Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Saints Cyril and Methodius is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article may need an appropriate infobox template.

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject Russia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (comments)

Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius/Archive1

User Crculver has some issues hence arbitrarily reverted my changes. The discussion on them takes place in St.Cyril talk. I am reverting back to correct version. Xenovatis 22:14, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Is SS. Cyril and Methodius Day on May 24 also a holiday outside Bulgaria ? in Macedonia, maybe ? Is this merely vandalism ? Public holidays of the Republic of Macedonia offers no help. -- PFHLai 18:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)

Pure vandalism to me, especially excluding Bulgaria. Macedonian Slavs usually refuse their Bulgarian roots and tend to name the Bulgarian culture their own, and not Bulgarian, especially if it has some connection to the former Bulgarian lands where the FYR Macedonia now exists... --TodorBozhinov 14:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "Greek (i.e. Byzantine)" is erronneous as the two are not tautologous. The inhabitants of the Eastern Roman Empire called themselves Romans, and while Greek was the official and most widely spoken language there were many linguisticaly and ethnicaly non-Greek popullations which nonetheless were also Romans (eg Armenians,Slavs,Roma,Vlachs etc). The correct alternative to the above phrase would be Greek Byzantine. I have ammended the article to reflect this. I have also removed the reference to the possible Slavic origin of their mother. As there is no evidence produced yet to support this, it would be best placed in a section about their perception and veneration by the Slavic people and any other attendant myths. Please discuss before reverting. -Anaximandros-

Although "Byzantine" by default does mean Greek (hence the coining of a Greek city's name), the correct disambiguation which provides more precision is the term "Byzantine Greek". For some weird reason User:Juro doesn't like the use of that term. Byzantines did call themselves Romans but literally all non-Byzantines called them 'Greeks' and their state 'Graecia'. Slavs, Latins, Armenians and Vlachs were ethnic minorities, and were not viewed as "Romans" (which was applied only on Greeks). Therefore 'Byzantine' does not apply to non-Greek ethnic groups within the empire (hellenized royalties excluded). The proof of this is the historical records of numerous violent episodes between the native 'Greco-Roman' (Byzantine) and the native non-Greek peoples that were viewed as outsiders. Miskin 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I concurr on Byzantine Greek being a better term to Greek Byzantine and have ammended it. However I have still not seen any source substantiating the claim thast their mother was of Slavic origin. Please provide a source otherwise don't mention it at all. Further I have linked Greek to the names of the Greeks articles to clarify the fact that these were Medieval Greeks. Further I have added links to each of the other two articles on the trio Cyril,Methodius,C&M as well as a link to the Byz empire on each.-Anaximandros-

User Juro, please provide some justification for reverting the abovementioned changes. Please provide some evidence of the brother's Slavic ancestry. Just changing it back is puerile. -Anaximandros-

VANDALISM by user Juro. He has refused to discuss and simply reverts my edits without providing justification. Please someone respond and inform of the correct procedure for dealing with such behavior. -Anaximandros-

To Juro from Aura:

I think that the majority of the Bulgarian people know that SS Cyril and Methodius are of Greek origin. I am Bulgarian myself, born and educated there, but I was never taught that SS Cyril and Methodius are Bulgarians. I would like to ask Juro and some other people not to change the article claiming that the locals in Bulgaria consider SS Cyril and Methodius Bulgarians because it is not true! - Aura

You think wrong! Let not forget that at his mission at The Khazars, Saint Cyril – himself pronounce not being Byzantine. Hi explains that his grandfather came to Byzantium as a refuge form the court of another country, in which his family was close to the ruler of the state but falling in disgrace – had to escape to Byzantium. Something more – yes, his father was in the army – but this has nothing to do with his ethnicity. Byzantine Empire was multinational. The army was also multinational in fact. The generals ware from different nationalities. And finally - It is generally wrong to assume Byzantium to be greek – it is the East Roman Empire. It became greek speaking at some point but it remained multinational until its very end. That’s why there is no reason to pronounce them Greek.And don’t speak for the majority please – speak for yourself! Konstantin Velev 22/05/2006

Konstantin is correct. Byznatium was not GREECE, it was the Roman Empire after the break up. It had Greek influence in language because of its location. I believe Emperor Justinian was the last emperor who used Latin in the royal court, but don't quote me on that. However, associating Greece and Byznatium is ignorant and wrong. As for the Saints, they were I am aware they lived in Byzantium and were sent from there. Their origins are doubtful, but I think it is fair to say that if they felt Byznatine, then they were. Dimitar Zlatkov 24-May-06

If it is wrong then you are faced with 500 years of consensus of Historical scholarship to contend with.

[edit] Duplicate?

Along with this page, we have the much older separate articles for Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius... Adam Bishop 23:52, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Republic of Macedonia on Bulgarian land??? Pure comedy.... but big fantasies and fanatism by the bulgarians as well. My advise to you dear bulgarians: DREAM ON !!!! and, why don't you show some history facts about that, but true ones, not forges and ones made with gun on someones head...

[edit] Britannica

I dont think we need to argue over whether we need links to the pay encyclopedia. Every article could be linked to its EB counterpart, but we dont do it. Sending someone to a pay site is just an unneeded ad. If you want to list the article as a reference, that is ok, but not as an external link. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 05:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I perfectly agree. That should be self-evident. Juro 21:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

I dare to disagree. Many people have free access to EB via library's, school's or University's subscription. By this token, NYTimes refs should also be cut off since anything over 14 days old require either a paid supscription or access through a library or smth. In fact even a book listing requires someone to buy or borrow a book to read it. So, EB is a legit ref for a WP. --Irpen 02:51, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

(1) Not many, some. And that does not change the above mentioned arguments. (2) Then the NYT ref. should be really cut off. (3) References to other general encyclopedias are ridiculous as a reference as such, not to mention Britannica. (4) Despite your believes, Britannica is NOT a reliable encyclopaedia or source of information. (5) Go on then, and add references to EB in other articles, let see what the others will say...Exactly the same things you can see in this discussion. Juro 13:15, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I added refs to EB to several articles in the regular course before and this is the first time I see it cut off. I don't feel strong enough about the issue to argue it with you since you seem very motivated. Fine, have it your way until other people add to this discussion (if others have an opinion too, of course). When I was writing this article (which was moved from here by cut and paste) I used EB as a ref, so I thought it is natural to list it as a ref. Peace. --Irpen 19:53, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] comments moved from article's space

Hello, It is very unfortunate that many of the facts in this article do not mirror the historical facts. I would strongly suggest you read the following article and correct the information you have posted about the brothers Saints.

http://www.macedoniainfo.com/cyrill_and_methodius.htm

Please, note that this information is very important and one should not attempt to voluntarily change the historical events due to lack of knowledge, and therefore offend the vast population of Eastern European nationalities. Our national culture is out pride and we would like to see such respected website as yours be correct and respectful as well. Best Regards,

Galina Milkova Bulgarian

Dear Galina, please try to improve the article yourself. This is Wikipedia and anyone can edit. --Irpen 02:05, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

If you motivation is to create an article the "vast population of Eastern European nationalities" can be "proud" of, do not touch this or any other article here. If your motivation, however, is to correct factual error, you can improve it. Finally, one warning: one web site is not sufficient as a source in cases of dispute.Juro 02:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

From Aura: I think that the majority of the Bulgarian people know that SS Cyril and Methodius are of Greek origin. I am Bulgarian myself, born and educated there, but I was never taught that SS Cyril and Methodius are Bulgarians. I would like to ask Juro and some other people not to change the article claiming that the locals in Bulgaria consider SS Cyril and Methodius Bulgarians because it is not true! - Aura

More unfortunate is how the Bulgarian fanatics "direct" their "movies" by their own-made models and "scenarios" which are filled with many things that DO NOT MIRROR THE HISTORY in the right meaning of this sentence. Galina Milkova posted a link, that leads to a page that does not match anything that occured on these territories, nor is written in the history. The web page contains only fanatic ideas of assimilation of people who have their own history, regulated state and language. It is a page that consists only false history facts. It looks alike a web page made from Neo-Nazis in which are presented only "crazy" ideas of reuniting territories that are imposible to unite.

Hello, I am bulgarian myself and here is what I think. First I agree that the site Galina Milkova has posted cannot be considered as a source, since it is a nationalistic site and does not represent historical facts, but rather natinalists wishful thinking. Anyways I do not think it is a neo-nazi site, as the person above believes. I think the article is good, but still it can be improved if state that many nations try to convert them to their own nation. I agree with Aura, that the majority of the people here know the origins of the brothers, but the majority of the people who know a little bit of history. If someone happened to have a nationalist as a history teacher in school the facts might not be available to him/her, thus one can be lead to believe that they are bulgarians. And in fact some people indeed believe that. I think the same goes for Macedonia, Russia and probably many other slavic countries.--82.146.27.71 22:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links

I find it rude that the deleted links added before were and are clearly used as sources of information, or otherwise error, to the current article.

[edit] They were of a foreign origin

I agree that the brothers might have been Greek in every aspect but in one - the Bulgarian medieval sources about state that Cyril mentioned to the Khazar kagan that he is not of Greek origin but his grandfather was from a foreign kingly (literally tsar) descent. So they were not 100% Greek no matter how much someone wants to prove it. Nedko Dimitrov 14:29, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

"lets leave it like this because at those times the term 'romaioi' was used insted of Greek"
That makes no sense. Greeks never called themselves by "Greeks", neither in antiquity nor in Byzantium nor in modern times. Non-greeks however, notably Romans, Latins and Europeans respectively, always referred to them by Greeks and not 'romaioi' nor 'hellenes', hence why this term is used to dab "byzantine" or "mycenaean" greek. Miskin 11:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine or Greek

Miskin, the very fact that you are reffering to Romans and Latins as separate ethnoses well in the 9 century AD is are very clear proof of your istorical ignorance(sorry for the hard words but couldn't put it another way). For your information I will tell you that the Hellenes and ALL citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire were reffered to by the citizens of the Western Roman Empire as Greeks (as you said), but on the other hand all neighbours of Byzantium called them 'romaioi' (as the manuscripts attest) as well as Greeks (not Hellenes). To solve this disambiguity modern historical science has introdced the terms Byzantine Empire for the Eastern Roman Empire, and respectively Byzantines for its citizens. As the very name Empire suggest Byzantium was NOT a nation-state but rather a multinational entity. Therefore, on Wikipedia we should stick to the modern internationally agreed term 'Byzantine' whn talking about people and events concerning the Eastern Roman Empire. Thank you for your understanding, Nedko Dimitrov 13:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of the Fourth Crusade? Miskin 13:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Everybody including Slavs called them 'Greeks', except for the Islamic states which used "Romans", and even them mainly at official level and not at academic (Turks still call 'Rum' the Greek minority of Turkey). Read Soucek's ‘Byzantium and the Islamic world' or Ciggaar's 'Western Travellers to Constantinople' to get a hint. Ostrogorsky states that the term 'Byzantium' is meant to disambiguate "between ancient Roman and medieval Greek history". So again, your claims are only your POV. And why are you bringing up the word "Hellenes" all the time? I can't see it anywhere in the article. Obviously Byzantium was not a nation-state, it was an Imperial state which by definition included non-Greek peoples (at least until the Battle of Manzikert), yet you're the one who's having difficulties to realise that and keeps making anachronistic comparisons. You know, the First Bulgarian Empire was not a nation-either, but we call them Bulgarians (originally a Turkic tribe). Doesn't that make you wonder? Do you know how multi-national the Ottoman Empire was? I don't think there can be a comparison with Byzantium. Maybe you're also suggesting to ban the term "Turks" or "Ottoman Turks" when referring to "Ottomans". Anyway I don't see what your point is, Cyril and Methodius were from Thessaloniki, have a look at its location in the map and read on its medieval history to find out who has inhabited that city. Terms such as "Byzantines", "Byzantine Greeks" or "Greeks" are used interchangeably. Johnathan Philips use mainly 'Greeks', Britannica uses all three, there's no such thing as "internationally agreed term". Regards. Miskin 14:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nedko Dimitrov said: "Miskin, the very fact that you are reffering to Romans and Latins as separate ethnoses well in the 9 century AD is are very clear proof of your istorical ignorance(sorry for the hard words but couldn't put it another way)."

Nicetas Choniates (born in the 12th century) said:

"Between us [Romaioi] and the Latins is set the widest gulf. We are poles apart. We have not a thought in common. They are stiff necked with a proud affection of an upright carriage, and love to sneer at the smoothness and modesty of our manners."

If you want a quote from the 9th century look at Charlemagne's letter to the Byzantine Emperor. Conclusion? The Byzantine Greeks did not use 'Romans' the way the modern nationalist world perceives it, hence why their contemporaries called them 'Greeks' and Byzantium 'Graecia'. Hence how terms such as "Kaiser" or "Tsar" or "The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation" came into use. Who's the ignorant again? Miskin 14:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

There cannot be consensus about this, so both sides opinions should be in the article with no one of them dominating. Nedko 14:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Vast majority of sources" is very subjective, and sources are often manipulated (including their count). So this cannot be point of defining that Saints Cyril and Methodius were Greeks. Nedko 14:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I say there can and there is a consensus about it. Would you like to compare the sources? Possibly biased sources will be excluded for the obvious reasons. Miskin 14:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Your so called "consensus" is not agreed with Slavic historians and opinion of slavic people nations. Thus it is false and tries itself to manipulate the history. Nedko

Miskin, you either dont understand english or think I am a fool. First when I say 'romans' I mean Italic people, not Byzantines, Greeks, Balcanite, whatsoever. The term 'romaioi' in my post refers to the Byzantines. When I am saying that in the late 9 century AD Latins and Romans had merged into one( for more than 1000 years), and Romans were originally a Latin tribe. In other words your statement 'Latins and Romans ...' i a pure nonsense when applied to the that age. Latins and Romans meant the same thing probably since 300 BC. So your source was talking about the differences 'romaioi' therefore Byzantines and Latins (Romans). He used the term Latin to avoid disambiguity bethween 'romans' and 'romaioi'(which is only the Byzantine spelling of 'romans'). Get the things clear for yourself first and than I will be happy to discuss historical matters with you. Internedko 15:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"notably Romans, Latins and Europeans respectively"
Then you misread my initial statement. The above sentence means "ancient Romans towards Hellenes", "medieval Latins towards Byzantines" and "Westeners towards Greeks in the Ottoman Empire". I wasn't talking about the same age. I don't know whether it was your English or your intelligence, but I didn't comment on neither. Miskin 16:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Juro, why I agree with current version, "Greek (i.e. Byzantine)" implies, from modern view, that Byzantine empire and modern Greece are same state, while from what I've known Byzantine empire had far more ethnos. This version however is ok for me and I accept it. Nedko^{self bias resist} 12:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we're all in agreement with the current version which mentions the most commonly used origin and disambiguates Byzantine within parenthesis. Miskin 12:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Greek or Slav ethnic group they belong

User:Telex, you are manipulating facts. Removing one side point of view is manipulation. What are reliable sources? These that represent Greek nationalists point of view? Google it, search yourself if you (and other, greek nationalists?) want in other places. There are many written books that state that they are slavs and others that their mother is slav. It is obious that modern Greece citizens will omit the facts. Look at this as example http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Saint-Cyril and may your conscience decide, if they were of greeks ethnos, slav ethnos or mixed. My opinion is that there is disagreement about this subject and that both side opinions should be presented. Missing the facts is one of most effective mean to manipulate history. Nedko 17:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll get back to you in a minute. NationMaster is not a good source - its a mirror of Wikipedia, it presents the way this article was a few weeks/months ago. --Telex 17:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is another one: http://www.mfa.government.bg/history_of_Bulgaria/122.html It states what the paragraph you removed states. That there is no clear historical facts agreed by everyone that they were greek, slav or bulgars. It also states that when brothers were born, the city population was bulgarian slavs. This is the official site of bulgarian government. Nedko 17:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

That's a Bulgarian source - it is a partisan source. We need neutral sources. See below. --Telex 17:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

From WP:RS "An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion.". You are removing verifiable opinion. Nedko 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. You are removing the verifiable opinion. You can say: neutral encyclopedia Columbia says they were Greek - Bulgarian nationalist website says their mother was Slavic. --Telex 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

It's unknown whether their mother was Slavic or not. According to Mr Gordon L. McDaniel [1]:

Constantine and Methodius were brothers whose father, Leo, was a Byzantine military commander (drungarios) based in Thessalonika. There has been speculation that their mother may have been Slavic-speaking. What is certain is that by the middle of the 9th century, Thessalonika was a cosmopolitan center of the Byzantine Empire whose surrounding territory was inhabited primarily by speakers of a Slavic dialect.

The conclusion is that their mother might have been Slavic-speaking (does that mean ethnically Slavic?). What is the effect of this? --Telex 17:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Conclusion is that both statements "they are Greeks" and "they are Slav" are opinions. Denying oponents point of view is history manipulation. Nedko 17:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not quite - we have sources saying they were Greek; we have no sources saying they were Slavic (even the one I quoted above says that it is "speculated"). Columbia Encyclopedia surely gets away with it. I would support removing the Greek from the introduction only, on the grounds that it is capable of being unnecessarily inflammatory. However, in the absence of (neutral) sources saying "they were not Greek, they were something else (Slavic)", there is no reason to sever the information altogether. --Telex 17:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Columbia source is referend as not neutral in this same wikipedia. Check it. I hope you realize that neither Greek nor Bulgarian propaganda and its tools in friendly empires means facts.Nedko 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I would support removing Greek from introduction. And not adding it at all elsewhere in the article or adding it with mentrion of both side opinions (WP:NPOV). This is what the paragraph you removed actually stated.Nedko 17:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Over 20 Sources Proving they are Greeks(again)

Let's see what "Greek nationalists" think:

From Ivo Banac's "The national question in Yugoslavia": "Matters were more complicated when Saint Cyril and Methodius, two Greek brothers from Salonika... As Byzantine Greeks, Cyril and methodius were more tolerant than Rome in accepting "barbarian" tongues in divine liturgy".
From Henry Cooper's, Slavic Scriptures: "how did this itinerant Greek philosopher become the single most outstanding writer of Slavic literatures in their first five hundred years or so?". Apparently contemporary Slavs referred to them also as Greeks (spelled Gr'ks), it's so ironic that their modern ancestors can't face the truth.
World Book 2005: "Greek brothers..."
Enc. Columbia: "Greek missionaries of Christianity..."
The Catholic Almanac's guide to the Church (Catholic encyclopaedia): "Greek missionaries, brother; venerated as apostles of the Slavs..."
www.vatican.va: "Cirillo e Metodio, fratelli, greci, nativi di Tessalonica, la città dove visse e operò san Paolo..." [2]
www.americancatholic.org:"Because their father was an officer in a part of Greece inhabited by many Slavs, these two Greek brothers ultimately became missionaries, teachers and patrons of the Slavic peoples."[3]
Pople John Paul II: "Dear Young Friends! In the Gospel passage just proclaimed, we heard that some Greeks wished to see Jesus. The two holy brothers from Thessalonica, Cyril and Methodius, were Greek too."[4]

Honestly do I have to go on? Miskin 17:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to follow you. You are comparing apples to pears. Entire nations opinions (even considered false by others) cannot be compared to count of sources (unreliable in the oponents opinion). Nedko 20:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

What do "entire nations" have to do with historical fact? The veracity of a fact is judged by historians not "nations".And the sources above are mostly from historians who are the experts equiped to judge truth in these matters. Xenovatis

Sources saying they were Greeks

(2) There has been evidence brought forward that they were Greek.
2.1 Quotation from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05: (Cyril and Methodius, Saints) 869 and 884, respectively, Greek missionaries, brothers, called Apostles to the Slavs and fathers of Slavonic literature.
2.2 Encyclopedia Britannica Saints Cyril and Methodius: "(Cyril who had)...been professor of philosophy at the patriarchal school in Constantinople, worked with Methodius, the abbot of a Greek monastery,..." The fact that Methodius was an abbot of a Greek monastery testifies to his being Greek and hence to his brother as well.
2.3 etymonline.com refers to the name Cyril as Greek. The name Cyril is L.L. Cyrillus, from Gk. Kyrillos, lit. "lordly, masterful," related to kyrios "lord, master. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=cyril&searchmode=none
2.4 Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that the brothers "invented a Slavic alphabet based on Greek characters" (Saints Cyril and Methodius) which indicates that their native language was Greek.
2.5 The Slav Pope John Paul II who in 31/12/1980 (in an official encyclical-Egregiae Virtutis-to the Catholic Church) and 14/2/1981(in the S.Clement church in Rome) said that Cyrillos and Methodios were “Greek brothers, born in Thessaloniki”
2.6 the Serb historian V.Bogdanovich, says that “Kyrillos and Methodios were born in Thessaloniki and were Greeks in origin, not Slavs” (History of the ancient Serbian literature, Belgrade 1980, pg.119).
2.7 Then in the ninth century Cyril and Methodius, two Greek monks from Thessaloniki , developed the Cyrillic alphabet and spread both literacy and Christianity to the Slavs. (“The macedonian conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a transnational world” by Loring Danforth)
2.8 Two Greek brothers from Salonika, Constantine, who later later became a monk and took

the name Cyril, and Methodius came to Great Moravia in 863 at the invitation of the Moravian Prince Rostislav (“Comparative history of Slavic Literatures” by Dmitrij Cizevskij, page vi)

2.9 the Byzantine court entrusted it to two brothers with wide experience o missionary work: Constantine the Philosopher, better known by his monastic name, Cyril and Methodius. Cyril and Methodius were Greeks.(“Czechoslovakian Miniatures from Romanesque and Gothic Manuscripts” by Jan Kvet, p. 6)
2.10 In answer to this appeal the emperor sent the two brothers Cyril and Methodius, who were Greeks of Salonika and had considerable knowledge of Slavonic languages. (The Balkans: A history of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey (1916)” by Forbes, Nevil, p. 21)
2.11 two brothers, the Apostles of the Sclavonians or Slavs, born in Greece and educated in Constantinople. (“Book of the Saints 1921″ by Monks Benedictine, P. 74)
2.12 Cyril, St 827-69 and Methodius, St 826-85, known as the Apostles of the Slavs - Greek Christian missionaries- They were born in Thessalonica. (“The Riverside Dictionary of Biography” by the American Heritage Dictionaries, p. 208)
2.13 two greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, were sent in response to this request. This development was of particular importance to the formation of eastern european culture. (“historical Theology” by McGrath, p.125)
2.14 the byzantine emperor sent two greek monks, Cyril and Methodius, to spread Christianity to the slavic people.

(“Global History & Geography” by Phillip Lefton, p. 130)

2.15 As the Slav tribes feel under the influence of Byzantium a considerable number of them were baptised but they were first converted to Christianity in Mass by the Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius (Black lamb and Grey Falcon: A journey through Yugoslave” by Rebecca West, P. 710)
2.16 “Cyrillus autem et Methodius fratres, Graeci, Thessalonicae nati…”http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j…irtutis_lt.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…rtutis_lt.html Pope John Paul II.

2.17 Cyril and Methodius, Saints (muth..us) [key], d. 869 and 884, respectively, Greek missionaries, brothers (R. L. Wilkens book “Judaism and the Early Christian Mind” (1971))x

Xenovatis

[edit] To Nedko

The question is who says what? If we could make a table, listing who says they were Slavic and who says they were Greek, you'll see which one falls under WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Are there any neutral sources saying that they were all or partially Slavic? If not, the best we can do is say that the vast majority of sources (see previous section) say they were Greek, whereas Bulgarian nationalist websites say they were Slavic. --Telex 18:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Counting number of sources is useless when the disputed subject is that big that entrire nations disagree. I could provide more and more references to sources (that you will not consider them reliable) and you will continue to provide more (that me and others from Slav derived nations will consider unreliable). Counting references for such big subject is pointless. Nedko 18:09, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, do - provide a non Slavic source, please? Counting sources is very important, in order to filter out fringe theories (like this one), see WP:NPOV#Undue weight. It's not just Greeks claiming they were Greek - it's imparital people (see previous section). Do impartial people say they were Slavic? --Telex 18:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say to somebody who claims that "counting numbers of sources is useless". You obviously haven't realised how wikipedia works and that's your problem. From now on we'll just keep reverting your edits and report you for edit-warring when appropriate. It's blatant to everybody by now that you're blinded by your personal agenda on the subject and are refusing to accept reality. Miskin 18:27, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Counting of unreliable sources. Nedko 18:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that .bg websites are more objective on this topic than the Columbia Encyclopedia. Would you like to RFC that, or explain why you think that Columbia is biased (apart from the fact that you disagree with it). --Telex 18:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't waste your energy telex, it's obvious that he doesn't want to co-operate. If he continues edit-warring we'll report him. Miskin 18:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying that they are more objective, i'm saying that they are not less objective. http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/joseph_mccabe/encyclopedia_crime.html (referenced from wikipedia). Nedko 18:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

So you're saying that we should say that Columbia and everyone else are not reliable according to a Mr Joseph Mccabe. Who is he? --Telex 18:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this Slovak source, which describes them as "Greek brothers". I think this closes the matter. --Telex 18:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And a Ukrainian source. My my... the Slavs do seem to be claiming them ;-) --Telex 18:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And here's another neutral source. You know what they say, Nedko, no smoke without fire. Let's see your non Bulgarian sources (like I've cited non Greek sources) confirming that we're in fact dealing with Slavs. --Telex 18:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm not considering your sources reliable, I still cannot find one that will be reliable for me. Nedko 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, it's not for you to decide. Until you cite a source for your edits (which has yet to happen), you will simply be trolling the article. --Telex 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

http://religion-cults.com/saints/february14.htm are you considering this to be neutral and reliable (for me it is neither).Nedko 18:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

By refering to WP:NPOV#Undue weight and disagreeing with all Slavic population, you are considering it minority. Do you want me to provide you with number of beleivers the Slav origin? Are you considering entire countries minorities? Nedko 18:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

And what makes you so sure that the Slavs view them as Slavs? The Slovak and Ukrainian sources I've cited above which call them Greeks? --Telex 18:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are missing the fact that not all Slavs use cyrillic alphabet. Mostly the ones under latin influence.Nedko 18:57, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I missed it to...Nedko 18:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets make it smaller. Are you calling entire Bulgaria population minority? The .bg site I refered is government one.Nedko 19:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Do the Ukrainians use the Latin alphabet? If you can use .bg websites, then that means I can use .el websites - miraculo, the cultural centre of the Greek Orthodox Church calls them Greek. By the way, where are *your* sources? You keep criticizing everybody else's, but you have failed to cite a "reliable" source of your own. Do you have a neutral source, like I have cited? --Telex 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I have never objected against information that there is major opinion that they were pure Greeks. I objected against information that does not mention other major opinions on the subject.Nedko 19:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No. You sought to give undue wight to the Bulgarian view. The fact that one billion Roman Catholics consider them Greeks, doesn't affect that. --Telex 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Not minorities, just brainwashed. By the way Mr Mccabe hasn't listed Cyril as one of the unreliable articles, therefore it's one of the reliable ones. Unless of course you tell us now that _all_ Columbia articles are unreliable. Your counter-arguments are at least childish. Miskin 19:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Please dont make offensive statements. By calling wikipedian biased and brainwashed you are offending.

I'll copy the statements of a another editor:
"I think that the majority of the Bulgarian people know that SS Cyril and Methodius are of Greek origin. I am Bulgarian myself, born and educated there, but I was never taught that SS Cyril and Methodius are Bulgarians. I would like to ask Juro and some other people not to change the article claiming that the locals in Bulgaria consider SS Cyril and Methodius Bulgarians because it is not true! - Aura"
It seems to me that even your weakest arguments are false. Miskin 19:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is useless, my personal opinion is different (they were Slavs) but it is useless either. The paragraph removed stated that propaganda made them bulgarians or macedonians.Nedko 19:10, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

How about this paragraph:

While most international sources (e.g. the Columbia Encyclopedia, the World Book, Roman Catholic sources and Pope John Paul II etc) regard them as being ethnically Greek (this is the view held by Greek sources as well [5]), Bulgarian sources maintain that their mother was Slavic [6]. There are no known examples of other sources endorsing this view.

It is ok from my point of view. However you better add Macedonians too or they will start same discussion again. Let me check for macedonian sites.Nedko 19:32, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it gives a fairly banances view on the situation, WP:NPOV#Undue weight-wise speaking. --Telex 19:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Two nations opinion cannot be minor.Nedko 19:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Who said it's minor? We are saying who says what. Are you saying that the one billion Roman Catholics who believe the Pope is never makes a mistake believe that the Pope was wrong. What is wrong with the paragraph? --Telex 19:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me state again. I'm not telling that brothers are not Greek. You are not reading. You are referencsing WP:NPOV#Undue_weight and stating that bulgarinas and macedonians opinion is minor and because ot this it should not be included in the article. Am I right about your statement?Nedko 19:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. I did not say that the Bulgarian side is minor. I said that it is a not widely held view, and and this should be stated. I propose the paragraph above in place of your paragaph. Tell me your opinion. --Telex 19:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Look - a Bulgarian source calling them Greek and does not mention a Slavic mother. --Telex 19:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Hosting text in .bg does not mean source is bulgarian. Isn't this obvious? Nedko 19:45, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Then maybe we should mention that Tsar Samuil and the First Bulgarian Empire might have been also "Macedonian Slavic" and never Bulgarian. After all, an entire nation believes it. Miskin 19:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, yes. If there are major population that beleives it, I think they do, because of propaganda.Nedko 19:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

The point is that the opinion of modern Bulgarians and Greeks is not relevant on the issue, as their NPOV is doubtful; the question is if you can citate original sources calling them Bulgarians or Slavs, and independent encyclopedias or sources. But don't pretend to be taken seriously simply because Bulgarians believe it; you'll have to bring sources to prove that the question is discussed in the accademic world. After all, it seems many modern Macedonians believe the ancient Macedonians spoke a slavic language, but since no independent scholar believes this, you won't find it in the article on the Ancient Macedonian language, and never will.--Aldux 19:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I've tried something. Opinions? --Telex 19:49, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm against those edits "These view is widely held as facts in Bulgaria and the Republic of Macedonia." It's clear that only nationalists believe those things, and in those countries they just happen to be numerous. Still, that doesn't mean that wikipedia should give into their POV-pushing. There hasn't been _one_ single credible source so far to support their claims. Miskin 19:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC) I would revert but I don't want to reach the limit of 3RR. Miskin

Actually, this is what WP:NPOV requires - say who says what. Most sources say this, the Bulgarians and Macedonians say that. How do you propose these fringe theories should be dealt with - I mean even the Proto Ionian theory is mentioned at Phaistos Disk, and the theory that the Arvanites are what is left over from the Pelasgians is mentioned at that article. --Telex 19:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Telex, but that's provided that at least some credible sources of the opposing view exists. Since the creation of this article, nobody has ever managed to provide a single one. As Aldux said, the article on the ancient Macedonian language does not and will never do mention the Slavic view for the same reasons. Miskin 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I also am skeptical, and believe we should remove the whole paragraph on ethnicity, limiting ourselves to state that they were Byzantine; after all, all this ethnic labelling is terribly anachronistic, as the Byzantines saw themselves before anything else as members of the roman empire, in opposition to the "barbarians".--Aldux 20:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that mention of their ethniciy should be removed. Nedko 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

'Greek' is not at all anachronistic compared to Byzantine' (the name of the ancient Greek people), at least the former was in use by the contemporaries. Mycenaeans didn't call themselves "Greeks" either, yet those terms are used interchangeably today. Miskin 20:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm tired of this article now. I'm leaving - do what you like. ^{- - logged off - -} Telex 20:07, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I think the present version is fine btw - Greeks existed at that time, as did Slavs. --Telex 20:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources saying they were Greeks

(2) There has been evidence brought forward that they were Greek.
2.1 Quotation from The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05: (Cyril and Methodius, Saints) 869 and 884, respectively, Greek missionaries, brothers, called Apostles to the Slavs and fathers of Slavonic literature.
2.2 Encyclopedia Britannica Saints Cyril and Methodius: "(Cyril who had)...been professor of philosophy at the patriarchal school in Constantinople, worked with Methodius, the abbot of a Greek monastery,..." The fact that Methodius was an abbot of a Greek monastery testifies to his being Greek and hence to his brother as well.
2.3 etymonline.com refers to the name Cyril as Greek. The name Cyril is L.L. Cyrillus, from Gk. Kyrillos, lit. "lordly, masterful," related to kyrios "lord, master. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=cyril&searchmode=none
2.4 Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that the brothers "invented a Slavic alphabet based on Greek characters" (Saints Cyril and Methodius) which indicates that their native language was Greek.
2.5 The Slav Pope John Paul II who in 31/12/1980 (in an official encyclical-Egregiae Virtutis-to the Catholic Church) and 14/2/1981(in the S.Clement church in Rome) said that Cyrillos and Methodios were “Greek brothers, born in Thessaloniki”
2.6 the Serb historian V.Bogdanovich, says that “Kyrillos and Methodios were born in Thessaloniki and were Greeks in origin, not Slavs” (History of the ancient Serbian literature, Belgrade 1980, pg.119).
2.7 Then in the ninth century Cyril and Methodius, two Greek monks from Thessaloniki , developed the Cyrillic alphabet and spread both literacy and Christianity to the Slavs. (“The macedonian conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a transnational world” by Loring Danforth)
2.8 Two Greek brothers from Salonika, Constantine, who later later became a monk and took

the name Cyril, and Methodius came to Great Moravia in 863 at the invitation of the Moravian Prince Rostislav (“Comparative history of Slavic Literatures” by Dmitrij Cizevskij, page vi)

2.9 the Byzantine court entrusted it to two brothers with wide experience o missionary work: Constantine the Philosopher, better known by his monastic name, Cyril and Methodius. Cyril and Methodius were Greeks.(“Czechoslovakian Miniatures from Romanesque and Gothic Manuscripts” by Jan Kvet, p. 6)
2.10 In answer to this appeal the emperor sent the two brothers Cyril and Methodius, who were Greeks of Salonika and had considerable knowledge of Slavonic languages. (The Balkans: A history of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey (1916)” by Forbes, Nevil, p. 21)
2.11 two brothers, the Apostles of the Sclavonians or Slavs, born in Greece and educated in Constantinople. (“Book of the Saints 1921″ by Monks Benedictine, P. 74)
2.12 Cyril, St 827-69 and Methodius, St 826-85, known as the Apostles of the Slavs - Greek Christian missionaries- They were born in Thessalonica. (“The Riverside Dictionary of Biography” by the American Heritage Dictionaries, p. 208)
2.13 two greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, were sent in response to this request. This development was of particular importance to the formation of eastern european culture. (“historical Theology” by McGrath, p.125)
2.14 the byzantine emperor sent two greek monks, Cyril and Methodius, to spread Christianity to the slavic people.

(“Global History & Geography” by Phillip Lefton, p. 130)

2.15 As the Slav tribes feel under the influence of Byzantium a considerable number of them were baptised but they were first converted to Christianity in Mass by the Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius (Black lamb and Grey Falcon: A journey through Yugoslave” by Rebecca West, P. 710)
2.16 “Cyrillus autem et Methodius fratres, Graeci, Thessalonicae nati…”http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j…irtutis_lt.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…rtutis_lt.html Pope John Paul II.

2.17 Cyril and Methodius, Saints (muth..us) [key], d. 869 and 884, respectively, Greek missionaries, brothers (R. L. Wilkens book “Judaism and the Early Christian Mind” (1971))x

Xenovatis

[edit] Their mother: Greek or Slav (clarifying)

Actually I think that point of view for bulgarians will be expressend by telling that they are considering subject to be unprovable (as mentioned at least in one source i read about the subject). IMHO, bulgarians refer to them as bulgarians not because their mother was slav, but because of their major contribution to bulgarian culture. This is why calling them simply Greeks is so offensive and will disgust bulgarians reading wikipedia. I'm not aware of bulgarian telling that they are buglarians by ethnos. We know they are at least half-Greek/half-Slavs. And this doesn't matter that much as long as they are not called simply Greeks. Calling them simply Greeks shows to buglarians that article is written by Greeks and because of conflicts between many balkan nations, including Greek/Bulgaria, they will accept it as Greek propaganda. Nedko 20:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Go convince the editors at Skanderbeg that they shouldn't call him Albanian because his mother was Serbian first, and we talk about this then. Miskin 20:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Also move First Bulgarian Empire to First Slavic Empire, remove the word Bulgarian fom Tsar Samuil (since it's disputed), then I'll give you afew more tasks and after all this is done, I might accept to consider your POV. You think I've been chasing Macedonian Slavic POV out of Bulgarian (and Greek) articles all this time until I found somebody to tell "hey, it's ok to leave it there". I don't think so. Miskin 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You are troling Nedko 20:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine + Greek

This is most unacceptable, because it is POV, variant from available (and partitially acceptable) ones:

Mention that they were greeks/slavs with opinions explained.
Dont mention their ethnic group at all.
Mentioning that they were of Greek ethnic group (obsucrified or not).

If you dont change it to some of other two I'll change it later (to prevent WP:3RR banning) by adding POV-check User:Nedko

Do whatever you want, just keep in mind that I'll be reverting you until the matter is settled in ArbCom. Miskin 20:25, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Be it this way, you are disregarding two country opinions. I'm accepting your opinion to be metioned, even as bigger one (in al variants so far). You are disrespecting NPOV. Nedko 20:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I just added a source for this term, although I think it's pointless since you have not provided a single one so far. Even the "two country opinions" thing (which does not concern wikipedia anyway) is not true, another Bulgarian editor's views verified this. It just happens that your opinion is the nationalist one. Miskin 20:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Who you are refering to? Nedko 20:39, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, listen I've had enough of you. I presented my sources and you keep repeating the same story about how supposedly the nationalists of two nations have their POV - an argument completely ridiculous to wikipedia. I'm going to ask for administrator assistance to settle this matter once and for all. Miskin 20:43, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly what I want. I think you dont understand WP:NPOV and administrator assistance is needed. I tried to mark article as biased but the bias mark was removed. Nedko 20:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I changed tag to POV (i.e. neutrality is disputed), to represent current state more preciously. Nedko^{self bias resist} 15:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Last thing: The article mentions that "some people speculate that their mother might have been Slavic", and that is enough to cover the topic. Miskin 20:53, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Done. Proceed with WP:CITE. The NPOV policy of including multiple views is not valid unless a source is presented (i.e. what I've been repeating from the very beginning). Miskin 21:36, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources where provided in this same discussion. The point was if they are reliable. You continue to troll. Nedko 03:03, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] To Miskin

"oversourcing" cannot be reason for POV pushing. And stop removing POV tag, this is vandalism. Nedko^{self bias resist} 16:50, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

From WP:VANDALISM: " Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus."
Your edits remain unsourced and meet no scholarly nor editor consensus. Therefore adding this tag is vandalism. Miskin 17:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If there are "reliable" sources or not has nothing to do if it is disputed. Therfore removing tag is vandalism. Nedko^{self bias resist} 17:25, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

User:Miskin has asked me to mediate the dispute you are having here. Are other users interested in a mediation. If you feel that I am biased towards Miskins position, I would encourage you to contact the mediation cabal to arrange another mediator. - FrancisTyers 17:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I greatly greet mediation initiative, because it leads to talk and not to edit war. Nedko^{self bias resist} 17:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please mediate, Francis. Evertype 17:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

It's purely a question of following wp:policy, I don't see anything subjective about the dispute. User:Nedko refuses to accept scholarly consensus and insists that the Greek origin of the saints must be omitted because Bulgarian nationalists lay unjustified claims. I have on the contrary provided credible sources from modern Western scholars, medieval and modern Slavic accounts, encyclopedias, Religious sources (including the Vatican and the Pope), among others. Nedko insists that his chauvinist, unsourced view is sufficient to ignore scholarly and academic consensus, or add a POV tag in the article. Miskin 17:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I've never told that probably Greek origin must be removed. Prove it. Nedko^{self bias resist} 17:52, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The confict you are mediating is: "If other side opinion should be mentioned in article?". From my understanding, yes, from Miskin understanding, no. Am i right Miskin? Nedko^{self bias resist} 17:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV policy also states the following: "A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can."
I will have to repeat for one more time that you have failed to provide us with a credible source that would support your claims. Every biography article is disputed by one nationalist or the other, yet we're still able to provide biography articles and coin ethnic/cultural origins on people because we take only credible sources into account (see WP:CITE). Miskin 18:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

And I will repeat that sources were provided. Both by me and by Telex. If they are reliable from your point of view has nothing to do with the fact that they were provided. FrancisTyers, what you think about this? Nedko^{self bias resist} 18:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Telex is in agreement with me. The question on the brothers' origin has only been questioned by .bg and .mk websites, while I haven't provided a single Greek source. The credibility of the sources does matter. You admitted yourself earlier that you had no sources, and that your argument was "what the Bulgarian nation(alists)" believe. Don't make me start copy-pasting your own words. Miskin 18:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You reverted Telex proposed pargraph that I almost agreed with. You are talking instead of others. And you not agree with him. Nedko^{self bias resist} 18:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

In the begining I had not Internet link sources that you can view, later I found some and Telex found some too. Check the discussion flow. Nedko^{self bias resist} 18:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please post those sources again as I have repeatedly asked from you? Because I missed the part where they said that the two brothers were Bulgarians or Slavs. I've only seen that in the .bg and .mk sites. Miskin 18:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok, hold your horses guys. Now, I understand the dispute is regarding the ethnic identity of these brothers right? Please could you (succinctly) explain your points of view below. Explaining both how you would like to describe the brothers, and giving sources. Please first give the "ethnicity" you would like to refer to, e.g. "Greek", "Byzantine", "Byzantine Greek", "Indeterminate ethnicity" etc. Then give sources. - FrancisTyers 18:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I will move posts that get mixed up. I just want "Ethnicity you would like to refer to" and "Sources". If you have two options, give them. - FrancisTyers 18:34, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miskin

My position is that as WP:NPOV and WP:CITE jointly define, the biography of the Saints must use the ethnic and cultural descriptive name that is used by the the vast majority of neutral sources without paying attention to unjustified nationalist claims. Below is an example in some credible scholarly, academic, religious sources and encyclopaedias:

From Ivo Banac's "The national question in Yugoslavia": "Matters were more complicated when Saint Cyril and Methodius, two Greek brothers from Salonika... As Byzantine Greeks, Cyril and methodius were more tolerant than Rome in accepting "barbarian" tongues in divine liturgy".
From Henry Cooper's, Slavic Scriptures: "how did this itinerant Greek philosopher become the single most outstanding writer of Slavic literatures in their first five hundred years or so?". Apparently contemporary Slavs referred to them also as Greeks (spelled Gr'ks), it's so ironic that their modern ancestors can't face the truth.
World Book 2005: "Greek brothers from Thessalonica..."
Enc. Columbia: "Greek missionaries of Christianity..."
The Catholic Almanac's guide to the Church (Catholic encyclopaedia): "Greek missionaries, brother; venerated as apostles of the Slavs..."
www.vatican.va: "Cirillo e Metodio, fratelli, greci, nativi di Tessalonica, la città dove visse e operò san Paolo..." [7]
religion-cuts.com: "Greek brothers ultimately became missionaries, teachers and patrons of the Slavic peoples." [8]
catholic-forum.com: "Methodius: Apostle of the Slavs; Brother of Saint Cyril. Greek nobility. Studied at the University of Constantinople, and taught philosophy there."[9]
www.americancatholic.org:"Because their father was an officer in a part of Greece inhabited by many Slavs, these two Greek brothers ultimately became missionaries, teachers and patrons of the Slavic peoples."[10]
Pople John Paul II: "Dear Young Friends! In the Gospel passage just proclaimed, we heard that some Greeks wished to see Jesus. The two holy brothers from Thessalonica, Cyril and Methodius, were Greek too."[11]
Alister McGrath - Historical Theology: "Two Greek brothers Cyril and Methodius, were sent in response to this request...".
Adrian Hastings - A World History of Christianity: "Greek missionaries appealed to the Pope for protection and were granted his blessings..."
A. Hore - Eighteen Centuries of the Orthodox Greek Church: "The liturgical language employed by the Greek missionaries"
Lonely Planet Russian Phrasebook: "St Cyril and St Methodius, Greek missionaries in the ninth century"
Orest Subteiny - Ukraine: A History: "A written language, based on an alphabet originally devised by Sts Cyril and Methodius, Greek missionaries to the Slays..."
The Encyclopedia Americana: "Greek missionaries to the Slavs..."
M. Freze - Patron Saints: "Cyril and Methodius (ninth century): Greek missionaries, brothers, venerators as apostles of the Slavs"
Catholic Dictionary: "Greek brothers Ses. Cyril and Methodius in 963"
The Encyclopedia of Christianity: " Greek brothers sent by the emperor, Cyril (ca. 827- 69) and Methodius (ca. 8 15-85)

[edit] Nedko

I think that their ethnicity is indeterminate:

because there are some source that tell their mother is may be slav: ^ McDaniel Gordon L. McDaniel, The Glagolitic alphabet and its use in Croatian church records (available online).
because there are some source that tell their mother is slav: http://www.encyclopedia.bg/history/24mai/kiril_metodi.jsp
because there are some source that tell their father was Slav (first time hearing, and not supporting): ^ Talberg Professor Nicolai D. Talberg, Equal to Apostles - Teachers of Slavs (available online).
indeterminate ethnicity statement: Bulgarian book http://www.mfa.government.bg/history_of_Bulgaria/122.html, states "Градът се обитава от славяни от българската група, поради което въпреки натрупаните исторически познания за техните родители и днес все още се спори за произхода на двамата братя." - "The city was populated by bulgarian slavs, thus in spite of all collected historical knowledge about their parents, there is dispute about their origin".

Comment: Speculations on the mothers origin have nothing to do with Cyril and Methodius themselves, we're not here to perform original research. None of this sources talk about Cyril and Methodius directly, hence none of them counts. After all, the speculation on their mother's origin is mentioned in the article. Miskin 23:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

The first source mentioned by Nedko says “may probably” hardly conclusive and this is the best one. The second one is Bulgarian propagandist (not even written in English) as is the source from the Bulgarian Ministry of Foreign affairs. They are biased The third one (Talberg) says their mother was Greek. Hardly evidence. So just one source against over thirty we have brought. No contest. Xenovatis

[edit] Suggestions

I'm going to make suggestions here, you can indicate that you agree with them underneth by signing with ~~~~. Do not discuss here. The note here will correspond to a footnote discussing the varying sources, points of view regarding ethnicity and the difficulty of applying modern concepts of ethnicity to history. Feel free to make suggestions in the discussion section and I may include them. - FrancisTyers 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Cyril and Methodius were two Byzantine [note] brothers ...

FrancisTyers 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyril and Methodius were two Byzantine brothers, commonly considered to be Greek [note] ...

FrancisTyers 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyril and Methodius were two Byzantine brothers of disputed ethnicity [note] ...

FrancisTyers 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyril and Methodius were two Byzantine Greek [note] brothers ...

FrancisTyers 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Miskin 23:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Cyril and Methodius were two Byzantine Greek [note] brothers ...

[edit] Comments

According to the sources there's no more dispute regarding the status of Cyril rather than, let's say, the status of Tsar Samuil of Bulgaria or Skanderbeg. I don't see why should wikipedia invent such a dispute. Miskin 00:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've added more sources. I don't understand how a 20 vs 0 can still arise doubts on the consensus. The primary scholarly description which is "Greek missionaries of Christianity" is not even mentioned in the options. I think that adding a [note] will only help to de-focus one more article from its content because of Balkan nationalism and claims on Greek Macedonia. My suggestion is to use "Byzantine Greek" or "simply Greek" missionaries and keep a section at the end of the article which mentions that extremist views might coin them "Slavic". With such a weak argumentation and sourcing from Nedkov's part, I would consider anything else as a POV-pushing. Miskin 00:34, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

If you aren't going to present sources to back up your point of view, you can't expect to have it included in the article. As WP:NPOV states: "If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;" - FrancisTyers 18:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I had to object that "commonly acceptpted" is subjective, it this context, for this discussion, for these sources, because I disagree that sources stating they purely Greek ethnicity are commonly accepted in Bulgaria and Republic of Macedonia. Nedko^{self bias resist} 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

That is irrelevant. This is a global encyclopaedia. "Commonly accepted" sources means reputable sources like encyclopaedias, peer-reviewed journal articles, textbooks (in some cases), etc. I suggest you try using "cyril methodius ethnicity site:.ac.[TLD]" in Google. - FrancisTyers 19:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you object that all "encyclopedia" contain pure truth in every letter of it? Nevermind, it is irrelevant because IMHO, both oponent sources are equally "accepted" from point of view of neutrality. Nedko^{self bias resist} 19:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't report the "truth". Wikipedia reports what notable people say about things. Britannica is notable. Some online crackpot isn't. I hope that was what you were asking, because the question was kind of confusing. - FrancisTyers 19:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read it states that sources can be manipulated. Nevermind, could you, please give me some Wikipedia links about why Britanica and say Columbia are notable? And what people are notable and who is not. Nedko^{self bias resist} 19:41, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. - FrancisTyers 19:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I may be blind, so please correct me. In the article you refer, notablilty is not defined for specific sources. Neither it is for specific people. It is however stated, that some editions of Britanica, "a teriary source", contain "wealth of reliable information". It is not stated that they are reliable primary sources full only with proven facts, in every word of them. Nedko^{self bias resist} 20:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I will paste again the statements of an anon user which prove that Nedko's claims have an extremist POV, not supported by the majority of his own people:
"I think that the majority of the Bulgarian people know that SS Cyril and Methodius are of Greek origin. I am Bulgarian myself, born and educated there, but I was never taught that SS Cyril and Methodius are Bulgarians. I would like to ask Juro and some other people not to change the article claiming that the locals in Bulgaria consider SS Cyril and Methodius Bulgarians because it is not true! - Aura" Miskin 18:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

So telling that there may be other view about the problem is extermist, but telling that your own view is the only valid one is not? You are kidding I suppose. Nedko^{self bias resist} 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

More sources are scattered throughout the article. Miskin 18:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

None of those sources that you mentioned (apart from the .bg site) state that the two brothers were Slavic. What their origin of their parents might have been is irrelevant to the ethno-cultural status of the brothers themselves. I'll be back with more sources and we'll compare their credibility. Miskin 18:59, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is false, the .bg source I fisrt added, states exactly that they are indeterminate ethnicity. The .bg site i added later (encyclopedia.bg), states their mother was slav explicitly. The non-.bg sources also state that brothers may or have (partitially) slav origin. Nedko^{self bias resist} 19:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No, that's not what those sources say. They both make assumptions on one of the brothers' parents in order to justify the fact that they spoke fluent Slavonic. This doesn't imply anything on the ethnicity of the brothers themselves. Miskin 23:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

1911 Britannica has them as "probably Greekized Slavs" [12] - FrancisTyers

2006 Britannica mentions nothing of the sort. I think we should go with the modern version. Xenovatis

This .ac.uk source has them as "Byzantine Slavs". - FrancisTyers 18:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a personal webpage of a student reading Languges in St Edmund Hall, not even a history student. He is not a historian and therefore not an expert. . Xenovatis

I dont want to say that they were not Greeks. I've never told so and will never tell. I want article to tell that they may be Greek, or Slav, or Byzantine Slavs, or Greekized Slavs, or Bulgarians, or Macedonians. Actually I think that calling them Bulgarians and Macedonians is too offensive to others. Calling them Greeks is offensive too, but it is not that offensive if it is clearly stated that this is not universally accepted fact. I'd prefer to say Greek or Slavs (in this order, to represent sources count). And not mentioning bulgarians or macedonians. Nedko^{self bias resist} 19:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

What I can say personally is that in ancient Greek sources they are called "romaioi" (which means both the word Greeks and Romans) and in Latin clearly Graeci (chronicle of Salzburg, Papal documents). Their are no primary sources calling them Slavs, let alone Bulgarians; there has been some speculation among scholars that their mother may have been a Slav, mainly as a way to explain their knowledge of Slavic. As for Britannica, remember you're speaking of Britannica 1911; in the modern version the discussed phrase is not present. As for the national feelings of Bulgarians, Macedonians and Greeks, I couldn't care less; wikipedia wasn't created to suave the hurted feelings of the Balkan peoples.--Aldux 23:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide links to documents you refer, please? Nedko^{self bias resist} 00:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Aren't these documents refering to which state they were citizens of? I'd like ethnicity be differetiated from citizenship. Nedko^{self bias resist} 00:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Nedko just listen to your own arguments, can you make any sense? You obviously don't want to co-operate and play by the rules, all you want is to have it your way by remotely implying that the Greek missionaries might have been Bulgarians. I don't understand why does wikipedia have to compromise in order to make everybody happy. The point is to state the truth. Miskin 00:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I never stated they were bulgarians. I state that there are no reliable sources defining them as of any ethnicity. Secondary sources don't count when they were manipulated by historcal events afterwards (sady, there is too many of them). If from your point of view not saying explicitly that they were of Greek ethnos means implying that they were bulgarian, then this is what I wanted to say, from your point of view :/ Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

There cannot be truth when there are opinions against it. You are trying to remove other views about subject. Wikipiedia wants to describe the truth, it if it is accepted by majority (don't try to refer to "Undue weight"). Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What needs to be taken into account is the credibility of the sources. Terms such as "Byzantine Slavs" and "Grikified Slavs" do not reflect mainstream scholarly use. Sources I've brought up such as the Vatican or the Catholic Church, medieval Slavonic records and other religious or general encyclopaedia are obviously much more credible. There's simply no ground to present a solid alternative view. I agree to include that some Bulgarians and other Slavs might have a fixed view on the status of the scholars, and in I did include that at the end of the article. A mention on the brothers' mother being possibly of Slavic origin is already made in Cyril's article, so I don't see what more of a compromise Devko might expect with such weak argumentation. Don't forget that Devko intially made edits stating "two Bulgarian monks". Now he's gradually changing his stance by saying that "I just don't want to say they were Greek". Judging by Aura's comments, Devko has a blatant extremist view on the topic. Miskin 23:11, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't put words into another user's mouth. I think we should give Nedko some more time to come up with reliable sources, but for the moment I am doubtful. - FrancisTyers 00:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually I'm not searching for other sources. From my point of view, both ones I added (by your request) and these added my Miskin are unreliable. The only ones that I may consider so far to by possibly reliable and primary are those Aldux mentioned. It is explicityly stated in Wikipedia policy that when opinion can be proved to exist, (i.e. the opinion is fact, unrelated if it is "right" or "wrong") it can be included. From my point of view it must be included if ethnicity of brothers is mentioned at all. Does anybody has objection to include opinion (in two countries, some of sources in my section are at least primary for the fact that this opinion exists and is major)? Nedko^{self bias resist} 00:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction, the WP:RS it is not policy, it is guideline (defining terms). Nedko^{self bias resist} 00:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

OK Nedko and what makes you think that wikipedia is concerned about what you may or may not consider reliable? NPOV states clearly that you must prove that an alternative theory has a solid basis in order to bring it up. You have failed to do so. Your argument about how Bulgarians and other Slavs believe in your claims, whether true or not, is of no concern to NPOV. Miskin 01:02, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

So prove that your sources are reliable. You want to disrespect opinion of to slav nations directly tied with brothers. Let me repeat, the fact that I'm citizen Bulgaria does not meain that I am anti-Greek. Whether I think if you thesis is true is irrelevant because I don't want to promote anti-thesis, i.e. brothers were non-Greek. Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't try to turn this into a pan-slavist issue. I've already cited Russian, Serbian and Ukranian sources. I have even cited a book which focuses on medieval Slavonic texts. There's no such thing as "prove that your sources are reliable", that's just not how wikipedia works. Miskin 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Use Byzantine Greek term, but refer to Byzantine instead of Greeks. Nedko^{self bias resist} 03:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds good to me. --Hectorian 03:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State teritorial claims

Aside from the brothers ethnicity disupute, I'd like ot object against unsourced claims about countries claiming teritories. Such text is actively promoting nationalism in every direction. There is currently such statement added by User:Miskin and one (reverted) added by User:5telios. From my point of view (am I right?) officially claiming other country territory means declaring war. Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No, territorial claims does not mean declaring war, but the article uses plain 'claims' anyway. This could be territorial as well as cultural. Miskin 01:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you have reliable source for this? Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What claim you are refering, it your text, currenlt in article, territorial, cultural or both? Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you deny that the statement is promoting nationalism? Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

As one of the authors who mentioned this, I would like to add some text here. Nedko: To aknowledge the existence of nationalism should not be equated to promotion of nationalism. I am in no way promoting nationalism. I find it rather narrow minded and frequently built on shaky foundations. The sort of foundations that rely on whether or not one's mother had an uncle who had a slavic name. 5telios

I completely agree with you, that these are two things. The difference is if you have reliable sources for claiming this. I'm in no way wanting to say that you are intentionally promoting nationalism. What I wanted to say is that it is unintentionally promoting nationalism. Unless you give reliable sources. Aside I'd like to agree that if such info is included, it may be better to put it somewhere else (example: "How Saints Cyril and Methodius are used for propaganda and state territorial claims." or other existing article about the subject). --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 10:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is ethnic origin same as nationality/citizenship, today and in the past

I think that in order to resolve the ethnic dispute, we need to define what actually we are disputing. In my opinion, today, generally, ethnic origin is not same as citizenship, because of globalization, and more open minded (non-introvert) cultures. Many people living in particular country are not considering themself to be of the major ethnic group in the country. From my understanding, in the ages when brothers were living, both terms have been used more interchangeably, with predominant meaning of citizenship. This, with addition of nationalist propaganda in every country in the Balkan penisula, lead to Macedonian Question and similar problems amoung local people. In the particular context, problem about ethnicity ambiguity is doubled because Byzantine empire citizens where not of one ethnos, ever major one (from todays point of view). Nedko^{self bias resist} 02:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Macedonian culture

Hectorian, Telex and NikoSilver, Macedonian culture is result of brothers work. Fact that mine (Bulgaria) and your (Greece) country don't recognize it has nothing to do with fact that Republic of Macedonia has culture. Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Nedko what you're doing is nearly tag-vandalism, the category doesn't even have to do anything with the article's content for crying out loud. Miskin 01:27, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are denying, entire country culture self referenced to be largely dependent of brothers. You cannot change country official opinion. Nedko^{self bias resist} 01:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You are not referencing "entire country culture" or "country official opinion". There have been no citations at all. - FrancisTyers 02:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I refered to the 24 may celebration in Macedonia, refered in the article. Give me some time, so I add primary source for the macedonian celebration in the Saints Cyril and Methodius Day. Nedko^{self bias resist} 02:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Until I find sources (or fail) about 24 may celebration in Republic of Macedonia, I'd consider the fact that Skopje University is called "Ss. Cyril and Methodius University" [13] to be another source that saint brothers are part of Republic if Macedonia culture as seen by citizens themself. Nedko^{self bias resist} 03:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like original research. - FrancisTyers 03:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So you think that the Skopje universtiy name is original research, i.e. a term used on Wikipedia to refer to material added to articles by Wikipedia editors that has not been published already by a reputable source? Or you are declining that university is named after the brothers? Or you are claiming that universities are not part of a culture? Please, explain. Nedko^{self bias resist} 03:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Aside from all this, please refer to my previous edit summary comment to understand why you should not include it. NikoSilver ^{(T) @ (C)} 08:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop please

Could we give this article a rest? It is about the two brothers, right? Not about Macedonia or Bulgaria or their relationship to one another or anything else? I think the article is informative and useful, and I think this talk page is a bit over the top. I doubt that Cyril and Methodius would have approved. Evertype 09:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

All Macedonians out there!!! You have Serbian support. Cyril and Methodius were slavic macedonian and therrefore macedonian.- Lazar

By all the gods it does not matter, I swear. Evertype

[edit] Pope referred to them as Greeks in an encyclical

Pope John Paul the Second, referred to the two as 'Greek brothers' in an encyclical. This, on top of the already gargantuan amounts of evidence we have piled up against the Slavoskopjians, should be enough to put this debate to rest.

Because they had a Greek father, they were Greeks. Because they had a Slavic mother, they were also Slavs. They were half-Slav, half-Greek, why is this fact so hard to accept? CRCulver 21:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your evidence is for this but even if they DID have a Slavic mother (which I doubt), they were not Slavicized but rather fully Hellenized and spoke Greek as their first language. They are ergo Greek. What is so hard to understand that FYROMians can't stop stealing our History?

That they had a Slavic mother is recorded in the hagiography of the Orthodox Church. That hagiography was written a thousand years before the Republic of Macedonia came into being, so it's not a matter of Macedonians revising history. If you are Greek, you must be Orthodox, so why don't you hold to its teachings? Furthermore, it's pointless to that Greek would have been their "first language", so one's mother tongue is often that spoken by, well, the mother. Sure, Greek would have been the language of their political life, but Byzantine Emperor Michael III did say Cyril should go to Moravia because "All Thessalonians speak perfect Slavonic." Also, see Obolensky's Six Byzantine Portraits (Oxford University Press, 1990 IIRC), which mention that the brothers associated mainly with Slavs during their sojourn before missionary activity. CRCulver 11:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

They were from a noble family in which their father was a well known Byzantine General - This enough is proof of their Greekness (I really shouldn't be stating these elementary things here), the fact they were Greeks is accepted by pretty much every Historian (and we are also keeping in mind Cyril was baptised as konstantinos), the Serb historian V.Bogdanovich, says that “Kyrillos and Methodios were born in Thessaloniki and were Greeks in origin, not Slavs” (History of the ancient Serbian literature, Belgrade 1980, pg.119). Also, Professors Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria in their book, 'Kratka istoriya na bulgarskiya narod' (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38), state very explicitly that the two brothers were Hellenes (Greeks) from Thessaloniki.

As it is known both Cyrill and Methodius played probably one of the most important roles in spreading Orthodoxy among the Slavic population. Hence they were named “Apostles of the Slavs“, having the meaning simply that they brought the Christian faith to the Slavs. I also feel I have to underline another elementary point to you about the title “Apostle“. Fact is that having spread Christian faith among a certain population doesnt mean that they belong ethnically to any of the people they converted. If we followed this flawed logic Khazars would also claim them as Khazars since they went to covert them to Christianity even before they went to the Slavs or even Arabs since Konstantinos undertook a mission to the Arabs.

One of the many examples of this is the story of Saint Boniface. Saint Boniface - original name Winfrid or Wynfrith - was born at Crediton in Devon, England and was sent to propagate Christianity in the Frankish Empire during the 8th century. Rightfully Saint Boniface was named as “Apostle of the Germans” and another example is St.Thomas who is called “the Indian Apostle,” but we all know that he was not an Indian. Instead he simply brought Christianity to the Indians. Neither Germans nor Indians are upon the tiresome and flawed notion of claiming St Boniface and St Thomas ethnicities as the well-known propagandists do.

Examples of their Greekness in literature:

1. Then in the ninth century Cyril and Methodius, two Greek monks from Thessaloniki , developed the Cyrillic alphabet and spread both literacy and Christianity to the Slavs.

“The macedonian conflict: Ethnic Nationalism in a transnational world” by Loring Danforth

2. Two Greek brothers from Salonika, Constantine, who later later became a monk and took the name Cyril, and Methodius came to Great Moravia in 863 at the invitation of the Moravian Prince Rostislav

“Comparative history of Slavic Literatures” by Dmitrij Cizevskij, page vi

3. the Byzantine court entrusted it to two brothers with wide experience o missionary work: Constantine the Philosopher, better known by his monastic name, Cyril and Methodius. Cyril and Methodius were Greeks.

“Czechoslovakian Miniatures from Romanesque and Gothic Manuscripts” by Jan Kvet, p. 6

4. In answer to this appeal the emperor sent the two brothers Cyril and Methodius, who were Greeks of Salonika and had considerable knowledge of Slavonic languages.

The Balkans: A history of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey (1916)” by Forbes, Nevil, p. 21

5. In order to convert the Slavs to Christianity, Greek missionaries Cyril and Methodius learned the language.

“Lonely Planet Croatia” by Jeanne Oliver, P.35

Those who spread anti-Greek lies will be hunted down by myself, all their edits will be checked over and over for evidence of Anti-Hellenic propaganda. You will not get away with your hatred of Greeks.

You are confusing ethnic Greek with Greek in the meaning "pertaining to Greece/Greek Empire" (and this is a very widespread error not only for the history of Greece). And that empire is called Byzantine Empire all over the world today , I can't change that. Additionaly, the Greek peninsula had - if not a majority then at least - considerable Slavic (more exactly Macedonian, whether you like that word or not) population. I can't change that either. Juro 20:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The Slav's arrived in the 6th century AD (There was no 'Macedonian' identity other than that of Greeks living in the geograhical area in today's Northern Greece), however, they were largely driven out or relocated to Anatolia, the basis of Slavicization of the Greek peninsula is Fallmeheyer, are you sure you want to be citing him as your primary source for this argument? I'd advise against it.

Oh, and I'm WELL aware of the identity of the ethnic Greeks within the Byzantine Empire - they made up by far the largest population and were the ruling class as well. Even the smaller minorities such as Armenians were so hellenized by this point that they self identified as Romioi, to distinguish between their pagan past (Hellene had become a synonym for Pagan), and Christian present. Also, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire there was simply no conscious thought that said "Hey, we should self-identify as Hellene again!" because the only 'Romans' left were primarily the Greeks in the Eastern Provinces. Thus the old addage of 'taking up of the torch'. You'll find more about it at Names of the Greeks, a featured article, as well as Byzantine Empire. It is also worth noting that the ERE was more of a continuation of the Hellenistic Past rather than the old Roman past, as Hellenization in Government and official titles as well as Law began to show.

Would you mind explaining however, how this 'widespread error' is contended by you alone against the likes of Sir Steven Runciman, Warren Treadgold, John Julius Norwich and George Ostrogorsky? I know you are a pre-eminent scholar in your own right, and far outclass these mere mortals of historical scholarship, but can you explain your own theory?

It seems the bigotry is coming from our Greek friend here, since he thinks that a person can be only Greek and cannot celebrate other parts of their heritage. No one denies that Cyril and Methodius were active in a Greek-speaking empire and their father was a Greek official. They were indeed Greek. But at the same time, they had a Slavic mother, they spoke Slavonic natively, and they cared about this people. Incidentally, the Vita disagrees with your claim there were no Slavs in Greece at the time of the brothers' activity, as does Obolensky, who is one of the foremost Byzantine historians. There's no hatred of Greeks here, there's just a desire to marvel at the incredible diversity of the Byzantine world. CRCulver 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No one denies there were Slavs in Greece at the time, however, they certainly DID not outnumber the native population after many had been resettled to Asia Minor (due to the fact that during the heighth of the troubles with the a succession of Slavic states, The Byzantines believed that a Slavic population centered in Greece could prove a serious danger). Greek was their native tongue however, I don't know whether they spoke Slavic along with Greek or learnt it later, however, whatever the answer it is still moot. And again, I don't dispute the 'diversity' of the Byzantine World, but The Byzantine Empire was not as some claim an Empire where the population of Armenians, Slavs and others could even be compared to the native Greek population.

Read the Vita again, it plainly says that Slavic influence on Thessaloniki was significant enough the the cityfolk learned Slavonic. Even if they were a minority, they were still a significant minority who interested tradesmen and the Church. CRCulver 03:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Again, where did I deny this? You are trying to invent strawmen here and claim I have denied them. These points are moot, it does not change the fact they were Greek. And 'Greek' is how it shall remain on this page.

Again, you claim that they were exclusively Greek, which is not borne out by numerous sources cited here. Because you do not sign your edits, you activity here may be construed as vandalism. In any event, I shall take you to RVandalism if you continue to claim yourself as the sole arbitrator of article content. CRCulver 09:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

How do you define exclusivity of ethnicity and self-identification? They certainly didn't consider themselves Slavs, and the fact they used Slavic as a second language is the only evidence you have to support your claim - The fact we have sources from everyone from the Pope himself to Treadgold is proof enough. FYROMian propaganda will NOT be tolerated.

This is not "FYROM propaganda", since there is English-language scholarship upholding their native-speaker status since before 1945. I already refered you to Obolensky, he was born long before the creation of the Republic of Macedonia. The Pope, being a layman in these matters, is probably relying on popular sources whose bases are hundreds of years ago. English-language scholarship no longer tolerates ethnic exclusivity. CRCulver 10:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

This is of no consequence, I have listed my source, and you have listed yours (albeit you do not refer to when Obolensky calls them Slavs, or any source calling them slavs for that matter), you English are out for our History, and we know this only too well, you have ALWAYS tried to steal Greek History and destroy the Greek nation state as The French Consulate's History of the Greek Revolution shows. We will not tolerate it, the term "Greek (I.e. 'Byzantine')" will remain on the front page, and there it shall stay. FYROMian claims are no more reliable than their claims "Alexandor Makedonski" (they actually believe he called himself that! :D) was a Slav. Oh, and by the way, Fuck the Queen and Fuck England.

[edit] Anyone ever came up with that idea?

"Cyril and Methodius were two Byzantine brothers"??? The most NPOV, I think. No one denies the fact that they were born in Byzantium. 88.80.130.106 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

In the vast majority of medieval and modern sources they're coined as 'Greek missionaries'. This might not necessarily apply to an ethnicity (which didn't exist at the time as a concept), hence why it's not linked to Greeks. Miskin 19:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../s/a/i/Talk%7ESaints_Cyril_and_Methodius_f930.html"