Talk:Cyril and Methodius/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

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)