Talk:Cyril and Methodius

Jungleewan behavior

Jungleewan stop vandalizing the article or you'll get banned. If you have something constructive to suggest then do it in this talk page first. This is a sensitive article. Simanos (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Simanos should STOP vandalizing and intimidating. The changes of Jungleewan are correct. Methodius DID NOT write Thessaloniki but Salonika; etc. All what Jungleewan corrected was justified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.57.148 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, another single purpose IP account that smells like a certain banned user... Simanos (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Jungleewan was banned yesterday... Simanos (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian, please look up the history. Somebody, Simanos or whoever, removes normal discussion and replaces corrects text from the article. You do this to. What is this? Do NOT REMOVE my discussion!!!! Could you explain me why you vandalise these pages, please? You removed valuable discussions: do you want to hide something what is not good to be seen by the other users? Can anybody remove discussions that he wishes, that he does not like?

Then you remove correct version of the article which is supported by long discussion that could be found in the archives. This is vandalism. So please explain. May be this is an official Greek page. If it is, then it is fine. But this should be announced on the page. Please, answer the question: is this page a Greek page promoting Greek version of history? A page edited by the Greek Ministry of Tourism or Information. “Simanos” works there so it is probably one Greek propaganda page? We should know this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.109 (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I only removed the trolling, and personal attacks here in the talk page. Please refrain from personal attack like these above (which I will leave visible for a while only to show to some people) or you will get banned. Simanos (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I managed to register to Wikipedia. Great! I am a student and will have next year masters in Byzantine history. All my professor laughed when I said that on Wikipedia I find that Cyril and Methodius were Greeks. They say this is Greek propaganda. This is why I wrote what I wrote before. I verified in the Archives of these discussions. Yes, it is obvious that the missionaries were Slave and Macedonians and that what somebody corrected previously, before Simanos, was correct. My professor (can not name him, he uses Wikipedia) says that Simanos is a Greek official and that all is just rubbish on Wikipedia. I want to contribute to Wikipedia, but if this all is true, and it looks to be true – what is the whole purpose?Tagsmusik (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from baseless personal attacks or you will be banned. Your "professors" are also wrong as the sources referenced in this article disagree with them. The consensus of this talk page was to put Greek there and remove slavic propaganda, deal with it. Simanos (talk) 17:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

For Christ's sake!!! Simanos, this is Draganparis again... The IP is Greifswald, Germany. Of course, now he cannot be called a sockpuppeteer since his account has been erased, but it is him. His mistakes and style are very hard to miss... GK (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hahaha, really? That makes sense. I never bought his lies anyway, so I'm not surprised. I really think this page should be semi-protected from IPs again. We've had a dozen vandalisms in the last few days. Simanos (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

LOL he just admitted it, I'll remove his slander and lies. Get him banned again please, he lied about retiring too Simanos (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

...this person is really suffering from delusions, among others... Simanos an unemployed person who desperately tries to find work in a Greek bank by commenting on Wikipedia (???) and I was banned (???) for attacking him?? Typical rumbles of a troll... GK (talk) 14:03, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Getting quite nervous? You can not erase what you are, can you? What they do here, erase, write, insinuate, deform, they do also on the history pages. This is, this kind of people, what makes Wikipedia desolate place. Tagesmusik is obviously THEIR man over here who was counterproductive making THEM look even more "intelligent" then they really are. They should have given him better instructions. Now they can, because he seams to be registered user. What kind of polluting mafia this is!!! What terrible bad picture they give of the otherwise proud, wise and eternal Greek nation! What a fall. Draganparis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.67.57.141 (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DP... sockpuppetering is your favorite hobby... random IPs from Greifswald always somehow seem to carry your style and propose the same POV you do, again in the same apologetic, run-down, I-am-a-lonesome-scholar-and-singlehandedly-fight-the-Greek-mafia-which-reigns-over-poor-Wikipedia scenario... If you don't understand that this sharade actually harms your cause and makes you look like a fool, it is your problem. Accusing users of working for the secret services of various nations, of being unemployed agents who try to earn a position by writing in the Wikipedia, by lying that they were banned for harassing you etc is a sure way to have any IP you log in here from permabanned... It is your choice, but consider yourself warned for the millionth time... GK (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll mate. I learned my lesson. Just remove any personal attacks and libel he makes. You can't talk to someone who has "retired" after all can you? :p Simanos (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

You're right. My bad.. GK (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The deal is that whilst they might have spoken Greek, as well as Slavic, as well as been part of Byzantine civilization, this does not mean they they also did not have Slavic ancestry. As Peter Charanis states well In his account of the revolt of Thomas the Slavonian (820) against the Emperor Michael II (820–829) the Byzantine historian Genesius lists a variety of peoples from whom the armies of the rebel had been drawn: Saracens, Indians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Medes, Abasgians, Zichs, Vandals, Getae, Alans, Chaldoi, Armenians, adherents of the heretical sects of the Paulicians and the Athenganoi. Some of these peoples are well known; the identity of others, despite efforts made to determine it, is by no means certain. But in any case, their listing by the Byzantine historian illustrates vividly the multi-racial character of the Byzantine Empire. This was in the ninth century, but the situation was no different for the period before, and it would not be different for the period after. The Byzantine Empire was never in its long history a true national state with an ethnically homogeneous population. If by virtue of its civilization it may be called Greek, it was never, except perhaps during the very last years of its existence, an empire of Greeks.

I think this clarifies things well

Hxseek (talk) 04:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Just drop it already Hxseek, the issue was ruled upon by admins. Simanos (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

What is ruled upon by admins? Byzantine Empire was indeed multi-ethnic. Admins are for enforcing Wikipedia policies valid for all contributors and not for taking side on article disputes. Am I right? --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 19:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That the sources "say" Greek. I'm not going to tell you any more on the matter. Byzantine Empire may have been multi-ethnic, but one of those ethnicities (the dominant one) was Greek. We are talking about 2 persons here, Cyril and Methodius. I was going to remove the troll bait of Draganparis below, but I'm just going to leave it so people can see how ridiculous it all is. Simanos (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am a history student and have bene watching this theater for about 1 year. What they did with somebody I know here illustrates a criminal plot. Look up the archives and you will find it. Don’t you see that Simanos, GK and the rest (Xenovatis, Miskin, Anothroskon, Athenean and similar names are used) are instruments of pure Greek political PROPAGANDA. They are one or two persons acting from multiple sites and distorting history. My advice is to abandon wasting time with Wikipedia and Greek propaganda. Just let them have their monologue of ignorance and despare. My name: !Never!

Simanos, with regard to the general matter of ethnicity in the Byzantine period, you'd have to contend with a multitude of non-Greek, western scholars who argue the same position. Your personal stance is not a reflection of historical reality, but a product of your current political and emotional mindset Hxseek (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You can keep trying to insult me and others (and then edit some of your insults), but it only weakens your position. Then again it is so weak and transparent by now that I'm putting you on ignore like that troll that was banned-retired-returned that called itself Draganparis (I'm not saying you're a troll like him). Take care. Simanos (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

OMG we're still discussing this. Wasn't a consensus reached a few months ago?--Ptolion (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was absent. Who is "Never"? Some very interesting guy. He gave us the list that was given before. Look up the Archives. But, I see no need to search. The members of the Greek patriotic propaganda will raise their hands. Ptolion is then the next. No, Ptolion, your group arrived at a consensus, may be by the "frappe" in the cafe on the Aristotle's place in Thessaloniki, but the concensus has not been reached by some unbiased community. So we may add Ptolion to the list (Simanos, GK, etc, etc, the patriots par excellence).

There is a book by one Greek about the ethnic composition of the Byzantium. Can somebody find it? This may offer a temporary solution to the question. By the way, I came across an Italian professor of history. He maintains that "all the Greeks are in fact Slave because the Slave invasion between 5-10 century just reached the Peloponnese", the language was adopted because of the trade reasons. The old Greeks disappeared. There is some sense in this because the Greeks look either quite middle-eastern, Arabic, Turkish today and physically have nothing in common with the classical Greek sculpture which was REALISTIC. So they are more Turks or Semitic. Or, are indistinguishable from the Slavs (today's Macedonians). So, there were probably no Greeks in Thessaloniki by the time of Cyril and Methodius. What do you think?Tagsmusik (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Tagsmusik displays here his racism, in between trying to offend editors. I would delete it, but I want admins to ban him first. According to his Arianism, Turks and Arabs and Semites today have nothing in common with classical Greek sculpture which was REALISTIC. That doesn't even make sense at first reading and has to be analyzed a bit. What is clear is that he secretly hates Jews and others and reminds me of the Nazi propaganda that caricatured them. I won't even bother to answer his baseless vague claims. Simanos (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is not a place to discuss the ethnic composition of Byzantium. We should use the terminology used in the most sources, and most sources describe them as just Greek.--Ptolion (talk) 11:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

That's not a basis for the continued use of anachronistic and inaccurate terminology. Given that there is clearly an issue here, then more specilaized sources are required. The sources you speak of mention "Greek" in passing without actually discussing the implications f such a label, or its historical accuracy, gievn that the crux of their discussion focusses on something different (ie Chritianity, etc). There is in fact no incontrovertible proof that they were 'ethnic Greeks' as opposed to the swathes of other ethnicities which were inhabiting northern Greece during this time. As has been pointed out, there were Armenians, Slavs, Romans (and few if any "Greeks"). Hxseek (talk) 03:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

How is there "an issue here"? You will not find sources dealing exclusively with the identity of Cyril and Methodius since that is universally assumed, by western as opposed to slav-nationalist sources, to be Greek. As for the semantic differences between Roman, Greek and Hellene this is not the article to discuss them. The sources say Greek we use Greek. If and when academic consensus changes and they use the term Roman we will follow that. WP should reflect consensus not help to form it.--Anothroskon (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear Lord, is this still going on? What about linking/changing "Greek" to "Byzantine Greeks"? The later is the article on the "Rhomaioi" aka the Byzantines proper, whether native Greek or culturally assimilated/hellenized, which fits the brothers no matter how you read the sources. And could you please expend your energy somewhere else, like in improving the article? There are 18 citations on their ethnicity (BTW, this rack of citations makes a mockery of WP and should be drastically simplified) and ten for the remaining article. Constantine ✍ 07:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea and would avoid the pointishness but how would you suggest going about it? Simplifying the sources I mean. As for the compromise of "Byzantine Greeks" the lead could link to the Byzantine section of the Greeks article. Would that work for you as a compromise? --Anothroskon (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On the citations, remove any but the most authoritative and/or pertinent to the subject. An apostolic letter of Pope John Paul II is not a credible source on the ethnicity of 9th-century people. Also, any work referring to a modern country and only treats the brothers in passing (e.g. Ukraine: a history, Making peace prevail: preventing violent conflict in Macedonia, Croatia: travels in undiscovered country). For such issues, only philological, ethnographic and historical studies focusing on the particular period should be used. Exceptionally credible overview works related to the field, like the Oxford Dictionary of Christianity etc, can also be used. I remember seeing a ton of sources posted here in the past, choose the four-five most appropriate and authoritative and use them and only them. If necessary, add a small comment with a link to the list of sources. For the compromise, as far as I understand it, the point that is raised against the brothers being unqualifyingly classified as "Greek" rests on the assumed identification with the modern Greek ethnicity. Since a dedicated article on the "Rhomaioi" exists, it is only fair that it should be linked there, saving trouble all around. Constantine ✍ 17:05, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, and its fair to say that too much debate has been expended on this issue Hxseek (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

May I say something? If they were Greeks, this is fine. Since they most probably were not, but were Slaves, there is a problem.Housfrau (talk) 19:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

/facepalm Simanos (talk) 19:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Glagolitic alphabet

This article states that the Glagolitic alphabet was *devised* by C & M. However, the Wiki page on Glagolitic alphabet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glagolitic_alphabet) contradicts this statement by saying that the Glagolitic alphabet pre-existed the arrival of C & M. I think that, at most, we can say that C & M REvised (not DEvised) the alphabet to include sounds for the Slavic language.

Thomkolton (talk) 15:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Please feel free to make the relevant changes. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, can you point me at the exact location where this info is given? I think there only was a hypothetical pre-Glagolitic alphabet. GK (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

On the previously cited page, "Origins of the Glagolitic characters, Although popularly attributed to Saints Cyril and Methodius and the introduction of Christianity,[2][3][4][5][6] the origin of the Glagolitic alphabet is obscure. The medieval text Pannonian Life of Constantine records that the Slavs were already literate at the time of Cyril's mission: "during a mission to the Crimea in 860 he [St Cyril] was shown a Gospel and Psalter written in rousskymi pismeny ["Rus letters"] [...] Constantine [St Cyril] is reported not to have seen these before, but to have learnt to read them surprisingly quickly."[7] Based on the cited sources, this would indicate to me that C & M were not the original authors of the alphabet. Thomkolton (talk) 19:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

My original comment centered on the Glagolitic alphabet mentioned here. However, after reading and rereading this section, and reviewing the previous comments, I felt that this section could be better structured. Much of my suggestions are simply moving text around and generally making the text flow better. Important points on the article I would like to make are:

1. Although Cyril's name is associated with the Cyrillic alphabet, and while there is a wide popular misconception that he brought the Cyrillic alphabet to the Slavs, my personal opinion is that the misconception does not need to be mentioned here; the glaring absence of any mention of Cyrillic in this section, and only referring to the use of Glagolitic alphabet, indicates to the reader that something else must be going on. This is an opportunity to click on the Glagolitic link to learn more.
2. There is mention that Glagolitic was the precursor of the Cyrillic alphabet. I would prefer to remove this.
3. There is a comment about C & M's success, "They enjoyed considerable success in this endeavor." There is perhaps room for debate; Cyril dead and Methodius in prison does not a success make in my book. However, I don't think this opinion is appropriate, at least not in this section.

Since I have never updated Wikipedia and am not entirely sure how to go about it, and since I do not wish to offend by offering a radical rewrite to this section without other people's opinions, I'd like to offer it here for review. It lacks the references that would be placed in the final copy; this was done simply for expediency:

Great Moravia

In 862, both brothers were to enter upon the work which gives them their historical importance. That year, Prince Rastislav of Great Moravia requested that the Emperor Michael III and the Patriarch Photius send missionaries to evangelize his Slavic subjects. His motives in doing so were probably more political than religious. Rastislav had become king with the support of the Frankish ruler Louis the German, but subsequently sought to assert his independence from the Franks. Presumably to gain a degree of political support[14], Rastislav is said to have expelled missionaries of the Roman Church and turned to Constantinople for ecclesiastical assistance. This request provided a convenient opportunity to expand Byzantine influence. The Emperor quickly entrusted the task to Cyril, accompanied by his brother Methodius, stating "You two are from Thessaloniki, and all Thessalonians speak pure Slavonic".[15]

Their first work seems to have been the training of assistants. In 863, they began the task of translating the Bible into the language now known as Old Church Slavonic. They also translated Christian texts for Slavs into the language that is now called Old Church Slavonic, and wrote the first Slavic Civil Code, used in Great Moravia. The language derived from Old Church Slavonic, known as Church Slavonic, is still used in liturgy by several Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic churches.

Translations were performed using the Glagolitic alphabet, which was already in use during Cyril’s time. [??] It is believed that Cyril inserted additional characters into the alphabet to symbolize the non-Greek sounds of the Slavic language. [??]

It is impossible to determine with certainty what portions of the Bible the brothers translated. The New Testament and the Psalms seem to have been the first, followed by other lessons from the Old Testament. The "Translatio" speaks only of a version of the Gospels by Cyril, and the "Vita Methodii" only of the "evangelium Slovenicum," though other liturgical selections may also have been translated. Nor is it known for sure which liturgy, that of Rome or that of Constantinople, they took as a source. They may well have used the Roman alphabet, as suggested by liturgical fragments which adhere closely to the Latin type. This view is confirmed by the "Prague Fragments" and by certain Old Glagolitic liturgical fragments brought from Jerusalem to Kiev and there discovered by Saresnewsky—probably the oldest document for the Slavonic tongue; these adhere closely to the Latin type, as is shown by the words "Mass," "Preface," and the name of one Felicitas.

In spite of these efforts, the brothers could hope for no permanent success without obtaining the authorization of Rome.

By the way, the text you cite does not say that the story is untrue. It says it "might" be untrue. So you cannot just talk about misconceptions unless you can establish that current theories support this POV over the other.

Also, later on the article says :

Pre-Glagolitic Slavic writing systems A hypothetical pre-Glagolitic writing system is typically referred to as cherty i rezy (strokes and incisions)[15] - but no material evidence of the existence of any pre-Glagolitic Slavic writing system has been found, except for a few brief and vague references in old chronicles and "lives of the saints". All artifacts presented as evidence of pre-glagolitic Slavic inscriptions have later been identified as texts in known scripts and in known non-Slavic languages, or as fakes.[16] The well-known Chernorizets Hrabar's strokes and incisions are usually considered to be a reference to a kind of property mark or alternatively fortune-telling signs. Some 'Russian letters' found in one version of St. Cyril's life are explainable as misspelled 'Syrian letters' (in Slavic, the roots are very similar: rus- vs. sur- or syr-), etc.

Does this text address your concerns or does it speak about something different? I really do not know.

So, my comments would be :

# Although Cyril's name is associated with the Cyrillic alphabet, and while there is a wide popular misconception that he brought the Cyrillic alphabet to the Slavs, my personal opinion is that the misconception does not need to be mentioned here; the glaring absence of any mention of Cyrillic in this section, and only referring to the use of Glagolitic alphabet, indicates to the reader that something else must be going on. This is an opportunity to click on the Glagolitic link to learn more.

As I stated you cannot just call the Cyril theory a misconception unless you can prove that current academic consensus supports that. Even if it is so, and I am not really in the position to say, it is a fact that C&M are credited with the Cyrillic alphabet and this should be mentioned even if followed by an explanatory text which will state the "misconception".

# There is mention that Glagolitic was the precursor of the Cyrillic alphabet. I would prefer to remove this.

OK, but why? Is this wrong? Or do you think that structurally it does not belong there?

# There is a comment about C & M's success, "They enjoyed considerable success in this endeavor." There is perhaps room for debate; Cyril dead and Methodius in prison does not a success make in my book. However, I don't think this opinion is appropriate, at least not in this section.

Yes, this would be a personal opinion. Yet, this "considerable success" part also sounds like a personal opinion. Maybe you should explain why it wasn't a success to us and then change it?

As for your proposed text, it would be great help if you highlighted your proposed changes so that we can compare them to the existing text more easily. What though you should be particularly careful when changing is sourced material. GK (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Btw, have a look at this article. Maybe it will be of help. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relationship_of_Cyrillic_and_Glagolitic_alphabets

GK (talk) 11:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)