wasnt influenced by writting at all. As for deleting the portion about Lithuanians having less people, that changed over the time so is inaccurate. It is true that in late LGD Lithuanians were less than Eastern Slavs, however when LGD was just estabilished in Mindaugas times, it's borders encompassed almost just Lithuanian (Baltic) ethnic territories and just some of Slavic ones, so I read estimation that 70% people then were Lithuanians (Balts). Later this part gradually decreased to 30% however, with the aquisition of new Slavic territories into LGD. DeirYassin 21:56, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

About "old belorusian"[edit]

i don't think it's appropriate to put paragraphs about "old belorussian" written laguage and it's influence on GDL under a topic for a solely city. Nor the language, neither the written word was invented in this city, and seeing it as a former capital is quite disputable. And "short version of GDL" IMHO does not fit here either, there is a whole article about that. --Lokyz 23:15, 2005 July 19 (UTC)


I agree. BTW, same story about Navahradak being capital is also repeated on Belarus article. I think these disputes about various national ways to present history of GDL should be on article Grand Duchy of Lithuania and everyone who wants to read more about the Duchy would click the link. DeirYassin 09:46, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish history[edit]

This town has a rather rich Jewish history, e.g. it was the home to Yechiel Michel Epstein and a yeshiva of the Mussar Movement. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I added the Novardok yeshiva and Rabbi Epstein. -- -- -- 22:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV'ed attack[edit]

"Short history of Novohradeka according to Ermalovich".

Novogrodek[edit]

Novogrodek is correct English form of that Belarusian city (Navahradak or Navahrudak in Belarusian language). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mibelz on November 15, 2006

According to which authoritative source is this claim of the "correct English form" based? -- Deborahjay 14:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First capital of Lithuania?[edit]

I move lengthy details of scholarly disputes from main space to this page. --Ghirla-трёп- 13:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stryjkowski's approach is disputed also, because he could not locate and pinpoint single place were King Mindaugas was crowned. Firstly he stated that Kernavė was such place [1] , in second of his work the same suggestion is repeated again [2] and only in his third work Navahradak was pointed as such place [3]. Nevertheless, the place where a Christian ruler is crowned is not always his capital. For instance, the Russian tsars were crowned in Moscow when their capital was St. Petersburg, while the kings of France were crowned in Rheims and not in Paris, which was their capital. Furthermore, the meaning and importance of "coronation" ceremonies in pagan times is not very clear. Other scholars, which oppose idea of Navahrudak as capital, make suggestions that first capital could be in Voruta, Kernavė, Trakai and Vilnius, although it's more likely that there was no single capital at all [citation needed] prior to the documented proclamation of Vilnius as capital in 1323.

References

  1. ^ Stryjkowski M. Stryjkowski M. Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi. Stryjkowski M. Goniec cnothy, do prawych slachciczów. Warszawa, 1846. Vol-2. p.541
  2. ^ J. Radziszewska. Stryjkowski M. O początkach, wywodach, dzielnościach, sprawach rycerskich i domowych sławnego narodu litewskiego, żemojdzkiego i ruskiego, przedtym nigdy od żadnego ani kuszonę, ani opisane, z natchnienia Bożego a uprzejmie pilnegp doświadczenia. Warszawa, 1978, p. 194.
  3. ^ Stryjkowski M. Stryjkowski M. Kronika polska, litewska, żmódzka i wszystkiej Rusi. Warszawa, 1846. p. 197

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Navahrudak. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Navahrudak. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:53, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 September 2020[edit]

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: Page moved. (non-admin closure) Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:34, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Navahrudak → Novogrudok – More widespread and used name, in Belarus itself (by officials and citizens), as well as on the internet. The name Novogrudok is used on the city's official website, The Official Tourism and Recreation in Novogrudok website. Google Books Ngram Viewer: Novogrudok is also more popular. WhiteRusian (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request (permalink). —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This seems reasonable under the evidence provided. BD2412 T 20:38, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Article includes dubious statements: Novogrudok never was capital of Lithuania and no reliable sources support statements that Mindaugas was crowned in Novogrudok[edit]

Sentence (this: "Some researchers identified Novogrudok as the first capital of Lithuania...") in this article includes references to non-online English books, thus it is not possible to verify if they really support such dubious statements which are not supported by reliable sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Because of that, it is certain that these non-online sources were added on purpose to defend WP:OR. The claim that Novogrudok was capital of Lithuania is supported mostly by Belarusian tourism websites (definitely fails as WP:V, WP:RS in an encyclopedia: Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia) and by some questionable late sources (which obviously can be false and does not automatically qualify as truth, especially Belarusian sources which often includes original research and the opposite theories about the Lithuanian history, thus are not recognized internationally). We even do not know the exact location of the Lithuanian King Mindaugas capital city (Voruta is the only mention and it has many, many possible locations; some theories even suggests that he had no capital at all), so attempts to prove that somebody exactly knew where Mindaugas was crowned while writing the late sources is even more ridiculous and is an obvious case of WP:OR (late authors were simply guessing and that is not an encyclopedia-level material), so pushing of a 19th century illustration Mindoŭh. Міндоўг (1824).jpg into this article, which depicts the crowning of Mindaugas, is a yet another obvious case of WP:OR. Consequently, I request to completely and permanently remove all the dubious, non-verifiable claims from this article because articles of Wikipedia (an encyclopedia) is not an internet forum where we could discuss pseudoscience theories. Ping user Sabbatino who was involved in this dispute for a long time already.

These articles of Encyclopedia Britannica (the most reliable encyclopedia) do not mention such pseudo theories and I can't see why Wikipedia should include them as it also seeks equally high-level reliability standards: https://www.britannica.com/place/Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/place/grand-duchy-of-Lithuania, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Mindaugas. But the first Britannica's article does mention other recognized capitals of Lithuania: Kernavė, Trakai, Vilnius.

Discussion at the AN about this: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard#Original research at Novogrudok since 17 June 2021. -- Pofka (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:OR discussion was archived as other users failed to provide WP:Reliable sources to support these false claims: Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 46#Original research at Novogrudok, thus such claims described in the title of this section should not be presented in this article. Continuation of pushing of WP:OR, based on an authoritarian Belarusian regime sources, will result in a report to the administrators noticeboard and likely sanctions afterwards. -- Pofka (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Orthodox metropolitan in Navahrudak[edit]

Quotes from sources.

Due to the religious fervor and proselytism of an active part of urban elites, cultural activities of some emigrants from the Balkans (in particular a well-known metropolite Gregory Camblak), evident tolerance of Lithuanian power, Orthodoxy tended to make a triumphal march in the land of Navahrudak in the fourteenth-fifteenth century. As early as the first half of the fourteenth-century, the positions of Orthodoxy in the region were considered so strong that a Lithuanian Orthodox metropolitan seat was established albeit temporarily in Navahrudak at that time. A result was significant: by the middle of the sixteenth century there were about 650 Orthodox parish churches in the newly established palatinate of Navahrudak. A city’s particular ecclesiastic status was sealed by the establishment of an Orthodox bishopric seat. Also the Orthodox Metropolitan of Kyiv and All Rus actually resided in Navahrudak. (Heroes and Villains: Politics and Historical Memory in Late Medieval East Europe The Case Study of the Land of Navahrudak, P. 33–34)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is because, aside from Muscovy's claim to that office, the ecumenical patriarch contin- ued to appoint metropolitans of “Kiev, Galicia, and all Rus',” who resided at Navahrudak in Lithuania. Lithuania's Kievan metropolitanate included, besides the Archeparchy of Kiev, the eparchies of Przemyśl. (Paul Robert Magocsi Historical Atlas of Central Europe)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novogrudok is the first capital of GDL[edit]

Orencia Mindaugas.

Quotes from sources.

He then proceeded to conquer his homeland in the 1240s, rather than the other way around: that is, Mindaugas attacked Lithuania from Navahrudak, rather than attacking Navahrudak from Lithuania (Andrew Wilson. Belarus. 2 Litva)

support from the people of Navahrudak, Mindaugas conquered Lithuania – the enclave of the Baltic population on the Belarusian lands – and subjugated it to himself, ie to the land of Navahrudak. (The Discourse on Identity in a Global Consumption–Based Society: Between Myth and Reality)

The need to resist the pressure of Tatars and German crusaders forced the people of Belarus to consolidate around the rapidly expanding principality with the capital of Navahrudak (Novogrudok) ruled by a Lithuanian prince Mindaugas. By the middle of the 14th century, all the territory of modern Belarus was attached to The Great Principality of Lithuania, Russia and Zhamoytiya (GPL). By the 15th century, the territory of the GPL expanded from Brest to Smolensk and from Baltic to the Black Sea. The origin of the Belarusian language, the Belarusian culture and the Belarusian nation itself should be looked for in the GPL where 90% of the population were Slavonic and the state language was old Belarusian. The current borders of Belarus in the East, the South and the West almost coincide with that of the GPL in 16th century. (THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR SOVIET AND EAST EUROPEAN RESEARCH, 1994)

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 16:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Миндовг (Mindaugas) // Great Russian Encyclopedia:

Ru: Государство Миндовга не имело постоянной столицы, правитель со своей дружиной перемещался по дворам и замкам, утверждал свою власть и собирал дань. Историки гипотетически реконструировали домен Миндовга, который располагался в Восточной Литве. Миндовг рано утвердился на землях Чёрной Руси (центр – г. Новогрудок); в Полоцке правил племянник Миндовга князь Товтивил, признававший его власть, что положило начало литовской экспансии на русские земли.

Translation: The state of Mindaugas did not have a permanent capital, the ruler with his retinue moved around the courtyards and castles, asserted his power and collected tribute. Historians hypothetically reconstructed the Mindaugas domain, which was located in Eastern Lithuania. Mindaugas early established itself on the lands of Black Russia (center - Novogrudok); in Polotsk the nephew of Mindaugas ruled, Prince Tovtivil, who recognized his power, which marked the beginning of the Lithuanian expansion to the Russian lands.

--Лобачев Владимир (talk) 09:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Russian sources means nothing due to the Propaganda in the Russian Federation, thus fail Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Provide non-Belarusian, non-Russian reliable source. Encyclopedia Britannica do not support this WP:OR. Discussion at the AN about this: Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Original_research_at_Novogrudok since 17 June 2021. -- Pofka (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Novohrudek ghetto[edit]

What do you think about creating an article focused on the topic of the WW2 ghetto located in this town? GhettoInvestigator (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Navahrudak is the right transliteration from the native languge of Belarus[edit]

Requested move 6 March 2024[edit]

Novogrudok → Navahrudak – Belarusian is the native language of Belarus, so the name should be transliterated from that native language. --W (talk) 13:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. Natg 19 (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLACE clarification
*::::There seems to be a discrepancy. WP:PLACE says it should be named according to national rules, which I presume refers to Instruction on transliteration of Belarusian geographical names with letters of Latin script, although this links to WP:BELARUSIANNAMES where it says BGN/PCGN should be used when no commonly accepted form in English exists. Mellk (talk) 04:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the national rules, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, is BGN/PCGN - see WP:BELARUSIANNAMES. I had proposed some time back that we use Instruction instead; that was shot down, and probably rightfully so. BGN/PCGN is still more common in reliable sources today. 162 etc. (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I believe BGN/PCGN was the intention and most articles on the settlements follow this, but to me national rules sounds like it is referring to the one published by the government, which we do not use for the titles (for this article there is no difference in the transliteration anyway). Mellk (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've made an edit to the naming convention to improve clarity.[5] Note that the wikilink is unchanged, and that is WP:BELARUSIANNAMES. 162 etc. (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is better, thanks. Mellk (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There has been no demonstration of a WP:COMMONNAME for the proposed title here, and AjaxSmack's ngram suggests that the opposite is the case - the current name is preferred in book sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The burden of proof is the other way around. BGN/PCGN is to be used unless a strong COMMONNAME argument can be made for the Russian name - and a Google ngram by itself is not sufficient for that. 162 etc. (talk) 20:16, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support due to lack of clear common name. Mellk (talk) 16:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Novogrudok&oldid=1215875520"