Talk:Cyril and Methodius

Cyril and Methodius - Greeks or Slavs?

Let us stop this meanigless debate about the origin of Cyril and Methodius - there is no evidence revealing it. They are assumed to be Greeks probably because they were high level Byzantine subjects. But then how did they learn Slav language so well in order to create a slavic alphabet? Let us stop this issue by saying they were Byzantine brothers - at least noone can argue about this.195.114.112.217 (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

One does not have to be a Slav to learn the Slavic languages well. When you propose avoiding debate characterizing it as meaningless, try and avoid comments like.. They are assumed to be Greeks probably because they were high level Byzantine subjects. But then how did they learn Slav language so well in order to create a slavic alphabet?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.135.87 (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

One does not have to be a Slav to know the Slavic languages well. You just have to be smart. When you propose avoiding debate characterizing it as meaningless try to avoid comments like ...THey are assumed to be Greek probably because they were high level Byzantine subjects. But than how did they learn Slav language so well in order to create a Slavic alphabet?. They did not create a Slavic alphabet. They created an alphabet that was introduced to the Slavs. There is nothing national about an alphabet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.135.87 (talk) 11:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No sources are provided about the "Macedonian"? origin of the brothers. Jingby (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Claiming that they were Greeks is just another indication of the Greek nationalistic hysteria... They knew the Slavonic language(s) so well to design the alphabet and translate books into Slavonic, and preach between the Slavs?????? What a nonsense! Crnorizec (talk) 02:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

They knew also Hebrew Arabic and Khazaric languages and preached the gospel among those people. They were just Missionaries in order to prevent Roman Catholic Church expansion in eastern borders of Byzantium. Nickanor (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources say they were Greek. All sources except for the panslavist nonsense of the Skopjians and no one cares about those. So....YES. They were GREEK. Deal with it slavboyz!

Actually there are no historic sources as to their ethnicity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.171.163.238 (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no doubt that they were Slaves. Alphabet… OK. But: Can someone of the brilliant proponents of the theory that the brothers were Greeks explain how they managed to translate the Bible in Slavonic if Slavonic was not their mother tongue?Draganparis (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

????Because they knew Slavonic??? What is so peculiar about it? GK1973 (talk) 23:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(Hmmm that guy again. Unbelievable! Is this FYROM or Bulgarian or Greek secret service behind? Sorry, this is just a joke, OK?). Dear friend, a professional interpreter today can not produce translations of the same quality both ways (mother tongue vs. “foreign” language or the second language) even if one were almost perfectly bilingual. They, bilingual interpreters, often have absolutely perfect speaking ability both ways, but literary capacity is unequal. This has been always like this. People who can produce their translation in both ways equally well are extremely, extremely rare. There have been some writers, like Samuel Beckett, but their minimalist literary style was such that it permitted a degree of “imperfection”. Translating a book as a Bible into a foreign language (and particularly in so short time as it was claimed) is an impossible task. Ptolemy II needed over 70 Jewish Greek scholars to do a similar job.Draganparis (talk) 13:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Ptolemy made these 70 people write their own interpretations and then had them juxtaposed... Each one made his own translation... please.. you can write a book with your "evidence" and theories and I will be happy to buy and read it... but until then you are hardly considered a source, are you? GK1973 (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If you would break into tears as soon as somebody disagrees with you, it is impossible to have any discussion with you. My comment on translation difficulties in Cyril and Methodius article was my personal comment. BUT: There is no evidence whatsoever on their being Bulgars, Macedonian, Serbs or Greeks!!! Why are you making such a fuss about it??? And, excuse me you make me write this: The Septuagint translation tale is for children, no serious historian accepts it on the face value, but if you accept it, so help you God. (For the rest of the comment see your Talk please)Draganparis (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The sources below say "Greek." Please tell me briefly why our article should not do the same. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, please check the archives. At the time I was participating in this dispute, we came to consensus that Byzantine Greek is best. No sources of their ethnicity exist. Greek is how Byzantine population were called back then. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 04:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So, now the story is a fairy tale? The same one you just used as an argument? And it is also NOT accepted by the academic community?... Good for the academic community to know... GK1973 (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it that you so often misunderstand quite simple arguments? The Septuagint story is very likely a fairy tale. (But you can believe in that story, I am not disturbed by this.) The question that we discuss here is from which Byzantine community these two intellectual brothers were and this is not a fictitious fairy tale question. We know that the Slave invasion changed the ethnic structure or the Thessaloniki region. Why should two Greeks know the Slave language so well is thereby explainable, however not entirely. I just mentioned that it is highly unlikely to be able to translate with such a speed and so well!! the entire Bible into a language that is not a translator's mother tongue. This is in fact impossible. Even for a saint!Draganparis (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Unprotected - Thanks to all for briefly revisiting the issue. The sources say 'Greek'. A footnote citing one or two of the best might be useful, if it doesn't make the lead look cluttered. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

We have to ignore the interventions of GK1973, unfortunately. That person shows inconsistency and lack of the desire to respect fairness and correctness (illustrated in recent disputes with me here, in the discussion on the pages about Alexander the Great, and on his talk page) which an editor of Wikipedia must possess. As what concerns some aspects of Cyril and Methodius cultural background discussed in this section, we may cite Horace Lunt and I propose to accepts his position, which is as follows: “The native dialect of Cyril and Methodius, who were born in Salonika, was presumably southern Macedonian.” Lunt G. Horace, (2001) Old Church Slavonic Grammar, seventh edition, p. 3; Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin New York. (Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH Co. KG, Berlin) ISBN 3-11-016284-9). So please for a consensus opinions and apropriate addaptation of the main text. Draganparis (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

This coming from a nationalist copy paster is really hillarious... In our "discussion" regarding the Macedonian issue, your learned and academic questions were nought but blunt, unedited, unread pastes from http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/ !!!!!...It seems that your academic background starts and ends in such sites... Pity... GK1973 (talk) 15:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think, that we must ignor the interventions of GK1973. I was following his comments on many sites about Macedon and I miss the professionalism and fairness which must be an virtue of all Wikipedia-editors since they have a great responsability. However, regarding Dragan: I wish to say that you may be a little bit patient (Faith, Hope and Love) with GK1973. GK1973 might be nervous now because Greece is now at the bottom and the only one on which they (i.e. the greeks, like GK1973) can be proud of are just some stones in Athens.Maxkrueg 1 (talk) 13:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Saints

You can't use "Saint", "Dr.", "Sir" etc in Wikipedia, isn't it? --Matrix0101 (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You most certainly can and should when addressing me for instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.71.0.245 (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Sources about the brothers being Greek

• Quotation from The Columbia Encyclopaedia, 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. “

• “Invited in 863 by its prince, Rostislav, Cyril (Constantine) and Methodius, Greek monks from Thessalonica, came to preach the gospel there” Encyclopaedia Britannica, Incorporated, Warren E. Preece - Reference - 1972 Page 846

• " Even though by the time of the Greek missions to the Slavs the Byzantine Church was almost monolithically Greek, the idea of a liturgy in the vernacular was still quite alive as is demonstrated by the use of the Slavic language by the missionaries of SS. Cyril and Methodius in the 9th century. " Eastern Orthodoxy Missions: ancient and modern, Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007

• “During the ninth century, two Greek brothers from Thessalonica Cyril and Methodius, were instrumental in the conversion of the Slavs” Encyclopaedia of World Cultures - Page 239 by David H. Levinson - Social Science – 1991

• “by the 9th century Greek missionaries St. Cyril and St. Methodius and their disciples” The Encyclopaedia Americana - Page 25 by Grolier Incorporated -1998

• “St. Cyril and his brother, St. Methodius, are called the "Apostles to the Slavs." They were Greek missionaries among the Moravians and other Slavic tribes” Merit Students Encyclopaedia by William Darrach Halsey – 1980

• “which the Greek brothers Cyril and Methodius employed” The Oxford Encyclopaedia of Archaeology in the Near East - Page 151 by Eric M. Meyers – 1997

• "Greek brothers..." World Book Encyclopedia 2005

• "Bulgaria, which had been Christianized a century earlier and had offered a home to the Cyrillo-Methodian community, became a conduit for the transmission of Greek culture, translated into Old Church Slavonic, to Russia" Russian literature, Encyclopaedia Britannica 2007

• "(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. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Saints Cyril and Methodius:

• “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)

• "Cyril and Methodius….two Greek brothers..." Lunt, Slavic Review, June, 1964, p. 216

• “Both Thessalonians brothers are presented by two quite diverse Latin sources of their epoch in nearly identical terms. Quirillus quidam, nacione Grecus is praised in the oldest verion of the Czech latin Christian's legend. Quidam Graecus, Methodius nomine is scorned in the Frankish document Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum. Both brothers were Greek by origin, education, cultural background and inclination; both rendered important services to the Byzantine Empire and church, and both were sent by the emperor and apparently also by the Patriarch on a responsible mission to Moravia.”, Crucial problems of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies' by Roman Jakobson

• “As a matter of fact, Constantine and Methodius were not Slavs, but two sons of a Greek official.. “ Eastern Canada Centre of Slavists and East European Specialists, Association canadienne des slavistes - 1976 - page 73

• “An appeal to the Roman Emperor Michael at Byzantium in 863 brought two Greek brothers, Constantine and Methodius from Thessalonica.” A Handbook of Slavic Studies - Page 98, Leonid Ivan Strakhovsky

• Oscar Halecki, Professor of Eastern European History, (Borderlands of Western Civilization, A History of East Central Europe, chapter Moravian State and the Apostles of the Slavs) “Greek brothers”

• “Moravian Christianity even had species of ecclesiastical organization before the arrival of the Greek brothers” The Significance of the Missions of Cyril and Methodius. Francis Dvornik Slavic Review > Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jun., 1964) page: 196

• “Cyril and Methodius were born in Thessalonica and were Greeks in origin, not Slavs” (V.Bogdanovich , History of the ancient Serbian literature, Belgrade 1980, pg.119).

• “the Greek brothers Constantine and Methodius, translated “Slavic Translations of the Scriptures Matthew Spinka the Journal of Religion > Vol. 13, No. 4 (Oct., 1933), pp. 415

• "How did this itinerant Greek philosopher become the single most outstanding writer of Slavic literatures in their first five hundred years or so?" Henry Cooper, Slavic Scriptures:

• “Two Greek brothers from Thessalonica, 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)

• Ivan Lazaroff, Plamen Pavloff, Ivan Tyutyundzijeff and Milko Palangurski of the Faculty of History of Sts. Cyril and Methodius University in Veliko Tŭrnovo, Bulgaria (Short History of the Bulgarian Nation, pp 36-38) state very explicitly that they were Greeks from Thessalonica.

• “Then in the ninth century Cyril and Methodius, two Greek monks from Thessalonica, 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)

• “In answer to this appeal the emperor sent the two brothers Cyril and Methodius, who were Greeks of Thessalonica and had considerable knowledge of Slavonic languages”. (The Balkans: A history of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey (1916)” by Forbes, Nevil, p. 21)

• “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 Yugoslavia” by Rebecca West, P. 710)

• Cyrill in his dialog with the Muslims: “every science stem from us…” implying Greeks Honorary Volume to Cyril and Methodius Thessalonica-1968, Henriette Ozanne.

• Cyril in his dialog with the Khazars“…Give me all the Greek prisoners of war you have here. They are more valuable to me than any other present…” - Scientif Annals of the Theology Faculty of the Thessalonica University (1968)

• “The brothers Cyril and Methodius ... It was thus two Greeks, born in Thessalonica, who evangelized and 'alphabetized' the mass of the Slavs” The European Inheritance - Page 304 by Ernest Barker – 1954

• “Two Greek priests from Thessalonica, the brothers Cyril and Methodius, who knew Slavonic, were called from Byzantium”. Journal of Central European Affairs - Page 308, 1941

• "Matters were more complicated when Saint Cyril and Methodius, two Greek brothers from Thessalonica... As Byzantine Greeks, Cyril and Methodius were more tolerant than Rome in accepting "barbarian" tongues in Divine Liturgy". Ivo Banac The national question in Yugoslavia

• “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)

• “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)

• “Cyril and Methodius Greek brothers, born in Thessalonica”, Pope John Paul II

• “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)

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

• “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)

• “Two Greek brothers, Cyril and Methodius, were sent. They prepared an alphabet for the hitherto unwritten Slav language; the script was called Glagolitic” The New Oxford Companion to Music - Page 1076 by Denis Arnold -1983

• “the ninth century of two Greek brothers from Salonika: Constantine — who took the name of Cyril shortly before his death at Rome in 869 — and Methodius” How the Bible Came to Us: Its Texts and Versions - Page 68 by Hugh Gerard Gibson Herklots – 1959
• “It was the result of the great missionary work in the Ninth Century of two Greek brothers from Thessalonica, Constantine —who took the name of Cyril shortly” Back to the Bible: A Literary Pilgrimage - Page 70 by Hugh Gerard Gibson Herklots – 1954

• “Two other Greeks from Thessalonica, Cyril and Methodius” Reflections on Our Age - Page 169 by UNESCO General Conference - 1949

• “The relics of Saints Cyril and Methodius, Greek brothers venerated as "apostles of the southern Slavs" in the sixth century”. East Europe - Page 17 by Free Europe Committee, Free Europe – 1957

• “The Russian alphabet, which is similar to the Greek, was invented by two Greek monks from Thessalonica, St. Cyril and St. Methodius” Russian Authors - Page 28 by Elsa Z. Posell – 1970

• Hastings, Adrian (1997). The construction of nationhood: ethnicity, religion, and nationalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 126. ISBN 0-521-62544-0. The first mass Conversions to Christianity among the Slavs seem to have come around the ninth century. and inevitably meant entry into one or another ecclesiastical tradition. It could result in effective incorporation within a Greek or Germanic world. Yet it also produced a whole new tradmomi of Chnstianity resultmg above all from the activity of the brothers Constantine (later renamed Cyril) and Methodius, aristocratic Greek priests who were sent from Constantinople to Moravia with the task of teaching religion not in German or Latin but in the vernacular.

--Anothroskon (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC) Added another one. --Anothroskon (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on sources about the brothers being Greek

All of these sources use Greek as a synonym of Byzantine. Kostja (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to work out here. The brothers are universally accepted as Greeks (or Greek Byzantines if you wish) by the academic and religious communities. Fanatics and fringe theorists exist here as they do in many other articles. Arguments such as "everybody says Greek but means non-Greek" are laughable to say the least, especially when we are talking about MODERN scholars... There is no real controversy in this issue and we shouldn't act as there is one. So, Tom, please restate the article and then protect it from IPs only. GK1973 (talk) 14:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see the Byzantine Empire for quite correct explanation of the name of the Eastern Roman Empire and its inhabitants. I would like to point out that the expressions Greece or Greeks should be reserved to designate modern state in the south of the Balkans or its inhabitants. All previous states that existed on this territory should be referred to – this being also the modern tendency - by their contemporary names. Indeed it is a custom to use relatively new name Byzantium for the Eastern Roman Empire. Since the town of Byzantium has changed its name repeatedly, or the Empire has been referred to by various names (see Byzantine Empire), to refer to that medieval state, it is probably the best to continue to use Byzantium, or Byzantines, for its inhabitants. Most confusing would be to use Greece or Greeks.

Indeed, in spite of the abundant references cited above, it is widely accepted in “normal” science (although may be not between Wikipedia “scientists”) that, except from certainty that Cyril and Methodius were Byzantines, that their Greek or Slave origins are just not known. There are linguists - I mentioned one above in the discussion - who, knowing that very high percent of Slaves lived in the region at that time, and taking into account high quality of the translation work that these two missionaries produced in Slave language, tend to believe that their mother tongue must have been Slave. This remains a hypothesis. Therefore to say “Byzantine missionaries” would probably be the best compromise choice.Draganparis (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to even consider your "compromise choice" unless you demonstrate by reference to alternative sources or Wikipedia policies, guidelines or conventions that referring to them as Greek is somehow unsuitable. There certainly is no practice in Wikipedia to avoid using the name Greek for places, persons or things before 1830. So far, the only reasoning I can see behind the campaign to avoid calling them Greek is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is inadmissible.--Ptolion (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

How can you possibly use the word "inadmissible" in this discussion??? What is inadmissible is to approach somebody you do not even know with such a tone. How can you label my comment as WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT? Did I say I do not like some of the options proposed? I say that it is not the best one. Can somebody explain to me why some people immediately get so exited and personal when we discuss neutral facts from history? Is somehow their private property put in question or they consider their opinion their untouchable intimate sphere? Where is the problem, guys?

Such un-academic, aggressive tone is simply not suitable for a discussion that concerns simple, impersonal knowledge. But, for the sake of knowledge let us ignore cultural deficiency for instance.

This what the above commentator asked for is exactly what I demonstrated: The Empire’s name today IS Byzantium as it was Romania in the past, and the citizens were Romaioi or Romanos in the middle ages and not Greeks. This was never a Greek Empire or the citizens were never called Greeks. Colloquially, “Greeks” was used in reference to the Hellenes from the south, to the language that was the language of the Empire, or in a quite pejorative sense by the competing neighbours. The majority of Byzantines were not Greeks (Hellenes). Consult article on Wikipedia for the Byzantine Empire, which is not that bad as it could be. Two examples below which demonstrate that the use of the expression “Greek” is not suitable in the above case, will suffice.

Let us consult the index of Constantine Porfirogenitus: De Administrando Imperio (DAI, written 948-952), Edited by Gy. Moravsik, translated by Jenkins RJH (1949), new, revised edition, 1967, Dumberon Oaks, Washington DC. Number of indexed entries for Greece or Greeks is: for Ellas: 1, Ellenes: 3, Ellenika:1 (allways refering to the thema Hellas). Number of entries for Romaioi: 141, Romaikos: 5; Romaisti: 1; Romania: 9; Romanoi: 20. So never Greeks, always just Romans for the citizens of the Empire. DAI is the most reliable dociment from the 10th century available.

Then, second, probably the most important book on Byzantine history in principle, the famous book of of Ostrogotsky, G: History of Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, revised edition, 1969. It practically NEVER mentions Greece or Greeks, bur exclusively Byzantium and Byzantines. The Byzantines are of course not indexed, since they are repeated on each page 5-10 times and the subject of the book is Byzantium. Open any page on random and see by yourself.

This is history. Wikipedia tends to become knowledge. Consensus of ignorance will not bring it to its aim.Draganparis (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll be brief. You are presenting the issue as more complex than it is. Wikipedia operates on the principle of sources: if the vast majority of sources say X and there is no significant number of sources contradicting, then we go with X without further ado. It is not our job as Wikipedia editors to "correct" all the published academics who say that they were Greek. If, as you say, it is inaccurate to call them Greek, then it would be very strange if this fact were left out of all the literature on the topic. If there is a academic dispute about their origin, then there must be some sources saying they were Bulgarian/Turkish/Albanian/Ancient Macedonian/Japanese/whatever. These are the kind of sources we need to remove a perfectly sourced statement from the lead.--Ptolion (talk) 22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

We Googwiks should try to understand that what counts is not „the number of references“ but the quality of the references. The quality of the references (sources) is judged after (very briefly) the following list – from the highest to the lowest quality:

In principle the peer reviewed articles are ranked much higher then not peer reviewed. Then the articles are ranked after the quality of the journal which are again ranked after their impact factor. The recent original research paper published in a peer reviewed journal (with high impact factor) have the highest rank. Review articles in high ranked impact factor journals have lower rank then the research articles. The review articles in encyclopaedias are of low rank also, as well as books, since most frequently the reviewing procedure is less strict then in the high ranked scientific journals.

Such lists are of course not absolute lists. Quality ranking includes also other factors. One original source, like Josephus, may be quite unreliable. One article in daily press has almost zero value. Also, the self edited publications are judged to have lowest “quality”. Of course there are exceptions to these rules, but they are rare. Therefore Ostrogotsky is a first class source; Porphyrogenitus also (not for all what he wrote though). Etc.

The list that somebody produced above contains practically not very high ranked sources, and is incomparable to those that I gave. The fact that we all know that unfortunately there are NO documents, apart from the lives of the brothers, which are offering an answer to our question about their origins, there is NO high rank study which could even theoretically persuade us to be certain. Also, neither of these that I gave as MY SOURCES, like Horace Lunt or Ostrogorsky is explicit about the issue!!! Those who are explicate (from the above list given by Anothroskon) are obviously sources of lowest quality stating just bare hypotheses.

I will probably explain to all of you calmly later more about this. This is an essential issue for the quality of Wikipedia. I discussed some aspects of this 2 years ago at other place (Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 36).

For the time being I have to conclude that I supplied the first class references of one mediaeval writer (Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus), one contemporary first class writer (George Ostrogorsky), and one contemporary first class linguist (Horace Lunt) which all indicate that stating “Greek brothers” would most likely not be an ideal formulation and that stating “Byzantine brothers” would be preferred.

Please do not take it as an “insult”: I would appreciate all others too, but would be glad and would prefer to receive now comments from the scientists who have at least 10 articles published in peer reviewed international journals. This is not very much but could help have reasonable discussion.Draganparis (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right that there is a hierarchy of sources, with some more reliable than others. It is generally accepted though that sources of the types provided (other encyclopedias etc) are reliable enough. You have very kindly mentioned WP:NOR, which suggests that you are aware that Wikipedia is not the place for new theses etc no matter how well you think you can prove them. You think that the political epithet Byzantine is a suitable synonym for all the quotations we have above, but I disagree. I think that modern convention is that the term Byzantine has political connotations whereas Greek has ethnolinguistic connotations, which is why in a modern setting we say "the official language of the Byzantine Empire was Greek" even though the Byzantines themselves would probably have said "the official language of the Roman Empire was Roman". The sources above, however, are clearly using the name Greek in an ethnolinguistic sense to distinguish the Greek missionaries from the Slavs they worked among. This is why Wikipedia doesn't allow original research, there are several different ways of interpreting any set of facts. So far we have independent sources saying "they were Greek", if you'd like to change that, I suggest you find sources that say they were something else.--Ptolion (talk) 11:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, No.

(Please read it slowly, no panic, no excitement. There is no challenge here, I do not claim to know better, even if we do not manage what we want, important is that reasonable discussion continues. OK? Then let us start here.)

It is obvious, you do not know the terminology and the genre of science. (Just before I will write my short answer, let me state this: I do not want to spoil and change Wikipedia and make it scientific. Almost all of us would not be on these pages then. I want to make it better, slightly better. I will make just two points.)

First. You see, dear Ptolion, when referring to the evaluation of the published papers, “reliable enough” is not used in science, including social science. The publications where the article is published are highly valued or not very highly valued, have high or low impact factor. Even citing encyclopedia articles in science is understood as the lowest level. Please look up first on Wikipedia impact factor – I just hope that article explains it correctly – I even did not look! and then see if you can grasp my question. For one article in encyclopaedia you will get probably not much more then 0.2 points at your university. For an original article may be over 1 or even 5, if this is a good journal, peer reviewed (editorial board plus 2-3 academic reviewers). Again, I am not saying that this is the measure for the truth in your article or even quality of your findings and writings. Your particular work may be an exception as many are. But this is the system which is in general use and works. This is the system of evaluating the quality and this includes some aspects of importance and also of reliability of the published work. Mainly this is a picture that you get back from the community and has some of populist character. The system is not perfect and is bad, but there is no better. There is worst of course, this is one of Wikipedia, based on ”democracy” which is, again, based on competitiveness of the “players” and not on knowledge.

Second. No, Byzantines knew that they spoke Greek and not Roman, although the word Greeks, as people, had more pejorative connotation and was seldom used (see Prokopius, Secret Histories, look the index. It is very useful to look the index of the books, it gives very interesting information!) Also no author from that time used word Hellenes to describe the citizens of Byzantium. Ellas, Ellenes, Ellenika are NOT used by the Byzantine writers! I just can not copy reference after reference to prove you this. There are hundreds. Why our reference-man (Anothroskon) would not try to verify by himself, he is so good in references? And you can do it for yourself. It suffices just to read a little normal literature, (History of Byzantium of any author that you chose) not Wikipeida and Google articles. Or, there are books on line on Google, just look up under Byzantine History or similar. Just see what Jenkins says about that illusion of Hellenic (Greek- if you wish – he says Greek also) connection to the new Empire in Romilly James Heald Jenkins Byzantium: the Imperial centuries, AD 610-1071, Medieval Academy of America, (first ed. 1987) 2001, page 3. The Empire was a new, not Greek entity with the other political and cultural qualities. Why is this so hard to understand, my dear Googwiks?

Therefore: Our example was: what would be correct to say for Cyril and Methodius? Were they Greek brothers of Byzantine brothers? The experts do not say anything at all and are calling them the Apostles of the Slaves. In the popular texts we see both, often depending on the providence of the sources: Greeks say Greeks, Slaves say Slaves. As we said, we know that evidence is not available. The experts, and I mentioned one – one of the best, do not specify. Yes, historians are very careful, for the difference from us, Googwiks. Indeed the lives of the Cyril and Methodius (http://ia311528.us.archive.org/1/items/MN5148ucmf_2/MN5148ucmf_2.pdf, sorry in French – you read it of course, you Googwiks?) contain some discrete signs. In the life of Methodius the affirmation that "ALSO the Greeks have highly respected Methodius from his young age", may signify that he was not Greek. Again this is controversial, because some translations read the problematic word not as “Greeks » but as « jurists », reading the sentence (chapter 2): « C est pourquoi même les juristes, l'aimant depuis son enfance, parlaient de lui avec respect, jusqu'à ce que l'empereur, ayant appris sa sagacité, lui eût donné une principauté slave à gouverner ». Of course this is all quite uncertain. Famous historian Jirechek (Geschichte des Bulgaren, page 151, cited from Goetz LK: Konstantinus (Kyrillus) und Methodius, Gotha, Friedrich Andreas Perthes, 1897 [[1]]) believed that they were in fact Slaves because of their perfect translations (what I wrote also previously).

My conclusion, again: “Cyril and Methodius, two Byzantine brothers” is the best formulation for the beginning of the article.Draganparis (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC) ...And Very important. Do not wary, I am not trying to spoil Wikipedia, but, let us have an experiment. As I proposed: I would be glad and would prefer to receive now, just for the short discussion, comments from the scientists who have at least 10 articles published in peer reviewed international journals. We take their word, no need for a proof. It will be visible from the style anyway. So let us have very brief discussion on that level, just to see what it will bring. Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have really disappointing information for us. Our reference-man Anothroskon did something that should not be done. The "exhaustive" list of sources which you can see above (references are unfortunately often incomplete) is, what is really a shame, a compilations from nationalistic pages: http://historyofmacedonia.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/sources-on-st-cyril-and-methodius-greek-ethnicity/

and from nationalistic discussion forum (Ptolemy on 09-19-2007, 11:00 AM): http://www.macedoniaontheweb.com/forum/medieval-macedonian-history/327-cyrillos-methodios-cyril-methodius-4.html

This is interesting but unsuitable for this site, unfortunately. I thought that we had a fair, disinterested discussion. Please Anothroskon, do not do it again. If the other commentators have similar tendencies, we better stop this discussion. Draganparis (talk) 13:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Although copy pasting from sites is not a proper way to advance a discussion, I first have to say that this does not appear to be a copy paste from the lists you linked (there are marked dissimilarities between the 3 texts as well as similarities, so maybe he has used those lists and others to produce a new one), and of course that these are references and not hollow arguments. If Anothroskon tried to deceive us by the production of false or made up sources it is very easy to find out. Just look them up. If you find that he has abused these sources or stretched them to force an opinion, then I will happily go along with you. So, check them (or at least some) out, maybe they are bogus. If they are accurate though, they have to be respected... GK1973 (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We can not encourage this policy. Below I will give you some rules. (You may remember, here and at our Talk pages, you started dumping massive texts and I then damped to you back, to punish you, rubbish similar to that of Anothroskon. You obviously did not understand the manoeuvre – but you complained (!). Why? Because you felt that something was wrong with this. At least you, you can not have double standards now.).

You say “Bogus”? This is not a correct term. Dear friend, here are some rules: The references are good or not good. You are responsible for the truth of a reference. Author is obliged to give verified references. The reader may examine some but confidence in the content and correct citing is a prerequisite for smooth scientific work. If badly cited, it raises justified doubts of the truthfulness of the content. A reference is cited if you have seen it personally – this guarantees its truthfulness; if you have not seen it, better do not cite it; if you just have to cite it, you cite the source that cites it (to point out where the responsibility for its truthfulness is, but part of responsibility rests on you). A reference has author(s), title of the text, title of the publication (journal or book or whatever), volume, number, page, year, editor (this is not "just" a list of things, this all MUST be given!). Sometimes date must be given, if it is a law or official act or an Internet site (date when the site was accessed). Various types of references have particular format and sometimes you need instruction from the author how to cite.

The above given references are almost all incomplete. This incompleteness raises doubts of the truthfulness of the references. I did not but could have objected to this also. I objected to you earlier for obstructing the discussion with too much text. Now I object to Anothroskon in fact for both. For obstructing the discussion by dumping - citing the references - which he obviously did not see - without giving a source. And for citing the references from the source which is obviously biased. It could be objected also for dumping massive trivial references (I explained in my above comment about the quality of the references) which support just one of two or more possible sides of the problem. In principle, we have to see the problems that we try to solve in an objective way and examin also contrary arguments.

This what Anothroskon did is something which can not be permitted on Wikipedia. WE MAY NEED NOW AN ADMINISTRATOR.Draganparis (talk) 19:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wherever the collection of references came from, they are individually reliable sources. They say "Greek." Tom Harrison ^Talk 19:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The primary question is moral one, not about facts. Could you answer moral question, please? Thank you.

The second question is a question about facts. This is a simple logical inference of a type “if… then”. Example: 20 baskets put one into another, all with a hole in their bottom, would not hold water. But one without hole would hold. Is this clearer? Back to our problem. I stated the generally accepted criteria for the references to be reliable. The point is to determine if the references are reliable or not. If the references source is unreliable, then what they say can not be taken as true. These references in question (Anothroskon) fail these criteria. Therefore what they say can not be taken as true. I offered the reliable references, so what they say is reliable, i.e. can be taken as true. In addition, I demonstrated that a priori such a statement (for the brothers to be Greeks) can not be made, since the fact is not known. Therefore the conclusion is that they were Greeks should not be stated in their biography if the full argument can not be displayed to the reader.Draganparis (talk) 20:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

For our purposes here the only question is, "What do the reliable sources say?" I'll forbear from again pointing out what the sources say, since you probably find repetition as unpersuasive as I do. Tom Harrison ^Talk 20:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks. Also, I find what I call "a priori argument" to be the strongest argument. It looks like a priory probability. For the time being, the fact whether they were Greeks or Slaves is not known, no matter what one or other community or some popular printed media would publish. Although, I just verified, 5 minutes ago: the online “Encyclopedia Britannica” does not state that they were Greeks, states just "brothers who for christianizing the Danubian Slavs and for influencing the religious and cultural development of all Slavic peoples received the title “the apostles of the Slavs.” Both were outstanding scholars, theologians, and linguists. They were honoured by Pope John Paul II in his 1985 encyclical Slavorum Apostoli." Yes, the issue is difficult. I may bring another 50 references that do not say that they were Greeks… But, what difference does it make? I think that the important issue here has been that we may be discussed the value of references and some methodological questions. Not to make Wikipedia scientific. Just to make it slightly better.Draganparis (talk) 21:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

EXAMPLE: References showing that Cyril and Methodius are called “Byzantine brothers” or where 1-2 times – nothing is mentioned about their origin. Here is what could be done in 30 minutes surfing only on the internet. All sites visited 31- 1. 2010)

1. SS. Cyril and Methodius, Byzantine Catholic Church site: SAINTS CYRIL AND METHODIUS Saints Cyril (825-69) and Methodius (826-84) were brothers born in Thessalonika, Greece. Cyril was sent to study in Constantinople at an early age. From: http://sscm.us/SaintsCM2.htm (consulted 21.1. 2010.)

2. In 867, he hosted at his seat in Blatnograd the Byzantine brothers, Saints Cyril and Methodius when they were on their journey to Rome[2]. They established a religious school in Blatnograd and educated around 50 students.[citation needed] Koceľ played an important role in the propagation of Christianity, when he asked Pope Adrian II to let Methodius return to him and the Pope fulfilled his request; later, he also asked the Pope to ordain Methodius to the See of Saint Andronicus.[2] The arrival of Methodius gave rise to conflicts with the Archbishop of Salzburg whose Episcopal See Pannonia had traditionally belonged to. Wikipedia: Kocel

3.The Russian alphabet is based on the Cyrillic writing system. Legend says that two Byzantine brothers, Cyril and Methodius, created it using letters of the Greek and Hebrew alphabets in the 9th century. Wikijunior:Languages/Russian

4. “It was during this Empire (that writers claimed as their first state), that The Great Moravian Empire emerged in Central Europe as a loose confederation of Slavic people (862 A.D.) It was during his statehood that the Slavic Prince Rastislav invited the Byzantine brothers Constantine and Methodius to the Great Moravia.” A Very Short History of Slovakia (http://www.myerchin.org/VeryShortHistorySlovakia.html)

5. Old Church Slavonic (словѣньскъ) Old Church Slavonic or Church Slavonic is a literary language which developed from the language used by St Cyril and St Methodius, 9th century missionaries from Byzantium, to translate the bible and other religious works. Cyril and Methodius based their translations on a Slavonic dialect of the Thessalonika area and invented a new alphabet, Glagolitic, in order to write them. (http://www.omniglot.com/writing/ocslavonic.htm)

6. “Cyril and Methodius were born into a priviledged family in Thessaloniki, a cultural and economic hub second only to Constantinopole in the Byzantine Empyre…. Later not giving more of their origins. The legacy of John Paul II: an evangelical assessment, By Tim Perry, p. 269, InterVersity Press, 2007.

7. Come and join our Eparchy's missionary family of secular priests, religious priests, and monastics including the sisters of the Order of Saint Basil the Great and the monks at the Byzantine Brothers of St. Francis. Byzantine catholic Chrch, Van Nuys (http://www.eparchy-of-van-nuys.org/Vocations.htm).

8. The hymn devoted to the finding and the subsequent translation of the relics of Saint Clement of Rome shows a double interest: It is one of the earliest hymnographical compositions in Old Church Slavonic, and it contains clearly ideological elements. The relics of Saint Clement, third Pope after Saint Peter, played a main role in two important periods of the christianisation of the Slavs: The mission of the byzantine brothers Constantine-Cyril and Methodius in Moravia (863-869), and the baptism of the Rus’ian prince Vladimir in 988. Therefore, the study of the canon on the translation of the relics of Saint Clement can provide us a valuable evidence of the ideological use of biblical motifs and quotations. Several scholars considered a newly discovered Russian version of the hymn as the work composed by Constantine the Philosopher on the occasion of his finding of the relics in 861. On the contrary, the Russian historian E. V. Uchanova, basing on the ideological use of biblical quotations, came to the conclusion that such hymnographical composition would have a Russian origin, dating from the period of the christianisation of the Kievan Rus’. In this paper, we show how a careful rereading of those biblical motifs and quotations don´t allow us to support either of these hypothesi. Enrique Santos Marinas, Leiden University, The Ideological Use of Biblical Motifs and Quotations in the Canon on the Translation of the Relics of St. Clement of Rome, Abstracts of Papers Read at the SEEMSG Meeting, 3rd November 2001. http://userweb.port.ac.uk/~cleminsr/abstract.htm (accessed 31. 1. 2010)

9. Byzantine brothers Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius were born in Thessaloníki and the Byzantine Emperor Michael III encouraged them to visit the northern regions as missionaries; they adopted the South Slavonic speech as the basis for the Old Church Slavonic language. From: http://oldbelievers.wetpaint.com/page/Thessaloniki, ferom WIKIPEDIA, Thessaloniki!

10. 863, Byzantine brothers Cyril and methodius bring Christianity to Moravia (Culture and customs of the Czech Republic and Slovakia, p. XIII, By Craig Cravens, Craig Stephen Cravens, 2006.Draganparis (talk) 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

...Just when I am ready to really open my mind you do the same thing... You happily state that there should be rules regarding the appropriateness of a source, you give a lecture concerning good and bad sources and this is what you produce? Webpages?

1,4 and 5 are webpages, 2,3 and 9 is Wikipedia, 6 is wrong (p.276 "Cyril and Methodius were ethnic Greeks but "Slavs at heart"..."), 7 is seemingly irrelevant (unless I miss some point), 8 and 10 seem to be OK (although 8 is just an abstract).

Why are you doing this? Talk about academic approaches and then debase the issue like that? Is this what you mean by quality references? GK1973 (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha, I like you! Hope you really learned this. Very good. So these are NOT the references? In spite of the fact that I saw them (Anothroskon never saw his references), he copied them from nationalistic pages - something that you judged unacceptable - only if I would do this!). Yes, I will not get much Impact factor journal for such paper that cite these references. OK. Then of course those of Anothroskon (is this you?) nationalistic pages are also not good references? BUT! Those that I gave PREVIOUSLY! are the only good reference, Jankins and Ostrogorski, Lunt and the other? Is this right? These are authors of great career! Or I should cite you another 10 thick books on Byzantium which NEVER mentioned Greece but just Byzantium? In fact there is no SINGLE book about Byzantium, that mentions Greece. Try to read books, for a change.Draganparis (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Again being insulting? Again admitting to giving bull as sources?... Ok... you don't need me making a fool out of you.. you're doing a pretty good job yourself. GK1973 (talk) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Welll!!! Where is an insult now, please? Where? Don't be so sensitive to being disproved.

I really like you. Now, my 10 books. Modern authors maintain that Greece was IN Byzantium and not an entity in medieval time and that their citizens were Byzantines and not Greeks (language was Greek of course). Below is the list of the books on Byzantium that do not mention at all, or extremely seldom (1-3 times) Greece or Greeks:

1. John Julius Norwich, Byzantium: The Early Centuries, Knopf; Ex-Library edition (March 18, 1989)

2. John Julius Norwich, Byzantium (II): The Apogee, Knopf (January 8, 1992)

3. John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, Vintage (December 29, 1998)

4. Donald M. Nicol, The Last Centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453 Cambridge University Press; 2 edition (August 21, 2008)

5. Steven Runciman, The Fall of Constantinople 1453 (Canto) Cambridge University Press (November 30, 1990)

6. Lynda Garland, Byzantine Empresses: Women and Power in Byzantiumy AD 527-1204… Routledge; Ill edition (February 12, 1999) (mentined Greec 5 times).

7. Helen C. Evans, William D. Wixom, Glory of Byzantium: Arts and Culture of the Middle Byzantine Era, A.D. 843-1261, Metropolitan Museum of Art (October 1, 2000)

8. Robin Cormack, Byzantine Art (Oxford History of Art), Oxford University Press, USA (November 26, 2000)

9. Colin Wells, Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shapaed the world, Delacorte Press (July 31, 2007)

10. Giles Morgan, Byzantium: Capital of an Ancient Empire Chartwell Books, Inc.; 1St Edition edition (January 21, 2009); Greece mentioned 7 times – quite achievement!.

So please change "Greek brothers" into "Byzantine brothers". Thanks.Draganparis (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My excuse: when I woke up this morning I read again my previous comment. Yes, I was insulting. I said "Try to read books, for a change-". This was not fair. Sorry, my friend. Have a nice day.Draganparis (talk) 07:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

????

http://books.google.com/books?id=y2d6OHLqwEsC&pg=PR5&dq=Donald+M.+Nicol,+The+Last+Centuries+of+Byzantium,+1261-1453&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&hl=el&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Greek&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=y2d6OHLqwEsC&pg=PR5&dq=Donald+M.+Nicol,+The+Last+Centuries+of+Byzantium,+1261-1453&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&hl=el&cd=1#v=snippet&q=Greece&f=false


http://books.google.com/books?id=y2d6OHLqwEsC&pg=PT1&dq=Donald+M.+Nicol,+The+Last+Centuries+of+Byzantium&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&hl=el&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Greek&f=false
http://books.google.com/books?id=y2d6OHLqwEsC&pg=PT1&dq=Donald+M.+Nicol,+The+Last+Centuries+of+Byzantium&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&hl=el&cd=1#v=snippet&q=Greece&f=false

Do you ever read before posting? Randomly checked results...I am sure that the same case happens in most (if not all) "sources" you again gave...Why are you doing this? GK1973 (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do YOU ever read before posting? The modern history, referring to the language (which was Greek as I said) or to the southern regions (Hellas) of the Empire, uses Greek or Greece. Otherwise Byzantines are NOT called Greeks. During the time of the Byzantium, only when somebody wanted to show how the other people were mine or cunning, or dangerous, they called them Greeks".Draganparis (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrous and sad... you again did not read the extracts pinpointed... I can count dozens of times these writers use the word "Greek" to characterize people and places OUTSIDE the theme of Hellas... Maybe you could also have your "son" (sic) commenting on this too... Unless you blame it on your limited knowledge of the English language in which case you might not understand the passages given, in which case we can help you but you should not give sources in English... GK1973 (talk) 15:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh... and read this too :

http://books.google.com/books?id=BAzntP0lg58C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Steven+Runciman,+The+Fall+of+Constantinople+1453&lr=&num=100&as_brr=0&hl=el&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Greek&f=false

So sad... GK1973 (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, ha. Don’t cry, please! Try finally to understand that what I have been doing with you, was to take you through, in maieutic way – you as an Hellenist certainly know this! No, no, do not go immediately to Wikipedia! Take a book from the library about Socrates and read it all. You will get the idea. So, to continue. I first started giving you normal literature and telling you what normal history would say about things you were interested on Wikipedia. You responded with emotions, hate and in a googwik style. I responded then in your way. You can see now how bad this is and how there will be no end in illusions that googwik methods brings. So, go back to studying books. Consult Google and Wiki, but see for history in the history books. They are real. Wikipedia and Google are wildering power by the “smart” guys like you, who pursue googwik science often for the purposes of some nationalistic, personal or even conspiracy plans. There, there is no truth and you get hatred all the time. Go to some university and study, but from the beginning. As you already know much, you will do it without much trouble. In the end, you will get rid of the chaos where you live now, and see brighter how magnificent the Greek history was, and how, since then, little we learned. Read very slowly, for example just one book I would propose by Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Read it slowly 3 times. Believe me you will then stop hating me for thinking differently.Draganparis (talk) 15:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dragan, these ever-repeated accusations of "googwik" thought are starting to look awfully a lot like a case of the lady doth protest too much, methinks. We have a little guideline on wiki called "comment on the content and not the contributor", take it easy.--Ptolion (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, Ptolion. I invented the expression “googwik scientist” (!) and I know what it means. It is descriptive indicating Google-Wikipedia users and the probable predominant sources used by the involved person. I did not use it pejoratively and please do not try to give it such connotations. It may sound somehow denigrating if somebody would pretend to be scientific but is not. There is NO encyclopaedia which pretends scientific knowledge and Wikipedia does not either. My critique was against intentions to simplify it too much even below common science. Real googwik knows how to write an article and give his/her sources. I wanted just this, as well as a recognition of an expert opinion. We have not arrived at this yet, but may be in the future. To be scientific instead of “normal” may not be the best choice for most of us.Draganparis (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you are using it as a smear/slur, which is not very constructive.--Ptolion (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(We were disturbed.) Dear friend GK1973, I believe that we are approaching the end of our discussion. I can imagine your surprise to find out in the www.books.google.com that the modern history books call inhabitants Byzantine Empire Byzantines and not Greeks. As I said, the ancients called them Romans, and later - may be 12th century and later, pejoratively, Greeks.

If you survived that shock, my dear GK1973, we can act together now and show to others some tricks. Let us now give this know-how of your “discovery” to them so that they can verify all of this by themselves. This will help them get acquainted with some books, but would not do the whole work. As I said, reading books will be right way to learn. Reading from the Internet is still not sufficient. It is too fast and too superficial, but good to verify some precise details. Looking up a word in the Index of a book is also one way to do this (you can get these pages on Amazon site), although it is less complete, it immediately gives a contest. If GK1973 had looked up in the Index of these books, he would not have made the mistake which he did when he believed to have found the word “Greeks”. On the site book.google.com, you have the word search of the entire book, i.e. part of the book that is available. This is simple. Go to http://books.google.com, type the word that would display the book you are looking for or type some keyword that will bring you entire list of books on the subjects. Now you can search, one after another for the word. This could serve different purposes, but to really study, you have to read your book. But be careful. When finding the word, see the context by clicking on the segment of the given page. Otherwise you will again learn too superficially like our friend GK1973. Try for example Byzantine Empire or Byzantium, and then inside the books, Greeks or Greek, or whatever; then when you get the segments of the pages, see the context. So, I wish you a lot of pleasure by searching book.google.com. Draganparis (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This above was necessary for all to know. I think we should go now to our Talk pages if we would have something to say. The issue is solved, everibody can go to the books.google.com and verify how the missionaries in question should be called. The Andministrator included.Draganparis (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't you think that Google-rigging exercises border on original research? It's much easier to just call them what most sources call them.--Ptolion (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"...modern history books call inhabitants Byzantine Empire Byzantines and not Greeks" and "everybody can go to books.google.com and verify how the missionaries in question should be called." No matter how they 'should' be called, the sources cited call them "Greek." Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(We need a NEW ADMINISTRATOR, I think) TO Ptolion now: Thanks for the objection. I wanted to stopp the discussion here. OK. I missed to say that if you would make an entry Cyril and Methodius, you get then number of books and then pages in these books where you can verify the relative frequency of the use of the word in the segment of a book available (!!! well this is disadvantage over entire books) – and find also the connotation. For example you can find Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, By André Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Michael Lapidge, James Clark & Co, 2000, and spot the entry which starts with:

Cyril and Methodius (826/827 and c820-885). Byzantine missionaries, often called “apostles of the Slaves”. Native of Thessalonica, the two brothers were Byzantine but connected with Slav circles bilingual from infancy.”.

You should use them as a possibility (inferior to real literature search in the specialised library) to solve some questions- verify the conclusions of the published works -not WP:OR , like one that I gave that shows that they are called Byzantine and not Greek, and not draw new conclusions - what would be WP:OR from the available evidence.Draganparis (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

These are some references, partially given below, just to look them up in books.google.com for the citations on Cyril and Methodius. They either do not say about the origin of the brothers or say, as indicated below. There is practically no reference between books which states that they were Greeks.

Do not say:

1. Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies By Mona Baker, Gabriela Saldanha

2. The New internatioal encyclopaedia, Volume 5 edited by Daniel Coit Gilman, Harry Thurston Peck, Frank Moore Colby

3. Holy people of the world: a cross-cultural encyclopedia, Volume 3 By Phyllis G. Jestice

4. Eastern Europe: an introduction to the people, lands, and culture ..., Volume 1 By Richard C. Frucht

5. Butler's Lives of the Saints: February By Alban Butler, Paul Burns

Macedonian

6. Old Church Slavonic grammar By Horace Gray Lunt

Roman family

7. The lives of the fathers, martyrs, and other principal saints, Volume 12

Byzantines

8. Byzantium and the Slavs By Dimitri Obolensky

9. Middle Ages: Biographies, Volume 1 By Judson Knight, Judy Galens

I stop here. It is your duty, if you pretend to edit the page of history, to treat it as a challenge of knowledge and NOT as a challenge to win in a competition with the others. Insist to disapprove the established “truth” and if you can not, then give up temporarily and declare that for the time being this is available truth.Draganparis (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Dragan, this isn't a dispute over which is the TRUTH? All of the names you have suggested are accurate and are not mutually exclusive. We have Byzantine (they were citizens of the Byzantine Empire), Roman (Byzantine Empire called itself Roman), Macedonian (they were natives of this region in the Balkans), and Greek (ethnic/linguistic term), all of which are sourced and can be used. However, for the article's lead, the most common definition should be used and the issue can then be discussed in more detail in the main text. This is standard Wikipedia practice.--Ptolion (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I just love the way this man harms his image... While he has obviously no knowledge on matters of history, he cites random sources hoping that no one will research them... When he is discovered copy pasting or giving wrong sources he mysteriously talks in a language that few can understand that "he did it on purpose, to show us how we do things", that "we found out the truth but used Googlebooks which does not count as evidence" or "that anyways we do not understand the complexity and perfection of his arguments"... Add sockpuppetry to all this (according to him the rest of his family, who gave different accounts and enjoy the same articles) and you have a perfect profile of Draganparis... Can you for once admit that you blundered? And all this from a man well trained in not giving any answers, eluding questions and looks for rain when others... GK1973 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that, unlike Dragan, we are humble "googwiks", not "scientists who have at least 10 articles published in peer reviewed international journals" (!) who, according to his posts, are the only people with whom he can have a "reasonable discussion".--Ptolion (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My conclusions is, and the other users should know this:

(I tried a long, too long, resonable discussion.) I firmly stand behind following: These pages are edited by the people with strong patriotic feelings for, or employed by FYROM or by Greece who are acting in concordance with 3 or 4 similar professionals or patriots. This “gang” is replacing “Macedonia” with “Greece” all over the places because of to me unclear reasons: FYROM may be by reserving for that state the name of “Macedonia”, or Greece, may be is attracted by a kind of pan-Hellenism, thereby acheiving some gain? In the meantime, history pages on Wikipedia are suffer enormously from bias. Last year my password was even broken, I complained (see may Talk page), no ADMINISTRATOR ever intervened (why should they when they were probably involved in this) and I stopped being interested for editing during about a year. This gang is acting again or betetr to say, still. I find it very patriotic and quite normal from their point of view, but damaging for Wikipedia. I THINK THAT THE OTHER USERS SHOULD KNOW THIS BEFORE TAKING PART ON THESE PAGES.Draganparis (talk) 21:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that your account's hijacking wasn't a practical joke by one of the many family members who share your computer, User:Herodotus1A perhaps? Maybe you forgot to log out. ;) In any case WP:TINC.-Ptolion (talk) 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

O yes (second account was established later). There is an obvious sign. While I was trying by using normal, academic language, to disprove some arguments, I was permanently insulted in number of ways by absolutely all. This can not be a style of a normal, high ranked, experienced user - a condition for WP:TINC. But of an experienced gang, yes. My further advice: be always polite. You will act more efficiently, and concealment will be almost complete.Draganparis (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ACADEMIC LANGUAGE!!!???? Your use of nationalistic sites and random bibliography which when checked proved you completely wrong (you actually LIED about what your sources said!!)???? Your admitting of playing around with bad sources (which of course you provided with absolute seriousness) because you meant to show us how bad editors act (an excuse of course used AFTER you were discovered!!!). Your other accounts (sockpuppetry???) barging in to support or attack you according to the situation???? (Do you sincerely claim that Herodotus1A is your son? The account who always supporterd your views and edits until the issue of sockpuppetry cropped up, in which moment he called you a "FYROM nationalist" to shake off suspicion??? - I especially liked his arguments about the "German queen of England"...). Your admittance to also having a third account (your wife?-which account is she?)? Your inability to answer any question in a manner different than a simple posing of more questions? There is nothing remotely academic in your modus operandi here in Wikipedia... You are just making fuss and draw our attention and time from improving it... Even your last proposal is evidence of how total your disrespect is to Wikipedia. You absolutely know that there is no way something like that can happen, but nevertheless you make the "proposal" to strive to look like a "victim", a poor editor always attacked by bad bad bad editors who want to silence you, because they are afraid of accepting the sourced (sic), unbiased (sic), academic (sick sic) opinions of a great professor (sickest sic) among kid nationalists... And all this because you just feel the need to remove the word "Greek" from certain articles (not because you dispute the information but because you feel that it would be more academic if it were substituted or omitted), while at the same time attacking "FYROM" agents (?????). I try to occupy myself with you as little as possible, but your barking is intolerable...

Oh... and if you are accusing others of sockpuppetry, you should do it openly and not hide behind words... Admins can check me out, Ptolion or whoever you want to see whether there is any question of me being his sock or whatever else. Our IPs will show as have shown your IPs... So will our edit history, too.. (3 accounts interacting!!!????) GK1973 (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we need better examle then exactly this one above?Draganparis (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep.. usual... answering with a question... GK1973 (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes, just relax, just relax, all is good.Draganparis (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

removed per request of poster, also for being off topic and spam Simanos (talk) 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

... ah, thanks. If somebody wants to see the censored material, please post your requests on my Talk. You will also get the list of the actual members of the GANG.Draganparis (talk) 12:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Page protected

Work it out. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:12, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Ethnicity vs Citizenship

Ptolion, please check the Byzantine_Greeks page. It is very well sourced. With proper sources that meet Wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedko (talk • contribs) 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read the previous large section you will see the arguments in favour of "Greeks" instead of "Byzantine". Most important is that the vast majority of the sources we have say they were Greek, not "Byzantine Greek", "Bulgarian" or "Eskimo". On Wikipedia we go by what the sources say, we don't try to correct them in light of our own research and biases.--Ptolion (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

In Wikipedia some sources count more than others. I.e. primary vs secondary vs... other sources. Again, please check the collection of sources in the Byzantine_Greeks page. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 17:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Those sources don't say "Cyril and Methodius were Byzantine Greeks" (or similar), therefore they are irrelevant unless we are to enter the realms of original research. The sources listed above say they were Greek, period. I see no reason to use sources that don't mention them over those that do.--Ptolion (talk) 17:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

You are missing the point. They were Greek in the sense of their citizenship for sure. It is very *possible* that their ethnicity was Greek too. But *possible* is not enough. There are no reliable sources of their ethnicity. Citizenship is different from ethnicity. Counting 3tary sources does not count as proof for your point of view. The proper term is Byzantine_Greeks. Wikipedia has whole page that is well sourced about this topic. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 18:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point perfectly. You're trying to generalise so as to give undue prominence to the hypothesis that they may have been Slavonic. As for their "possible" Greek ethnicity, as I said above, it's not our place to correct sources, especially those reflecting the majority view. Also, the article Byzantine Greeks describes ethnic Greek Byzantine citizens, not all Byzantine citizens. Since both terms mean the same thing, I still believe that we should use the term most sources use, i.e. Greek.--Ptolion (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Ptolion so you are suggesting to merge those two (Greeks and Byzantine Greeks) pages? --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

My personal point of view is different (I'm not claiming that they were slavs either). If you are really interested you can check the discussion archives. I'll attempt to talk with Tom Harrison about this. But not now, I have better things to do. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 18:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

That's enough. I will block anybody who changes "Greek" to anything else without first getting consensus here. Tom Harrison ^Talk 18:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Tom Harrison, have you checked the archives for previous interventions like yours? What was the resulting consensus? Best wishes. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 18:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Tom, need some help? Refer to my discussion above - which you already condemned! Discussion is hot, and as we can see, all known Greek pseudos are present. Do you expect then a fair discussion?

OK, you may refer to the references that I gave above and ignore the propaganda list of Anothroskon that was taken from nationalistic sites and is trivial. Beekes (the grates living linguist today) and Ostrogorsky (the greatest Byzantologue), say that they were just from Byzantium. Lunt (Famous Slave linguist from Oxford) thinks they were Macedonian (Slave).

Do as your consciousness orders. I was already blocked, so I do not insist. (Ostrogorski, G., History of Byzantine State, Rutgers University Press, revised edition, 1969; Lunt G. Horace, (2001) Old Church Slavonic Grammar, seventh edition, p. 3; Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin New York. (Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH Co. KG, Berlin) ISBN 3-11-016284-9)Draganparis (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Sources about the origin - ethnicity etc of Methodius and Cyril

Because it has been mentioned that there are no primary sources discussing the ethnicity of the two brothers, I will present the following text, which presents such sources :

"Both Thessalonian brothers are presented by two quite diverse Latin sources of their epoch in nearly identical terms. Quirillus quidam, nacione Grecus is praised in the oldest version of the Czech Latin Christian's legend. Quidam Graecus, Methodius nomine is scorned in the Frankish document Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum. Both brothers were Greek by origin, education, cultural background, and inclination; both rendered important services to the Byzantine Empire and Church, and both were sent by the Emperor and apparently also (takoze i) by the Patriarch on a responsible mission to Moravia. Father Dvornik's momentous volume- Les Legendes de Constantin et de Methode vues de Byzance (Prague, I933)-and his lifelong inquiry into the activities of Constantine- Cyril and Methodius among the Slavs showed that their manifold work must be studied and interpreted in the light of Byzantine cultural, ecclesiastic, and political problems, as the title of his book suggests. It was the idea of an indissoluble connection between the Cyrillo-Methodian legacy and its Eastern Roman fountainhead which inspired the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium on the Byzantine Mission to the Slavs."

The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1964 and Concluding Remarks about Crucial Problems of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies Author(s): Roman Jakobson Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19 (1965), pp. 257-265 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University

Now, I am not an expert on Cyrillo-Methodian Studies, yet it was not difficult for me to find direct evidence regarding our "dispute". I can only wonder why this seems to be so difficult for people who advertise themselves as experts on the matter... GK1973 (talk) 20:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

“I can only wonder why this seems to be so difficult for people who advertise themselves as experts on the matter... “" “Advertise”? Warning: The arguments “ad hominem” should be avoided on these pages.

First a comment concerning the above reference.

The above reference is probably from: Roman Jakobson: The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1964 and Concluding Remarks about Crucial Problems of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19, (1965), pp. 257-265 (article consists of 9 pages) Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University. From: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1291236. (just one page is free, the rest must be paid; as accessed 6th march, 2010). It could also be found at: http://books.google.com/books?id=AsO_M5SaxDgC&pg=PA101&lpg=PA101&dq=The+Byzantine+Mission+to+the+Slavs&source=bl&ots=TcV2QYrBBo&sig=Z1127sP-JIHk9NHPNauf_z0hzsI&hl=en&ei=WjKSS52wJMqrsAbKzKGTAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20Byzantine%20Mission%20to%20the%20Slavs&f=false (there are couple of pages more that could be consulted free).

Indeed, Google and Wikipedia are very useful. Going to the library may often give richer information. The interpretation of the meaning of the references is, unfortunately, inaccessible to the history lovers. The expression "Greeks" here has apparently (according to Osrogorsky and Lund) no ethnic meaning.

Two extraordinary experts, Horce G. Lunt and Georgie Osrogorsky, attended that particular conference too. I will have a word on them later. However, There were number of conferences as one mentioned above (Google does not show them, unfortunately). Notoriously, the Greek speakers would tend to maintain that the two missionaries were Greek, while the other would either not specify, insist that they are Byzantine, or on the ground of their language ability (perfect Slave language) would take for most likely that they were Slave (Macedonian or Bulgarian).

Some recent conferences held in Bulgaria (similar conferences are held in Greece, Serbia, Macedonia with the similar nationalistic bias).

1983, Sofia - Symposium "Sources of the Life and Work of SS. Cyril and Methodius";

1984, Rila Monastery - Conference "Description of the Slavonic Manuscript Heritage and the Role of Monasteries in the Cultural History of the Balkan People";

1985, Sofia - Conference "1100th Anniversary of the Death of St. Methodius";

1990, Etropole - Conference "1080th Anniversary of the Death of St. Naum of Ohrid";

1996, Sofia - Symposium "St. Clement of Ohrid - Life and Work. On the Occasion of the 1080th Anniverary of His Death"

As I pointed out (before being block for “pointing out”), I pointed out that although the two missionaries might be Greek, there is no reliable evidence about ethnic origin. The other experts who also took part on the conference in 1964, mentioned above, have different opinions of that of Jakobson. While Horce G. Lindt believes that the two missionaries were Slave (in his Old Church Slavonic Grammer from 2001, cited above in my discussion), Ostrogorsky does not express his opinion (works cited above in my discussion).

Again these references:

Ostrogorski, G., History of Byzantine State, pp. 215, 229, Rutgers University Press, revised edition, 1969;

Lunt G. Horace, (2001) Old Church Slavonic Grammar, seventh edition, p. 3; Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin New York. (Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH Co. KG, Berlin) ISBN 3-11-016284-9).

The modern Greek sources and popular literature which is very large, maintain that the missionaries were Greek. However, the modern more serious literature, like encyclopaedias or the non-Greek experts either do not mention the ethnic origin of the missionaries, state that they were Byzantines, or quite often (language experts) state that they were “probably” Slaves. Below are two Encyclopedia example (that also I mentioned earlier) and an expert opinion example of Professor Paul Stephenson.

1. Britanica: Encyclopedia Britannica does not state that they were Greeks, states just " brothers who for christianizing the Danubian Slavs and for influencing the religious and cultural development of all Slavic peoples received the title “the apostles of the Slavs.” Both were outstanding scholars, theologians, and linguists. They were honoured by Pope John Paul II in his 1985 encyclical Slavorum Apostoli..” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/148671/Saint-Cyril, accessed 6th March, 2010).

2. As I cited Encyclopedia of the Middle states: Cyril and Methodius (826/827 and c820-885). Byzantine missionaries, often called “apostles of the Slaves”. Native of Thessalonica, the two brothers were Byzantine but connected with Slav circles bilingual from infancy.”(Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1, By André Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Michael Lapidge, James Clark & Co, 2000)

However:

3. Paul Stephenson, Reader in Medieval History, University of Durham, UK, states:

The two brothers, Constantine (b. 826/7) who took the monastic name Cyril) and Methodios (b. 815), were born in Thessalonika, sons of the droungarios Leo and Maria, who may have been a Slav. The "ethnicity" of the brothers has been much discussed, largely from modern national viewpoints. It is clear from the brothers' vitae that they were fluent Greek-speakers and educated in a Greek milieu: Constantine had no trouble with the works of Gregory of Nazianzos. However, they also grasped Slavic easily, and may have encountered it daily in the city, if not at home. Constantine proceeded to master a number of other languages, including, if we are to believe his biographer, Hebrew, Arabic and Swedish (the "Rus letters" he encountered in Cherson). Methodios was appointed to a position of authority in a Slavic-speaking area, probably Strumica, but possibly (A.-E. Tachiaos has argued) in Bithynia, where large numbers of Slavs had been resettled.

From: Paul Stephenson, THE LIVES OF SAINTS CYRIL & METHODIOS, INTRODUCTION, http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/CyrilandMethodios.htm, accessed 6th march, 2010.

Indeed, examples of all possibilities are to be found. Most popular, most light literature may be in great quantity, states (explicitly – what is obviously wrong – since an explicit evidence is missing) that they were Greek. In my opinion (opinion that deserved a BLOCK) most serious literature indicates that we should express a lot of reserve. Therefore on the pages of Wikipedia, their ethnic origin either should not be stated or it should be stated that they were simply Byzantines. Draganparis (talk) 12:03, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Well... my source is JSTOR, as I have multiple times said. Should you be acquainted with it you would have understood it by the copy paste of the source given. Anyways. Enough has been discussed about the modern sources and how they describe the two brothers. I specifically gave this source to show that there are medieval sources which explicitly call them Greeks, while you yourself boldly stated some posts above that there were none. Regarding modern scholars we also disagree but this post only had to do with medieval sources, the writer clearly gives. GK1973 (talk) 14:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Very good reference, really no objection. But you did not mention JSTOR this (the internet ref. should be given and the date accessed, you remember my suggestion?) time and you may need to offer an excuse for offending tone (without specifying that you had me in mind, but should one doubt?). And, my excuses, I was in fact correcting my comment above 2-3 times and you did not get the passage which I somehow introduced while you probably were editing yours. The mening of the reference that you gave is far from being certain. The Franks called Byzantines not Romans but often just Greeks (language determined, and often pejoratively, as I explained earlier):

Indeed, Google and Wikipedia are very useful. Going to the library may often give richer information. The interpretation of the meaning of the references is, unfortunately, inaccessible to the history lovers. The expression "Greeks" here has apparently (according to Osrogorsky and Lund) no ethnic meaning.

Again some earlier given references:

Ostrogorski, G., History of Byzantine State, p. 215, 229, Rutgers University Press, revised edition, 1969

Lunt G. Horace, (2001) Old Church Slavonic Grammar, seventh edition, p. 3; Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin New York. (Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH Co. KG, Berlin) ISBN 3-11-016284-9).

Have a nice weekend.Draganparis (talk) 14:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if the name 'Greek' has no ethnic meaning, we should use it here anyway because most modern sources do. Simple.--Ptolion (talk) 15:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, simple: we should use what the "Encyclopedia Britannica" from 2010 writes and what is in the "Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages" from 2000. Quite Simple.Draganparis (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and we do say what those sources say plus much more. That's the nice thing about Wikipedia (and Google!..), it brings information from all the sources together.--Ptolion (talk) 16:32, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, dear Ptolion, I think we can stop here. I mean, I will stop here. You guys may have a brake.Draganparis (talk) 16:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a last word. Our friend "GK1973" offered us his discovery: The famous Roman Jacobson reference that we “finally could see” which is in fact - from the Anothroskon’s list (Nr 13)! The same list that was compiled from the nationalistic Greek propaganda sites, as I mentioned above in my earlier discussion. (Unfortunately, one of the sites, the second, is non existent any more! What a coincidence.) If we will tell us a “farewell” at the end of this comment, I will have just to tell you then that these references of "Anothroskon" that should be dismissed as a propaganda, do not even all give the “evidence”, as claimed. There are obvious shortcomings. 11 from 42 are to be dismissed. Here are Anothroskon's references, I numbered them:

Nr 2. Is not explicit

3. Old Encyclopaedia Britannica (2010 corrects and does not say any more).

8. Old Encyclopaedia Britannica (2010 corrects and does not say any more).

10. Old Encyclopaedia Britannica (2010 corrects and does not say any more).

11. Does not say.

12. Professor Lunt, he says they were Slave.

20. Does not say.

26. Does not say.

27. Does not say.

32. Does not say.

35. Not explicit

The rest, with some exceptions, are either old or trivial and of no reputation. So, farewell my friends. I will come back in couple of years to see if you succeeded to produce some more history. I wish you all the best.Draganparis (talk) 18:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that couple of years will not help. There is a strong push from greek nationalists and almost no sane admin intervention. Meaning of "Greek" during the Byzantium existence is well explained in the Byzantine_Greeks page. It is funny that greek nationalists are afraid to suggest merging the "Greek" and "Byzantine Greek" pages. Also it is funny that the greek variant of this page does not mention that they were greek. Hopefully in 2020 a sane admin intervention will improve the quality of this article. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 23:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The matter is quite trivial but may have grave political consequences. I will not elaborate much this time and would urge you to look into my previous complaints. I can not do much more then may be pursue the matter in some other way, or abandon using Wikipedia.

Why should I waist more my time? Why should I, who does not have anything to do with that region (Macedonian or Greek history: I am neither Greek, nor Macedonian, nor Bulgarian, nor Albanian), defend something so eagerly what is not my main concern? I suffered for almost 3 months personal insults and humiliation just for insisting on one trivial word: replacing “Greek” by “Byzantine” (on Cyril and Methodius pages) and on removing “Greek king” from the Alexander the Great page (imagine Alexander III was a “Greek king”!!!?). These should have been obvious and logical and unproblematic to any rational person with some superficial knowledge of history. No. First I was attacked for being Macedonian nationalist (!!??), and received dumping on my Talk number of non-referenced gibberish pages. When I asked not to be dumped, I received even more. When I then answered by dumping also gibberish, o yes, then this was significant! I received over 30 pages of systematic disapproval mixed with gibberish dumping material. And the insults of all sorts. No Administrator ever intervened. Or, yes, they started asking me not to intervene any more, and then blocked me (as they will certainly try to do now, but I will not be here anyway). Rational argument just does not count. They say propaganda material is good if it shows what is intended (Tom Harrison)!? Just above, I give what the historian, experts authorities say, what Encyclopaedia Britannica says, and other current Encyclopaedia. The answer is: Wikipedia gives this and even “more”! (more rubbish, Ptolion?). And this is considered OK!!! It is relevant for history what the Pope said, and what Ostrogorski or Lunt said (the highest scientific authorities on the subject) is rubbish and can be contradicted by outnumbering it with Greek propaganda texts. The propaganda text will always outnumber history texts – should we then accept propaganda? The people who are interacting on these pages are almost all Greeks. I spotted half of then in Thessalonica, Athena and in Greece somewhere. The others are not, and some are impossible to localise, but at certain period of their communications, particularly in the beginning of their “bright” career, or at some other site, some had a slip of Greek language communication that could be found. So, almost all are Greek. Majority or I could say almost all (I am not saying all, please!), are Googwik: read just Google and Wikipedia and display no outside sources like material from libraries. They (Googwiks) do not posses knowledge of large synthetic works on history in entirety, since all their research probably finishes with word searches without deep reading and in spotting and then citing the secondary sources. Such is for example Anothroskon's list which, since from a propaganda source, is not worth even reading. But that particular list was taken as main source of information. And this very section starts even with one such reference! The person even admitting to have seen it on JSTOR (which displays just a single page of that large document).

So, I was HERE, on these pages for 3 months, and no single rational person from the academic community ever helped. Yes only 2-3 with miserable, short comments appeared – which were, what a trick again – spotted as “my collaborators”!! To my systematic argument their answer has been dumping or outcry to “shut up” and to block me. I deposited to Wikimedia my academic credentials and my complaint. No answer. I was left to stand unprotected to be attacked by the people whose anonymity is protecting them. Who in fact, what is more then obvious, openly (!) collaborate on the same vicious project. Now they will claim “irrelevance” of this very comment and, what do you think? Yes, remove it to make sure that this is not seen by the others who occasionally would visit the page.

All is very simple. I will make a long brake. They will celebrate. Just wait and look. But why should I care, this is not my history anyway.Draganparis (talk) 11:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep....blah blah, blah blah... You keep repeating yourself and that does not change anything... What I just wrote before your sorry attempts to again divert the focus was :

"Both Thessalonian brothers are presented by two quite diverse Latin sources of their epoch in nearly identical terms. Quirillus quidam, nacione Grecus is praised in the oldest version of the Czech Latin Christian's legend. Quidam Graecus, Methodius nomine is scorned in the Frankish document Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum. Both brothers were Greek by origin, education, cultural background, and inclination; both rendered important services to the Byzantine Empire and Church, and both were sent by the Emperor and apparently also (takoze i) by the Patriarch on a responsible mission to Moravia. Father Dvornik's momentous volume- Les Legendes de Constantin et de Methode vues de Byzance (Prague, I933)-and his lifelong inquiry into the activities of Constantine- Cyril and Methodius among the Slavs showed that their manifold work must be studied and interpreted in the light of Byzantine cultural, ecclesiastic, and political problems, as the title of his book suggests. It was the idea of an indissoluble connection between the Cyrillo-Methodian legacy and its Eastern Roman fountainhead which inspired the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium on the Byzantine Mission to the Slavs."

The Byzantine Mission to the Slavs. Report on the Dumbarton Oaks Symposium of 1964 and Concluding Remarks about Crucial Problems of Cyrillo-Methodian Studies Author(s): Roman Jakobson Source: Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 19 (1965), pp. 257-265 Published by: Dumbarton Oaks, Trustees for Harvard University

TWO DIVERSE LATIN SOURCES OF THEIR EPOCH...

I explicitly stated that this very well sourced extract was not about what the Byzantine Greeks are called by some scholars but because somebody claimed that there were NO medieval sources regarding the origin of the brothers. I could go in length about your irrelevant arguments but I don't have to. Your arguments have been addressed by many and giving undue weight is a mistake I am prone to but also determined to try and avoid. GK1973 (talk) 13:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not going to say anything but Greek until there's a consensus for something else. Don't let yourself be drawn into a pointlessly frustrating discussion. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I only want to also point out his total ignorance of what JSTOR is, which clearly shows that he has absolutely NO academic background, as he so boldly states.. Even a student of history knows that JSTOR shows only a page to those who do not have an ACADEMIC ACCOUNT.... People who do have full access to JSTOR do NOT only access first pages but FULL texts and of course we also have access to many other resource databases most people probably are not familiar with. In contrast access to this webpage [2] does NOT require any academic status...

And one last thing, just to show how some sources may be misinterpreted by some wishful editors : Horace Lunt, a student of Roman Jakobson, also clearly states that the brothers were Greek (not Byzantines, probably Greek, Hellenic, Slavic or anything else). He writes :

"Surely many Greeks, like Constantine and Methodius, had grown up speaking Slavic."

Horace Lunt NEVER claimed that the brothers were Slavic. He claimed that they were bilingual Greeks.

The Beginning of Written Slavic Author(s): Horace G. Lunt Source: Slavic Review, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Jun., 1964), pp. 212-219 Published by: The American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2492931

Look at p. 216...

GK1973 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

NOT FOR GK1973. I was just stating the probability and I am suggesting (again) that Wikipedia shows some reserve and states that the missionaries were Byzantine – what they certainly were!!! - and do not state ethnic origin. Indeed, Lunt states: “The native dialect of Cyril and Methodius, who were born in Salonika, was presumably southeastern Macedonian.”, Lunt G. Horace, (2001) Old Church Slavonic Grammar, seventh edition, p. 3; Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin New York. (Division of Walter de Gruyter GmbH Co. KG, Berlin) ISBN 3-11-016284-9). The page 3 could be seen online at: http://www.amazon.com/Church-Slavonic-Grammar-Horace-Lunt/dp/3110162849#reader_3110162849 (accessed 7th March, 2010). What Lunt stated in 1964 was different because he probably did not realise then the political corollaries of the issue today, the problems that we experience in the last decade or so.

BUT we have a serious moral problem with some editors: This is now too much. The first thing that students learn when writing a thesis - diploma for graduate studies - is to write the references correctly. These who will later enrol for MS know this already. This is something which GK1973 proved not to know. GK1973 should learn how to cite references before claiming “we also have access to many other resource databases most people probably are not familiar with…”. “WE? Where did GK1973 get stuck on the way then? However, what the students learn much earlier is that it is impolite to address to someone with “Yep....blah blah, blah blah...”. The anonymity of GK1973 does not protect him against moral responsibility. Have I ever insulted GK1973 in a similar way? Shame on you “GK1973”. Shame on you!

This and other earlier insults have been tolerated by the Administrator “Tom Harrison”, who in addition justifies the use of the propaganda material like this of “Anothroskon”. I suggested you many times, Mr. “Tom Harrison”, and do it again, to discourage the use of the propaganda material on these pages. In addition, I expect now that you will punish “GK1973”, Mr. “Tom Harrison”, for this insult now, and for the earlier insults that I had to sustain from the same person on number of occasions. Your permissiveness contributed without doubt to the present escalation. Thank you very much indeed for your understanding.Draganparis (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ptolion, if Britannica would say that the earth is round, would you say “round and slightly square”? This is really nonsense. Please correct on Wikiedia to bring in accordance Wikipedia with the Encyclopaedia Britannica and to other similar high quality history texts.Perdikka I (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Tom Harrison, you are obviously not defending NPOV in this artcile but supporting the view of the greek nationalists. Thus you will never see the consensus. Because consensus in your view means to reject reality. The reality is that there are greek nationalists. And there are people who try to make Wikipedia better. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

You are right. But WE CAN NOT ALWAYS BE NEUTRAL, unfortunately. Sometimes, we have to take sides. I think I was unjust, but not with these stubborn, slightly ignorant, history lovers. I was unjust in one other way. I'll explain it in a moment.

But first, just to illustrate again the problem and propose a practical and logical common sense solution. here is what history lovers will like, this is a "googwick method". If we would do a search for "Greek missionaries +Cyril" and "Byzantine missionaries +Cyril" on:

http://books.google.com/books?ei=CUWVS_S0EtGlsAae2OGSAw&ct=result&lr=&q=%22Byzantine+missionaries%22+Cyril&sa=N&start=30, we get: 615 hits on "Greek missionaries Cyril” and 611 hits on "Byzantine missionaries Cyril”. However, the “Greek missionaries” search gives somehow weaker references, more popular and lighter literature. While when searching for the “Byzantine missionaries”, we get more serious, history literature. Therefore we would be again for the expression “Byzantine brothers or missionaries”.

However, for the time being I will renounce to all the solutions to the above mentioned problem that I proposed and hence propose that we discuss these questions in a couple of months or may be even later. These questions are of little relevance in any case at this moment. I think it is fairly inappropriate to waist our energy now when Greece is facing serious economical problems. The importance of Greek culture for our well being and the values that make our lives worth living is such that we can, without risking to commit a grave error, call all what we have as culture - “Greek culture”. Including Cyril and Methodius. Therefore, let us discuss this, but later, when time for this will be right. I hope, very soon.Draganparis (talk) 21:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you. I think also that it is fairly inappropriate to waist our energy now when Greece is facing serious economical problems.

But, these problems are "self-made" due statistical and mathematical lying. In the homeland of what you call “Greek culture”! Is that the importance of Greek culture, which determines our well being and the values that make our lives worth living? I think, no.

Further, I miss, what you call “Greek culture” from our greek friends in the above discussion! Or may be there is no connection between ancient hellenic culture and todays greek culture. And if, is this the result of missing connection between Socrates, Plato and Karamanlis, Papandreu, GK1973?

AND. Sorry, but do not inolve the Saints Cyril and Methodius, born in macedonian Thessaloniki, Empire of Byzantium, when talking about “Greek culture”. They are Saints of the Holy Orthodox Church. If we would talk about culture than, the appropriate term would be "byzantine culture". Please, Byzantium is not Greece. Therefore, byzantium culture is not greek culture. Maxkrueg 1 (talk) 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Neutral WP Reliable Academic Source saying they were Slavs

Hastings, Adrian (1997). The construction of nationhood: ethnicity, religion, and nationalism. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 126. ISBN 0-521-62544-0.

The first mass Conversions to Christianity among the Slavs seem to have come around the ninth century. and inevitably meant entry into one or another ecclesiastical tradition. It could result in effective incorporation within a Greek or Germanic world. Yet it also produced a whole new tradmomi of Chnstianity resultmg above all from the activity of the brothers Constantine (later renamed Cyril) and Methodius, aristocratic Greek priests who were sent from Constantinople to Moravia with the task of teaching religion not in German or Latin but in the vernacular.

Keep hoping guys.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Richard A. Fletcher, The barbarian conversion: from paganism to Christianity, University of California Press, 1999, 0520218590, 9780520218598, p. 327

Get this, he has a chapter titled: A certain Greek named Methodius.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Dmitrij Cizevskij, Serge A. Zenkovsky, Martin P. Rice, Richard N. Porter transl., Comparative History of Slavic Literatures, Vanderbilt University Press, 2000, 0826513719, 9780826513717, p. vi

"Two Greek brothers from Salonika, Constantine who later became a monk and took the name Cyril and Methodius..."

I could go on you know.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Ivo Banač, The national question in Yugoslavia: origins, history, politics, Cornell University Press, 1988, 0801494931, 9780801494932, p.61

Matters were complicated when Saints Cyril and Methodius, two Greek brothers from Salonika. undertook to apply the Slavic idioms from the hinterland of their native city to the codification of a liturgical language, which was to further the evangelization of all Slavic peoples.

Straddling borders: literature and identity in Subcarpathian Rus, University of Toronto Press, 2003, 0802037119, 9780802037114, p. 25

Similar disputes surround the introduction of Christianity, which brought with it a written language and a literary culture. Traditionally, Rusyns have traced their Christian faith to the missionary activity of Constantine (Cyril) and Methodius the two Greek brothers who were sent to Moravia in 863 by Emperor Michael III of Byzantium.

Andrew Lawrence Roberts , From Good King Wenceslas to the Good Soldier Švejk: a dictionary of Czech popular culture, Central European University Press, 2005, 963732626X, 9789637326264, p. 76

Despite a love-hate relationship with the Church, Czechs were and remain a Catholic people. They were Christianized in the ninth century by the Greek brothers -‘ Cyril and Methodius.

Mark Pittaway, The fluid borders of Europe, Open University Worldwide Ltd, 2003, 0749296100, 9780749296100, p.190

As the Slav tribes fell under the influence of Byzantium a conidcrab1c numbcr of them were baptized but they were first converted to Christianity in mass by the Greek brothers, Cyril and Meihodius, who translated part of the gospels into Slavonic languages about the year 870 and their mission was carried to Ochrid by their followers, Clement and Gorazd and Natum.

--Anothroskon (talk) 07:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Orest Subtelny, Ukraine: a history, University of Toronto Press, 2000, 0802083900, 9780802083906, p. 50

Christianity’s impact on how the populace of Rus’ expressed itself intellectually was equally decisive. A written language based on an alphabet originally devised by Sts Cyril and Methodius, Greek missionaries to the Slavs, came into use soon after 988.

J. R. Porter, The Illustrated Guide to the Bible, Oxford University Press US, 1998, 0195214625, 9780195214628, p.14

In Eastern Europe, the first translations of the Bible into the Slavoruic languages were made by the Greek missionaries Cyril and Methodius in the 860s.

Eric Joseph Goldberg, Struggle for empire: kingship and conflict under Louis the German, 817-876, Cornell University Press, 2006, 080143890X, 9780801438905, p. 271

But there was little the Bavarian churchmen could do as long as the Greek missionaries enjoyed Ratislav’s protection.

Tanya Popović, Prince Marko: the hero of South Slavic epics, Syracuse University Press, 1988, 0815624441, 9780815624448, p.186

The older Glagolitic alphabet was developed by Konstantin (later called St. Cyril) and his brother St. Methodius. These two Greek missionaries came from the vicinity of Salonica …

Alice Ackermann, Making peace prevail: preventing violent conflict in Macedonia, Syracuse University Press, 1999, 0815628129, 9780815628125, p.54

Macedonia became part of the Eastern Roman Empire; from the sixth century, Slavic peoples began to move into the region. In the ninth century, two Greek missionaries, Cyril and Methodius, undertook the conversion of the Slays to Christianity, and also developed the first written Slavic language, Church Slavonic or Old Buigarian.

Tony Fabijančić, Croatia: travels in undiscovered country, University of Alberta, 2003, 0888643977, 9780888643971, p.86

It’s considered a cradle of Croatian language and literacy, where the Glagolitic alphabet was fostered after having been introduced by followers of Greek missionaries Cyril and Metbodius for the Slavic liturgy. (Glagolitic is from glagol, common Slavonic for “word.”)

William Allen Smalley, Translation as mission: Bible translation in the modern missionary movement, Mercer University Press, 1991, 0865543895, 9780865543898, p.25

The most important instance where translation and the beginning church did coincide closely was in Slavonic under the brothers Cyril, Methodius, with the Bible completed by A.D. 880 This was a missionary translation but unusual again (from a modern point of view) because not a translation into the dialect spoken where the missionaries were The brothers were Greeks who had been brought up in Macedonia,…

--Anothroskon (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I will repeat: We should use what the "Encyclopedia Britannica" from 2010 writes and what is in the "Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages" from 2000. Quite Simple.Draganparis (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC).Draganparis (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Why? What about all these sources? Should we ignore whatever you don't like? Encyclopaedia Britannica doesn't say they were Slavs at all. Here's what you said earlier:

"There is no doubt that they were Slaves. Alphabet… OK. But: Can someone of the brilliant proponents of the theory that the brothers were Greeks explain how they managed to translate the Bible in Slavonic if Slavonic was not their mother tongue?Draganparis (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)"

Heh "Slaves"... your spelling errors aside, it's clear that you are biased and keep twisting your own words and changing stances. I label you a troll for this. They were just billingual, btw that explains your pompous question easily. Get well soon Simanos (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Origins

Why is there a seperate section for "Slavic origin hypothesis'. Can't this be included in "early life" - as 'some historians believe that they might have had a Slavic mother" (with appropriate references). Aftert all, being Slavic and being a Byzantine were not mutually exclusive. Many people of Slav origin were part of the Byzantine heirarchy, and in fact, most of Greece had a bit in Slav in them- but that's another topic. Seems like there has been too much squabbling for nothing Hxseek (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned that section shouldn't exist at all as it is not supported by any reliable academic sources. OTOH there are reliable academic sources that explain that it is pan-slavist nationalism that leads to the emergence of crackpot theories about them having been slavic.--Anothroskon (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, some pan-Slavists might claim such a thing. However, I would not call western historians such as Timothy Gregory and Paul Barford, who support the possibility, as pan-Slavists. Nor is it a crackpot theory. Your very ancesotrs proclaimed that most of Greece became Slavonic, and Thessalonians spoke fluent Slavic. No one would criticise you if you argue that there is an element of overexaggeration to this, however, I would like to see you argue that medieval greeks themselves were "crack-pot" pan-Slavists, lol ! So the possibility that they had some Slavic ancestry is not so impossible, and given the fact that there are reliable sources which mention such a thing, then it deserves incorporation. On the other, hand it is well recognised that Greeks continually try to deny the historical evidence and downplay any Slavic presence in Byzantine and Greek history, and blood. So, is this Greek crack-pot ? No offense, or disrespect to Greeks intended here, in fact, full respect, but there is clear pervasiveness of chip-on-the-shoulder syndrome amonsgt Greek wikipedians. Their being Slavic need not threaten your sensibility, although this is an encyclopedia and personal feelings should not interfere, given that at the end of the day noone can seriously undermine the notion that they were Byzantines in education and culture. Hxseek (talk) 11:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Instead of further aspersions and pop-psychology please provide references that back up your claims. Thanks.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Both brothers apparently knew the language of the Slavic peoples settled around Thessaloniki (and it is possible that their mother herself was a Slav) T Gregory. A History of Byzantium. p 238

There has been a tendency to downplay the impact of the purported Slavic settlement, at least in terms of the effect it had on the subsequent ethnic composition of the inhabitants, and it is often suggested that any Slavs who did move into the area were assimilated into the indigenous culture and population. Slavic villages, as one writer puts it, were ‘islands established among solid populations of Greeks’. This has arisen through the need for ethnic homogeneity in Greek nationalist politics. There has been little effort to trace any Slavic presence archaeologically. Epirus Vetus. William Bowden

Numerous more. .. . . Hxseek (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

The first quote merely states that their mother may have been not that she was and even less that the brothers themselves were Slavs. The fact that you would equate their mother being Slav with them being so is indicative of racialist thinking. In addition it is not from a university press like the numerous quotes from qualified historians I have provided and which appear in university edited volumes. Finally the same author later states: "It naturally gave the Byzantine missionaries a distinct advantage and also set a precedent...". So all this is is a vague quote from a popular history book. And that is the best you got.

The second quote is irrelevant to the issue of Cyril and Methodius as it doesn't even mentione them, so I won't even comment on it except to say that it is obvious which side in this debate is obsesed with blood purity and genetic descent. The two brothers were Greek in culture, language and religion and that should be enough to anyone not obsessed with race. The mere fact that you would equate their mother being Slavic to them being Slavs as well is indicative of racialism.--Anothroskon (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, Anothroskon, YOU cite nonacademic sources which state that they were Greeks. There are thousands of such citations, I agree. The academic sources which I cited (in the serious sections of the otherwise quite wild disputes with "the Group") state it in clear, neutral terms: Byzantine brothers. They do so because of the reasons that I already gave (unknown origin, probably very good, too good knowledge of the language, absence of the term "Greek" at their time, pejorative meaning of the expression "Greek" after the crusaders, modern nationalistic tendencies (pan-Hellenism and not pan-Slavisme!). I arrived to the discussion at its later stage just to see how nationalistic it was. Yes, it is terribly nationalistic. Your bringing the references from the nationalistic sources was pernicious and, as a precedent, polluted the the place irreversibly.Draganparis (talk) 21:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this person supposed to be banned for socking?--Anothroskon (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Anothroskon, WTF are you talking about? I am not arguing that they definitely are "Slavic" or not. I am merely pin-pointing that you are wrong to say that only pan-Slavic nationalist 'crack-pots' entertain the notion that they might have been , in part, Slavic. To include this is not 'racialism", and you stating this is simply ludicrous. Someone's place of birth and origins is a natural inclusion in their biography. Nor is there anything wrong with celebrating their possible mixed ancestry. A BTW, T E Gregory is one of the most prolific and renowned Byzantinists.

The second quote is not wholly related to this article, yes, but it serves to highlight the way some Greek scholars and non-academics (such as yourself) operate. Your behaviour highlights this perfectly - you typify the narrow-minded monothetism which is unfotunatley prevalent in Balkan countries, accounting for the reason why there is so much tension there. Hxseek (talk) 00:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

1. Please watch your mouth in future. No more profanity will be tolerated.
2. I concede the fact about Gregory being a WP reliable source but as I said he does not state for certain that their mother was Slavic and much less that they were themselves Slavs. If anything he labels them as Byzantines which is for our purposes inconclusive.
3. Yet more pop-psychology and orientalizing. You will be talking about balkanization next.
4. Finally even if their mother was indeed of Slavic origin this does not preclude them being Greek except in some warped racialist mind. So your one (1) source in no way contradicts the numerous ones I have presented.--Anothroskon (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope that this fixes things...

A few scholars and authors have suggested that Cyril and Methodius might themselves have been of Slavic background, especially slavic and pan-slavist nationalists.

I mention scholars which gives academic credence to some of the proponents, but also mentioned "a few" which makes it obvious that they are a small minority. The "especially slavic" part is true and non problematic and the"pan-slavists" shows that this hypothesis has also been supported by some nationalists for their unacademic reasons, as is also the case. We could separate the last and form a new sentence if you'd like. GK 16:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps “Some scholars and authors have suggested that Cyril and Methodius might themselves have been of Slavic background.” would be more neutral; labeling is totally unnecessary and unencyclopedic, and the allegation that the quoted scholars might be "slavic and pan-slavist nationalists" is unsourced. Apcbg (talk) 17:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the vast majority of people (not all scholars) who support this hypothesis are indeed Slav Maybe you misunderstood me, with "Slavic" I didn't mean the nationalists but the scholars and authors. The "pan-slavic nationalists" are a different group of people who support this hypothesis (less scholars and more authors) and these are the most in number proponents of this theory. We could mention all, maybe as I said above in different sentences, so that the meaning cannot be confused. GK 17:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no statistics on all the scholars maintaining that the brothers might have been of (possibly partial) Slavic background, and why on earth should the relevant non-Slavic scholars be “pan-slavist nationalists” ... a fairly extinct breed I reckon? “Some Slavic and non-Slavic scholars etc.” looks rather clumsy indeed. Apcbg (talk) 17:18, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is a clear tendency that some editors are attempting to reduce this article to that encountered in nationalist forums. Anothroskon is intentionally manipulating and distorting facts here. The bottom line is, like I have alredy written, I am not claiming that they are Slavic. Rather, considerable body of reliable scholars does exist which have stated that they might have had a Slavic mother. Not only Barford and Gregory, but also Hupchik and Fine (from memory). This meets inclusion criteria into the article without the need to add anything abour pan-Slavism. That is a less relevant side-note which adds little to the article at hand. There are crack-pot nationalists in any country and have conjured up weird theories about any person or thing, but they do not to be included in every single article, do they ? If you really need to, you can write about it in pan-Slavism article. And in turn, you'd need to show reliable references for such a charge, not your own feelings. Stop brandishing 'nationalism' charges, when clearly, it is you who is being the petty nationalist, and start behaving in a more gentlemanly manner. Hxseek (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

OK this is discussion is getting ridiculous. The fact is, as Hxseek notes, that a substantial body of scholars considers it possible that they had a Slavic mother. It is a legitimate piece of information or scholarly opinion, which is also noted in such works as the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. Hence Wikipedia needs to include this to maintain neutrality and comprehensiveness of coverage. Constantine ✍ 09:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

So far the only source provided is from a popular history book (though I admit Gregory fits WP:RS) and there is just one of it. If and when we see sufficient WP:RS sources that claim the same then that information has a place in the article and even then according to its relative weight. To quote from WP:VALID

The neutrality policy does not state or imply that we must give equal validity to minority views. Doing so would legitimize and even promote such claims. Policy states that we must not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such or from fairly explaining the minority views, when they are noteworthy.

--Anothroskon (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Anothroskon and I think the article is fine as he made it now. It still mentions that their mother may have been of a slavic origin. I would also like to add that the constant accusations of some people are getting pretty irritating. Please stop making attacks and remember there is no cabal. Also as I posted a bit further up from here it is clear which side is flip-flopping and changing their position as it suits em and which side is trying to reach a compromise. Dragan said "There is no doubt that they were Slaves." and then acted as if all he was saying was that we aren't sure that they are Greeks and may have been of a slavic mother. Let's not forget who got banned for sock-puppeting here... twice! Simanos (talk) 10:57, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Right, here we go, a WP:RS from the ODB, page 507: "Constantine [Cyril] and his brother Methodius were the sons of the droungarios Leo and Maria, who may have been a Slav." Since the origin of the mother is explicitly stated as a possibility, not a certainty or an "alternative" view, minority or majority views don't come into it, quite simply because there is no way to be sure. At any rate, since this possibility is seriously entertained by scholars and included in the world's chief reference work on Byzantium, it should be mentioned here too. Constantine ✍ 10:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The way that sentence is laid out it pretty much says Maria may have been a Slav (or not) but Leo was probably Greek. Unless you go by Hebrew mothers giving "Jewishness" to children I think think that pretty much reinforces the opinion that Cyril and Methodius were in fact Greek! Simanos (talk) 11:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, actually, the sentence says nothing about what Leo was. He could easily have been Armenian for all the sentence says. Jumping to conclusions like this (as Draganparis did) has brought us to the current mess, where this article has tons of discussion on this rather trivial issue and nothing for the rest... For the record, I think the evidence shows them to be what one terms "Byzantine Greeks", i.e. if not of ethnic Greek origin, then at the very least thoroughly hellenized people. Constantine ✍ 11:15, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It does say something by omission. If the author thought there was a chance Leo was a Slav he would have said like with Maria. He clearly considers Leo not of slavic origin. He could be considering him Armenian, but then he would have mentioned that along side Maria's "Slavishness". The most probable conclusion is that he considers Leo the "default", meaning a Byzantine Greek official. Simanos (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

You say "Jumping to conclusions like this (as Draganparis did)". Could you give me an instance where I jumped to a conclusion? (I admit, I certainly do sometimes, but I doubt it this time.) Please try to read what I say. And my friend Simanos is probably wrong (Simanos is, according to the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Athenean/Archive", a "neighbor" of GK1973, Ptolion and Antipastor. Strangly enough: the other three are not so talkative lately... has it become so hard to jump from one to another 3 computers in the neighborhood Internet cafes? Not the same Internet cafe, please! They have the same IP number!): I believe that I said that "there was little doubt that the brothers were Slave" what I still hold. What we hold we are sometimes not justifying to say and I always said that we should state here "Byzantine brothers" or not state their ethnic origin. Reading is hard, I admit, but should be done before attacking the others.

I said:

1. We do not know their ethnic origins.

2. There are indications that they could have been Slave, like their extremely good knowledge of the language – it was unlikely that the Greeks would know Slave, but certain that the Slaves would speak Greek;

3. Their intellectual affinities were pointing to their Slave orientation

4. The citizens of Byzantium at their time were referred to as Romaios, not as Greeks, so why should we all of a sudden impose ethnic denomination?

5. Historians tended to prefer to say that they were of Slave origin

6. Lay literature predominantly keep referring to them as Greeks, and such literature is huge (Anathroskon's damping of pages from the Greek nationalistic sites is a proof).

7. Modern historians tend NOT TO SAY what their origins could be (because obvious ethnic struggles in the region)

8. Modern linguists tend to think that they must have been Slave (I think this is a professional bias – they could have been Greeks and the translations could have been done by their Slave students – and this was what was certainly happening, because the translated text was just too big for the translation to be achieved in such a short time by the brothers alone)

9. We should avoid using “Greek brothers” because of the mentioned reasons and simply follow the Encyclopedia Britannica and either not say or say “Byzantine brothers”.

10. Conclusion: the editors of this page do not follow the discussion, have little knowledge to make a judgment (their intellectual qualities I better do not mention, but I have some doubts about this too); the administrator is not much different or is not interested at all – therefore it is time wasting to continue this discussion. Full stop.Draganparis (talk) 13:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I tried to offer an acceptable alternative in the text of the "Slavic Origin hypothesis" and now I again see how everything backtracked again... Everything DP offers is completely unsourced and just after so much time he still fails to give sources stating anything else than what the vast majority of relevant researchers offer, that the brothers were Greek and that they knew the Slavic language. Their ethnic origin is stated in multiple sources of the era and is defined as "Greek" and nothing else. Not Romans, not Slavs, not Armenians or Swahili. Just "Greeks". Arguments like "Greeks" were all Byzantines are naive, for we have an innumerable number of sources talk about Slavs, Bulgarians, Armenians, Cappadocians, Illyrians, Chrovats, Petchenegs, Cilicians etc. When the Westerners talked about individuals they usually did not use the prosonym "Greek" but what was called for, according to the origin of the subject in question. They called the Empire Greek and as such anything that had to do with running the Empire "the Greek Emperor", "the Greek army", a "Greek city" etc. But, they still called people of the Empire Illyrians, Armenians etc...

There are even studies (I can produce them) which show that the brothers made the translation using a great number of Greek words and colloquialisms which were later amended by Slavs, so the argument that their grasp of Slav was so perfect is also wrong, although even that would not mean much, as they were schooled people, who had studied languages and so they could as easily have developed a very high expertise in this field.

The citizens of Byzantium were not "referred to" as Romans. The Greeks or the fully hellenized populations usually referred to themselves and the Empire as Romans. The non-Greeks still used and were called by their ethnic names, Illyrians, Bulgars, Cappadocians, Armenians etc etc etc...

Historians of course did and do not "prefer" to call them Slavs. They almost unanimously accept their Greek origin.

Lay literature (as opposed to scholarly literature I guess) follows the same trend as scholarly literature in this matter also... After so many months and we are still waiting for a single, let alone multiple sources that will claim that the brothers were Bulgars. Insinuations who can be interpreted according to how anyone has woken up today should and do not count. Just bring forward any respectable source stating that they were of Slavic origin (I know there are, but for some reason you cannot seem to pinpoint them, although you talk so much about them). Hexseek also failed to bring forward any citation. Please do, if you want even the "Slavic origin Hypothesis" to stand. Else, it should also go.

Modern linguists of course say nothing of the sort DP claims they do. If someone does, please do give some proper references at last.

We should use "Greek brothers" because this is what most scholars proclaim, because the Greek ethnicity exists, as well as the Slav one. I didn't see anybody claim that they should not be called Slav because Slavs were also "Byzantines"... We do not follow Britannica, we follow general consensus, and as far as every single admin who dared occupy himself with the issue is concerned, "Greek" is not just sufficiently but overwhelmingly sourced and supported. Wikipedia ascribes ethnicities to historical personas and in this case the ethnicity is plainly described as "Greek". "Byzantine" is a term which mainly denotes Greeks and hellenized non-Greek citizens of the Empire. An Armenian would still be an Armenian and not a "Byzantine", unless we are including him in a greater Imperial scope, and even then, we would give his more detailed ethnicity. So according to your opinion, a Byzantine is an Imperial citizen of unknown origin, if he is called a Greek or a Roman it of course does not mean "Greek" for various reasons, but if he is called a Slav or an Armenian, then we are sure of their ethnicity.... Now this is bias...

Stop posing as some kind of neutral Byzantinologists cause you are not. The whole game here is just around how to make the word "Greek" disappear and substitute it with a word that usually means "Greek" but leaves doubts for people to play games with ethnicities. You are attacking the Greek ethnicity with lame arguments "there were no Greeks", "they called themselves Roman" etc, while all these are either bogus or just irrelevant and certainly do not show any good faith. How come there is an Armenian ethnicity, a Slav/Bulgarian/Chrovat ethnicity, a Cappadocian ethnicity or an Illyrian one and not "Greek"? Because you do not like the word? Because you falsely think that "Greek" was any citizen of the Empire? Please... the only reason I do not produce any sources is because none of you has produced any. The bibliography in these pages is enough to persuade anyone except a few dedicated anti-Greeks. Once you have compiled a list half as long as the one here, nay a quarter, you should at last refrain from constant whining. This issue has been debated for too long and admins were called to give opinions. They did. And they ruled that your POV is unsubstantiated, unsourced. I am not a Byzantinologist, a I have already admitted, but I have studied enough Byzantine and Western Medieval literature to be able to produce a point and an opinion at least as good as yours. So, just stop this game and produce your sources.

BTW, their mother was probably a Slav? Do we mention anything about their father? This should go to the "Slav Origin Hypothesis", should it be sourced at last to remain.

In conclusion, PLEASE.... bring forward some sources or get rid even of the "Slavic Origin Hypothesis", give half as many sources clearly saying they were Slavs and we will state it in the prologue too... GK (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

As far as my actions are concerned, I had decided to stop being dragged into empty debates by a CONFIRMED troll (1st ban) and sock (2nd ban) and make some real contributions, which is as easy to check by anyone. Now this man is again accusing me of being a sock, when the invastigation showed that I just live in the same country or region (internet providers in Greece often ascribe similar IPs whether one is living in Athens, in Thessaloniki or in Kastoria)???? Are you nuts DP? This is a direct attack that has ALREADY BEEN RULED and so I will report you the next time you write your slander again... On the other hand, your contribution was asking Simanos out for coffee and writing your usual speech here.... and this is your total contribution to Wikipedia.... good for you, better for all of us... GK (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It is late so I will be short. Thanks for referring to me as DP. This is a good sign of a decent communication style, respecting my possible desire to stay relatively anonymous at least on this page. I nevertheless revealed my identity and stand in front of all of you as a real person. You do not. I invited Simanos for coffee, yes. Then we had nice exchange on our talk pages, he stopped insulting me; we see, I think, that we share more common views then we disagree. This was very useful. We both feel now (I think) that behind these names is a valuable man with good intentions. (He mentioned my sockpuppeting case - argument ad hominem!- so I punished him above, but he will not be offended, I know.) Disappointing impression is that you, on the contrary, display so much hate and aggressive feelings and I hope that this is only your clumsy style, and that you are in fact also quite good person. To avoid to leave this impression do not insult and teach me to “go away”, do not intimidate, do not show hatred. I will start thinking that you really hate me. And… do not use ad hominem arguments to prove facts. Use facts and sources – and you just do not give sources.

But you say I do not give sources?? After giving rubbish sources to counter certain person hiding behind GK1973 (hope this is not you again?), who dumped pages of gibberish on my talk page, I produced serious sources. Look the discussion page, please. Please go back to 6 March 2010 and look up some of them (for linguist point of view see Lunt G. Horace, (2001) which could be seen on Amazon.com – the relevant page 3 could be seen). However: I said that language argument is not so strong, but in the absence of counter argument we have to express reserves. Now your complain about my repeated interventions, and you offer a comment, a text which is too long! Which does not contain a single source! You are waiting for Bulgarian or Serb or what more sources? You are waiting??? Didn’t you know that in Bulgarian and Serbian and probably other ex-Yugoslav schools it has been thought for the last 60 years that the missionaries were Bulgarians or Macedonians! Which sources do you want to see then? School textbooks? Systematically for the last 60 years number of (not historically relevant) sources were produced. Do you want to have them? I offered you some Czech or Slovakian sources just as examples. This is minimal amount of sources from these Slave lands that I gathered. They too systematically teach that missionaries were Slaves. Do you want these unhistorical relevant sources? But I said the number of sources brings not much (in particular if they are from the Slave land, like Slovakia or Bulgaria, or, yes, from Greek nationalistic propaganda pages – as those brought by Anothoskon). Serious historians and serious encyclopedia (Britannica, or Encyclopedia of the Middle ages, which I cited) are relevant sources.

But why should I repeat the same things again and again? Why should I permit that you approach me for something that I do not claim – to be expert on Byzantine history? Yes, you can in fact, but in friendly, positive way. You see I wonder then who you are? If you are not ready to show your diplomas or your academic status as I did, but you display unfriendly, unpleasant vocabulary and aggressive style, as you do - mind your language, please.

Let face the truth. Who were the missionaries - is in fact a trivial argument and here is not in play a struggle over truth. It is a struggle on one side in favor of pan-Hellenism, and on the other side a contention to show that this IS pan-Hellenism. And I think I proved it. So it is impossible to have an objective consensus if only Greek nationalists have to decide. Why should they decide that the missionaries were in fact just missionaries, tout court? When they, my dear Greeks, have some other dream? Why?

Yes, it was not short... I ma sorry. I have to propose a solution: we STOP this discussion for the time being, for 6 months or so. Just simply do not discuss it any more. Simple as this. We know what kind of article we have and we will know how to interpret it. I propose that teh administrator mark the text as problematic, this is all. I will NOT answer any more comments form now on. The pan-Hellenist did not win, they lost against themselves.Draganparis (talk) 21:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I thought you said you would be short? You keep failing to admit to the simple fact that you were banned twice and the investigation proved you were a sock-puppeteer and that we are not the same person. Some mental block limits your ability to judge yourself and instead you fall for conspiracy theories and cabals. The only reason I'm not angry at you is that I feel sad for your obvious struggle with reality. Your triumphant last sentence is a clear indication of either trolling (can't dismiss that possiblity ever on the internet) or a psychosis (or similar). Get well soon Simanos (talk) 23:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

....So, again... sources DP? What is a "Lunt G. Horace, (2001) which could be seen on Amazon.com – the relevant page 3 could be seen"...???? Give us some definite sources and stop howling that there are sooooooooo many sources you could produce... JUST PRODUCE THEM!!! Give us the texts!!! Let us READ them and then see whether you are wrong, misinterpreting, lying or just right!!! Until now you have produced ABSOLUTELY NO text saying "they were Slavs..." or "the Slav brothers" or something close to that. Maybe you can, maybe you cannot but you certainly HAVE NOT. So, stop trolling and just DO IT. At least you will be assisting in retaining the "Slavic Origin Hypothesis" which up to now is totally unsupported and unsourced by those who seem to be interested in keeping it and maintain abundance of relevant sources... I am not saying there are no sources, I'm just telling you to AT LAST produce them. And do NOT forget that it is the NATIONALITY we are discussing, not whether they had learnt Slav at some foreign language school, at home or by the kids they were playing with... As for your problem being NOT that they were Slav but that they were not Greeks, then I really wonder why you keep trying to produce sources hinting at their Slavic origin and not sources clearly stating that "we do NOT KNOW the ethnicity of the brothers"... You see, this was never your intention... Had it been, then THIS is the kind of texts you would try to produce and not what you have done thus far.

Oh! And of course I am "him", just push the history button and you will see that plain and clearly... If I wanted to reveal my identity I would have, but I do not because I might be on a witness protection program and I was relocated by FBI... We all have lives and I do not wish my identity to be anyway used here or in other ways. You revealed yourself, probably by mistake, since you do not seem to have grasped the mechanism of how Wikipedia operates, archives edits etc and all this IF we believe that you revealed a true identity and it is not some bogus claim. If I told you that my real life name was "Peter Papadopoulos" would you be content? I might be lying though... so even your "bold" act to "look us directly in the eyes" is nothing, for none of us really believes you anyway and to be frank, we don't really care whether your name is Pavlovich or Draganov or anything else. So, again, stop pretending to be some kind of martyr. As for my "hatred", I do not hate you, I am sick and tired of your endless moralizing and tiring whining which is not the same thing. But you are talking as though you are starring in some Batman movie as the Joker "Why all this hate??? Can't we just all get along...". If you want to find friends, go sign up in some social chat group. I don't hate you as much as I don't like you and I wouldn't invite you to my next birthday party no matter what your real name or your ideology is. I am not in Wikipedia to make friends, I have enough in my real life. As for "clumsy"... well, this coming from a person whose grasp of the English language is like yours, now this is hilarious.. So, stick to the point and stop making t personal all the time. GK (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Calm down, you can make it. Here, I will help you. The references I have given above in my numerous interventions. Specifically: On this VERY page the name “Lunt” is mentioned 23 times, 3-4 times in relation to one his earlier article where he said that they were Greek (also cited by the Greek propaganda on all possible propaganda sites), and the rest referring to his recent book, where he says that they were (he believes) of Macedonian origin. In my comment from 31 January 2010 I gave the only available references that state something what served later for all speculations of the historians about Cyril and Methodius being either Greek or Slave. On 6 March (above again) I gave more references that will interest you too.

But, I do not want this discussion any more – for the time being. Your comment was indecent, insulting, aggressive, and primitive. Believe me I can be 10 times more insulting and 10 times more poisonous then you can dream. So either try to calm down or take your pills - if this is only way to achieve this. But stop shouting on me. Believe me I can shout too. (I suggest to the administrator - not to the guys from the "group" - to remove these last comments as indecent and unworthy Wikipedia discussion -please leave my last word from 17 April 2010. Tanks.)Draganparis (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

yea right... you probably chose the wrong pill and still live in your own cloud and cuckoo land. Wake up... your theater is over.. As for your ability to shout, you have proven you are a master... It is almost the only thing you do here since day 1... Prove you are a concerned editor and start contributing in Wikipedia instead of just whining. I have read this H. Lunt (2001), which of course as a book has a title we usually give when sourcing and know very well that he does say NOTHING of the sort... You again misinterpret writers to accommodate a wrong argument... simply pathetic. It would be so easy to prove us wrong, should you have the merest knowledge of what you are claiming, yet, you cannot... You center all your arguments on a single scholar, as if he should be regarded the only person worthy referring to, and even then you say that he claims "that the brothers were of Macedonian origin", when he says nothing of the sort. You failed (again) to understand my innuendo about this being a discussion on ethnicity, and you still think that you make a point because you choose to interpret Lunt's "The native dialect of Cyril and Methodius, who were born in Salonika, was presumably southeastern Macedonian" as "they were Macedonian Slavs", when he does not say that... His exact next sentence is "Perhaps Methodius adopted some features of the dialect of the Slavic-speaking province (possibly in the mountains northeast of Salonika) where he was an administrator for a time.", and of course he is speaking of Macedonian Slav... Do you at last understand what Horace Lunt, who formerly also bluntly called the brothers GREEK, means? You might be misguided by your limited competence in the language but this is no excuse and I do not think that this is the case. You just are a man with a purpose, to distort facts and the words of scholars in order for you to be able to present your own theories... As for your "civility"... you have shown it to us too many times to count, so, yes, I have stopped assuming good faith on your part for weeks now. GK (talk) 17:15, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Lunt is clear: "The native dialect of Cyril and Methodius, who were born in Salonika, was presumably southeastern Macedonian", what means that their native (mother) tongue was Macedonian. I must repeat again: I do NOT adhere to that hypothesis without reserve. (This comment is NOT addressed to GK. This editor responds repeatedly to my comments in uncivilized way with obvious intentions to insult me and does not deserve an answer here.Draganparis (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Macedonian dialect was Greek dialect. If it was Slav dialect then why does Lunt say "Perhaps Methodius adopted some features of the dialect of the Slavic-speaking province (possibly in the mountains northeast of Salonika) where he was an administrator for a time."? Also Lunt says the brothers are Greek in other places. Stop lying please. Simanos (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I just discovered that GK is GK1973 belonging to the group "Greek neighbors" who I accused for sockpuppetry (for Simanos: after they accused me for disrupting editing and then for sockpuppetry and blocked me for 2 weeks.) The "Greek neighbors" sockpuppetry investigation result was: "Possible that Simanos, GK1973, Ptolion and Antipastor are the same user, but not confirmed. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)"). He, GK, bluffed all the time and asked again the references that I gave him long ago? Sorry, this is a place where the uneducated and uncivilized nationalist exchange their ideas and insult all the people who try to contradict them. Awesome place... Sorry.Draganparis (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Translation: Dragan discovered he can spam the same thing he "discovered" last week. Also Dragan lies about being blocked by us, he was blocked by neutral admins. Then some more lying trying to cover up his past errors with giving wrong references and lying about what they say. He did it to test us, see?! ;p Then some name calling to complete his troll act. THE END Simanos (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

OK... English is really not your strong point... and yes I am "him", as I said way above and yes in contrast to anything you can accuse us of, YOU are a CONFIRMED TROLL and a CONFIRMED SOCKPUPPETEER with least at three confirmed socks. I warned you that I would report your constant slander and provocation... Now what Lunt says, which seems to be very difficult for you to understand, is that the Slavic idiom they are using (= native dialect) is Southeastern Macedonian. And this is clear in the next sentence where Lunt says that "Perhaps Methodius adopted some features of the dialect of the Slavic-speaking province (= Southeastern Macedonian = native dialect of the region) possibly in the mountains northeast of Salonika (= the region Methodius is supposed to have learnt this idiom (= native dialect), because it is in the rural parts of the region Slavic was spoken)) where he was an administrator for a time (an administrator in these Slavic speaking regions of Salonika, which is not just the city but also the region around it and of course he was not an administrator since birth...". And EVEN if Lunt had meant what you think he did, he does mention nothing regarding ethnicity, does he? So, why can't you understand that Lunt does NOT say that the brothers were Slavs????? With you one is forced to go in endless circles of paranoia... And then you again say that this is not your point... so stop being stuck to Lunt and produce arguments which support your point! Produce evidence that the ethnicity of the brothers is simply NOT KNOWN! For if it is known and it is Greek, then we should write "Greek". If it is known and it is Slav, we should write "Slav". If it is known and it is Chinese, we should write "Chinese".... Why should we write "Byzantine"???? Because some do? So, at last form an opinion and stick to it! Do you propose that the brothers were Greek? Slav? Armenian? of unknown ethnicity? one Chinese and the other Moroccan? Form an opinion, back it up with some kind of sources which will really, definitely and straightforwardly support it and then maybe a civilized discussion can be made. And here I stop again occupying myself with your person, until you propose something coherent and well supported for discussion. GK (talk) 10:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you report him? Simanos (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. You do not have to occupy yourself with my person, this is exactly the point, but with the facts. If you would do this, you will probably offend other people less.

2. Logic: you can not produce evidence for something what “is not”; just evidence for “what is”. So where is that document which produces evidence that they were Greek? In your long explanation you are trying to stretch the meaning of that sentence according to your needs. The word "native" is a key word. "The native dialect of Cyril and Methodius, who were born in Salonika, was presumably southeastern Macedonian" means "their" native dialect, not the native dialect of some other people whose language they learned later.

But let us stop here. These questions require some learned background. Go to some school please. Learning helps. Before you would be able to produce some at least high school diploma, do not address your messages to me, please.Draganparis (talk) 12:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

1. You are the only one constantly offending people on all sides with your spamming and trolling. That's why admins blocked you twice. Oh and sock-puppets

2. Evidence has been provided, lots of it. Even by you accidentally. Stop twisting Lunt's words. Macedonian is a Greek dialect. He even calls the brothers Greek elsewhere! Was he confused? Forgetfull?

But let us stop here. These questions require that you aren't a flaming Troll and a sock-puppet. Simanos (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Top of the tops! Congrats, my friend. Excellent end.Draganparis (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Slavic nationalist

Slavs are not nation. If there is really need to emphasize the slavic background of the mentioned people, use pan-slavic instead. I you want to be neutral, also use byzantine greek instead of greek or mention that this is the view of greek nationalists that are a majority [here]. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 11:45, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to respond to some of the points you raised. Unforunately there aren't any as this is yet another round of personal attacks. And still no reply on the small matter of the tens of academic sources clearly and specifically labelling them as Greek. The only valid point was about not using the term "slav nationalist" which has been changed to pan-slavist. --Anothroskon (talk) 12:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

You are missing my point. It is that pan-slavism or any "slavism" cannot be nationalistic. It is more like "Western world" or "Far east". Also you may have missed that slavic theory is quite disputed with one of the parties claiming that slavs never existed but are a product of the propaganda. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 12:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Maria, the "maybe" Slav

I can understand why you want to mention it here, tactically, but you have to admit that the whole comment is awkward. So, what if their mother may have been Slav? Do we mention any other ethnicities in this section? As text, it does not belong here. She might have been Slav or what else? Greek? Too awkward. Let those who want to support the "Slav origin hypothesis" produce some references and then, we may form a new section to present the theory and add this info there. I would not mind such a section being added, as long as it is well referenced. I will not revert you yet, but I would appreciate your comment. GK (talk) 17:33, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am under no delusions that this will stop the racialist editors from trying to push their POV. You see to a certain cast of mind race is more important than language, religion or culture by all three of which the brothers were Greek. And of course these racialists can never condone having to countenance the fact of their ancestors being taught to read and write by mere Greeks. It has to have been Slavs and so they will never stop until they get their way sources and WP procedure be damned. Of course, what they don't understand is that the argument is pointless because even if by chance the brothers were Slavs, it still changes nothing. It is not by accident that it was among the South Slavs that literacy developed first, for they were in contact with a civilization that already had literacy, the Greek one. It wasn't the Slavs of Russia or Belarus that developed literacy but those that were in contact with the Greeks. The best defence against their kind of determined pettiness is to stick to WP guidelines and academic sources. If you start ignoring guidelines and sources you become no better than they are. That's why I added the reference. Constantinos has brought what is a most certainly a WP:RS that supports the claim that their mother may have been a Slav. Hence it has a place in the article, proportionate to its importance in the greater scheme of things which is, slavic racialist fantasies aside, pretty low. And that's exactly how much it got, half a sentence and no more. Anything more violates WP:UNDUE.--Anothroskon (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but the text still reads awkward. I do not think that WP:RS applies here. Let's make an article about their mother and there add that piece of information which is truly irrelevant in the flow of this article. I do not doubt the reliability of the comment, I dispute its inclusion as irrelevant, since it does not say anything about the brothers, nor can be interpreted in any way that the brothers were or spoke Slav, since such an assumption is not made in the article. I would support an inclusion of the "Slavic Origin Hypothesis", should at last proper sources be given rather than this irrelevant text. What comes after that? That Maria might have have had blonde hair, she might have made the best apple pie in the region and that her uncle was rumored to have been a womanizer??? Anyways, I will let it stand for a while and see how things go in this discussion page... GK (talk) 10:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

It is Anothroskon who is the 'racialists'- whatever that means. Being a Slav and Byzantine are not mutually exclusive ideas. Many Slavs were 'Byzantinized' - if they were't, Greece would have been a depopulated desert, and later, the product of Armenian and Turk blood. Nobody denies that the brothers were Byzantines, nor the cultural power of Byzantium upon its neighbours. But asscusing other people of racism for merely including what reliable sources support is just ludicrous. Including that thie mother might have been Slavic is not 'awkward', nor does it slant or diverge the article unduely. Rather, it is obvious it does not sit well with your chauvanistic sentiments. Like I said, take it to Hellas internet forums. Hxseek (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, lucky for Greece... there you go on about blood again... I'm pretty sure the editor who changed "Greek" to "Bulgarian" denies they were "Byzantines" Simanos (talk) 09:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

"and later, the product of Armenian and Turk blood." Said the person who takes umbrage at being described as a racialist. Typical.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racialism and at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism Simanos (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

You don;t need to direct me toward 'further reading', but yourself. Apparently, you consider 'Byzantines' and 'Slavs' as discreet and distinct races. A "typical" hald-educated take on things. You should well know that Greeks and South Slavs have far more in common with each other, biologiclally speaking, than any other peoples. Byzantism vs Slavism, esp in the 7th century context, represented different models of socio-lingguistic and political organization, ones which were not, however, mutually exclusive. It is your racialist and racist views which makes the idea the Cyril and Methodius had a Slavic mother a hard pill to swallow. just a typical racialist -obsessed view focussed on ancient-modern Greek continuity and everything Byzantine = Greek. Like I stated, such uncompromising, archaic, peasant-mentality is, as proud as one can be of being a Balkaner, unfortunately far too common in the region Hxseek (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Your argument and knowledge of "Byzantines" (actually they were called Romaioi) is indicative of your ignorance of Greek history. The only pepole to call themselves Romioi today are the Greeks, Romania was not the multiethnic state of panslavist fantasy but the ethnic state of the Romaioi people who today are called Greeks and crucially were called Greeks then as well.

"you consider 'Byzantines' and 'Slavs' as discreet and distinct races" Here it goes again, yapping on about races and bloods. Why are racists so obsessed with this I will never undesrantd. --Anothroskon (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

WTH? You didn't recognize the word "racialists" so I gave you wikipedia links. I didn't direct you to "further reading". Are you for real or just trolling? I won't even bother with the rest of your "message". The vast majority of the sources calls them Greek. That's enough for me. We even put in the fringe theory that her mother "may" have been of Slavic origin. Enough already Simanos (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how is this discussion above relevant to the article. I can clearly see that the style is quite vehement and inappropriate, as well as that the convictions that drive the discussion in a nationalistic outburst are based on intentions to label everything in the Balkans Greek. If everything is Greek then nothing is really Greek, and this is also false. (Those who may have pan-Hellenistic ambitions are producing just opposite effect of one they want to have.)

Please, can we have some normal, cool discussion? You all use too strong words. Putting too much weight on “ethnos” does not make one racist. But it may. Both, saying that all were Greek, or that one were Greek (in the south of Balkan peninsula) or Slav (in the North), caries “racist” connotations but is not yet racism. Therefore “nationalism which uses racist arguments” is a better expression. But let us see my point. To understand my point we need the following citation.

Said the Troll Sock-puppeteer... Simanos (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let us consult again the index of Constantine Porfirogenitus (which I cited above couple of months ago): De Administrando Imperio (DAI, written 948-952), Edited by Gy. Moravsik, translated by Jenkins RJH (1949), new, revised edition, 1967, Dumberon Oaks, Washington DC. Number of indexed entries for Greece or Greeks is: for Ellas: 1, Ellenes: 3, Ellenika:1, allways refering to the province (thema) Hellas and not to the East Roman Imperia. Number of entries for Romaioi (Romans, RJH Jenkins transl.): 141, Romaikos: 5; Romaisti: 1; Romania: 9; Romanoi (Romani, RJH Jenkins transl.): 20. So never Greeks, always just Romans (i.e. in Greek Romaioi) for the citizens of the Empire. DAI is the most reliable document from the 10th century available.

Therefore to say: “The only pepole to call themselves Romioi today are the Greeks, Romania was not the multiethnic state of panslavist fantasy but the ethnic state of the Romaioi people who today are called Greeks and crucially were called Greeks then as well.” … is false.

First we see there again the “racist” argument (based on the Greek ethnos this time).

Wait didn't you say not to use strong words? Now you're obliquely calling Anothroskon racist. Simanos (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Secondly to say that Byzantium was “the ethnic state of the Romaioi people who today are called Greeks and crucially were called Greeks then as well” is false in both respects. On one hand the Eastern Roman Empire was an empire, not an ethnic state, there is no doubt about it. This does not even need a proof. On the other hand, as the above extract from the index of DAI shows, the citizens of the empire were not called Greeks, even not Hellenes.

We will certainly have fewer struggles and produce more objective texts if we do not put in center of our discussions the author of a comment, but the argument and the content of the argument. Exclamations and other expressions of emotions are just not needed here (Simanos). And last reminder: this is NOT a “disruptive editing", but the opposite: a constructive advice! Draganparis (talk) 17:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

What exclamation did I use in my previous post? It's not an expression of emotions if I point out another editor's shortcomings. This is still disruptive editing. Your advice is nothing but veiled insults and more trolling. As for your sources and your interpretation of them I will not take your word for it any more, given your past twisting and lies of what sources say (not to mention your Sock-puppet past and your spam and trolling) Simanos (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Should this person even be editing in this page? Isn't he banned for sockpupetry? What gives?--Anothroskon (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Plase Anothroskon: "We will certainly have fewer struggles and produce more objective texts if we do not put in center of our discussions the author of a comment, but the argument and the content of the argument."Draganparis (talk) 18:14, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, No Ad Hominem, please. I find Draganparis`s argumentation quite strong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nedko (talk • contribs) 19:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you even know what Ad Hominum means? It's not Ad Hom to point out facts about an editor that would affect his judgement and input in the matter we are discussing. Read some wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hom

"The ad hominem argument is not a fallacy despite there being fallacious instances of the argument" Simanos (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

For "Nedko": Well, thanks. This is a rare occasion that somebody agrees with me! (People were probably frightened by the brutal sanctions that were imposed on me.) Quite fantastic. Here is one possible source supporting very precisely above affirmations. Ostrogorsky writes about the Byzantines: “They always called themselves Romanos (Romaioi) and their Emperor considered himself as a Roman ruler, the successor and hear of the old Roman Caesars.” And then he adds: "The Empire contained many different races all bound together by means of the Roman idea of the state, and the relation of the Empire to the outside world was determined by the Roman concept of universality.” (George Ostrogorsky: History of the Byzantine State, translated from the German by Joan Hussay, foreword by Peter Charanis, revised edition, 1969, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey. P. 18. ISBN: 0-8135-1198-4).Draganparis (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Let them talk sh*%. "The Romaoi state of the Greeks was only Greek". Yeah, if you don't count the multitudes of Slavs, Syrians, Armenians, Goths, Bulgars, that were not only living in it, but were part of the administration. And, it is a pity that they did not even see themselves as Greek, nor ancient Hellenes- in fact, they rejected such a pagan past. Rather, they beleived they were Romans.

Anyway, this is getting rediculous. We can leave it at that, the early life section is satisfactory. That's fine. We are not here to try to make the blind see. Hxseek (talk) 01:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Typical racialist pov and double standards. Slavs, Syrians, Bulgars etc existed but Greeks did not. A drop of slavic blood is enough to render someone a Slav even though their culture, language and religion are Greek. Complete disregard for the sources, again. And note that Hxseek's vile language and personal attacks have been reported and more of the same will not be tolerated in this talk page.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Runciman, Steven (1985). The Great Church in Captivity : A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge Paperback Library). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp. 410. ISBN 0-521-31310-4.

Nevertheless the importance of the Greek tradition in the survival of Orthodoxy during the Ottoman period must not be forgotten. Throughout all its vicissitudes the Church was determined to keep its flock conscious of the Greek heritage. The monks might be suspicious of pagan learning and of attempts to revive the study of philosophy; but everyone who called himself a Greek, whatever his actual racial origins might be, was proud to think that he was of the same nation as Homer and Plato and Aristotle, as well as of the Fathers of the Eastern Church. This faith in the Greek genius kept hope alive; and without hope few institutions can survive. The Greeks might be languishing by the waters of Babylon; but they still had their songs to sing. It was Orthodoxy that preserved Hellenism through the dark centuries; but without the moral force of Hellernsm Orthodoxy itself might have withered

Michael Llewellyn Smith, Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922, C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1998, ISBN 1850653682, p.24

At the same time the domination of the Byzantine Empire by the Greek element made Constantinople with its magnificent Christian and imperial monuments the capital of a Greek as well as a Christian empire. In theory the Empire was universal, Christian, and multiracial. In practice Hellenism was dominant and the Orthodox Church was identified with Greek culture, language and liturgy. Even before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, in face of the encroaching Ottoman Turks, who battered and undermined the diminished Empire like an irresistible tide Byzantine Empire by the Greek element made Constantinople with its magnificent Christian and imperial monuments the capital of a Greek as well as a Christian empire.

--Anothroskon (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed my last edit. It has been just too much of me on these pages. I am sorry.Draganparis (talk) 17:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually the last edit wasn't bad. I don't agree with your conclusions but it was a constructive attempt.--Anothroskon (talk) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, it is a pleasure to hear this from you. Put it back if you think it is worth having it here, I will appreciate this. But my over presence here is simply just unsuportable, I agree.Draganparis (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet again you are twisting, deceiving and blatantly lying. no one in their right mind can deny the heavy and predominant greek status in the Byzantine empire. Quite simply: you need to check your personal biases before you accuse personally attack people who offer theories which do not match your dreams. You have takebn all this fat too personally, makes it obvious that the problem here is not the article or its contents, but your own personal issue Hxseek (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Try and be coherent next time please. Simanos (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

"no one in their right mind". So far you have not given the impression of being such. It is you who is taking this personally as evinced by your liberal use of swearing and personal attacks. Untill you start behaving in a civilised manner there is nothing to discuss.--Anothroskon (talk) 04:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I mist agree with Hxseek (although this last edit of his is quite uncivilised and should not be permitted here). But the “Greek neighbours” group (see below) is usurping the pages on Macedinia and personally attacking everybody who offers different evidence and makes different conclusions. Even warnings for uncivilized communication are attacked as conspiracy and labeled as “blah blah” or by similar mockery. If I dare to recommend that the administrator should start warning for loose language, mocking tone and uncivilised style, particularly for ad hominem approach. The administrator should (if I dare humbly propose) encourage the “argument” and not “person” oriented editing. Please. (By the “Greek neighbours” I referred above to the editors from the administrator report on sockpuppetry: "Possible that Simanos, GK1973, Ptolion and Antipastor are the same user, but not confirmed. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)"). (I was condemned once for "sockpuppetry", but this is a different story) OK, now I will keep my mouth really shut for some time. Draganparis (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

How can you agree with an incoherent rant? Perhaps you can understand him because you've posted a few yourself. Anyway please stop spamming the result of the investigation that proved we are not the same IP with your spin on it or I will start removing it as spam. This is the last time I tolerate it. BTW You were actually condemned TWICE for sock-puppetry and once more for trolling I think. Stop lying to yourself and others. Simanos (talk) 11:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I moved my answer to this barely insulting comment of Simanos to his talk page and in addition I responded there to his incoherent comment about argument ad hominem. I am inviting now again the administrator to demand Simanos not to insult other editors as he did in his last two comments.Draganparis (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I answered you there. BTW when you say "barely insulting comment" I think "barely" is not the right word you had in mind. Your use of the English language is far from perfect, nor is your temper. Hxseek's temper is even worse and that's why his message was incoherent, far more than just a simple spelling mistakes. You have had similar problems on occassion too. All I said was to please try and be coherent. I didn't make any attack, I didn't say he was incapable of rational thought, an idiot, a moron. I simply admonished him to be more coherent in his posts because it makes it hard to hold a discussion otherwise. Invite all the admins you want. I can handle it, just like before. The clear sky fears no thunder as they say in Greece. In fact I welcome admins on this page because it would mean that you will get blocked again (hopefully Hxseek too) and righteously so ;p Simanos (talk) 20:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks. In the text you mentioned not "barely" but "clearly insulting comment" was intended. Yes, you are right, there are more insulting words in English (appropriate sarcasme here would be: you seam to be quite well educated in that respect - but let us not say this). As you can see, I have not been using them and neither you nor Hxseek should use anything similar. Let us have normal discussion, please.Draganparis (talk) 21:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes my last paragraph had a few typos, written in a hurry. What I mean to say is Yet again you (ie Anathroskon) are twisting, deceiving and blatantly lying. No one in their right mind can deny the heavy and predominant Greek status in the Byzantine empire. Quite simply: you need to check your personal biases before you accuse personally attack people who offer theories which do not match your personal veliefs. You have taken all this far too personally, makes it obvious that the problem here is not the article or its contents, but your own personal issues

This is not a personal attack. It is an attack on they way he has been behaving on this article. Hxseek (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Devoid of any arguments or sources. Typical then of your contribution to WP.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Come on he said it wasn't a personal attack and that makes it true, right? ;p Simanos (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

---> So I need sources to prove that you are biased ? Mmmm. I'll look at the literature database in Oxford University dedicated to you Hxseek (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Strawman fallacy and personal attack. Again. Coupled with your usual abscence of sources and citations to prove your point in this debate.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Anothroskon, I just found a reference which could be seen in its completeness and which affirms what I was maintaining (and you, I think, approved), that the name "Greeks" for the Byzantines was introduced quite late: Fall of Constantinople, Steven Runciman 1965:

http://www.macedonians.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=10320

I think that we reached a fair agreement and as soon as we will manage to restrain from the insults we may manage to restore some order here. Our friend Hxseek is also frustrated by the apparent Greek dominance on these pages - could you restrain from unfairly supporting each other, please? I hope I have never insulted you - although I filed once a sockpuppetry investigation against you too – sorry for this - and think that you also never insulted me. Yes, you dump lists of the sources which are certainly not quite "reputable", and I object to this routine. I can explain you (again) why this is not good, if you wish. If you would make an effort to calm the spirits, we could probably manage to have very nice discussions and improve these pages. I left this message here because of this, above, so important and so well presented source which the others would probably like to see.Draganparis (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

In English, the language that this version of WP is written in, Greek means both Hellene and Romaios. This is the way the word is used in the academic sources I have cited.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taivo#English_Common_Usage (and Taivo is not pro-Greek at all) Simanos (talk) 16:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

So "Romaios" means "Greek"? This is the way the word is used in the sources Anothroskon have cited? Fantastic.Draganparis (talk) 17:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Let's pause for a minute and start trying to be civil. Afterall, we are neigbours and we should celebrate the achievements of these great brothers, no matteer what their heritage- because it affected all of SE Europe. Secondly, the ongoing arguement about Greek vs Byzantine is a side topic. Although strictly speaking, Greek and Byzantine are not synonynous, becaue ethnicity after all is subjective way in which people identity themselves. It cannot be defined in terms of objectively deniable criteria. That is why people sho say that Bosnians Muslims are just Islamicized Serbs, or Macedonians are Bulgarians, are wrong. Because what really matters is what the people themsleves think, no matter how historically, linguistically and anthropologically similar they are. No one can seriously undermine the Greekness of the Byzantine Empire, even though the Byzantine rulers actually saw themslves as Romans, and "Greek" came to be used much later, in modern times. It's like calling the Roman Empire "Italian", or Charlemagne's Empire as "French". It anacrhonistic. But these are different topics, not worth going into here unless it directly impenges in the article at hand. Hxseek (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This is why it would be wrong to call the brothers Hellenes. But we don't in fact label them as Hellenes but as Greeks, which is what Westerners at the time called the Romaioi of Romania and what they still label them as. Also note that Greeks use the ethnonym Romioi today as well.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It must be that we do not understand each other. Or really Romaios" means "Greek" there where you are? In reality "Roman" means "Gypsy" there where I am, but it does not make me believe that Missionary Brothers were Gypsy or Egyptian. Excuse me, this is more a joke then serious, and I highly respect "Roma" people of course (and they know this). But you make all discussion just kind of entertainment and terribly irrelevant. Let me say again: I just gave a reference which contradicts exactly this what you are saying above (http://www.macedonians.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=10320). And above again, 7 days ago, I cited, and also earlier, I cited twice in the last 2 months, the index from Constantin Porphyrogenitus’ De Administrando Imperio (DAI, written 948-952), Edited by Gy. Moravsik, translated by Jenkins RJH (1949), new, revised edition, 1967, Dumberon Oaks, Washington DC), which shows that there is no mention of Hellenes (and of course there are no “Greeks” as the Empire-centered people, these are Romaios!) in the middle of the 10th century. Anna Komnena (The Alexiad) never mentions "Greeks"! You have it on line on the Internet, please search. Psellus also. Yes, there is Greek language, Greek styl, Greek myths, but the people are Romaioi and the empire is Romania. And I cited the Enciclopedia Britannica 2010 and Mediavel encyclopedia 2000, Osrogorski and etc, etc (not tourists guides or pamphlets which you offered from the brotherly Greek sites), all confirming that saying “Greek” would be inappropriate. And I gave earlier original “lives” citation (from Methodius), as well appropriate commentaries – all indicating that the ethnic origins of the missionaries are certainly not known. Now, you can play if you want, but without me this time.Draganparis (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What matters in the English WP is the English language not youers, and in that respect Greeks means both Hellenes and Romaioi.--Anothroskon (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What matters in the English WP is an explicit DEMONSTARTION with full source verified citation of the equality of Greek=Romaios or Hellenes=Romaios (Greek=Hellenes is generally accepted of course). I object to all proofs which you previously supplied on various pages related to Macedonia. Please do not take this as an offense. I will explain. Giving long lists of sources (we say “references”) borrowed from “somewhere” would not suffice. We can not go after you and prove all the sources. If you take 30 titles of the sources from some other Internet site and present us, we are not sure that the sources say what is claimed. Your obligation is to verify them and to convince us that you verified them, by, for example citing more text that the mentioned Internet site already gives. We have to be sure that you saw the sources. Then we will believe you. Please try to understand that scientific, or better let say reliable knowledge is in great part based on confidence in the comrade-author’s coherence, but the author (you in this case) has to demonstrate that his part of coherent research was correctly performed. If we manage this we will have Wikipedia as reliable knowledge source for history.Draganparis (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not debating on the validity of the equality but rather on whether it exists in the first place. And in the English language the word Greek can and is used to signifcy a Romaios as well as a Hellene. Case in point the several academic references I have presented that describe the brothers as Greek. Obviously by that they do not mean Hellenes but Romaioi.--Anothroskon (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

NO, I think (and Runciman who I cited above implies) that the authors who accept "Greek brothers" do not mean Romaioi; they refer to the practice accepted in the 13th and 14th century to call it "the Empire of the Greeks", since it tended to be reduced to the size of the traditional Hellas. O.K. I think we have discussed this long enough. If the community of the editors on this article is such that the “Greek brothers” is accepted and thereby slight Greek (may be nationalist) bias, I am not to insist any more. However, recently, some editors appeared who yet disagree, and may be they will insist probably on the points that also I introduced. In any case, the readers must be aware of the mentioned bias and the Admins may be asked to write an appropriate note in the beginning of the article. (May be: "Some editors expressed concerns that the article represent unbalanced Greek point of view.") Please do not dump in the future the references from other (suspect) Internet sites before verifying each of them. Thanks for this exchange. Have a nice end of the weekend.Draganparis (talk) 18:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

That is nonsense, A. Rhomaoi does NOT equate with Greek in the English language. As both a native English speaker and as an academic I can tell you that's nonsense. Did you just invent this ? Rather, Rhomaoi has a very specific meaning, that is the inhabitants of the Byzantine empire who identified themselves as the legitimate successores of the ROMAN Empire. Not Greek, Not Hellas Hxseek (talk) 11:20, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 14:58, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You don't say.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Authors and scholars who call the brothers "Greek" mean "Greek". We can debate about what a certain Byzantine-Greek or Byzantine-Armenian meant when they said "Greek" or "Romaioi" or Romioi" or anything else, but we cannot debate on what a 20th or 21st century scholar meant. To modern scholars, to call a historical persona a "Greek" is as ethic-oriented as when he calls someone an Armenian, a German, a French etc. We can debate on what scholars mean when they are talking about "Romans" in Byzantium but this is not the point here, is it? THe point is that for some reason, most scholars call the brothers plainly and unambiguously "Greeks"... not "Romans", not "Rhomaioi", not "Rhomioi", not "Slavs", not "Cappadocians" nor "Armenians" but "Greeks"... Saying that the books (of the 20th and 21st century) write "Greeks" but mean "an unidentifiable citizen of the Byzantine Empire who may or may not be of any of the named ethnicities (Slavs, Armenians, Cappadocians, Illyrians, Turks, Vlachs etc), but not a Greek" is laughable. If you want to give credit to such assertions you will need much more than an advertised self expertise on the matter. Bring forward those studies which prove that 20th and 21st century scholars use the word "Greek" in the meaning you profess to be the one and indisputable truth. Until then, we only have the texts of some hundreds scholars to go by, who, seemingly, wish to perplex us with their use of the word "Greek" without, for some reason, telling us that they do not mean "Greek"... When these authors refer to any practice of the 10th, 11th, 13th, 14th or any other century, they do, usually warn us... GK (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh... and of course, you do realize that we are again debating over an issue already ruled by an admin. Would you like to achieve something, please do procure more written evidence other than "to my mind, when this ... uses the word "Greek", he means..." or "here it says "Byzantine"... You need sources which will clearly state that we do not know the ethnicity of the brothers, or, as you have now claimed (again a new theory), that whenever a MODERN scholar uses the word "Greek" when talking about anything Byzantine, he means what you want us believe he means... Aren't you ever tired of theorizing and of course, understandably, have your original research denied? GK (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sources have been produced by actual academics, published in university presses, that use the word Greek to denote Romaios as they can’t possibly have implied that the two Christian saints were Ethnikoi Hellenes. This proves my assertion. Anyone who wishes to doubt it must first explain away the plethora of contemporary academic references that use the word Greek in exactly the way I describe it's used in contemporary academic sources. --Anothroskon (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

4 YEARS: In the last 4 years we had very much of the “profiles” like Nedko (the same name, all the time), then Xenovatis, who repeatedly dumped always the same, the same references as Anothroskon’s (!!), unverified references from the same Greek propaganda sites (!!); and finally Miskin. Miskin was calling the opponents to show Slav sources (in spite of those being already shown), repeatedly calling for the proofs (that has been shown number of times previously); he was claiming that the sources that had been given showed only the Greekness of the missionaries (something like Anothroskon now or GK1973 (GK) earlier). Like Anothriskon just above, Miskin would claim that “modern scientists” say that the missionaries were Greek. Of course both forgetting counter examples (like these that I provided above in the discussion, Britanica etc.). Visit the Archives and enjoy 4 years of the same arguments in various versions. Nedko must be quite amused watching all the time the same theater comique!

Let me propose a solution. It is needed that:

1. The Administrator should after 4 years of discussion label the article problematic and the discussion must be finished with a statement which will expose the problematic instances in the article, without giving primacy to any of the alternatives.

2. That the editor recognize that citing references (sources) as Anothroskon and others were doing here is NOT valid way of giving references and that the references must be seen and proved by one who is giving them. Dumping the references from the propaganda sites should not be recognized as reliable and must be followed by well measured punishment.

3. Concrete personal attacks that are defamatory, or any concrete insults, like “you are lying” or similar must not be employed and should lead to an AUTOMATIC block of the involved user.Draganparis (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I imagine there's a lot of projecting there with those comments about "lonely" people and stuff. The admins ruled on this issue before. Either do a new rfc or stop your slander and spam and trolling. Simanos (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Reading some of the comments here I can't help getting a whif of pajamas at midday. Can't imagine why.--Anothroskon (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Like it now (I removed the scaring words)? What I say above is just a description. Nothing to do with you. Would you please concentrate on the proposition.Draganparis (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

It is probably well beyond the scope of thie article, and something better debated in a piece about nationalism and terminology, etc. What is certain is to label them "Byzantine" is a far more accurate categorization. You know it, I know it , everyone knows it. You can hide behind the tapestry of a million sources, if you want. It is easy to indugle in one's personal wishes rather than seeing what is the most accurate way an article is to be written. An innumerable number of sources cannot change this. Rather, it is merely brandished to perpetuate a bias Hxseek (talk) 12:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

And why, then, is Constantine Porphyrogenitus, called a Byzantine Emperor in his article? Because to call him a 'Greek' Emperor would be silly. There was no Greek state, no Greek identity in the 10th century AD. Yet, it does not seem troubling to you to apply the same logical fallacy to his contemporaries ! ? It is clear that some have a personal interest to "protect" the article from "Slav nationalsts" (which Anothroskon has tried to accuse me of being - contrary to his lack of evidence and unsuccessful winge to the Admins. In fact, I would personally revert any editor who would classify the brothers as Slav). However, there is no reason to swing the pendulum to the opposite extreme. Hxseek (talk) 12:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Byzantine is an arbitrary name foistered on the Romaioi who never called themselves such. You might make the argument that this is how the English language currently terms them but then this just buttresses my point. The English language also terms them as Greeks as proven by the multitude of sources presented so far.--Anothroskon (talk) 04:42, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I support Anothroskon, in spite of multiple contrary proofs that I supplied in the above discussion. A WP:ANI procedure has been initiated to punish me for „trolling and insulting” some editors GK (GK1973), Simanos and Anothroskon (this is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, Under: user:Draganparis intentional and habitual misconduct; See also my talk page). From my talk page I removed a report of the administrator investigation about sockpuppeting of the mentioned editors, which could not be explicitly demonstrated (this is at: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Athenean/Archive …).

I expressed a conviction that “Difference must be made between on one hand sarcasm, conditional accusation, metaphoric expressions and allusions, which could be permitted, and on the other hand use of straight insulting and indecent words, which must be forbidden and eventual use sanctioned. However, for the sake of termination of the “editors war” on these pages and constructive editing, I will not object (on the pages of Wikipedia, but elsewhere I will) for their calling me “layer”, “paranoid”, various mockery and other insults. And, I will temporarily restrain from disputes about history and will not oppose their replacement of the terms like “Macedonia” (ancient), Slav, Byzantine, or other corresponding terms, by the term “Greek” on the ancient history pages. I hope that this will yet help have Objective history pages on Wikipedia.Draganparis (talk) 06:24, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal agreements should not get in the way of accuracy. I again highlight that some parties are taking on nationalist stances without seeing the bigger picture. Notwithstanding that many generalist sources use Byzantine and Greek interchangebly without scrutiny, and that Greek predominated as a language, and native 'Greeks' were the rulers, etc, to use Greek in this context is not accurate. Like the example regardign Byzantine Emperors, Byzantine is the term used by proper scholars when talking about the specific period of south Balkan history which characterized Greece in the post-Roman, pre-Ottoman period. The term "Greek" is, both too generic (on the one hand), and not all-encompassing on the other. I do not need to go into details as I'm sure you know what I mean regarding the modernity of the term.

Again, i will envoke a different example of the same thing, so that those clouded my personal visions might see more clearly. Was Charlemagne French - although, clearly there is linguistic and habitational continuity between his Carolingian Empire and modern France ??. And, Carolongian is a term used by modern scholars, because his empire was not called that at the time. But, we do not see French wikipedians claiming that he and his subjects must be called French Hxseek (talk) 23:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek, no matter how sure you are of your POV, "Greek" has been ruled by an admin and will stay as long as you and all other proponents of any other determinant do not produce significant sources which contradict "Greek" as the nationality of the brothers. Please see the long discussions above and the position of admin Tom Harrison. GK (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

IMO, Tom Harrison`s position is to encourage discussion and keep "Greek" until there is a consensus for change. Unfortunately some wikipedians are not seeking the truth but are using Wikipedia as propaganda medium. I wonder whether voting is acceptable for maintaining the view of majority. It is quite possible that what is maintained now is dominated by whom speak loud and not by whom are majority. Is there a hope that majority will use logos? --- Nedko^{self bias resist} 07:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, though I would suppose that we do not mean the same thing... So many months, still zero bibliography supporting that (1.) the ethnicity of the brothers is unknown, (2.)that no "Greek" ethnicity existed back then or (3.) that any scholar who says "Greek" in reality means "Byzantine of unknown ethnic origin"... I admire your efforts and deductions, but you can't possibly have us blindly accept your original research or preferences. Tom Harrison was totally neutral and demanded a very simple thing. References. You can all see what followed. Maybe you Nedko can change that? Bring forward references and we will see. And please, do not just point us to refs who call them "Byzantines", we know that this is also acceptable. We need sources saying that "Byzantine" is preferable to "Greek". During the course of the discussions here all the above claims have been made (1,2,3) and none was adequately supported, so it is understandable that this whole thing rather looks like an effort to deny the "Greekness" of the brothers than making the article more scientific or accurate. The 4th argument given was that the bibliography given to support the use of the word "Greek" is anything from nonacademic to low-value, which also needs further backing and sounds irrational. Why don't you start grouping sources and refs together to be able to discuss them instead of just complaining that we should negotiate something that does not look like needing any negotiation? Maybe then you would be able to persuade some admins to look into this matter again and a serious, civil discussion could be initiated. Now, we are just walking in circles, one "side" blaming the other for "nationalism", "fanaticism", "blindness" etc. GK (talk) 10:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Settle down . . . The issue is not whether we know for sure if they are Greek or not, the issue is (a) consistency, (b) accuracy and (c) nationalist bias. As I have said now ad nauseum, (A) other articles dealing with people of this period use the term Byzantine (B) The issue of anacrhonism, which has been already stated above (c) Its seems that it is the personal agenda of some editors to ensure that the term "Greek" stays despite (A) & (B).

I was just pointing out an inaccuracy, which was not even a main focus of the article. However, clearly your own personal biases are interfering from improving the accuracy of the article. I will provide sources to support my claims , and then change the phrase. If you continue to change it, then I shall take the matter to the administrator, although this is not what I set out to do (I have better things to do than debate with non-academics) Hxseek (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek, we have come across each other too often to be taunted by your self proclaimed expertise and academic value. Up to now you have proven nothing else apart from an effort to again impose your own unsupported and unreferenced POV. You yourself admit that you have not provided any references to back up your usual claims, yet you find my reverting you strange? As for your comment (I have better things to do than debate with non-academics), advertising yourself and proclaiming your "expertise" over editors you know nothing about consists, to say the least, a pathetic excuse for lack of argument. But that is also usual with you. GK (talk) 05:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I have never claimed expertise, but rather admonish un-academic conduct. To put it simply, it is not my fault that editors lack any degree of higher education, and insist on falling back on what they learnt in (nationalist-oriented) high schools. Unfortunately, a serious academic discprency exists, thus I am accused of OR and POV, just because others have not read, or do not acknoweldge, anthropological theories which are younger than the 1960s. Nevertheless, I will provide you with references (as for your little reference to the other articles we have had the pleasure of engaging in polemics, don;t worry, there is a substantive enough body which exists. I do have other commitments, and the Balkans is still going to be around for a long time). Even with reference, the Greek conglomoracies on Wikipedia seem to consitently revert things which do not sit well with them (eg Demosthenes' quotations. . . ) And again, do not take this as some kind of anti-Greek crusade (for if there was any crusading to be done, I would be with Greece). If you'd notice, I have engaged in equally fierce arguements with my fellow "Slav nationalists"

The Greeks were among the original people to be converted to Romania. ... and not only refused on being called Hellenes, ... they positively insisted in being called Romans... But as a Byzantinist he (Peter Charanis) would later go on to argue that the Byzantines were really Greeks who only called themselves Romans, ie “Greeks in language and culture”, and that the Greek element was the ‘reality’ and ‘basis’ of Roman identity. That culture may shape identity is a blow against racial determinism, but the schema is not applied consistently: it is used to account for the Hellenization of the Slavs, but not the Romanization of the Greeks. From the modern Greek standpoint, the latter never happened at all- or never ‘really’ happened – and there is not even a word for it. Byzantine ‘culture’, in which the political, historical and even national components of identity apparently play no role, regardless of whether the Byzantines thought so or not. Culture, then, may trump race, but is also used to trump identity; it is then narrowed to language, which is easily shown to have been Greek. In making this equation Charanis was not alone amog both Greek and western scholars and many western historians have followed along.

We should be sceptical of these equations. There is no doubt considerable continuity in language and culture between ancient and modern Greece... There is also no reason to deny that there was not also considerable biological continuity, which is what really Greeks really want to say when they say “language and culture”, disclaimers to the contrary notwithstanding. Yet even an exclusive biological continuity would not suffice to make the Byzantines into Greeks, so long, that is, as we are serious about setting aside racial history. The Roman name reflected a profound transformation in identity and consciousness. We cannot just brush aside the most powerful and longevous political and national identity and history and assume that we can understand the Byzantines better than they understood themselves. One might equally say that the Presidents of the US “are really” Englishmen regardless of the fact that they consider themselves Americans. ..Few today who speak English are English. Likewise, the Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek, not Greeks who happened to call themselves Romans.

Many Byzantine practices were inherited from Greek antiquity, but this does not entitle us to call them Greek when the Byzantines understood them as Roman.

Hellenism in Byzantium. Pages 111-113. Anthony Kaldellis.

Given the history of the late antiquity/ early medieval times the population of modern Greece is likely to be as ethnically heterogeneous as most other modern nations. ..The fact that it was not until the 10th century that mainland Greece was reconquered and re-Christianized by Byzantium must make us treat assertions of Greek ancestral continuity with great caution.

A more promising line of enquiry is cultural rather than demographic criteria: whether we can trace Grek cultural and symbolic continuities through the medieval epoch into modern times. For Paschalis Kitromilides the answer is clear: we can only speek of reappropriations by modern Greek intellectuals...Until the 19th century, Greece and Greeks were subumed in the far-flung Orthodox ecumene, as they had earlier been in the polyethnic and polyglot Byzantine Empre

The Nation in History. Page 42-3. Anthony Smith. (The 'King' of modern anthropolgy, BTW)

I'll just go ahead and make those changes now. Ta ta Hxseek (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Smith, Anthony Robert (1998). Nationalism and modernism: a critical survey of recent theories of nations and nationalism. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-06341-8. p.150 But his genetic and physical inference from cases of ethnic durability cannot account for the considerable variability, wide range and frequent absorptions and dissolutions of instances of ethnic affiliation, and the fact that many ethnies have undergone large-scale changes of culture and, in some cases, of demography. This is the case even in such a culturally long-lived example as the Greeks, where undoubted evidence of massive rupture of demographic continuity by the influx of Albanians and Slavs on the Greek mainland from the sixth to eighth centuries AD and of considerable, though not complete, culture change after the conversion to Orthodoxy, call into question the continuity and influence of a common ancient Greek biological and genetic inheritance on modern Greeks.

p.191 Greeks, Armenians, Jews, Persians, Chinese and Japanese could be cited as examples of ethnic continuity, since, despite massive cultural changes over the centuries, certain key identifying components—name, language, customs, religious community and territorial association—were broadly maintained and reproduced for millennia.

p.192 The problem of ethnic survival seemed particularly important for later nationalisms: the ability to call on a rich and well documented ‘ethno-history’ was to prove a major cultural resource for nationalists, and myths of origins, ethnic election and sacred territories, as well as memories of heroes and golden ages, were crucial to the formulation of a many-stranded ethno-history. All this points to the importance of social memory; as the example of the relationship between modern and ancient Greeks shows, ethnies are constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population.

Smith, Anthony Robert (1991). National identity. Harmondsworth [Eng.]: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-012565-5.

Let me start with ethnic change and with a well-known example, that of the Greeks. Modern Greeks are taught that they are the heirs and descendants not merely of Greek Byzantium, but also of the ancient Greeks and their classical Hellenic civilization. In both cases (and there have in fact been two, rival, myths of descent at work since the early nineteenth century), ‘descent’ was seen in largely demographic terms; or rather, cultural affinity with Byzantium and ancient Greece (notably Athens) was predicated on demographic continuity. Unfortunately for the classicist Hellenic myth, the demographic evidence is at best tenuous, at wont non-existent. As Jacob Fallmereyer demonstrated long ago, Greek demographic continuity was brutally interrupted in the late sixth to eighth centuries AD by massive influxes of Avar, Slav and, later, Albanian immigrants. The evidence from the period suggests that the immigrants succeeded in occupying most of central Greece and the Peloponnesus (Morea), pushing the original Greek-speaking and Hellenic inhabitants (themselves already intermingled with earlier Macedonian, Roman and other migrants) to the coastal areas and the islands of the Aegean. This shifted the centre of a truly Hellenic civilization to the east, to the Aegean, the Ionian littoral of Asia Minor and to Constantinople. It also meant that modern Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out.

There is a sense m which the preceding discussion is both relevant to a sense of Greek identity now and earlier, and irrelevant. It is relevant in so far as Greeks, now and earlier: that their ‘Greek ness’ was a product of their descent from the ancient Greeks (or Byzantine Greeks), and that such affiliation made them feel themselves to be members of one great ‘super-family’ of Greeks, shared sentiments of continuity and membership being essential to a lively sense of identity. It is irrelevant in that ethnies arc constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in distinctive myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population. In that sense much has been retained, and revived, from the extant heritage of ancient Greece. For, even at the time of Slavic migrations, in Ionia and especially in Constantinople, there was a growing emphasis on the Greek language, on Greek philosophy and literature, and on classical models of thought and scholarship. Such a ‘Greek revival’ was to surface again in the tenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as subsequently, providing a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage.

This is not to deny for one moment either the enormous cultural changes undergone by the Greeks despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity or the cultural influence of surrounding peoples and civilizations over two thousand years. At the same time in terms of script and language, certain values, a particular environment and its nostalgia, continuous social interactions and a sense of religious and cultural difference, even exclusion, a sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity can be said to have persisted

Again twisting Smith's words when in fact he does not say what you imply but exactly the opposite. As for Kaldelis I have read and have handy his book and he specifically says that the word Byzantine is a misnomer attributable to Western prejudices. But this is irrelevant the point is that the English language treats Greek and Byzantine as interchangeable and hence uses Greek when the later could be applied.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention that you seem to be attributing directly to Smith a statement that he (Smith) attributes to Kitromilides, a second rater by comparison.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said Kaldelis in his entire book uses the term Romaios to refer to the so-called Byzantines and Romania to refer to so-called Byzantium. If and when, hopefully when, Kaldelis' views gain the traction they deserve, I would be amendable to changing instances of the word Greek and Byzantine to Romaios. For the moment however they are not representative but rather a minority which means that in English you are still fully justified in using the word Greek to refer to a Romaios, in fact as the sources presented show this is the norm rather than the exception. Nevermind about the word Romios being an ethnonym of Greeks today the point is about the use of the terms by the English language.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Please show sources which critique H+Kaldelis' view and state that he is of the minority. . . Hxseek (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

All other sources label the Romaioi as Byzantines, Byzantine Greeks or Greeks. Kaldelis is the only one to use the correct ethnonym. The only other book I can think of is Gill Page's Being Byzantine and even he uses the half-way term "Byzantine Romans". This simply mirrors current English language use. No one is denying that the Romaioi did not see themselves as Hellenes if that is what you are reffering to. But that is besides the point. The point is that in the English language the word Greek is a perfectly valid substitute for Byzantine, much though that may annoy some people. Also please refrain from making unilaterl changes to the article before achieving a consensus in talk. As per WP Bold Revert Discuss we are now aware of your objections and they have been reverted allready and now need to be discussed. Any further edit warring on your part will be rerported. Thank you.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Falsifying sources

A new low for Hxseek. Further falsifying of sources will be reported. Thank you.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Smith on Greeks

Smith, Anthony Robert (1987). The ethnic origins of nations. Oxford: B. Blackwell. pp. 108. ISBN 0-631-16169-4.

In some ways, the Byzantine upper strata proved more successful in creating an ethrnc state, although this was by no means their primary intention, if it was one at all. From the start the Byzantine imperial mythomoteur was dual, at once dynastic and religious. As vice-regent of God and heir of the universal Roman Empire, the Byzantine emperor was more than another dynastic ruler, he carried the nostalgia of the classical work! and the messianic hopes of Orthodox Christianity into battle on behalf of the community of the faithful. But that community became more and more Greek in speech and outlook. Though Latin long held sway in Court and bureaucratic circles, the cultural cement of the empire’s core populations was Greek and its education was in the Greek classics and tongue.

Imperial tradition, Christian Orthodoxy and Greek culture became even more the bases of Byzantium and her Hellenic community, after she had lost most of her western and Asiatic possessions in the seventh century — to Visigoths and then Arabs m Spain and North Africa, to the Lombards in much of Italy, to the Slavs in the Balkans and to Muslim armies in Egypt and the Near East. Political circumstances, and the resilience of Greek culture and Greek education, made her predominantly Greek in speech and character. After the sack of Constantinople in 1204 and the establishment of a Latin empire under Venetian auspices, the rivalry of the Greek empires based on Nicaca, Epirus and Trebizond to realize the patriotic Hellcmc dream of recapturing the former capital further stimulated Greek ethnic sentiment against Latin usurpation. W1cn in the face of Turkith threats, the fifteenth-century Byzantine emperor, Michael Palaeologus, tried to place the Orthodox Church under the Papacy and hence Western protection; an inflamed Greek sentiment vigorously opposed his policy. The city’s populace in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, their Hellenic sentiments fanned by monks, priests and the Orthodox party against the Latin policies of the government, actually preferred the Turkish turban to the Latin mitre and attacked the urban wealthy classes.

But the Turkish conquest and the demise of Byzantium did not spell the end of the Orthodox Greek community and its ethnic sentiment. tinder its Church and Patriarch, and organized as a recognized milliet of the Ottoman empire, the Greek community flourished in exile, the upper classes of its Diaspora assuming privileged economic and bureaucratic positions in the empire. So Byzantine bureaucratic incorporation had paradoxical effects: as in Egypt, it helped to sunder the mass of the Greek community from the state and its Court and bureaucratic imperial myths and culture in favour of a more demotic Greek Orthodoxy; but, unlike Egypt, the demise of the state served to strengthen that Orthodoxy and reattach to it the old dynastic Messianic symbolism of a restored Byzantine empire in opposition to Turkish oppression.

Smith, Anthony Robert (1991). National identity. Reno: University of Nevada Press. pp. 28-31. ISBN 0-87417-204-7. ETHNIC CHANGE, DISSOLUTION AND SURVIVAL

The importance of these and other factors can also be seen when we turn to the closely related questions of how ethnies change in character, dissolve or survive. Let me start with ethnic change and with a well-known example, that of the Greeks. Modern Greeks are taught that they are the heirs and descendants not merely of Greek Byzantium, but also of the ancient Greeks and their classical Hellenic civilization. In both cases (and there have in fact been two, rival, myths of descent at work since the early nineteenth century), ‘descent’ was seen in largely demographic terms; or rather, cultural affinity with Byzantium and ancient Greece (notably Athens) was predicated on demographic continuity. Unfortunately for the classicist Hellenic myth, the demographic evidence is at best tenuous, at worst non-existent. As Jacob Fallmereyer demonstrated long ago, Greek demographic continuity was brutally interrupted in the late sixth to eighth centuries AD by massive influxes of Avar, Slav and, later, Albanian immigrants. The evidence from the period suggests that the immigrants succeeded in occupying most of central Greece and the Peloponnesus (Morea), pushing the original Greek-speaking and Hellenic inhabitants (themselves already intermingled with earlier Macedonian, Roman and other migrants) to the coastal areas and the islands of the Aegean. This shifted the centre of a truly Hellenic civilization to the east, to the Aegean, the Ionian littoral of Asia Minor and to Constantinople. It also meant that modem Greeks could hardly count as being of ancient Greek descent, even if this could never be ruled out.’ There is a sense in which the preceding discussion is both relevant to a sense of Greek identity, now and earlier, and irrelevant. It is relevant in so far as Greeks, now and earlier, fellt that their ‘Greekness’ was a product of their descent from the ancient Greeks (or Byzantine Greeks), and that such filiations made them feel themselves to be members of one great ‘super-family’ of Greeks, shared sentiments of continuity and membership being essential to a lively sense of identity. It is irrelevant in that ethnies arc constituted, not by lines of physical descent, but by the sense of continuity, shared memory and collective destiny, i.e. by lines of cultural affinity embodied in distinctive myths, memories, symbols and values retained by a given cultural unit of population. In that sense much has been retained, and revived, from the extant heritage of ancient Greece. For, even at the time of Slavic migrations, in Ionia and especially in Constantinople, there was a growing emphasis on the Greek language, on Greek philosophy and literature, and on classical models of thought and scholarship. Such a ‘Greek revival’ was to surface again in the tenth and fourteenth centuries, as well as subsequently, providing a powerful impetus to the sense of cultural affinity with ancient Greece and its classical heritage. This is not to deny for one moment either the enormous cultural changes undergone by the Greeks despite a surviving sense of common ethnicity or the cultural influence of surrounding peoples and civilizations over two thousand years. At the same time in terms of script and language, certain values, a particular environment and its nostalgia, continuous social interactions, and a sense of religious and cultural difference, even exclusion, a sense of Greek identity and common sentiments of ethnicity can be said to have persisted beneath the many social and political changes of the last two thousand years

Seems to me the king of modern anthropology is a Greek nationalist. Who'd have thought.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Smith, Anthony Robert (2000). The Nation in History: Historiographical Debates about Ethnicity and Nationalism (The Menahem Stern Jerusalem Lectures). Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press. pp. 42-43. ISBN 1-58465-040-0.

If it is unclear how far ancient Greeks constituted a nation, as opposed to an ethnic community, an even greater question mark hangs over their relationship with modem Greeks. Most scholars follow Jacob Fallmereyer in denying what is still an article of faith among most contemporary Greeks, that they are the lineal descendants of the Greeks of classical antiquity. Given the massive migrations of Avars, Slays, and Albanians into mainland Greece from the sixth century c.., which pushed the existing Greek population to the coasts and islands, the population of modem Greece is likely to be as ethnically heterogeneous as most other modern nations. Even if it is not possible to prove that modem Greeks are not descended from the Greeks of classical antiquity, the fact that it was only in the tenth century that mainland Greece was recon quered and re-Christianized by Byzantium must make us treat assertions of Greek ancestral continuity with caution (Campbell and Sherrard 1968, chap. i just 1989).

A more promising line of inquiry focuses on cultural rather than demographic criteria: whether we can trace Greek cultural and symbolic continuities through the medieval epoch into modem times. For Paschalis Kitromilides the answer is clear: we can speak only of reappropriations by modem Greek intellectuals of elements of the classical heritage. Even the Byzantine legacy was not taken up until its canonization in the monumental five- volume History of the Greek Nation, written by Konstantinos Paparrigopoulos in the mid-nineteenth century. Kitromilides underlines the novelty of Paparrigopoulos’s idea of the Greek nation as a collective actor, persisting and acting from antiquity through the Byzantine era into the modem epoch; for, until the nineteenth century, Greece and Greeks were subsumed in the far-flung Or. thodox ecumene, as they had earlier been in the polyethnic and polyglot Byzantine empire (Kitromilides 1998; Mango 1980, chap. i).

Against this view, it is still possible to identify some cultural continuities. Kitromilides himself alludes to some of them, when he mentions “inherited forms of cultural expression, such as those associated with the Orthodox liturgical cycle and the images of emperors, the commemoration of Christian kings, the evocation of the Orthodox kingdom and its earthly seat, Constantinople, which is so powerfully communicated in texts such as the Akathist Hymn, sung every year during Lent and forming such an intimate component of Orthodox worship . . .“ (Kitromilides 1998, 31). There are other lines of Greek continuity. Despite the adoption of a new religion, Christianity, certain traditions, such as a dedication to competitive values, have remained fairly constant, as have the basic forms of the Greek language and the contours of the Greek homeland (though its center of gravity was subject to change). And John Armstrong has pointed to the “precocious nationalism” that took hold of the Greek population of the Byzantine Empire under the last Palaeologan emperors and that was directed as much against the Catholic Latins as against the Muslim Turks—an expression of medieval Greek national sentiment as well as a harbinger of later Greek nationalism. But again, we may ask: was this Byzantine sentiment a case of purely confessional loyalty or of ethnoreligious nationalism? (See Armstrong 1982, I74—8I cf. Baynes and Moss 1969, 119—27, and Carras 1983.)

Smith, Anthony Robert (1999). Myths and memories of the nation. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 78-79. ISBN 0-19-829534-0.

1.Greece Whereas Turkish myths of descent tended to blur the lines between genealogical and ideological impulses and promote an ethnic myth with strong racial and territorial implications, Greek myths were counterpoised to each other in often open rivalry. On the one hand) there was the ‘Hellenic’ myth which can be traced back to the neo-Platonist Pletho in the early fifteenth century, developed by Theophyllus Corydaleus in the early seventeenth century, and finally elaborated by Adamantios Korais in the late eighteenth century; according to it, present-day inhabitants of Greece were descended from the ancient Hellenes, since they shared their language and culture. and only the values of classical Athenian antiquity could therefore serve as the basis for Greek self-renewal today (Campbell and Sherrard 1968:22—43). Language played an important role in this ideological myth; unfortunately the intellectuals disagreed on the appropriate version of Greek. some like Katartzis and Rhigas favouring the more ‘demotic’ forms spoken in the Niorea, and others like Korais throwing their weight behind a ‘purified’ form which was a mixture of classical Greek and the modern Greek spoken by the educated middle classes (Koumarianou 1973). This difference mirrored a split between intelligentsia and peasantry. and he- came intertwined with the claims of the alternative ‘Byzantine’ imperial myth. which the Orthodox clergy and their congregations (most of whom were peasants and shepherds) espoused. In this more traditional image, the restoration of Christ’s kingdom on earth was coeval with the wresting of power from infidels. Turks or Franks, and the restoration of the Byzantine hierocratic imperium (Frazee 1969: 20—25; Sherrard 1959). Within this empire, Greek was the natural language of religious communion and the Greeks would once again become its spiritual and temporal rulers, as, in fact with the advance of the Phanariots in the administration of the Porte, they already appeared to he doing. Here, too, genealogical elements became intertwined with religio-ideological myths; for, despite the fact that the leading ‘princely’ Phanariot families can be shown to have originated in the provinces during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, claims of aristocratic Byzantine ancestry were made by and for them, and their self-image and vision o’ the world was saturated by Byzantinism. Like the Orthodox Patriarihate, they dreamed not of the regeneration of Greece, (with a few exceptions like Rhigas Velestinlis, whose ‘Balkan federation’ was little more than a semi-secular Byzantine democracy), but of the impending restoration of the Byzantine empire and its religious culture (Mango 1973; Stavrianos 1961: ch. 9; Dakin 1972: chs. 1—2).

But, as Rhigas’ example shows, Hellenism and Byzantinism were not mutually exclusive, even though their inspiration and spirit was mutually opposed. In a sense, both were ‘revolutionary since even the restoration of Hyiantium demanded popular mohili7ation (and foreign intervention). Both, too, had dramatic territorial consequences, though here they led in opposite directions. ‘The Hellenic ideal, centered on Athens was western in orientation and based upon mainland Greeik; the Byzantine myth, centered on Constantinople, looked to the east and spanned the area from Moscow to Alexandria (Henderson 1971; Demos 1958). In the event, however, Western intervention, by confining the new Greek state to the Morea and southern central Greece and thereby excluding so many Greek- speaking communities, helped to promote the Megale ided (Great idea). the quest for a much larger, inclusive Greek state stretching into Thrace and Asia Minor, which had been the dream of the Byzantine restoration, with disastrous consequences, both military and economic, for (;rLek regeneration (Dakin 1972; Campbell and Sherrard 1968: chs. 4—5; also Jelavich 1977: chs. 5, 12, 18).

Even the Hellenic ideal has been sharply criticized for holding hack economic and educational development in Greece, despite the romantic claims of Korais and his followers; both Hellenism and Byzantinism appear to be backward-looking ideologies. characteristic of the Greek intelligentsia and clergy (Pcpdassis 1958). In their time, however, both myths provided vital foci of identity; even if they collided at times. they helped to rally purely sectional interests—clerical, bourgeois, intellectual, klephtic— into a single struggle for national regeneration. In terms of enhanced dignity, territorial expansion and autonomy, both ethnic myths initiated and guided subsequent policies, even when they later promoted internal divisions. 01 course, the content of the myths differed greatly; their golden ages. the heroes they revered, the reasons for decline they propounded, were entirely divergent. Even the location of origins, in the one case Asia Minor, in the other the Peloponnesus, differed, as did their mythic genealogies of descent. In the end, too, an ideological Hellenism, geared to western thought and rational institutions, won out, mainly through force of external circumstances. Yet, in the origins and development of the Greek nation-state during the nineteenth century, both myths played a vital formative role in identifying the nature of ‘Greek’ character and guiding its regeneration in the light of their theories of origins.

Smith, Anthony Robert (1999). Myths and memories of the nation. Oxford [Oxfordshire]: Oxford University Press. pp. 212-215. ISBN 0-19-829534-0. GREEKS, ARMENIANS, AND JEWS

The Jewish experience, then, has features that set it apart 1mm those of other peoples. But) is the trajectory of the Jewish people in the modern era unique? Can we find other peoples with a rich sacred history and shared memories distilled in canonical texts and other writings; and who have similarly endured a millennial fate of dispersion in the hope of restoration? There are a number of peoples who can boast a rich sacred history and memories enshrined in canonical texts and liturgies. They include the Orthodox Russians. the Ulster-Scots, the Afrikaners the Muslim Arabs, the Monophysite Amhara and the Catholic Irish. Here we have not only chosen peoples, but peoples with a highly developed and sacred documentary record of their ideals and experiences. Only within the monotheistic traditions can we find that exclusive and strong conception of chosenness, whereby a people of clear ancestral descent is covenanted with its God in a sacred homeland for the fulfilment of its moral duties and hence the salvation of the world.”

Yet even here all these peoples have remained rooted in their sacred homelands for centuries. Though oppressed and colonized by outsiders, they have never been expelled en masse, and so the theme of restoration to the homeland has played little part in the conceptions of these peoples. There are, however, two peoples, apart from the Jews, for whom restoration of the homeland and commonwealth have been central: the Greeks and the Armenians, and together with the Jews, they constitute the archetypal Diaspora peoples, or what John Armstrong has called ‘mobilized diasporas° Unlike diasporas composed of recent mi migrant workers—Indians, Chinese and others in Southeast Asia, East Africa and the Caribbean— mobilized diasporas are of considerable antiquity, are generally polyglot and multi-skilled trading communities and have ancient, portable religious traditions. Greeks, Jews, and Armenians claimed an ancient homeland and kingdom, looked back nostalgically to a golden age or ages of great kings, saints, sages and poets, yearned to return to ancient capitals with sacred sites and buildings, took with them wherever they went their ancient scriptures, sacred scripts and separate liturgies, founded in every city congregations with churches, clergy and religious schools, traded across the Middle East and Europe using the networks of enclaves of their co-religionists to compete with other ethnic trading networks, and used their wealth, education and economic skills to offset their political powerlessness)

But the parallels go further, Greeks, Jews, and Armenians after their subordination to others and emigration or expulsion from their original homelands became Diaspora ethno-religious communities cultivating the particular virtues and aptitudes of their traditions. These included a respect for scholarship and learning, derived from constant study of sacred texts (and in the Greek case some of their ancient secular texts seen through religious filters); and hence a generally high status accorded to religious scholars and clergy within each enclave. Allied to this was a marked aptitude for literary expression—poetic, philosophical, legal, liturgical, linguistic, and historical.

The resulting fund of documentary records encoding shared memories and interpretations increased in practically every generation, enriching the ethno-heritage of these communities. The rise of Diaspora communities in many lands further augmented that heritage through the growing emphasis on the autonomy of each community within a common ethno religious framework, institutionally, that autonomy was greatest in the Jewish case, where it was reinforced by the autonomy accorded to each rabbi and congregation: in the Armenian case, there was a greater hierarchy of priests; while in the Greek case, the Patriarchate in Constantinople and the higher clergy exercised a tighter supervision over the lower clergy in each congregation, at least in theory?

There were also more specific links between the three cthno-rcligious diaspora communities. In Greek Orthodoxy, the Church became the new Israel, and the Emperor a Priest-King after the manner of Mekhizedek, King of Salem. His capital, imperial Constantinople, was the new Jerusalem, with its ‘temple’ in Hagia Sophia, while Greek, the language of’ the New Testament, became the sacred language of a holy Orthodox community in place of Hebrew and the Jews. At the same time, Greeks emigrated to many cities throughout Europe and the Levant, especially after the fall of Constantinople, becoming as polyglot and culturally adaptable as the Armenians and Jews. In many Mediterranean and European cities, Greek Phanariot merchants and traders dominated the commerce of the Ottoman empire, utilizing their kinship networks and social and religious institutions to maximize not only their business and assets, but also their cultural capital. Diaspora Greeks became especially prominent from the eighteenth century in the development of printing and the press, and experienced a major intellectual revival in cities as far afield as Vienna, Venice, Odessa, Paris, and Amsterdam.-Armenians had even closer links with the Jews. The Armenian royal families had converted early to Christianity, claiming thenceforth to be the first Christian nation and the true heir of Israel. Armenians came to regard themselves as a chosen people, their kings and Bagratid nobles claimed Jewish descent, and their models of heroism were drawn from the Jews, notably Joshua and Judas Maccabeus. Like the Jews, Armenians lost their ancient kingdom on the field of battle (Avarayr, 451 CE) and were increasingly persecuted under the late Byzantine emperors after the final split with Greek Orthodoxy at the second Council of Dvin in 554 CE; many Armenians began to emigrate in this period and subsequently under the Muslim Arabs, some as far afield as Russia and India. Like the Jews, they yearned to return to their idealized mountain homeland with its revered sacred centre, Echmiadzin, and its holy mountain, Ararat; hut more and more of them made their fortunes in distant communities as traders and artisans, and experienced both an economic and intellectual revival in the early modern period.

In each case, the concept of chosenness played a central role. For Greeks and Armenians, the myth of ethnic election was both direct and transmitted. It was an act of God who had singled out a special community of His faithful to live according to His holy laws and receive His special blessings, the blessings being conditional on the holding of correct beliefs and the performance of sacred obligations. As with the Jews, the overriding purpose was to become a holy people beloved of God, a people of priests worthy of the status and location which God had bestowed on the community. But, unlike the Jews, Armenians and Greeks saw their election as a reward for receiving the true faith rejected by the Jews. The)’ were therefore required to supplant the Jews as the chosen people, and become the heirs of a people who had fallen from grace. In this sense, the chosen status of Greeks and Armenians was a legacy from the Jewish people, and only much later did the Orthodox community of true believers become imbued with Greek culture and a sense of Greek-speaking community, and to the outside world Orthodoxy became synonymous with Greek culture and origins. In the Armenian case, Gregorian Christianity was soon regarded as the peculiar possession of the Armenian kingdom and people, despite attempts to convert others to Gregorianism, with the result that the status of a chosen people was automatically conferred on the Armenian nation.

More Greek nationalism by the king of modern anthropology. Tsk, tsk, tsk.--Anothroskon (talk) 10:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

So you have just shown what modern Greeks think. That's fine. You needn;t have gone to all that trouble. You could have just quoted the great Anothroskon Hxseek (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope I have just proven that your use of Smith (King Smith if I am not mistaken) was a bad idea since he supports Greek ethnic continuity. Annoying isn't it? I have further proven the thesis of Greek ethnic continuity at least as far as modern anthropology is concerned.--Anothroskon (talk) 11:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

What does all this have to do with whether the two brothers were Greek? A scholar talking about mixing populations is nothing new. Yet, it is still irrelevant as to whether we should call any Greek a "Greek". Even he calls Greeks "Greeks" all the time. It is the purity of their lineage he disputes, not their name. He actually is proof that we should use the ethnic name as he does... I really cannot get your point though... You propose that modern Greeks are not pure descendants of the ancient Greeks. I agree... So what? The Byzantine Empire was not an ethnic nation. The nations that comprised it are also named in the primary sources as are the Greeks (Porphyrogenitos calls them "Graikoi"). The thing is that most refs call them plainly Greek directly defining their nationality. Again I fail to see in your refs why someone called a Greek by modern scholars shouldn't be called one here. Modern Slavs also are not pure descendants of the Slav populations of the Middle Ages, nor are the Persians, the Arabs, the Turks, the Chinese etc. Yet, you had no problem calling the brother's mother a possible Slav, nor do we have a problem with calling a Sassanid Persian a Persian. I do not dismiss the essence of your POV regarding nations, even though I find it too "progressive", but it is largely irrelevant as to our issue here. GK (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I commend A. on those extensive blocks of texts. The premise is that there is indeed an arguement for Greek cultural continuity, especially with the re-appropriation of past history by modern Greeks. That is fine, and it is their right to do so. Afterall, I agree that identity is a subjective phenomenon. However, from all that, there is nothing to show that the 7th to 12th century Byzantines identified themselves as Greeks (or at least not predominantly), but rather, as Romans. Here is the fundamental difference. Keeping this in mind, and for the sake of being consistent with other articles about peoples from that period, it would best be to call the brothers Byzantines. It takes nothing away from the idea of Greek continuity, but is merely more accurate and more consistent Hxseek (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hxseek, you miss the point. The question here is not whether the Byzantines identified themselves as Greeks. They did not. They were a multi ethnic state and Greeks were just one of those nations clearly identified. DP's interpretation of Porphyrogenitus for example is totally flawed and is actually a clear example of how the Byzantines understood the existence of the various nations within the empire. Porphyrogenitus (913-959) in his De Thematibus talks abouty the different themata (provinces) and the nations that inhabit them. He calls Hellenes "Graikoi" and clearly states where they live. He also names maybe a hundred other nations. But this is not the point, it being that these two specific Byzantines are held to have been citizens of the Roman Empire of Greek nationality as opposed to other citizens of the Roman Empire of a different nationality. It has nothing to do with Greek continuity. This is why they are called "Greeks", not because they were Byzantine citizens. GK (talk) 12:32, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree on Romania having been a multi-ethnic state, on the contrary it was the ethnic state of the Romans at least following the Arab conquests.So the term Romaios was not just a political appelation but an ethnic one as well. In any event this is besides the point. Yes the brothers were not Hellenes but Greek does not mean Hellene alone, it also means Romaios which is what the brothers were. If you absolutely must not use the word Greek to describe them then as Kaldelis has shown Byzantine is a misnomer and should be avoided. The only way to bring Byzantine back in is to claim conformity with standard English usage but then, as I have shown, standard English usage is fine with Greek as well in that regard.--Anothroskon (talk) 15:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we disagree Anothroskon. The Romaioi of the Byzantine Empire were very conscious of their ethnic differences, numbered and named the nations (ethnh) in their provinces. There was not a common ethnic identity in the sense that for example an American today is first an American and then an Irish or a Greek. They were usually first Slavs and Armenians and then Romans, although of course for some it could be otherwise. As for the brothers it is what I also suggest. They were "ethnic Greek" citizens of the Roman Kingdom and as such also Romaioi. Should the brothers not currently be regarded as Greek citizens of Byzantium, I would myself object to the use of the word "Greek" denoting their ethnicity. The thing is they ARE acknowledged as Greeks at least by the majority of scholars (not just Romans but ethnic Greek Romans). Greek does not mean "of Greek ethnicity" only when being used in the direct context of Western medieval manuscripts (discussing them transforms "Greeks" to "Byzantines") or when discussing the political and sometimes military structure of the Empire. But I doubt it that any scholar would call a non-Greek citizen of the Empire a Greek. If his exact ethnicity is known or suspected, it is used over "Byzantine". If not, "Byzantine" is used. Of course this in turn is not to suggest that whenever a Byzantine is called a "Byzantine" we do not know his exact ethnicity. Yes, we could use it when we do not care about it. But when a certain writer is called a "Greek" then he is always of Greek ethnicity. Not an Armenian, not a Slav, nor an Illyrian etc. Don't look for "Hellene" in the Byzantine texts, look for "Graikos". GK (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, that makes sense Hxseek (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not OK.

"First, something could be called Hellenic in connection with the geographical region of mainland Greece or, specifically, with the Byzantine “theme” (province) of Hellas. (…) The term “Helladikos” was often used instead to avoid confusion with the pagan Greek (“Hellenes”). Moreover, when Byzantines did begin to refer to themselves as Greeks in a national sense, in the thirteenth century, they were not expanding upon this territorial meaning." (From Anthony Kaldellis: Hellenism of Byzantium, The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of Classical Tradition, Cambridge University Press, 2007, p 184..) [3]Draganparis (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

The use of the words Greek, Greeks, Roman and Romans and related words in some Byzantine writers. (Psellus, Prokopius and Anna Comnena are available on Google Books).

Procopius (500-565): Anecdota, Loeb Classical Library, (1935), 2003. The counts are from Google Books., which are probably inexact because other edition (translation) is used,

Greek, 0

Greeks, 0

Roman, 80 times (about)

Romans, 44 times

Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (905-959):

De Administrando Imperio (DAI), Edited by Gy. Moravsik, translated by Jenkins RJH (1949), new, revised edition, 1967, Dumberon Oaks, Washington DC. Number of indexed entries for Greece or Greeks (as Hellenes) is:

for Ellas: 1,

Ellenes: 3,

Ellenika:1 (allways refering to the thema Hellas).

Number of entries for

Romaioi: 141,

Romaikos: 5; Romaisti: 1;

Romania: 9; Romanoi: 20.

Counts for Greeks:

Graikoi: just once (49.6) (this is one I missed, corrected by GK1973)

So practically almost never Greeks, always just Romans for the citizens of the Empire.

De Tematibus, Ed. Immanuel Bekkerus, (1811), Elibron Classics seies, 2006 Adamant Media Corporation The counts are from Index.

Graikoi, 2 times only, pp. 25, line 10; and 43, line 3 (speaking about Greeks in Asia)(the last one I also missed, corrected by GK1973)

(latin transl.: Graeci)

Graikon, 1 time only, pp. 51, line 8

(latin transl.: Graecos)

Otherwise always only when speaking of thema Hellas: Ellas, Ellenas, Ellas.

Michael Psellus (1017-1096: Chronographia, penguin books, 1966 (English translation; does not mean that Greek original says also "Greek") The counts are from Google Books.

Greek, 3 (for Greek Fire, Greek language and literature, only 1 x for Greek by birth)

Greeks, 2 times (Greeks had great reputation for philosophy; about Greek dids for history)

Roman, about 60 times

Romans, 26 times

Anna Comnena (1083-1153): Alexiad, Penguin books, 2003 (English translation; does not mean that Greek original says also "Greek") The counts are from Google Books.

Greeks, 3 times

Greek, never, just in relation to the Greek Fire and Greek language

Roman over 100 times

Romans over 100 times (did not count precisely)

You can interpret as you think appropriate.Draganparis (talk) 06:05, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see any use in these numbers.Do you want to propose something? How did you come to them? Are you sure they are right? (...πρώτον μεν τας των γειτόνων οικίας των Γραικών εξεπόρθουν και εις αρπαγήν ετίθεντο... DAI, 59.8) Is this one for example included in these numbers? (..πάντες Γραικοί ονομάζονται και κοινή διαλέκτω χρώνται, πλην Βυζαντίων, ότι Δωριαίων εστίν αποικία...DT,p.43,l.4). This is also not included. Anyways, I appreciate your effort, but I guess that it is of no value to this article to state our opinions regarding the ethnic composition of the Roman Empire. I guess that such a discussion would be much more relevant in other articles. Oh and what is "No, not OK"? Oh.. and in Procopius Caesariensis Historica Arcana (Anecdota), you also did not count well. For example "επικαλούντες τοις μεν ως Γραικοί είεν... 24.2" and other instances... I could go on, but I think that this is enough to at least doubt your numbers, although I suspect that you actually agree with me and Hxseek in this. (note:I did not use a polytonic font above) GK (talk) 12:29, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Very good corrections, I introduced them in the text above. DAI has only 53 pages, so the correct reference is 49.6; DT ref. is also not 43.1.4, but should be given as simply 43.3 (1 stands for the first book of DT). I do not pretend that the count is absolutely correct because I relied either on the index or on the count by the computer relying on Google Books offered and sometimes just English edition. Procopius is particularly problematic since the edition that I used is only English and is not exactly the same as one I used previously (Procopius on line, there, as I remember, was to find 17 "Greece" or "Greeks", and over 70 Romans!! This is substantially different and may be should be proved again.). The connotations are important and they are clearly not implying the ethnicity of the empire (!) but Hellenes from the south or the ancient Greek culture, language, philosophy etc. I will see whether I can correct this later. Kaldellis' citation disproved what Anothroskon's wrote about Kaldellis. Kaldellis in fact disproves GK1973 too (I will use third person as long as GK1973 would not offer an excuse for the previous mockery and insults). In the later Byzantine times, as Kaldellis writes (as I maintained in some earlier edits), the pejorative connotation for "Greeks" disappeared and the Empire was often called Greek Empire. The brothers are Greek in that very sense. Indeed, they may be not ethnic Greeks, since there is no direct proof for this but there are also some indications that they might be Slav. The above counts indicate that the citizens of the Easter Roman Empire were Romans, that to call them Greeks was a very late custom not related to their ethnic origins. That Empire we call today Byzantium and its citizens Byzantines. Some particular person from the thema Hellas may be called Greek of course, but "the people who all speak slave perfectly well" are if not Slav, simply Byzantines. Therefore the list given above IS related to this article very much indeed.Draganparis (talk) 17:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

...OK... again jumping to conclusions... Had you made the effort to read the texts I gave you above, you would have seen that the writers clearly talk about a nation in the Roman Empire which they call "Graikoi" and identify them with the descendants of the Hellenes of the old. There is no question as to whether there were Slavs in the Roman Empire. There were. There is no question as to whether there were any Greeks in the Empire. According to the above writers there were and they were officially called "Graikoi". Apart from them there were maybe a hundred more nations. You may fully adopt Kaldellis' opinions, if you think they suit you best, but if you do, you should know that bringing up sources which clearly talk about Greeks and other nations in the Roman Empire is against it, not in favor. Kaldellis has nothing to do with why modern scholars calling Greeks Greeks. He maintains that the Roman Empire was an ethnic state which had substituted all other national identities within the Empire. So, his opinion has nothing to do with why so many scholars call the brothers Greeks TODAY. They call them Greeks because they think they were Greeks, in the same sense that they call Tzimiskes an Armenian. I never claimed that the Byzantine Empire was a Greek Empire, nor that only Greeks inhabited it. And of course all this has nothing to do with the brothes. So, again, if you want to make a point, give us sources which will unambiguously and clearly state what you want to say and not beat around the bush, trying to prove that modern scholars haven't really put much thought into it. As for your googling up the results, it's OK, but you should have told us that you came to these results by original research, since many would think that you found them in some respectable source. My additions are not the only ones you have missed. I have found many more but there is no reason bringing them up, since your effort only shows that there were some people who were called Graikoi both in the 5th and in the 10th century, which is exactly what you are trying to refute. And, please, either remove your OR or clearly state that these are the results you were able to pinpoint yourself through a quick look up at Googlebooks and may considerably vary from the truth. As for this "the people who all speak slave perfectly well" you should know that the source of this is the Slavonic VM and so, this argument really loses some of its credibility if overused. GK (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

These numbers that I gave above are mainly cited from the INDEX of the referenced book, so not original research. I indicated now what was Google books search, which was done in parallel.

However, a remark to the ADMINISTRATOR: The above comment of GK contains aggressive, unfriendly expressions and unpleasant slurring tone: a. ..OK... again jumping to conclusions... b. and not beat around the bush c. demand to erase the comments d. obvious intention to remove the opposing edits from the discussion without ever citing own sources.

To the comments of GK:

1. According to the above writers there were and they were officially called "Graikoi". ANSW: Yes, one specific group, but the citizens of the Empire were NOT called Greeks, in general but Romans.

2. why so many scholars call the brothers Greeks TODAY ANSW: Please give us some references other then those provided by the propaganda sites and which you verified, and to prove this please give more text then it is given on these propaganda sites.(I demonstrated above that in the last 4 years the same lists, taken from the propaganda sites, unchanged, were produced at least 4 times, 2 times by Anothroskon).

3. give us sources which will unambiguously and clearly state what you want to say and not beat around the bush. ANSW: Kaldellis, for example, and it was also cited by Anothroskon as fantastic source, what I agree. Or you just do not like him?

4. you should have told us that you came to these results by original research, since many would think that you found them in some respectable source. ANSW: I indicated this above already. Now I added even more precise indication that the INDEX of the books was reported – which is NOT an OR.

5. My additions are not the only ones you have missed. I have found many more ANSW: Show the rest please. I maintain that there are NO much more, or INDEX is incorrect – what I doubt.

6. your effort only shows that there were some people who were called Graikoi both in the 5th and in the 10th century, which is exactly what you are trying to refute. ANSW: No, I am sure there were Greeks (more often called Hellenes). My point was to show that it was a custom to call these citizens Romans (we now refer to them as Byzantines).

7. please, either remove your OR ANSW: Evidently reporting an INDEX of a book is not OR. I did not MAKE that index.

8. Slavonic VM and so, this argument really loses some of its credibility if overused. ANSW: This IS THAT FAMOUS single contemporary evidence, the only that exists. This is why I think we should NOT state that they were Slav, and think that we should NOT state anything at all – and state this what the Encyclopaedia Britannica 2010 stated: just missionaries.

ANSW: But I brought enough proves.

First... your criterion regarding insults seems problematic. If you have a problem with my tone then start an ANI case against me.

1. According to the above writers there were and they were officially called "Graikoi". ANSW: Yes, one specific group, but the citizens of the Empire were NOT called Greeks, in general but Romans.

So... then... Greeks... existed! Wow... Who said that there were no other people in the Empire? Greeks were just a sizable minority.

2. why so many scholars call the brothers Greeks TODAY ANSW: Please give us some references other then those provided by the propaganda sites and which you verified, and to prove this please give more text then it is given on these propaganda sites.(I demonstrated above that in the last 4 years the same lists, taken from the propaganda sites, unchanged, were produced at least 4 times, 2 times by Anothroskon).

??? It seems you keep disregarding whatever you do not like. What Anothroskon gave is not taken from Greek propagandistic books. All the sources he gave are valid sources as everybody keeps telling you. It does not matter if you do not like the person who numbered the sources here, you have to prove (and it would be easy, if your accusations had any validity) that he has misquoted the sources. I can give even more but there is no point unless for some reason you are able to disprove the existent ones. Prove us that the sources are misquoted, that they do not write what Anothroskon or anyone else has misquoted them and then you may ask for more...

3. give us sources which will unambiguously and clearly state what you want to say and not beat around the bush. ANSW: Kaldellis, for example, and it was also cited by Anothroskon as fantastic source, what I agree. Or you just do not like him?

Nowhere in his book "Hellenism in Byzantium: The Transformations of Greek Identity and the Reception of the Classical Tradition (Greek Culture in the Roman World)" does he say anything about Methodius and Cyril and of course his opinion on whether the Roman citizens of the Empire had or had not any other national identity is not proof enough that all scholars who believe that the Roman Empire was not an ethnic state should be ignored. Maybe you can find more who share his conclusions, maybe you cannot, but you will have to show that those who believe that no ethnonym can be used regarding the Byzantines apart from "Byzantines" are wrong and of course then start debating in all respected articles. Why don't you try editing John I Tzimiskes or Basil I? Or does your fervor to bring real academic flavor to Wikipedia starts and ends with whatever Greek? You see, I openly doubt your motives here. I would like to see you campaigning for what you say you believe in, but for some reason you only attack the Greek ethnicity.

4. you should have told us that you came to these results by original research, since many would think that you found them in some respectable source. ANSW: I indicated this above already. Now I added even more precise indication that the INDEX of the books was reported – which is NOT an OR.

Indicating has nothing to do with stating. Yet, I am very flattered to have been able to correct the index of "De Thematibus". Maybe you could provide a link to make it easier for me and other users to check out your sources?

5. My additions are not the only ones you have missed. I have found many more ANSW: Show the rest please. I maintain that there are NO much more, or INDEX is incorrect – what I doubt.

First you only used the index for one of your four "sources", so I could give you more examples from the other books and this would make you wrong and not the index. Secondly, I do not have to, although I really have, because they would not help us out. In order for me to go through the books again there should be some point. I do not need more instances of the word "Greek" in any form to prove that there was a nation called "Graikoi" in the Empire according to the above writers. The fact that the word "Roman" in all its forms is used more frequently is logical. This is the official name of the Empire and its peoples. This is the adjective used in all instances talking about anything of the Roman state. In DAI, the word "Slavs" also is present in many numbers and forms. Does that mean that the Empire was Slav? One has to evaluate the usage of the word, not its presence.

6. your effort only shows that there were some people who were called Graikoi both in the 5th and in the 10th century, which is exactly what you are trying to refute. ANSW: No, I am sure there were Greeks (more often called Hellenes). My point was to show that it was a custom to call these citizens Romans (we now refer to them as Byzantines).

So, we agree. Of course there were Greeks and no, at those times they were not more often called "Hellenes". At the time the word "Hellene" was used to denote Ancient Greeks and anything that has to do with them (as for example the language). Of course it was a custom to call the citizens Romans. If we now lived in the Roman Empire we would do so too. But we do not. And, of course, as you yourself admit here, there were many ethnicities, who officially were called Romans, but they were called by their ethnicity too, if so wished. Yes, when ethnicity was not a matter (for example in military or state matters), they were called either Romans or by the name of the thema they came from. Yet, as I already stated, we do not live in the years of the Roman Empire and nowadays, scholars use other phraseology and in such "barbaric" languages as the 21st century English, which we use here to name things, people, places...

7. please, either remove your OR ANSW: Evidently reporting an INDEX of a book is not OR. I did not MAKE that index.

Good. I said "either" "or" and you chose "or". I have no problem with that as long as it is clear that you used 1 index and 3 personal counts.

8. Slavonic VM and so, this argument really loses some of its credibility if overused.

ANSW: This IS THAT FAMOUS single contemporary evidence, the only that exists. This is why I think we should NOT state that they were Slav, and think that we should NOT state anything at all – and state this what the Encyclopaedia Britannica 2010 stated: just missionaries.

I miss your point... So, from that quote you think that you could squeeze a conclusion that everybody in the province of Thessaloniki was Slav and so the brothers must have been too and so, we should negotiate? No, you need contemporary sources or clear evidence, like a Slavonic text of the era which will call the brothers "Slav". You need to prove that what you are advocating is at least as academically accepted as calling the brothers "Greek" now, in the 21st century, as English is used by the academic community. We do not teach here scholars how they should choose their terminology, we follow it.

ANSW: But I brought enough proves.

I doubt that. You confuse giving random texts with making a point. You strive to prove that using the word "Byzantine" is OK. We agree, but you need to prove that it is preferable to "Greek". This is what you are campaigning for here. The word "byzantine" is used in the text multiple times, so there is no problem with readers mistaking them for something else. We even categorize them as "Byzantine Saints". You have to bring multiple sources which will object to their Greek nationality, not sources which will choose to call them Byzantines, for if you do not challenge their ethnicity, then all this crusading is in vain.

Still, O.K. keep “Greek brothers” for the time being - for the sake of the solidarity with the Greeks. And now, please, show some good will, if you have some.Draganparis (talk) 22:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not "keep" anything. An admin ruled that there is no reason for it to change, so now I am defending his ruling, which I also agree to. In another such case, much more heated than this, I was not in favor of using "FYROM", as any "nationalist" would instead of "Macedonia". I supported the country's constitutional name "Republic of Macedonia" and debated for long against users you deem my bodies like Taivo and Future Perfect. When it was ruled that we should plainly use "Macedonia", on the sole reason that this was the term most often used by English speakers, I accepted the decision and never challenged it. I often showed you good will and you blatantly stepped on it. It is you who wrote "(I will use third person as long as GK1973 would not offer an excuse for the previous mockery and insults)" after a comment with no mockery or insult whatsoever, clearly showing that you yourself are unwilling to show good faith. If you want an advice of good will from me, start making some constructive edits in fields you are well versed in and bear no controversy to prove that you are not yet another disruptive account. So many years have passed since you opened the account and any admin who scrutinizes cases against you or your assertions look up your history to see what kind of an editor you are. How will you persuade them that you are sincerely looking to improve Wikipedia when you have no history of constructive editing at all? The same applies to the discussions you engage in. People will look you up and will treat you with suspicion to say the least. Wikipedia is an online community with computer memory and here respect is gained sometimes more difficult than in the outside world. You also promised to various admins that you will occupy yourself with less controversial and easier subjects. These will be the same admins who will judge your next case of disruption (whether it be you or initiated by you) and they will remember your promises. This does not mean that you should totally abandon what interests or intrigues you most, but, in my opinion, you should start occupying yourself with constructive editing. This is as good willed as I can get. You can think over my advice or you can outright dismiss it. It's up to you. GK (talk) 23:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)