Talk:Cyril and Methodius

MK Wikipedia

Can someone deal with the issue in MK Wikipedia? http://mk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A1%D0%B2._%D0%9A%D0%B8%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BB_%D0%B8_%D0%9C%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%98

Their own references talk about "Byzantine Greeks" and they keep deleting the part about "Greeks". This is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.84.25.228 (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid the editors in MK Wikipedia are very biased politically, and unfortunately, any corrections may go to vain. I think they are strongly motivated by the FYROM's Macedonia Name Dispute with Greece. Now they even call Cyril and Methodius as... Ethnic Macedonians. Its ridiculous. Really, the Wikipedia Creator, Jimmy Wales and his group need pay some attention and deal with the issues regarding the MK Wiki. The Wikipedia is not a place for propaganda or personal political goals. --85.75.189.243 (talk) 05:58, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

The missionaries were Byzantines (Romans in fact). That’s all. About 400 years after their time, in the 13th century, after the Crusades, the Europeans started calling the Romans from the Eastern Roman Empire - Greeks (pejoratively). In the 9th century they could have been just Romans, therefore we cannot call the brothers "Byzantine Greeks". Similarly we cannot call them "Byzantine Macedonians" either, although they were from the territory of the (ancient, later roman province, i.e. Byzantine province of) Macedonia. Indeed, they might have been Slave Macedonians, since they could translate the sacred texts INTO slave language, what would have been impossible if they were not borne Slave. Indeed, the translations use declinations that the Slave Macedonians probably did not have. However, Check and Slovak languages had declinations and it was possible that their students, number of whom were Checks or Slovaks, corrected their translations. Therefore the most correct would be to call the brothers just Byzantines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.113.42 (talk) 20:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

We've been through this before; if you have a look in Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius/Archive 6 you will see. The sources say the men were both Greek. -- Dianna (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I looked it up right now. Very interesting discussion. The sources (Britanica usw.) say they were just Byzantianes (Roman) and may be Slave. Greeks did not exist before 12-13 century. The Helenes existed, but they were more in the South. In the North of the today's Greece was Macedonia. No Basileus was a "Basileus of the Greeks" but of the "Romans" (Romanoi?). There are thousends of documents that show this. Where is the problem then? 85.75.189.243.

Edit request on 22 April 2012

remove: The assumed seat of Methodius as archbishop was in Nitra.

Iustusest (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: please give reasoning. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

reference for The assumed seat of Methodius as archbishop was in Nitra in Slovak: V bule pápeža Jána VIII. roku 880 Industriae tuae sa oznamuje ustanovenie Vichinga za nitrianskeho biskupa sanctae ecclesiae nitrensis – svätej cirkvi nitrianskej, ktorá bola pod správou arcibiskupa-metropolitu Metoda. Nitra sa takto stala prvým dokumentovaným biskupstvom v strednej a východnej Európe, z tohto obdobia. Bola to prvá diecéza medzi slovanskými národmi. Nemožno ani vylúčiť, že bola zároveň sídlom sv. Metoda-metropolitu.[1] Source is official website of archbishop in Nitra. --Orhtodxbratm (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

This in fact proves the reverse. It is canonically impossible to have more than one bishop in a see, so the fact that Wiching was consecrated to Nitra means that Methodius’s see was elsewhere. Formally it was Sirmium, though it is most unlikely that Methodius ever resided there; the impression that one gets from the Vita is that he moved about a lot, which is no more than one would expect given that he had a newly-constituted (or reconstituted) province to organise. One would assume that he spent much of his time near the seat of secular power (Vyšehrad, or wherever one thinks that it was), but definitely not in a city that had a bishop of its own.Лудольф (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have closed the request for now, as it appears the requested edit is disputed. If consensus turns in favor of the requested edit, please feel free to reopen the request. Monty₈₄₅ 04:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)