Talk:Cyril and Methodius/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Glagolitic alphabet

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great Moravia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, later on the article says :

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

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

So, my comments would be :

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gosh, this is also so difficult and confusing. Regarding my previous point that, since we can definitively say what the level of success C & M had in Great Moravia, I suggested it was an unsupported opinion and, as such, should be omitted from the text altogether. GK1973 suggested that we instead research the topic to understand the level of success. After some research, I came upon this from "Czechs and Germans" by Elizabeth Wiskemann, Oxford University Press, 1938, where she writes, "It is difficult to estimate their actual success, since the only historians of the time were later supplied by their adversaries of the Roman Catholic Church." It would be my opinion to actually use this quote in the text, since it at least puts into question something that appears to be taken as fact through texts describing C & M. Thoughts?

Thomkolton (talk) 21:125 11 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.217.233 (talk)

I'll have to check the references first, but at first sight it appears to me as if the Glagolica article might be giving a bit of undue weight to an isolated hypothesis there. Note that the article is in fact self-contradictory: in the Glagolica#Origins of the Glagolitic characters section, it describes the idea of the pre-C/M Slavic writing as a mainstream theory, based on the "Rus letters", but a section further down, in Glagolica#Pre-Glagolitic Slavic writing systems, it debunks the exact same theory as "explainable as misspelled 'Syrian letters'". And in any case, whatever those pre-C/M scripts were, they were not Glagolitic, so the statement that C/M invented Glagolica would probably still be true. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"The theory of chronological precedence of Glagolitic script with regard to Cyrillic has been first put forth by G. Dobner in 1785[1], but ever since Pavel Jozef Šafárik's 1857 study of Glagolitic monuments Über den Urspung und die Heimat des Glagolitismus there has been a virtual consensus in the academic circles that the Glagolitic was the script Constantine devised, rather than Cyrillic.[2] This view is supported by numerous linguistic, paleographic and historical accounts."

Hmm, I sort of agree with Future. That paragraph is very confusing and the article appears self contradictory (depending on its meaning). It looks like POV pushing, very one sided, the way reasons are listed below that paragraph that seem to contradict it.Simanos (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you just all tell stories? We need sources, real sources, not interpretations by one or the other user (like me, for example – but I do not boast to know anything about that script). Please give some source. Somebody up in the discussion just writes, writes, and writes, tells us HIS stories… is this history or what? I was told that the Glagolitic alphabet was abandoned because it did not contain the letters which permitted to write the Holy Scriptures, I mean permitted by Rome. These were just Latin and Greek characters. Then Cyrillic was invented and the script then was compatible to be used for the translation of the Bible. I can find that reference, I’ll ask my professors. But you claim to know so much. Is this true? But do not tell me what you think, give the source (not Wiki as source)Housfrau (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Look what I found: http://www.aventura-baska.com/Default.aspx?PageID=510. There you can translate into Glagolitic. And the script is called not "glagolitic" but "glagoljica". There are people who still write in this script!!! Fanrtastic. Did you know this?Housfrau (talk) 18:03, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

After almost one year - still all is the same on these propaganda pages: unbilivable ignorance. Of course that there are (on the Adriatic see islands) people who write end read glagolitic! And the above discussion where only references are from Wikipedia (!?) of various self proclaimed "experts" (blind nationalists of various persuasion, each operating under couple of different addresses!) is just funny. Just go on. Your discussion will not make Cyril and Methodius more Greek then they probably were: humble citizens of the Byzantine Empire, no more and no less. DP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.223 (talk) 14:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

DP as in DraganParis; didn't you retire after you got banned for making legal threats (and trolling wikipedia). Stop lying about retiring and stop throwing insults and accusations around. You're not helping this (or any other) article. Just go/stay away please. Simanos (talk) 15:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

January 2011

[Off-topic personal attacks hidden]

All I can see here is that a bunch (and not just one) Greek “terrorists” have taken hostage the Ancient history pages on Wikipedia. They may be Greek bankrupt officials propagandists or common fanatics and must be removed from Wikipedia. In particular, those hiding under the names of Simanos (quite uncultivated one), Athenean, GK, Ptolion... Enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.16 (talk) 08:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey! Why am I the uncultivated one? o.O Athenean is better, but GK is just as bad ;p Makes me feel like Charon from the satirical cartoon OYK (check it out!):

Giati na eimai ego h Sabrina!? (Why do I have to be Sabrina (from Charlie's Angels)

Besides DraganParis (whose sock-puppets you 2 anon IPs probably are) wanted to have coffee with me in Aristotelous. And I turned him down >.<

P.S. I was the one who hid this section Simanos (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

...And it is a historical fact that by the 8/9 century Thessaloniki was a Slave town and that in principle the Empire was Roman empire and NOT Greek. The Brothers were simply Romans, i.e. Byzantine. Please stop playing with history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.173.16 (talk) 08:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

....Not enough referenced??? There are abundant sources in the earlier discussions. In In "De Administrando Imperio", DAI, Moravchick and Jenkins, Dumberton Oaks 1949, ), Constantine VII Perphyrogenitus does not mention Greeks in 10 century, just Romaioi (Romans). Therefore up to the 10 century, the citizens of the (Eastern) Roman empire were just Romaioi, i.e. Byzantines, not Greeks. This is the end of the discussion that lasts already 3 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.162.214 (talk) 22:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Your attacks on other editors such as calling people terrorists and fanatics is completely inappropriate. Personal attacks are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and could result in you being blocked. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:16, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

OK Diannaa, you are right. No hard words, but I have impression that both sides use hard words and that we want to punish only one. And it is evident that some Greeks impose monopol on these pages. There is enough evidence to accept the argument and do not call them "Greek". As you can see now somebody immediatelly reverted the article. This can not be accepted. Let us dicuss this without repeating the arguments from the last 3 years (there is enough evidence to reject "Greek"), but simply avoid nationalism and follow history: Cyril and Methodius were Roman and therefore Bysantine brothers. Look up the DAI it says this is an Roman empire, not Greek. There is simply no doubt. The DAI is definit reference. We do not need any other, but as I said there is enough support already given (look up the Archive) to REJECT "Greek brothers". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.250.28 (talk) 16:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, Diannaa reverted this. Hm. Appart from DAI I found in the Archive 1 the following:

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, the author that all of “ Byzantologists must know:

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

I know that there are on both sides hundreds of contradicting references. But DAI plus Britanica and the other 2 IS ENOUGH to say just "Byzantine brothers" and NOT Greek brothers. OK? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.250.28 (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not OK, because a consensus was reached among the editors of the article that the sources say the men were of Greek nationality. Therefore no change will be made to the article. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Hiding personal attacks may be good sometimes. Now it was not a good idea. Some important discussion disapeared. Also, there is a section which may be important and with the above given references (by 81.183.250.28?) imposes a solution to call Cyril and Methodius only "Byzantine brothers" and not "Greek": "Cyril and Methodius were Roman and therefore Bysantine brothers. Look up the DAI it says this is an Roman empire, not Greek. There is simply no doubt. The DAI is definit reference. We do not need any other, but as I said there is enough support already given (look up the Archive) to REJECT "Greek brothers"".Housfrau (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The two men were born in Thessalonica, in Greece. They were born in Greece. People did not move about so much in those days; if they were born in Greece they were most likely Greek. The speculation that their mother may have been a Slav does appear in the article; it does not appear in the lead, but it does appear in the article. I note that your account has only five edits to this encyclopedia, four of which have been to this talk page. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me rephrase your sentence and state it correctly: “The two men were born in Thessalonica, in Byzantium. They were born in Byzantium. People did not move about so much in those days; if they were born in Byzantium they were most likely Byzantines.” Why I say this? Even Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus in 10 century does not mention Greeks (Hellenes) almost at all in his book DAI. Then the north of today’s Greece was inhabited in 8, 9, 10th century up to the arrival of the Ottomans - by the Slaves. This is what the linguists say. The name Hellenes was reserved for those from Attica and Peloponnese. The northern Greece of today, become "Hellas" in 19the century. So the brothers could have been Macedonian, Thracian, Thessalian, Slave but not Hellenes. This is how it was. The problem here is not how it was but what is the terminology the modern historians use and it appears that some say "Greek" some do not specify (Britannica), and some say Byzantine. The last, which corresponds to how the Eastern Roman Empire was organized politically, I think, is correct. And... You should NOT try to prove your opinion by questioning the authority of your opponent - I am a student, study history and Slave languages and write more often in German Wikipedia.- I could say also, for example, that your record on Wikipedia on Byzantine history is almost inexistent. It is better to offer some proofs instead. I offered DAI and Encyclopedia Britannica, which are ultimate proofs. One of the letter solutions should be accepted and “Greek” deleted. And I have other things to do now.Housfrau (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Housfrau, if you are really a student of history, then you should also know that "Hellas" referring to southern Greece was only an administrative and geographical term, just like Byzantine "Macedonia" was not in Macedonia at all. You would also know that "Hellenes" was reserved for pagans, and the inhabitants of "Hellas" were called "Helladikoi". As for the existence of "Macedonians", "Thracians" or "Thessalians" as ethnic groups in the 9th century, I let the absurdity of this speak for itself. The Byzantines, especially after the territorial losses of the 7th century, were Greek-speaking and the closest thing there was to "ethnic Greeks" at the time. Of course many "Byzantines" came from a variety of ethnic backgrounds, whether Slav, Italian, Armenian and even Arab, but in order to make any sort of career (as Cyril and Methodius' father clearly had) they had to become assimilated into mainstream Byzantine society, and that means that within a generation or two they were culturally hellenized. "Greek" in a medieval context means "Byzantine" (and although the reverse is not always true, it is most times, at least culturally). Constantine ✍ 11:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What I think, is that the whole conversation is without a point. Cyril and Methodius were Byzantine Greeks, or simply Byzantines, a term used by the Western Historians to describe the Greek-speaking Christianic Eastern Roman Empire (Romioi). Not all of them where ethnically Greeks. There is a very good article, explaining the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac (talk • contribs) 21:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and that is exactly the solution I proposed above and was accepted and incorporated in the article. Constantine ✍ 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not agree. And you better give your sources, I cite Constantine Porphyrogenitus and Encyclopedia Britanica, so please what are your sources? And look up in "Hellenism in Byzantium: the transformations of Greek identity and the reception of the classical tradition" by Anthony Kaldellis. He says literaly that the Byzantines were Romans who spoke Greek and NOT INVERSE!!! (page 113). Is this not enough? We have here in Leipzig “De Ceremonis” and some my professors, experts in Byzantine history. I am not an expert, I am sorry, I am learning. The majority of the inhabitants were Slave (Bulgarian, Serb). Even today’s mainland Greece did NOT BELONG to the Byzantium all the time (in the 8 century for example)!!! In the 9 century when Cyril and Methodius lived, the word “Greeks” was not in use AT ALL, and Hellas was in the south ("Helladikoi"). If you can give me a source that proves the contrary, then OK. But, there is no doubt about this. I have a colleague who is translating “De Thematibus” which is also by Constantine VII, and he says that this what you say is wrong. There were simply no Hellenes, i.e. no Greeks in the thema of Macedonia, just Romaioi. Only the language was Greek, but this is all, as Kaldellis is saying. Many emperors were of non-Hellenic people. So, to say today (like it is said in Encyclopedia Britannica – which is a source that should be our definite guideline in making a reliable encyclopedia) that Cyril was a Byzantine and no more and no less is the only correct terminology. Sincerely I do not know why so much discussion about this. Why? I will really start to be suspicious. And now I do not have any more time for this discussion. Thanks.Housfrau (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Housfrau, let's get some things clear, because you mix up terms and concepts without understanding the distinctions between them. In the middle Byzantine period, "Hellenes" does not mean "Greeks". It is used to mean "pagans". "Helladikoi" does not mean "Greeks" either, but the inhabitants of the theme of Hellas (as the DAI uses the term). "Hellas" of course means "Greece", and was the original core of the Greek world, but it does not imply that Greeks lived only there. Since Classical and Hellenistic times, the Greek world was much wider than the original core Greece/Hellas. There was no ethnonym specifically referring to "Greeks" as such in Byzantine times (at least not in the timeframe we are interested in). You say that "Only the language was Greek, but this is all", well yes, except that language is one of the major markers of ethnicity. This does not mean that a "Romaios" was a descendant of Themistocles; just as it does not mean that I am a descendant of Alexander because I am speaking Greek. Ethnic identity is mostly a matter of belief and culture. All Byzantines were "Romans", "Romaioi", and in its most "typical" sense that term means a Christian, Greek-speaking and culturally hellenized Byzantine subject. That is what the "Byzantine Greeks" article refers to, and that is pretty much what the brothers were. If you had read the Byzantine Greeks article, we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Constantine ✍ 15:16, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, this was very useful tip. I almost agree with everything and I learned a lot also from the article Byzantine Greeks . I regret that I must object to your comment. The article Byzantine Greeks does not contradict what I wrote. It says first: “Empire had at first a multi-ethnic character that following the loss of the non-Greek speaking provinces came to be dominated by the Byzantine Greeks.” This was what I said! And then it states again something that I said too: “… the ethnonym (Graikoi - Γραικοί) was never used in official Byzantine correspondence prior to 1204 AD.” So this is the beginning of the 13th century, and we are talking here about 9th century. This means that we should call the citizens of the Byzantine Empire before 13th century Byzantines. Therefore Cyril and Methodius, who lived in 9th century, should be called Byzantines and NOT Byzantine Greeks. Very simple. And I have to stop discussing this. Sorry. Housfrau (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What you should do , then, is to go to the Byzantine Greeks article, and start a conversation there. If you insist that the term Byzantine Greek , should be just Byzantine, or Eastern Roman , or Hellenised Roman, or Greco-Roman, or whatever else, you shouldn't choose an article on two specific personalities. The national identity in the Byzantine Empire is a very complicated matter, and you could help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac (talk • contribs) 19:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No. There is no need to intervene on that article on the Byzantine Greeks; I do not contest that article on that particular point. We should avoid contradiction on Wikipedia. Therefore we should just APPLY here what that article on Byzantine Greeks says: the citizens of the Byzantine Empire at that particular time were Byzantines. So Cyril and Methodius were Byzantines. This is also what I learn at University. Wikipedia should not contradict generally accepted knowledge. This is how Wikipedia will gain confidence.Housfrau (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We cannot use Wikipedia itself as a reference; Wikipedia contains no systematic mechanism for fact checking or accuracy. Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for any purpose, and policy dictates they cannot be used as a source. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. So it does not matter what the Wikipedia article on Byzantine Greeks says; it cannot be used as a reference. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 23:37, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, we have to leave it as it is. The sources, clearly call them Greeks, so it should stay that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthmaniac (talk • contribs) 13:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No, the sources say Byzantines only. There are plenty of turist guides or propaganda material which state either Byzantine Greeks, Greeks, Slaves, Macedonians... They (these sources!) must be taken to be irrelevant. I in fact only responded to the previous comment and cited the same source the author of that comment cited to “teach” me) The fact that citizens of the Eastern Roman Imperia were Romaioi (Byzantines) and NOT GREEKS before arrival of the crusaders is generally well known. Why you do not know this is very curious. Yes, one of the sources you can “even” find in Wikipedia article that I cited. One reference is mentioned in that article (it refers to the 13 century). We may not accept the article itself (as Diannaa suggests above - although this is strange logic!?), but the cited source in the article - yes. The second is DAI, which I cited, which is one particularly important and rare ORIGINAL source from 10 century. Cyrili and Methodius lived in 9th century. No doubt then that almost 4 centuries earlier to the 13th century, they were simply “Byzantines” and not Byzantines Greeks. As I mentioned above, The Encyclopedia Britannica says just “brothers” - do you think that this great Encyclopedia made a mistake!?; the Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages says “Byzantine missionaries”; etc. So the missionaries were not Byzantine Greeks, but just Byzantines. This is particularly important because today saying “Greeks” implies “Greeks of the today Greece”, which is absurd. Housfrau (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here are what some of the sources have to say.

• The Columbia Encyclopaedia, Sixth Edition. 2001-05, O.Ed. Saints Cyril and Methodius Cyril and Methodius, Saints) 869 and 884, respectively, "Greek missionaries, brothers, called Apostles to the Slavs and fathers of Slavonic literature."
• Encyclopedia Britannica, Major alphabets of the world, Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets, 2008, O.Ed. "The two early Slavic alphabets, the Cyrillic and the Glagolitic, were invented by St. Cyril, or Constantine (c. 827–869), and St. Methodius (c. 825–884). These men were Greeks from Thessaloniki who became apostles to the southern Slavs, whom they converted to Christianity."
• Hastings, Adrian (1997). The construction of nationhood: ethnicity, religion, and nationalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 126. ISBN 0-521-62544-0. "the activity of the brothers Constantine (later renamed Cyril) and Methodius, aristocratic Greek priests who were sent from Constantinople."
• Cizevskij, Dmitrij; Zenkovsky, Serge A.; Porter, Richard E.. Comparative History of Slavic Literatures. Vanderbilt University Press. pp. vi. ISBN 0-8265-1371-9. ""Two Greek brothers from Salonika, Constantine who later became a monk and took the name Cyril and Methodius."
• The illustrated guide to the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. 1998. pp. 14. ISBN 0-19-521462-5. "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"

These references appear in the article. There are eight citations for the fact that these men were Greek. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 20:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

..."The illustrated guide for the Bible"...!!?? I am sorry, I have no more time for this discussion. After examining carefully the archives I realize that if a consensus is to be reached (Wikipedia rule) and if the people who are interested for this article have other motives then history (as it is here - are Greeks and want to promote their Greek feelings), the consensus will be based on their desires and not on history. This just cannot be otherwise. Housfrau (talk) 07:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And the othere sources are just not true. Britannica gives number of articles and does not ever mentiones that they were "Greek" (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1345803/Saints-Cyril-and-Methodius). I gave all the arguments. No more discussion. Housfrau (talk) 07:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The source quoted was not the encyclopedia proper but a volume called Encyclopedia Britannica, Major alphabets of the world, Cyrillic and Glagolitic alphabets, 2008, O.Ed. If you wish to challenge the reliability of these sources, please make an inquiry at the WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Diannaa ^(Talk)

No, if YOU WISH TO CHALENDGE my source Britanica.com (online edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, actualized), you are free to use that procedure, please. I am translating DAI into German right now. You should read it at least to understand what I am talking about. You would be absolutelly certain that "Greek" did not mean to them much. They were first Christians and Romans. No more and no less. DAI is the most reliable document that exists, and is so clear about this. Strange that you are not even troubled by the fact that the expression “Greeks” is identical with today’s citizens of Greece, who are evidently quite different entity!? I concur with some earlier editors who expressed doubts that the articles on Ancien history are managed by one or couple of authors who tightly collaborate and create a virtual consensus. No, no discussion any more. Sorry. Housfrau (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

The source you are quoting does not say the men were Byzantine, it merely says they were born in Thessalonica, Macedonia. So I am unclear how you feel this source backs you up.

Please remember that your claim that some editors that are working on this article from ulterior motives rather than a wish to improve the encyclopedia could be construed as a WP:personal attack. Please focus your comments on an analysis of the sources and refrain from speculating on the motives of other editors. Thank you. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Diannaa you are wasting your time. Housfrau is clearly a WP:SPA, possibly a sock of DraganParis or someone of the same persuasion. If he is a Byzantine history student, then I am an ostrich. Best way to deal with him is WP:DNFTT. Constantine ✍ 17:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that, as I have read all the archives. Thank you for your supportive comments. I will stop replying to him now, as you recommend. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 18:01, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Not "Greeks" either. Avoiding to recognise key references, and then listing 100 irrelevant sources - would not help. You must take DAI and other sources that I gave as final proof. If you refuse, I undenstand that you have some "other" intentions and then I do not want to take part in your unfair discussion. In addition, your passing messages each to other is too naive. You obviously act in some irregular accord. Sorry. Housfrau (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I concur with Cplakidas. Housfrau has a style and tone similar to previous vandal(s), pushing similar agendas and making personal attacks. He seems like a forgotten sock-puppet account that is being re-used since its owner got blocked in other sock-puppet accounts lately. I suggest you investigate him and ask for a check-user procedure. I and a few others have already been harassed by his ilk and even went through check-user procedures, which of course proved we were different people in different cities. They just use and abuse Wikipedia policies and clueless admins to create chaos and waste our time. Don't be sucked into it. Simanos (talk) 13:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Simanos, I hope you don't mind that I put your remark in chronological order. I don't know much about how it works (they are intentionally secretive about that) but unfortunately the information is probably too stale for a check-user to prove whether Housefrau and DraganParis are related (Draganparis has not edited since May). Also the IPs used above, which also might be the same person, geolocate to cities all over Europe. I will continue to monitor the article. Sincerely, --Diannaa ^(Talk) 17:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

DIANNAA, please, intimidations? Let us go back to the discussion. There is nothing personal here, just history. Your and the strategy of the others here seems to relay on the fact that number of trivialities in the world is greater than the number of non-trivialities. So you try to disapprove what I cite by just giving greater number of contrary “proofs”! You systematically ignore what I write (my first quality sources) and advance other (trivial sources in may be greater numbers) and think this is a proof.

Let me explain the importance of the sources here. First, all my sources are verifiable, yours are not. You should refute my sources, i.e. start discussing my sources – and this is hard, because these are ultimate sources: Britannica on line – you cannot challenge its authority (does not state the nationality of the missionaries); Encyclopedia of the Middle ages (which states Byzantines), which is the ultimate source at our university, directly available on the Internet; professor Stephenson (says may have been Slaves)…. All these you CAN VERIFY on the Internet!! And finally DAI. Well, the importance of that work? if you do not know it, ask and I will explain. But you can find at least studies which discuss it. This is one of rare and absolute essential document written by the Roman emperor Constantinus VII Porphyrogenitus to explain geopolitics to his son. If you cannot refute my sources, the problem is solved. I do not know who you are (Administrator?), but if you look up the archives there you can see that it is obvious that about five editors support each other in attacking and insulting intruders. Always. For couple of years now. They are all in Thessaloniki and communicate sometimes in Greek. Not a personal attack, just an observation. Housfrau (talk) 22:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

He, he. Your test, dear “Housefrau, was a « voll Treffer », as you Germans would say. They got trapped like young rabbits. Why there were no responses for 8 days from the “editors” - the defenders of the "greeknes" of everithing? Clearly: they are sock puppets, all of them. A club. The PUPPETS’ telephones were ringing, or they met in some cafés in Athens or Thessalonica, and decided to keep quite this time. They got trapped like young rabbits, yes. Congratulations! The Admins (if s/he does not belong to the puppets group) will have hard time to get rid of them. Long way to go my friend. Buridan2001 (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Danke. Ask for independent concensus and then change the article if you want (to Byzantine brothers, remove Greek brothers). I will not have a computer next 4 weeks, may be 8. Housfrau (talk) 20:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Cyril and Methodius were Byzantines of likely Serb origin because they translated into Old Church Slavonic with declinations, and NOT into Macedonian or Bulgarian version - which were spoken in the region, simply because these two languages did not contain declinations. Only Serb version contained declinations. The hypothesis that they were Greeks (!) who translated into not Macedonian or Bulgarian versions of the Old Slave, but into an Old Church Slavonic with declinations is improbable. The language that they could learn 'on the streets' of Thessaloniki, did not contain declinations!!! The declinations are the most difficult to learn and the population of Serb occupied regions (Peonians, remains of the Ancient Macedonians, Dardanes and the rest) that learned Slave as a foreign language probably just ignored declinations. Therefore the brothers, if they could use declinations correctly - and they could, were Byzantines of Serbian origin.Imperatorxy (talk) 11:02, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Czechia

There is no such a thing as "Czechia" in the English language. You can use either "Bohemia" (to denote the ethnic Czech part of the Czech Republic from the Moravian one) or "Czech Republic". I therefore ask those with sufficient privileges to fix this error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.127.240.155 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I have changed all instances to read "Czech Republic". "Czechia" is apparently an English-language term that never caught on. --Dianna (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 April 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

MK Wikipedia

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

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

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

I'm of the opinion there are Greek government trolls policing and editing Wikipedia for there own political bias towards Macedonia, Macedonian historical copyrights and the Macedonian Empire etc. E.g Alexander was Greek!!

Why not. :) He spoke Greek, his name is Greek, he read Greek books (Hommer's Illiad), he worshipped the Greek Twelve Gods of Olympus. Unless if he spoke Slavic, if his name was Alexandrov or Alexandrovski, if he worshipped the Slavic paganism, then I don't see why he isn't a Greek. :) But of course this may be offtopic. The matter is that Cyril and Methodius were known as "Apostles TO the Slavs", not "Apostles OF the Slavs" Why? Because they were non-slavic apostles sent to Slavic populations. Logical isn't it? Unless the VMRO DPMNE, in FYROM, convinced you with their "Macedonistic" Propaganda... --85.75.131.143 (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Identity of the Apostles

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

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

I looked it up right now. Very interesting discussion. The sources (Britanica usw.) say they were just Byzantianes (Roman) and may be Slave. Greeks did not exist before 12-13 century. The Helenes existed, but they were more in the South. In the North of the today's Greece was Macedonia. No Basileus was a "Basileus of the Greeks" but of the "Romans" (Romanoi?). There are thousends of documents that show this. Where is the problem then? 85.75.189.243. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.53.139.78 (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

If you look a little closer, the sources say they were Greek. I looked at all the sources and confirmed them personally. -- Dianna (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Dianna are you from Greek Macedonia? If C&M were true "Greeks" then they would have promoted the Greek language to the Slavs and NOT Cyrilic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.67 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

In the cited archives I found only empty boasting against well documented evidence that the brothers were simply Byzantines, no more and no less. Is this some Greek propaganda site again? Hmmm.. You "confirmed them personally"?? You confirmed something by merely looking? Or your grammar is deceiving you. You mean you verified? You must be Greek. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.65.113.42 (talk) 15:53, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Why does it say they were born in Thessaloniki???? The town was called "Salon" for hundreds of years before it was ceded to Greece about 100 years ago and the name Hellenicised. Is it totally incorrect to say Born: Macedonia or Macedonian Region? Is there a department of the Greek government constantly checking Wikipedia and deleting all references to Macedonia as totally independent from Greece for Hundreds of years??? Wonder what the Greek kids text books say?? Anyway, this Wiki introduction kind of implies C&M were Greek when they weren't. Sure they may of spoken Greek but it doesnt mean they are, like saying Latin speakers are not necessarily all from Roma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.6.164.67 (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Before parading your ignorance for the world to see, you might like to check on the history of Thessaloniki and its name. Just saying... Constantine ✍ 14:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Wow, why does it not surprise me that there are FYROM nationalists at work here? :) The funny thing is not that they challenge common historical understanding with their outlandish claims, but that they choose to pick on one of the best studied and documented histories of all: the Greek one. It's such a pointless exercise. Nevertheless, if they can present a good reference for their claims, by all means the Wikipedia community will take a look. But to keep littering articles on Greek history with repetitions of the same tired old claims that have already been explained away... well, that's just silly.76.10.147.236 (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I wonder why people from FYROM don't see that the two Apostles, Cyril and Methodius were "Apostles TO the Slavs", and not "Apostles OF the Slavs" nor "Apostles FROM the Slavs". Its obvious that only if they were non-Slav (such as Greek/Roman Byzantine) Apostles, could get known as Apostles to the Slavs... --85.75.131.143 (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

editprotected hu link

we The Macedonians (FYROM is not used very much just check SKY sports coverage for example) are just trying to counter Greek Nationalists. that's all. Peace out

hu:Cirill és Metód — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxa (talk • contribs) 17:08, 10 January 2013‎

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Anastasius Bibliothecarius

I have provided the necessary disambiguation for Anastasius. However, I have also removed the quotation "the teacher of the Apostolic See" attributed to him, as there is no such expression either in the Legenda Italica or in the Epistle to Gaudericus. If anyone can find it in his writings, they are welcome to reinstate it—with citation. Лудольф (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Slavonic Literature and Culture Day → Slavonic Writing and Culture Day

In Russian, the day celebrated on May 24: День славянской письменности и культуры means: Day of Slavic Writing and Culture not In Russia, and not Slavonic Literature and Culture Day, as noted in the article.

--Big Yus (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2013

Saints Cyril and Methodius are Bulgarians and at that time, Thessaloniki (where the Saint brothers were born was also Bulgarian territory - check your sources please) I see in the log edition here that a lot of people are trying to present them as Macedonians which is ridiculous, because at that time there was not even Macedonian country... a lot of people are trying to steal the Bulgarian history and culture (especially Macedonians) and sometimes greek's too just like in this situation... this is absurd! MK (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

 Not done We are showing them as Greek, not Macedonian or Bulgarian. Please check the talk page archives, especially Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius/Archive 6, as to why. -- Diannaa (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

APPARENTLY, Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius/Archive 6 clearly demonstrates that the Saints were NOT GREEK!!! But simply Byzantine. Where is the problem then? Just remove "Greek". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.123.242.218 (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

 Not done I verified this. Obviously not Greek. Please correct.

Change request 05.06.2014

Please add to the end of Commemoration the photo of the Cyril and Methodius statue at the city Zalavár, Hungary. The picture is on this page: http://hu.wiki.x.io/wiki/Zalavár This is the direct link to the image: http://hu.wiki.x.io/wiki/Zalavár#mediaviewer/Fájl:Zalavar-Cyril-Methodius.JPG As far as I know this is the only statue of them in Hungary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szilard66 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

some corrections about the name

His name was Constantine (Konštantín) ,shortly before death he changed his name to "Cyrril" now only simply Cyril. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.137.37 (talk) 14:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Misconception about the Cyrillic alphabet

In the article, the Cyrillic alphabet is described as a descendant of the Glagolitic alphabet. This is largely false -- the majority of letters in the Cyrillic alphabet come from the Greek uncial script; only a few signs representing peculiar Slavic sounds were adapted from the Glagolitsa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.185.47 (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Locked article? WTF?

I do understand that vandals abound on Wikipedia, but the article si locked and it contains factual inaccuracies and cannot be edited. For instance there is a paragraph: "Nor is it known for sure which liturgy, that of Rome or that of Constantinople, they took as a source. They may well have used the Roman alphabet, as suggested by liturgical fragments..." which is wrong. Instead of Roman alphabet, it should be Roman Rite.

To anyone serious enough, with at least a vague knowledge of the subject, and older than the average age of Wikipedia editors (which seems to be 17 or so), this is quite obvious, as there is a lengthy introduction on the Glagolitic alphabet which was specifically invented for the purpose, but then automatism (Roman alphabet is more customary for an average dude than Roman Rite), ignorance and general malevolence and political agenda brawls result in idiocies.

The page should be unlocked for edits with a person with good knowledge of both history and ecclesiastical issues overseeing it so that morons do not destroy the page with their "edits".— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.245.161.166 (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Graveyard

Would someone add that Cyril is buried in Basilica of Saint Clement? Does anyone know about the graveyard of Methodius? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.221.185 (talk) 08:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources for Cyril being buried there? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Misconception about "Greekness" of the Byzance

"Byzantine Greek" may refer only to the period after 12th century and not to the times of Cyril and Methodius. The second reason to avoid the expression “Greek” would be because they probably were Slavs and NOT “Greek”. The third reason is that the expression “Greek" was pejorative at exactly that time and may reflect the Catholic reaction to their mission and the introduction of the Slave language in xenophobic Catholic West and Central Europe. This is a strong reason why the expression “Greek” should be avoided. Only “Byzantine” would be appropriate. Please correct.Buridan2001 (talk) 13:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

RESPONSE by Helena Dadaj. Nonsense, Byzantium was a Greek culture prior to the 12th century. In fact, one could argue that it grew more and more Slavic after the 12th, but not entirely. The probability that Cyril and Methodius they were Slavs is entirely speculative and no source is provided. In the interest of academic integrity, we can conclude that this is a false assumption. The fact that you think Slav refers to "slave" shows that you have no understanding of Slavic history whatsoever. Slav does not mean slave, it means "The Word" as in "People of the Same Words" or "tongue." Why would you think Slavs were slaves when they settled and conquered half of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.213.24.41 (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Response to RESPONSE: Nonsense and total ignorance and naivety ("slav means the word"?!?). In the Old Church Slavonic Grammar By Horace Gray Lunt, Mouton de Gruyter, 2001, p. 3., the author states that Cyril and Methodius were probably Macedonian. Greece did not exist in the 9th century. The crusaders started calling the Byzantines "Greek" pejoratively, when the Eastern Roman Empire was reduced in its size in the 12th century and later. 92.128.127.214 (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

please change born in Macedonia to "Theme Thessaloniki" because Cyril was born in 826A.C in Thessaloniki of Byzantine Empire. The province name of Thessaloniki was "Theme Macedonia" and it exists since 824a.C. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Theme_(Byzantine_district). Before that it was "Diocese of Macedonia" but in Cyril times it was the province of Theme Thessaloniki

Alexander is from Argead dynasty. Balkanians (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)