Talk:Cyril and Methodius/Archive 2

This page contains the talk from Talk:Saint Cyril (the editing history of which has been merged to the current talk page)

MERGE
Closed and concensus is 9 Merge 1 Keep hance Merge Xenovatis (talk) 21:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Xenovatis (talk) 10:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree Info is duplicated on the two bro's and it will also make containing drive-by edits easier.
 * Oppose It makes no sense to have one encyclopedia article about two people. That would be like combining Saints Peter and Paul into one article.  As far as possible, information in the article Saints Cyril and Methodius should be incorporated into the Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius articles.  Information that can not be incorporated into those articles should remain within the article Saints Cyril and Methodius.  Dgf32 (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree The Brothers are most noted for what they accomplished together, and much of the information about them refers to their joint adventures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuck38 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weakly Agree. If I'm not mistaken, most other language wikipedias seem to have a single article for both. Also Chuck38's argument above seems to make sense to me. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  19:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge ALL. Most of the info is duplicated in not two, but FOUR articles:
 * Saint Cyril
 * Saint Methodius
 * Saints Cyril and Methodius
 * Saints Cyril and Methodius Day
 * It is simply ridiculous. Apart from info duplication, it's also hard to defend those four articles from the frequent POV attacks. NikoSilver 11:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree - Merge All per Nikosilver. Miskin (talk) 12:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree - Merge All. An excellent idea. I have merged the Alphabet Day into the main article. I leave it for others to merge the saints. -- Evertype·✆ 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree The only argument against is countered by Britannica and other encyclopedias which do treat these together. The three separate articles have much duplication, but each is also missing relevant material found in another.  Maintenance issues are secondary, but also contribute to the argument.  Best to merge, and build this into a single feature article.  If and when it grows too long, then individual detailed articles can be broken off. —Michael Z. 2008-02-23 19:13 Z 
 * Agree I was a bit reluctant at first, by the argument made by Michael convinced me. Certainly, they can't all remain.--Aldux (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Cyril's native tongue
Pan-slavist editors should be more moderate about this article. I think every sane person would agree that Cyril's native tongue was Greek. Knowing this, I really don't see how any person can have more than one native tongue, despite what his mother's origin is. In that respect I can't see how a person who was born to a Greek father, brought up in the Greek manners and received Greek education could have any other mother tongue than Greek. The scenario of Slavonic being the mother tongue of Cyril could have stood a chance if for example he was born and raised to the same parents in a Slavonic-speaking nation, but since he was born and educated in Thessaloniki and Constantinople, this claim is nothing but extremism. Please accept history the way it is and stop fantasizing that Cyril was a Slav. Miskin 22:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Every "sane" university in Western and Central Europe (at least) teaches that his native language was also Slavonic. What is "insane" about this topic are the constant extremist and ridiculous edits and pseudo-arguments of Bulgarocentric, Macedonocentric or Greekcentric persons...Consider yourself to which group you belong...Juro 03:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that so. Trust me but I think I'm in better position to know what universities in "Western and Central Europe" say and don't say. How about yourself, do you have any personal experience on the subject? I don't think that calling out names is enough to establish your opinion in wikipedia. I could be extremely X-centric but I could also be right at the same time. Miskin 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not a Pan-Slavist (I'm an American of non-Slavic descent with no particular agenda here). However, two things in the Vita suggest that Cyril spoke both Greek and Slavonic natively. The first is that his mother was a Slav from the hinterlands of Thessaloniki, speaking the same dialect of Slavonic that later came to be used in Cyril and Methodius' translation of the gospels. The second item is Byzantine Emperor Michael III's comment that "солѹнѣне вьси чисто словѣньскъi бесѣдѹѭтъ" ("The inhabitants of Solun all speak perfect Slavonic"). Now I'm not "fantasizing that Cyril was a Slav." But he was certainly half-Slavic by ancestry, and the supposition that he spoke Slavonic natively can be made by virtue of his mother being Slavic, as well as the fact that the Thessalonians all grew up at this time with impressive knowledge of Slavonic (wasn't too long after the invasions). I'll change the comment on the page to more precisely point this out. Furthermore, in English usage, people can have more than one native tongue, since "native" means only that you learned them in such early childhood that they are maximally internalized. For example, a child growing up in France to parents of German and American origin who learns all three languages can fairly be said to be a native speaker of French, German, and American English. CRCulver 22:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I really find it hard to believe that you have no agenda on the subject. You removed the term "his native Greek" and replaced it with "the language of his society", as if you're afraid to imply the obvious. This is why I asked for the specific line where in your opinion Slavic is implied as Cyril's native language, because I had sensed that you were pulling it from the hair in order to conclude what you'd like to believe. Despite your personal interpretations of Vita, none of the above proves that Slavic was Cyril's native language. Regarding your the dialect in which he translated the gospels, that's just links to the fact that he was born in Thessaloniki, it does not imply a native status at all. Besides there are many sources that refer to his mother directly as Bulgarian, so again you have to make far too many assumptions before reaching your conclusion. As for Michael III's comment, we have a choice of taking it literally or not. If we take it literally, it is implied Thessaloniki was a half-Slavic city already where Slavic was spoken natively, hence it would be implied by default that Slavic was a native to Cyril, and there would be no reason to bring it up in the first place. Of course taking it literally would also force us to ignore all historical information that we already have on the Byzantine state, but that's probably something you didn't think of. If we don't take it literally and look at it as "All Israelis speak perfect English", then it's naturally assumed that it's spoken at a very good level by everyone, and yet it is native to no-one. Did you really need Michael III's statement to assume this? Macedonia was in the border of the Slavic world, and included Slavic minorities itself. English and French was not popular at the time, so I don't see what's more reasonable for the the citizens of Thessaloniki to have as a second language. As I said earlier, you're pulling it from the hair in order to support your own personal interpretation, something that is not accepted in a supposedly neutral encyclopedia. Your claim remains unsourced and I'm reverting it. Quoting the Vita looks ridiculous at this state anyway. Miskin 14:51, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Bulgarian, Macedonian, Serbian... his mother was a Slavic woman and Cyril's mission in Moravia was to defend the Slavs from germanisation and the other Slavs from hellenisation, which means he was, in a way, attached to the Slavs, not Greeks. It's a worldwide F.A.C.T. Cheers, Bomac 15:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that user:Bomac's enlightening views demonstrate perfectly which crowd X has an X-centric agenda which needs to be backed up. Miskin 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, if you like this type of arguments: I am in an even better "position" to know what they say and I have a lot of "personal" experience on the subject. The actual truth is that it is not even 100% sure that his native language was Greek. Anyway, the point here is that your personal opinion is irrelevant, this is an encyclopedia that has to present the standard opinions. The fact that this is the standard explanation by scholars (maybe except for Greek ones of course), that he had a Slavic mother and the quote from the Vita as well as the fact that he was selected to invent the first Slavic script, to use, teach and preach in that language in Great Moravia are proofs enough that his native language was Slavic as much as it was Greek. You will not find - just like with any other person from that time - a voucher saying: This is to certify that Mr. St. Cyril's native languages are Slavic and Greek. Signed by: the Pope and the Byzantine Emperor There is nothing else to discuss here. Juro 16:07, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. So I guess Juro and CRculver is the same person. You're the one who's passing personal opinions as facts, get the story right. Since common logic and general history are letting you down, such a voucher would be a good idea in your case. Please state the "non-Greek" sources which use those Vita references as a proof of Cyril's native tongue or quit pushing POV into the article. Miskin 17:46, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Juro and I are not the same person. I believe Juro is from the Czech Republic or has such ancestry. I am an American of no Slavonic heritage. Accusing me of such a matter is offensive to the principles of polite discussion here on Wikipedia. Now, concerning non-Greek references which use the Vita, evidence I would point to most of the primers of Old Church Slavonic available in English. These include those of Lunt, Schmalstieg, and perhaps Nandris. You seem to have missed my earlier point: in English usage, you can say that someone is a native speaker of a language if they learned it at such a young age that it is entirely internalized. That would include a great many Israelis, and would also include the inhabitants of Thessaloniki in the several centuries after the invasion of the Slavs. I wish you wouldn't try to make this a Greek-Slav ethnic war, as is so common in most Wikipedia articles on this part of the world. I'm on no one's side here, I edit these sorts of things only because my training in comparative Indo-European linguistics involves some acquaintance with Old Church Slavonic, and I'm just trying to ensure that the article remains congruent with the facts presented in OCS handbooks. CRCulver 19:24, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

About what's considered a "native tongue", you're wrong for the following reasons. No Israeli can have a native status of English, no matter how well he speaks it (unless of course he's an immigrant from an anglophone country). What he can have however is a knowledge of English at a native level, which has absolutely nothing to do with his origin (even the wikipedia templates reflect this). Northern Greece at the time of Byzantium did have Slavs, but you must realise that they were an ethnic minority that never managed to obtain political power within the Byzantine state. That's mainly due to the fact that Slavs never managed to penetrate large cities such as Thessaloniki and Constantinople, hence they settled mainly in the countryside. Until you provide evidence about a specific siege in which Thessaloniki fell to Slavic invaders, it's ridiculous to try to convince us that the quotation by Comnenus is meant literally. The first fall of Thessaloniki as a Byzantine city is to the Normans in 1185. This is a) a couple of centuries after Cyril's death and b) has nothing to do with the Slavs. Hence the Claim that all Thessalonians were half-Slavic or native speakers of Slavic (due to your personal interpretation of the quotation), is a contradiction to all Byzantine history as it's taught worldwide. Miskin 19:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish you wouldn't try to make this a Greek-Slav ethnic war, as is so common in most Wikipedia articles on this part of the world.

Which part of the world? You don't even know where I'm from. I don't have any agenda against the Slavs, on the contrary, if you check Talk:Marie Curie you find out that I have intensively disputed with French editors and administrators in order to establish Marie Curie's ethnicity as Polish (most people there thought I was Polish myself). I have also insisted in the article Skanderbeg that his half-Serbian nationality should be stated, so your accusations have really no basis. I'm in generally on watch for nationalist POV pushing performed by editors such as User:Bomac (he follows me around and reverts my edits intentionally), whose purpose in wikipedia is none other than the spread of propaganda, national myths and instigation of edit wars. The fact that many troublemakers like him happen to come from undeveloped countries, which in turn happen to be Slavic, is a mere coincidence. Miskin 19:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just one remark: Look at Miskin's contribution on VMORO's talk page about creating an "alliance" against the Macedonians: I think other comments are not necessary. The rest is just pseudo-scientific theatre, just like with most Eastern users here. And I know this Bulgaro-Macedono-Greek "triangle" from other wikipedias as well. Juro 19:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

VMORO is Bulgarian, which proves that I don't have a particular anti-Slavic agenda. Furthermore the Slavomacedonians' constant pushing of ludicrous national myths in wikipedia are a pain in butt for all Balkan nations (which are eventually insulted), and VMORO's co-operation with me is the proof of this. I don't know what kind of triangles your fantasizing, I think you've got issues that need to be sorted out elsewhere. Miskin 19:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's ironic that you are talking about Bulgaro-Greek-Macedonian conspiracy - it is a method you frequently use when spreading your misconcepts about Trianon, with Panonian (YU) and Bonaparte (RO). I don'n know much about the native language of Cyril, but given your background, it must have been Greek. 195.56.93.165 22:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice, but very stupid try (like always). Try to understand what a discussion is about, before you vandalize at least. Concentrate (you diletant worm): I am not talking about a Bulgaro-Greek-Macedonian conspiracy, but about the opposite: the fact that each of those parties tries to POVize this article in a different way. Nothing in common with your topic? I am "so sorry for you"...Juro 23:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

And your (un)civil behaviour proves it. Miskin 19:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I see an awful lot of supposition and logical extrapolations (which might be considered original research at best), and a lot of gossip about who the other editors are and what they've said and done. If no one's going to come up with a respectable reference to support one view or the other, then just leave it out of the article, stop wasting your time socializing, and be productive or go for a walk. —Michael Z. 2005-12-6 19:53 Z 
 * Responding to a note at the top of this section: When one's mother speaks one language, and one's father speaks another; the child typically is a native speaker of both. -- Evertype·✆ 17:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Citing neutral sources
To get this thing over with, this is a quotation from Catholic.org which gives a hint on what is a neutral interpretation of the Vita: Neutral interpretation: Because many Slavic people settled in Thessalonica, it is assumed Constantine and Methodius were familiar with the Slavic language. Chauvinist interpretation: Cyril's native tongue was Slavic because Comnenus said that all Thessalonians would speak it" (based on an unverified translation). Draw your own conclusions. Miskin 11:26, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Quotation from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 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. Give me one good reason why I should not put this into the article in order to precise the exonym "Byzantine"? I think a point on which editors are moderate and which ones are biased was again made. Miskin 11:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, we can be more clear. Concentrate: (1) Only children from a kindergarden can argue with Columbia Encyclopaedia and start to claim that Byzantine=Greek in a sense other then "let's not confuse our readers it is modern Greece so they are Greek". Even if you say Byzantine=Greek, the Greek is not the Greek as we understand it today, so it is wrong to use it. (2) Cculver has named to you a series of authors, do you have reading problems?? And I can add virtually any book from central and western Europe, where it is even normal to classify them as FULL Slavs, which I myself do not accept however. (3) HIS MOTHER WAS SLAVIC, which itself normally implies that not only his native language, but also his mother tongue was Slavic. He spoke a perfect Slavic, used it everyday in Great Moravia, was selected to create the Slavic alphabet, to translate the Bible, the civil code etc. into Slavic, to teach the language to other Slavs etc. Now, compare this with the number of arguments in favor of the statement that he was "Greek". And I am pointing out that for lack of time I have not checked the usual arguments in favor of the fact that he was Slavic used in book now, but the above is quite enough. (4) Are you able to understand the difference between a native language (Slavic, maybe also Greek) and the official language used for education and offices in multiethnic states (Greek) or not? (5) Cite a primary proof (the same proof you are requiring from the other side) for the statement that Greek was his NATIVE language and not only the language he used like anybody else in the country as the language of communication and education. (6)As far as I remember it was you who actually added the language sentence (correct me if I am wrong) and you have done it for the same nationalist reasons for which you have added the Greek name and refuse to accept the equally ridiculous additions of Slavic names. We can delete the sentence altogether and everybody will be happy, except you of course.Juro 17:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Children of the kindergarten". You make me smile. If citing neutral sources such as Columbia is childish, then I really have nothing more to say to you other than letting an admin decide on this. "Byzantine" is a modern exonym for the Romaic nation, "Greek" is not as it was in use by a minority of Byzantines and a majority of non-Byzantines at the time. I'm not a resident of Greece, nor I do have any ancestors with "Greek" nationality, yet I'm myself a Greek. To call the Byzantines "Greeks" is like calling the Ottomans "Turks" or the modern British "English". I didn't replace the word "Byzantines" in the article with "Greeks", because I didn't feel the insecurity to make uneducated readers know right away what Cyril was. I just pointed out that I could have done so, and I'd have plenty of neutral sources to back me up with. If you people insist on pushing such unsourced POV in the article, I'm gonna have to reconsider my "being moderate". If your poor historical knowledge ignores the name change from "Romaic" to "Greek" then I'm really not in position to give you a history course. However as I am a moderate person, I have an advice for you. Instead of doubting the continuity between Byzantium and Greece, you should rather be doubting the link between Byzantines and ancient Greece. Either way I don't think you're capable of making a point so have it your way. Back to the subject, Cculver has named a bunch of authors yet hasn't quoted none. Cculver also pretends to not have a pro-Slavic agenda, something which frankly underestimates my intelligence. You keep talking about Cental and Western Europe as if it's the centre of the earth, and is if they agree with what you say in the first place. I live and have studied in Western Europe and I know of no institution that supports your chauvinist pan-slavist, unsupported views. Now if by "Western Europe" you refer e.g. to the "Czech Republic", then I think you should reconsider the terminology you're using to that of the rest of the world, something which comes down to my initial point about POV pushing. Thirdly (as you put it) "his mother was Slavic", which implies that he probably had a prior knowledge of Slavic, something that's well stated in the article. It has nothing to do with his own ethnic identity and the Columbia article is the proof of it, so please stop trying to distort history because of your own ethnic insecurities. "Mother tongue" doesn not mean literally the tongue of your mother (for crying out loud), and as you linked the term to the article you might as well have a look. Furthermore the rest of your remarks (speaking of Cyril as if he was your buddy, demanding proof about what's already scientifically established etc) is another demonstration of your poor historical knowledge and ethnic insecurities. Furthermore, I'm reverting to my sourced version, and if you still insist to pass your unsourced POV I suggest to summon a neutral, administrative third party to settle this out once and for all. I'm also copying the exact reference of Columbia in order to demostrate what "sourced edits" are about. Miskin 19:32, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * From what you write above, you would deserve a much worse attribute. Not a single sentence you write is correct and it is you who has abolsutely NO hiostorical knowledge and your sentences are illogical. I am not going to discuss these Byzantine/Greeks things with a person considering the Columbia encyclopedia a source. Saying that that is a source for kindergardens is an exaggeration. There are articles which contain not a single correct sentence there, so please do not be ridiculous. (Actually, you should be ashamed). And provide a normal scientific source proving that his native language was Greek. The sources for the other side have been provided to you by Cculver, you have provided nothing and have provided no reason why those sources should be wrong. It is you who added the edits, so it is you who has to provide a source (other then popular encyclopedias) supporting your opinion. And concerning his mother, firstly I have not read the article linked by me (so ignore the link),secondly you seem to have an intellectual blackout: Maybe if I write it for a 3rd time you will switch on your brain: What is wrong about the statement that if a person has a Slavic (or XY) mother and speaks the language perfectly, the for lack of other hints, it is reasonable to assume that his native language is at least as much the language of his mother as it is the language of his father. (How do you think the native languages of other historical persons from the 9th century are determined?) And What is the particular reason (other then the Columbia encyclopaedia) for saying that his native language was Greek (which was the official language of the empire)? Two very simple questions. And I am not interested in your personal background, I will not provide you with infos on my personal backgournd and I am not from the Czech Republic. Juro 19:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

No more talk, I provided you sources and you're still replying with POV. I'll just keep reverting you then. Miskin 14:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A summary for readers: Miskin has provided no source for his claims, ignores sources named by the other side, has not answered two simple questions and now he announces that he will revert (and has done it already) a version restricted to undisputed facts (i.e. Byzantine instead of Greek and a list of languages in which he was fluent), clearly implying that his only aim in this (just like in many other discussions in the wikipedia) is to turn the person to a pure Greek, be it by reinterpreting Byzantine to Greek, be it by extrapolating the present to the past, be it by ignoring the fact that he just does not know what language(s) he spoke at home, be it by reinterpreting the attribute "Greek" as "having Greek as native language" etc. The only point of his edits here is to get 10 times "Greek" into this article.Juro 20:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this controversy is specifically about yet, but I can tell you that continually reverting is never the way to accomplish anything on wikipedia. Developing a consensus through discussion here is, whenever there is a dispute.  You keep reverting to an old version that reverts everyone else's edits made since then to prove whatever your point is, eg. my addition of a category, and someone else's disambiguating Hebrew, and that alone doesn't sit well with me for starters (although it may turn out that your view is more well cited) but I'm sure it isn't such a big deal that you need to cry "extremism" just because someone disagrees with you, and think you and everyone else here should probably calm down about this. ፈቃደ 18:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Miskin, what do you have on mind?!?
St. Cyril helped the Slavs with the Slavonic language he used. No matter how many sources you list, all the Slavic nations know that Cyril was a Slav predominantly. Bomac 19:51, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Bomac, in a way I'm glad you're here and speak your opinion every now and then. You always provide the live example of the kind of extremist crowd that I'm battling against. Miskin 14:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

the source that the article mentions
can be found here. +MATIA &#9742; 20:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

And according to this very article: born at Thessalonica, of Greek descent, but acquainted with Slavonic, which is miles away from having Slavic as native. Anyway arguing with extremists is a waste of time. Miskin 14:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Now, LOOK AT THIS SENTENCE: it says that his FATHER WAS OF GREEK DESCENT. Although this is just a declaration and no evidence (i.e. certainly not that evidence you require from the other side), the point is we are talking primarily about his mother (maybe you still have not noticed that). And Miskin, by looking at your past edits I know very well that you are what is called highly hypocritical and call other users by attributes that actually refer to yourself or simply repeat what they have said to you, so you will not trick me with your statements. I also know by looking at your past edits that you are a highly nationalist user, but I accept that because I know that Greece is one of those countries where such behaviour is considered normal. My true problem with what you write is that you are not thinking logically, even nationalism needs logical arguments and not renamings and declarations, if it is supposed to be successful. Juro 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The link above ( http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc03/htm/ii.11.xviii.htm ) is a source that this article has used and still uses now. I encourage everyone to be WP:CIVIL. Whether his mother was slavic is disputed among scholars (I have read something about that in the past but got no link right now). However, in my opinion his work is much more important than the ancestry of his parents. +MATIA &#9742; 00:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Me too, but it is Miskin who added the native language stuff and fails to add at least a logical argument where one could at least say "OK, this is a valid way of argumentation, so let's mention it". Instead he is playing with words, renaming etc., and it is all the time the same. Juro 01:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Disambiguation link
I've had to correct the link to the disambiguation page, "Hebrew" to point to Hebrew language three times (the first two times, this correction was swept away in reversions of edits prior to my correction). I have no inkling of the right answer to any disputes over Saint Cyril's linguistic gymnastics, but please make sure that any links to a language point to the actual language, and not a disambig. Thanks. bd2412 T 09:45, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyril's Slavonic name
Miskin, why have you reverted the addition of St Cyril's Slavonic name? I can understand your disbelief that he might have spoken Slavonic natively, but there's no reason to erase the Slavonic name from the beginning of the article. St Cyril has been written about more in Slavonic languages than in Greek, and remains precious to precisely Slavs. Just as the article on Kiev has both the Russian and Ukrainian names at the top, reflecting its importance to two communities, the article on St Cyril should have both the Greek and Slavonic forms of his name at the top. CRCulver 18:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The problem with the Slavonic name is that it was the Macedonian name (correct me if I am wrong) that was added, not the old Slavic name. And (unfortunately, I do not speak Greek, but) maybe we have the same problem with the Greek name. Juro 20:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

St Cyril has been written about more in Slavonic languages than in Greek, and remains precious to precisely Slavs. You answered your own question. Cyril contributed to Slavic culture, as in a lot, so it's natural that many extremists and Pan-Slavists will try to claim them as their own. This of course has nothing to do with the historical facts: That he was a Byzantine Greek missionary of Christianity to the enemies of the Byzantine Empire, which included Slavs, Arabs and all the places the two brothers visisted. He was raised and educated to the manners of the Greeks, born to a Greek, and served the Greek nation (by being a missionary), isn't that enough arguments to counter the naive remark "has been written about more in Slavic languages than in Greek"? I think you would agree that it is, if for no other reason, because it's sourced as such. Furthermore I'm not erasing the Slavonic name from the article, as a Slavonic name has never been there in the first place. I'm only reverting the version of an extremist editor of low-valued status who only edits this article because I am. Now give me one good reason as to why I should not start the article with "Greek missionary", as Encyclopedia Columbia indicates. Miskin 18:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Venice meeting is doubtful?
What is the source for the assertion that the debate in Venice probably never happened? All my handbooks of OCS assert its historicity. Granted, the precise wording of St Cyril's defence is probable a creation of a later author (as are most speeches in classical works), but the notion that a showdown with the trilinguals occurred there is widely believed. CRCulver 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Since when do editors need to provide sources for things they have never claimed? Miskin 19:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's right there in the article: The account of a discussion in Venice on the use of Slavonic in the liturgy is doubtful. CRCulver 19:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It wasn't added by me. Miskin 19:20, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Furthermore nobody has brought up any sources that would back up the initial argument. The only thing that this debate has proved is that pro-Slavic editors are motivated strictly by ethnic pride, completely ignoring the established academic view. Miskin 19:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * See the above discussion above the "missing" sources. What are YOUR sources, other then reintepreting Byzantine to Greek? Do you actually read what the others write here? Juro 20:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism by User:Bomac
According to Vandalism (Deleting or altering part of a Wikipedia official policy with which the vandal disagrees, without any attempt to seek consensus or recognize an existing consensus.), User:Bomac who is reverting from a sourced, existing version to an unsourced and POV one (by constantly adding the name in the Slavic languages) is officially recognized as vandalism and can be reverted as many times as it takes. Miskin 19:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Not so, it's a content dispute rather than simple vandalism, and the WP:3RR applies as per normal. -- ChrisO 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Although I consider that debatable, thanks for protecting the article ChrisO, now discussion can be continued with no such harrassment. Miskin 19:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Article protected
I've temporarily protected the article. There are some issues with it besides the ones that Miskin and Bomac have raised - I'll work up a new version and replace the existing one. -- ChrisO 19:36, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

See also the source that the article uses. +MATIA &#9742; 19:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The page has been saved at a wrong version. Miskin, I have asked you two very simple questions. You have failed to answer them and did not provide any source other then the Columbia Encyclopaedia, which in addition however - if I understand your edits well - only uses the word "Greek" in the introduction as an attribute, which can mean anything. If you seriously consider that an argument, then instead of constantly vandalizing this encyclopaedia, you should see a doctor, and I mean that. Juro 20:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The page has been saved at the sourced version (Columbia and Catholic encyclopedia). I have provided you with various neutral sources which back up my claims and counter your own. On the other hand you haven't provided a single source in order to remotely support your position and you have characterised the act of sourcing as "childish". Having said that, I really don't know with what logic arguments you continue to complain (if any). Miskin 20:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Columbia enc. and Catholic enc. are NO SOURCES. You can equally use the wikipedia as a source, that's the same type of "source". If nobody has told you that yet, then I am telling you that now. I am sure there are texts which provide concrete arguments, why Greek was his native language (I have never seen them, although I have dealt with this topic a lot), but since it is you, who has changed the version not mentioning his native languages to a version saying that his native language was Greek, it is you who has to provide a source backing your claim. Secondly, even if those "encyclop." were good valid sources (which they are not), the Columbia, for example, does not say that his native language was Greek Juro 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

By the way, the "Greek missionaries" reference from Columbia was not the main proof on the mother tongue issue, but a mere indicator as to why the current state of the article is moderate. The catholic encyclopedia reference however, is more than proof which back up my position and counter your own at the same time. I'm even willing to visit library in order to back this up. Miskin 20:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Do that (if I had the time, I would have done that myself too). If you can provide a normal source, I will accept that. Nevertheless, we will have to mention that sources in Central and Western Europe (because those are the only I know) consider him a Slav, and will have to visit a library too. Or maybe Cculver can cite from the books he has at home, thereby saving me that work.Juro 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Columbia's position and the general practice of scholars to refer to them as Greek, is done on the basis of their nationality. Was Cyril officially registered as a citizen of "Imperium Graecorum" (alternative name of the Byzantine Empire) or not? Are you at all familiar with this? Please answer me here before continuing. Miskin 20:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. What you are saying is absolutely ridiculous. You are doing the following: This procedure is completely illogical from the beginning to the end. The Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic country and someone's native language is determined by the true ethnic circumstances and the languages of his parantes and NOT BY THE NAME OF THE COUNTRY. What you are saying is equal to saying that a national minority's native language say in Spain is Spanish, because the country is called Spain, so he is "Spanish", so his native language is Spanish. Do you understand that? Juro 20:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. setting aim: Cyril was Greek,
 * 2. reinterpreting Byzantine as Greek,
 * 3. looking for a source using the same reinterpretation in an attribute form
 * 4. reinterpreting the attribute referring to the nation, i.e. to the state as a whole (not nationality, nationality refers to ethnicity) as referring to the native language,
 * 5. deriving that the native language was Greek

I've unprotected the article now and posted a new version - see what you think. -- ChrisO 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. What my setting aim is has no context here, since I'm only debating using sourced documentation and not my personal ethnic feelings (unlike others). My setting aim could have been that Pericles was Greek, would that make him a non-Greek? Setting aims are completely irrelevant to the historical truth and therefore to the current debate.
 * 2. Take a look at the article Byzantine Empire (that was not written by me). During Cyril's era already, the Empire was widely referred to as Imperium Graecorum, which translates to "The Empire of the Greeks". The terms "Greek" and "Byzantine" are used alternatively by modern historians and the Columbie reference was the proof of this, whether you want to accept it is irrelevant. Furthermore the featured article Names of the Greeks can verify that for you.
 * 3. That didn't make any sense.
 * 4. It's not me who derives that, it's been recorded and taught so. In fact for any person of basic logic and historical knowledge it's taken for granted, it's only extremist and nationalist people who need such things to be spoonfed. Due all the respect but you have some very unbalanced things in this Talk page (of the type "Greeks of now doesn't mean the same thing with Greeks of Cyril's time"), I honestly think you have some serious ethnic insecurities. The other guy was trying to convince me that Thessaloniki was a primarily Slavic city at the time of Cyril, and when I asked him to point out one single historically recorded invasion by the Slavs before Cyril's time, he just stopped debating with me. Miskin 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I really do not know how to put it more simply: Maybe this way: It is legitimate to call the Byzantine Empire the Greek Empire at that time (after all Byzantine is an artificial name), but you cannot derive from that that the ethnicity and native language of all the inhabitants of the empire was Greek just because you call the country Greek Empire. I think this is a very clear argument, after all we have the same situation in almost all countries of the world. So, what is "granted" about this??? And as for "Thesaloniki", it was a Slavic town according to standard explanations, and I even remember a German book in which I have read details on it (from a certain Kühne or so), but I really do not have it here now. If you want to find quotes, you should look for books on Slavs or Old Church Slavonic. By the way, if you open e.g. The Times History of the World (to name an English book with maps) the whole Greek peninsula is marked as Slavic for the period in question in the chapter "610-1453 Byzantine Empire".Juro 18:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro I suggest you check the link I gave before. (the source originally used) +MATIA &#9742; 20:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See above. I do not understand what you mean. Juro 00:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro said: ''but you cannot derive from that that the ethnicity and native language of all the inhabitants of the empire was Greek just because you call the country Greek Empire. I think this is a very clear argument, after all we have the same situation in almost all countries of the world.''

It's this exact kind of comments that make me put your historical and general knowledge into question. You keep referring to the Easter Roman Empire as a "country" and you compare it to modern-day nation-states. The Byzantine Empire was not a country in the sense that you perceive it today, and it was not contemporary. It was a medieval Empire. As with every Empire, there is a dominant ethnic group which controls and characterizes the state. An Empire has varying borders, meaning a varying ethnic composition by definition. Yet an Empire also has a fixed region(s) where its predominant ethnic group inhabits. For the Byzantine state those regions were the Greek peninsula and a great part of Asia Minor. If you want a relatively modern equivalence you think of the British Empire (that possessed 1/3 of the world's territory) and the island of Britain. Anyway I'm not really here to give you a history lesson, I'm just pointing out again how you are unable to make a valid point by citing sources, and every single of your edits are based on what we call a POV. Miskin 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Juro said: And as for "Thesaloniki", it was a Slavic town according to standard explanations, and I even remember a German book in which I have read details on it (from a certain Kühne or so), but I really do not have it here now.

If wikipedia had an AI system it would have reverted all the edits you have made and blocked you from editing again. You keep proving me right at every single account, all your claims are based on historical ignorace and nationalist POVs. As I said earlier, Thessaloniki had never been penetrated by a foreign army prior to the Norman invasion of the 12th century. Unless you explicitely point out an undiscovered occupation of Thessaloniki by Slavic tribes prior to Cyril's birth, you realise that such claims serve only for laughs.

''If you want to find quotes, you should look for books on Slavs or Old Church Slavonic. By the way, if you open e.g. The Times History of the World (to name an English book with maps) the whole Greek peninsula is marked as Slavic for the period in question in the chapter "610-1453 Byzantine Empire"''

You demostrate again your imperfect knowledge of history. Nobody denied that there had been Slavic and Avar invasions in Greece, on the contrary that's an important chapter of Byzantine history. What you fail to understand is that the short-lived Scavinias (as they were called) of Peloponnese and Macedonia were in rural areas and not in the cities. Why? Because the cities back then were not like you imagine them today. An Empire had no soldiers guarding any frontiers, because its borders were always bound to a change. What formed the security of the Empire whas the protection of its individual cities, and Thessaloniki was the second greatest after Constantinople. Hannibal's invasion, sack, and occupation of the Italian peninsula during the Second Punic War was done without a single Carthigian soldier entering the city of Rome. If the second city of the Byzantine Empire had been Slavic, be sure that we would have known it. By the way, it's not me who is obliged to search quotes that would back up your claims, I know that they don't exist already. Do your own research before editing articles. Miskin 15:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Cyrillic and Glagolitic
Juro says: "NOT the Cyrillic alphabet, he HAS invented it as confirmed explicitely by the Pope in the contemporary Industriae Tuae letter".

The sources I've read say that it's uncertain whether Cyril invented either alphabet, Cyrillic or Glagolitic. Britannica says that "the Cyrillic alphabet was probably invented by later followers of the 9th-century “apostles to the Slavs,” St. Cyril (or Constantine), for whom it was named, and St. Methodius." Other encyclopedias describe it as "traditionally" ascribed to Cyril, and I've used that wording in the article. As for Industriae Tuae, I understood that to be concerned with the liturgy, rather than the script used to write it - do you have a copy of the text? -- ChrisO 21:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, I should emphasize that whatever claims are made in the article need to be referenced. See WP:CITE. -- 21:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Look, I am really an expert on this. Point one: He did invent the GLAGOLITIC, not the Cyrillic alphabet; you can ask any expert, everybody will tell you the same. Point two: I have a copy in Slovak in a book. The Pope says explicitely, "the Slavonic script invented by our brother Constantine". If you want the exact quote I would have to look for it. But if you do not believe me (I do not know why I should invent such things) we can keep the "traditionally" part, although for me that formulation sounds as if that was a legend.Juro 21:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing your expertise. The problem I have is that all of the sources that I've got here - about a dozen different encyclopedia - don't say definitively that Cyril devised either alphabet. They all use expressions like "said to have been devised by", "attributed to", and so on. I presume they have some good reason for doing so. If the "professional" sources are cautious about this, I think it would be best for us to be, too. -- ChrisO 21:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that general encyclopeadias are not good sources. Here is the exact quote (the matter is whether Rome will approve the Slavonic script, i.e. Glagolitic): And finally we (the Pope) approve by law the Slavic script invented by the deceased Constantine the Philosopher. Of course, one could say that this is not a sufficient proof, but as far as I know, there is hardly any other script in the world, for the origin of which there is a more explicite and official confirmation than for this one :)Juro 21:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, but which Slavic script? :) -- ChrisO 21:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Glagolitic, of course, because at the time the letter was written, there was no other Slavic script. The Cyrillic arose later. Juro 21:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

proposal
I think that this paragraph:

Cyril was canonized as a saint by the eastern Church, with the Roman Catholic Church canonizing him separately in 1880 along with Methodius. The two brothers are known as the "Apostles of the Slavs" and are still highly regarded in Orthodox Christianity. Cyril's feast day is celebrated on 14 February (Roman Church) or 11 May (Orthodox Church). The two brothers were declared "Patrons of Europe" in 1980.

should be in the introduction (or at least a summary of one or two lines). +MATIA &#9742; 00:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

More sources
Virtually all official references to the two brothers by the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox church rever to them as "Greeks", which implies native speakers of Greek. An example quoted from the Vatican documents: "Cyrillus autem et Methodius fratres, Graeci, Thessalonicae nati, ea nempe in urbe, in qua beatus Paulus et degit et operatus est, ab usque suae vocationis initio arctas rationes institutionis spiritualis ingeniique culturae cum Patriarchali Ecclesia Constantinopolitana susceperunt". Miskin

Quotation from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 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. Miskin

But, as I have explained to you above, "Greek" means "Byzantine" (a usage you are promoting yourself), not "having Greek as native language". Even today, if I say that he is a -say- German doctor, his native language can be say Turkish, but he is a doctor form Germany. I have shortly read a recent book on the brothers and the author (a prominent Slovak historian) explicitely says - I will sum it up - There were both Greek and Slavic inhabitants in Thessaloniki at that time, the Greeks claim the brothers were Greeks (ethnic Greeks), the Bulgarians etc. claim they were Slavs, it is not sure what the native language of his mother or father was, the arguments of both parties are "not persuasive" enough (I remember the last quote). Here you have your answer. There is not the slightest evidence for the claim that their "native" language was Greek. Cculver put it very correctly - Greek was the language of their country, so they had to know it, but that does not mean that it was/or was not their native language.

Ok let's have a look at Britannica's definition of 'ethnic Byzantine': Epirus also spelled Epiros  (1204–1337), Byzantine principality in the Balkans that was a centre of resistance for Byzantine Greeks during the western European occupation of Constantinople (1204–61). Before making further reverts please consult with sources such as wikipedia, Brittanica, Columbia, Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Frankish Empire of the 9th century etc, etc. Once you convince them that Byzantine doesn't mean Greek, come back to revert it. You must also debate with the historians of all the planet in attempt to convince them that Thessaloniki had been at some point sacked by Slavs during or before Cyril's time, in order to be able to assume a significant Slavic minority within the city. Miskin 22:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

This is the worst case of nationalism I have ever seen in the wikipedia. What are you talking about constantly? This is as clear as as a summer sky: Once again, the attribute "Greek" in the sources you cite means "from the Byzantine Empire" (i.e. Byzantine, i.e. from the Greek Empire - I hope I have mentioned all variants so that you finally grasp this). Do you understand that, or not? Juro 22:08, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

So I see that you are a man who never exaggerates (<-sarcasm). Stop ignoring the sources, it will get you nowhere. If you continue reverting I will ask for RFC and I'll go as far as it takes to eliminate your POV. The more you refuse to co-operate, the worse you make it for yourself. Miskin 22:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I never told you that Byzantine Empire is Greece, I just pointed out the 'fact' that ethnic Byzantine is recognized worldwide as ethnic Greek during the middle ages. Miskin 22:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Not that I disagree with his edits, but I'm in no way related to the anon user who's been editing the Cyril&Methodius articles all day today. Miskin 22:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

It is always difficult to talk to obvious idiots, who do not react to what others are saying, You never told me, but I am telling you that because the word "Byzantine" did not exist at that time, so they had to call the country somehow. Therefore they used "Greek". You still have not answered to me whether you understand what I am saying or not (although, when talking to a person that is even denying that there were any Slavs in Greece at that time, I am quite sure you don't). And I am repeating for the xth time, show ne a source (do not dare to use Columbia or Britannica) that provides a proof for your claim that their "NATIVE LANGUAGE" was Greek. There is no such source. Juro 00:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

And to be clear: I changed my opinion, I always thought that his father was ethnic Greek, and it is you showed me that not even that is proven .Juro 00:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Common sence
For all of you who keep erasing the fact that Ciryl knew slavonic. Consider this - he and his brother were chosen to create the alphabet, not only because they knew Hebrew, Greek, Arabic, etc. they must have known Slavonic too, because Byzantine Empire would not send two church "bozos" on a mission to create that alphabet if the "bozos" were not fluent in that language, remembre they managed somehow to translate the Bible in Old Church Slavonic. Second, The Empire was known as a political player of intriges, packts, bribing, ass-kissing, etc. - whatever it takes to get the job done. The "bozos" would't have been accepted as missioneries in Moravia and they would't have had any slavonic followers if they had't known Slavonic, in the slavic world things like these don't happen b/c of plain sympathy. And last, Cyril must be the only known Greek EVER to go so far as to risk his own life for a cuase that was never ment to be a Greek one at the end, a barbarian cause. -- Boris 02:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Greek was his native tongue and ethnicity, that's something you have to realise sooner all later, as all contemporary and modern sources testify. Thessaloniki was the second greatest city of the Byzantine Empire (Imperium Graecorum), and it was never penetrated by Slavic invaders. He knew Arabic and Hebrew because of his education, and Slavic because of the geographical location of Greek Macedonia (near the Slavic Kingdoms). Before the mission to the Slavs, Cyril had been a missionary in Islamic countries, which means that he was as fluent in Arabic as he was in Slavonic. Therefore, all your original research on the motives of the Greeks to send Cyril as a missionary to the Slavs, are irrational. According to your logic he might as well have been Arab or Jewish as much as Slav. Last but not least, the Greek church obviously did not send missionaries to the Slavs out of plain sympathy. They viewed the Slavs as a great threat that could be tamed by cultural assimilation, and even better, be used as an ally against the Latin West. Cyril's innovation, was the fact that he promoted Christianity by translating the Bible from Greek to other languages other than Latin. Why do you think that half of the Slavic countries are Orthodox and the other half is Catholic? Cyril never risked his life nor ever had a personal cause. His orders came from the Greek Orthodox Church; had the church commanded him not to translate the Holy Book, he would have never done so. Miskin 13:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Where was Greater Moravia?
I've recently read about the theories that the Greater Moravia where Cyril and Method went for their mission, was in fact not the present-day Moravia in Czech republic, but actually an area in the south of modern-day Vojvodina in Serbia, around the confluences of the rivers Sava, Tisa and Morava with the Danube. That theory makes quite a lot of sense to me, for various reasons:


 * I don't see why would the Emperor send envoys into such a distant land s the northern Moravia, as he had trouble much closer to home, with Bulgars on one hand, who were expanding at the time, and the Franks, who gained a strong eastbound march by crushing the revolt of Ljudevit Posavski a few decades earlier.
 * Slavic Pannonia had a number of strong duchies, from Nitria in the north to Balaton principality to Ljudevit's domain; however, there seems to be a void in the southeastern Pannonia, even though it was a most populated area even in Roman times, with towns like Sirmium or Mursa; it would be only logical that a local domain sprang at the area.

Does anyone know of futher sources regarding that theory? Are there even any indisputable facts proving that the Greater Moravia was in the north than in the south?

you don’t know a thing
--Makedonomaxis 03:41, 18 March 2006 (UTC)Makedonomaxis EUREKA(this guy found moravia).Afcourse moravia is a southern panonia. and stop arguing about who is macedonian and who isn’t. Nowadays everybody from our neighbouring countries wants a piece of our history and piece of our Holy Land. They want to take our saints our kings and our revolutionaries our holy monasteries in one word they want to change our identity, they are body snatchers. To understand Macedonian people, their culture and their history you must be born in Macedonia or lived there for a very long time. After for you everything will be clear and then you will realize how truth is so simple, everything is going to be so simple that you will think that you rediscovered yourself from inside of you.

I am proud to be Macedonian...[Makedonomaxis]

If somebody wants I will throw them some facts. 1)Thessalonica was formed by Kasander ,Alexander's the Great commander who married Alexander’s sister. 2)When st. Paul came to Greece he was departed from there because Greeks in those times where pagans(polytheists - believed in many gods)and in Thessalonica he was accepted with his teachings. 3)Cyril its a Macedonian name(Kiril,Kire etc). 4)Ohrid the town of st.Cyril and st.Metodius students is second city to Jerusalem by the number of churches and monasteries ,more than 365 for each day of the year so think now why would Ohrid belong to Greeks Serbians or Albanians or it was Bulgarian. Who will build and invest in foreign country so much. No one except we Macedonians.

I hope this is enough for you people, but be aware I have many many more facts and I know the truth will surface one day. God be with you Macedonians. If you don’t know or you are not aware of every single man and women have something inherited from us Macedonians because Alexander spread the Hellenic, Egyptian And Persian culture witch where most advanced cultures in those times so everyone is a little bit Macedonian in the end but Macedonians are Macedonian forever.


 * The word is "Makedonomachos". Miskin 12:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cyril and Methodius' mothers Maria was Slavic?
It is stated in the article that Cyril and Methodius' mother was possibly slavic, does anyone have any solid proof that she was a Slav, if so present it, if not the statement will be removed as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that requires facts not speculation.

And also in the article it reads "Byzantine Emperor Michael III claimed that all Thessalonians speak perfect Slavonic", this also needs to be verified as a fact or it too will be removed from the article. E-mail adress 11:33, 26 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Michael III's famous dictum is in the Vita of Cyril. CRCulver 17:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

""Byzantine Emperor Michael III claimed that 'all Thessalonians speak perfect Slavonic" Even if Michael III did say that, it falls original research to claim that because of this dubious quotation Thessalonians might have known Slavonic since childhood. Historically it is factual that Thessalonika was never penetrated by the Slavs so the above conclusion is a biased misinterpretation. Miskin 12:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the correct quotation: Then said the emperor to Constantine the Philosopher, "Do you hear these words, philosopher? None but you can go and do this work. (86) Therefore take many gifts, and go there, and take your brother Methodios. Because you hail from Thessalonica, like all from there you speak a pure Slavic tongue." --Aldux 12:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Finally. -- Boris 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So I guess the Slavic mother theory becomes moot. The quotation informs us that all Thessalonians were fluent in Slavonic as a second language, which explains how Cyril was too. Miskin 00:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

However the fact remains that Thessalonica was never penetrated by Slavs, and the ones who had settled its hinderlands during the great 7th century invasions were taken to Cappadocia by Justinian II, hence the citation is still dubious. On second thought the Bulgarian state was not too far from Thessalonica therefore strong contact between Greek Macedonians and Slavonic-speakers definitely existed. It is possible that the Emperor is referring to his Imperial instruments, such as Macedonian Greek missionaries of Christianity who were by definition fluent in foreign languages. Naturally the Thessalonians should be the most fluent in Slavonic. I'll check the Greek text in the first chance I get. Miskin 00:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The territory and whole present-day Greek peninsula WAS penetrated by Slavs, actually they formed the majority according to most non-Greek (as always) texts. That's all. The rest is Greek propaganda and we have had such discussions in other wikipedias and it always turns out, that what we have to do here with is classical 19th century (Greek) nationalism. I understand that Greek sources might be saying different things, but that's not the reality. There is nothing else to be said about this. And I repeat, it is not even sure that the father was Greek, because what we actually know is that he was "Byzantine", because that is what the word refered to at that time, not to ethnic Greeks. So, it is perfectly possible that he was not Greek, for example Slavic (although I personally do not believe that because of his alleged name). It is as simple as it is. But I am repeating this for the 10th time here. Juro 01:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, yeah I know your story by heart, the Slavs pernetrated Macedonia and settled there and have been a majority ever since. Heck, if you come to other articles some people will try to convince you that Slavs are still a majority in Greek Macedonia. It's really pathetic that such convictions apparently have a widespread acceptance amongst the Slavic crowd independently of ethnic origin. It is true that the Great Slavic race penetrated Macedonia and even lead a massive siege on Thessaloniki in 598, but they never penetrated the city itself. The settled its hitherlands until Justinian II alone captured some 100,000 and moved them to central Anatolia. The region remained relatively slav-free up until the 14th century Serbian and later Ottoman occupation. However according to all demographic data available, Greek Macedonia has always had a predominantly Greek population (hence why the Serbians let the Greeks have it). In the early 20th c. Slavs in Thessaloniki were first generation immigrants who formed the city's smallest minority, and were isolated in north-eastern suburb. I've sourced all of the above in this and other articles, and I can direct you if you want. As for the "Greek scholars" childish claim, the sources right next to me are ironically one Slavic and two British. You still fail to accept what "Byzantine" stands for, despite the numerous sources I have provided. I'm not gonna waste my time any further. Because I highly doubt that you have read neither Greek nor non-Greek scholars' views on the topic, I'm forced to believe that your claims verify the saying "imprefect education is worse than ignorance". Next time you speak about your extremist views, make sure you have the right sources to back them up with. Miskin 09:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all that irrelivant rhetoric about modern issues and modern human geography which have no bearing at the issue at hand. Seriously, that sort of thing should be deleted as spam.


 * According to the Russian Primary Chrinicle and several other sources, their mother was slavic, and they were competent in both languages, that's why they were chosen as missionaries (hense why the Russian Church tends to use an archiac south-slavic language instead of Russian - there are some sources from the balkans as well if you care to do the research instead of spouting pointless rhetoric, but the names fail me at the moment). I don't have a copy at hand, so I can't source it, but it's there for anyone who cares enough to look.


 * Now most sources from the middle ages you have to take with a grain of salt. It may or may not be true, just like many "facts" from those days. But the fact is, its written down by people who were alive shortly after Cyril died, and taken as a given by them. That, in my mind, is more valid than any agenda-filled speculation. Kyle543 06:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I guess an editing-experience inferior to 100 edits can be the source of such naive statements. The general argument was not about their mothers' origin, but I assume you never went through the debate anyway. Balkan and Slavic sources would normally don't count as something "non-partisan" and therefore neutral, hence the presence of "possibly". This claim should have been completely removed since it has no source in the first place, I don't see how some can complain about it. Miskin 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The Primary Chronicle is used extensively on WP as a source, without objection. To claim that it is "partisan" is ridiculous. CRCulver 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

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) (“Global History & Geography” by Phillip Lefton, p. 130) http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…rtutis_lt.html Pope John Paul II. Xenovatis
 * (1)There has been no evidence brought forward that their mother was of Slavic descent.
 * (2) There has been evidence brought forward that they were Greek.
 * 2.1 Quotation from The Columbia Encyclopedia, 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.
 * 2.2 Encyclopedia Britannica Saints Cyril and Methodius: "(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.
 * 2.3 etymonline.com refers to the name Cyril as Greek. The name Cyril is L.L. Cyrillus, from Gk. Kyrillos, lit. "lordly, masterful," related to kyrios "lord, master. http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=cyril&searchmode=none
 * 2.4 Encyclopedia Britannica mentions that the brothers "invented a Slavic alphabet based on Greek characters" (Saints Cyril and Methodius) which indicates that their native language was Greek.
 * 2.5 The Slav Pope John Paul II who in 31/12/1980 (in an official encyclical-Egregiae Virtutis-to the Catholic Church) and 14/2/1981(in the S.Clement church in Rome) said that Cyrillos and Methodios were “Greek brothers, born in Thessaloniki”
 * 2.6 the Serb historian V.Bogdanovich, says that “Kyrillos and Methodios were born in Thessaloniki and were Greeks in origin, not Slavs” (History of the ancient Serbian literature, Belgrade 1980, pg.119).
 * 2.7 Then in the ninth century Cyril and Methodius, two Greek monks from Thessaloniki, 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)
 * 2.8 Two Greek brothers from Salonika, Constantine, who later later became a monk and took
 * 2.9 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)
 * 2.10 In answer to this appeal the emperor sent the two brothers Cyril and Methodius, who were Greeks of Salonika and had considerable knowledge of Slavonic languages. (The Balkans: A history of Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Rumania, Turkey (1916)” by Forbes, Nevil, p. 21)
 * 2.11 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)
 * 2.12 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)
 * 2.13 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)
 * 2.14 the byzantine emperor sent two greek monks, Cyril and Methodius, to spread Christianity to the slavic people.
 * 2.15 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 Yugoslave” by Rebecca West, P. 710)
 * 2.16 “Cyrillus autem et Methodius fratres, Graeci, Thessalonicae nati…”http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j…irtutis_lt.html
 * 2.17 Cyril and Methodius, Saints (muth..us) [key], d. 869 and 884, respectively, Greek missionaries, brothers (R. L. Wilkens book “Judaism and the Early Christian Mind” (1971))x
 * (3) Hence I am changing the ethnonym Byzantine to Greek and removing the passage claiming Slavic descent for the mother. Further since he was Greek, his native tongue would have been Greek so I also changed "his society" to "native". Finally I added the adjective Greek to refer to the monastery at which Methodius was an abbot and to the name Cyril.Discuss before reverting.
 * (4) I note that slavic POV promoting user Juro has been discredited as a sockpupeteer. see here: evidence

Hey, guess what, if your mother is a Slav from the hinterlands of Thessaloniki, as the hagiography of Sts. Cyril and Methodius recounts (and since you are Greek, you must be Orthodox), and your father is Greek, you can fairly be called both Greek and Slavic. CRCulver 19:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenovatis 19:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are actual historical (as opposed to ecclesiastical) sources saying they were Greek. They mention nothing about being Slavic. That makes them Greek.
 * The sources brought forth saying they are Slavic are three (two of them in Bulgarian only).
 * Cite where it mentions their mother was slavic and the relative validity of that source against the other 30 I brought.
 * As Slavic and Greek are ethnic identifications they are mutualy exclusive. You can be one or neither but not both.
 * Stop making personal references or you will be reported (again as I see)


 * No, ethnic designations are not mutually exclusive. Just look at the number of people who identify themselves as both Mexican and American, or people in antiquity who felt they were Roman and spoke an Iberian language. As a result, the sources which ascribe a Slavonic mother tongue (Nandris, Schenker, Schmalstieg, Gardiner, Lunt, Auty) to them are just as valid as the ones saying they were Greek. Do you accept the hagiography or not? Some patriotic Greek you are if you'd discount the Church for no real reason. CRCulver 19:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenovatis 20:21, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * You are confusing ethnicity with nationality. Greek can mean both an ethniciy and a nationality. Here it used as an ethnic designation. The examples you mentioned fall in the same category, Mexican Americans are ethnically Mexican and nationaly American. The same applies to ancient Romans and Medieval Romans as well, in factt Cyril was a Roman as well (a Rhomaios, as the term Byzantine was not used by Byzantines themselves) as well as an ethnic Greek.
 * My religion is no concern of yours I would thank you to refrain from any more adhominems in the future.


 * No, sorry. Maybe you went to some backwater university, because otherwise you would have seen that modern scholarship prefers to attribute to people as many identities as possible. This business of excluding people from this or that identity is the stuff of a century past. And as for "ad hominems", what are you going to do? I gather you must be new here. CRCulver 20:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Xenovatis 21:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning Lunt was a collosal mistake, if not indicative of obfuscation on your part, since Lunt himself maintains that the brothers were Greek. See Slavic Review, June, 1964, p. 216 "Greek brothers..."
 * You will notice I am quoting book, chapter and verse. Unless you do the same your own sources cannot be taken seriously.
 * Are you basing your argument on your own interpretation of modern scholarship? If not so please supply the relevant generally accepted guidelines that say we should use the greatest possible number of identities. Otherwise this is just your POV.
 * Further to above there are still no sources that one of this identities should be slavic to begin with.
 * Additionaly, in the spirit of multiple identities you espouse we should consider European, Caucasian, Areian, Roman, Macedonian and Bulgarian (together these two!), Indo-European, Medditeranean etc. And in the spirit of fairness include them all.
 * I see you are proud of your insulting behaviour. This reflects poorly on you and is indicative of yourvcharacter.
 * As for backwater university, I attended St. John's college in Oxford university which, as opposed to the university of Loyola which you attended is a famous academic institution.

Xenovatis 21:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a previous quote by user Crculver: "Now I'm not "fantasizing that Cyril was a Slav." But he was...". And this is by him as well: " you can fairly be called both Greek and Slavic". He is contradicting himself.
 * Further you have made changes to the father's ethnic ancestry which was not one of my edits thus belying your stated purpose of reverting to a form accepted for two years. This would indicate that you were lying when yo.u made the statement
 * Additionaly you have removed the ehtnonym Greek from the description of the monastery of Polychron when I have brought a Britannica reference stating explicitly that the monastery of which Methodius was an abbot was Greek. See here: Encyclopedia Britannica Saints Cyril and Methodius: "(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 what is explicitly termed a Greek monastery testifies to his being Greek and hence to his brother as well
 * You have still not even attempted to address any of the over 20 sources explicitly calling the brothers Greek.
 * Ecclesiastical documents like the lifesn of saints were not written as historical books but rather with a clear ideological agenda, that of strengthening faith. Hence we can be sure that if it helped the faith of Slav converts to be told their apostles were of part-slavic origin that would have been included. It would, so it has. Further the author of the Vita was the Slav St. Clement of Ochrid with a vested interest in both promoting the faith and establishing autochthony for slavic letters. Finally another name for the vita cyrili and vita methodi is Moravian-Pannonian Legends.
 * I am ofcourse reverting to the correct version, for the second time today after a no-name vandal hacked the page yesterday as well.

Merge to Saints Cyril and Methodius
We should merge this into Saints Cyril and Methodius. It would probably not make sense to break up the Saints Cyril and Methodius page into a disambiguation to Saint Cyril and Saint Methodius; therefore we should do the opposite. Steven Bao (talk) 13:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) Agree by all means. Additionally, it's really hard to watch 3 articles for pov trolls. •N i k o S il v e r•  14:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose - I have to disagree, the single individualities of the two saints should be kept in mind, and each saint should have a single article; even in Niko has a point when he says it's really hard to watch 3 articles for pov trolls ;-)--Aldux 13:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I thought it would work, but indeed we have to discuss about the content of all three articles if we choose to keep them. I think, more or less, they will be the same article written three times with different titles! There is only some 10% of each Saint's own details that wouldn't be necessarily mentioned in the other Saint! I propose we have separate headings for their bios etc, but one article! •N i k o S il v e r•  14:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Agree Merge them PLEASEXenovatis (talk) 16:48, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

name
Does anyone disagree that "Cyril the Philosopher" doesn't comply as recognisable for Saint Cyril? Why was this article renamed without a consensus? I don't see with what criteria Saint Patrick gets to be an exception. Miskin 23:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Agree. Ss Cyril and Methodius are more significant in eastern Europe under those names than St Patrick is amongst the Irish under any name. Some proportionality and less American ethnocentrism (that systemic bias issue again), please.--Domitius 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Move reverted. `'mikka 23:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

They were Greek
Xenovatis 22:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Have presenteed over 20 sources (see here: "Cyril and Methodius' mothers Maria was Slavic?") stating explicitly that they were Greek. I am willing to debate the validity of those sources and I don't consider them all equally important. I invite you to focus on those by professional historians, as they are the majority.
 * Have seen no sources pointing to the contrary except for one reference stating that their mother "may have been Slavic", and that from a linguist not a historian. Further I have presented arguments as to whether the Vita is an objective source to Crulver who has not deigned to reply but has nonetheless chosen to revert without substantiation.
 * I invite slavic apologist (and orthodox convert from the apparently non-backwater university of Loyola) Crculver to counter these sources and present his own and to stop the revert war he is engaging in. I have already proven conclusively that Lunt, one of the names he mentions (without actual citation or other proof) as supporting his POV, is in fact saying exactly the opposite of what Crculver claims (see discussion "Cyril and Methodius' mothers Maria was Slavic?", Lunt), hence casting doubt on whether the rest of the names he purports support his position actually do so.
 * I have notified the Economic University of Viena that their IP is used to vandalise Wikipedia and propagate the user's pan-Slavist ideology as well as antihellenic canards(see here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:137.208.80.253). In the mean time I would respectfully ask the relevant unsigned user(s) to refrain from further vandalism.

I'm no anti-hellenist, I'm simply trying to ensure women and minorities are represented here. Since the Slavs and women were in an inferior position in the Greece of ca. AD 850, Sts Cyril and Methodius' Slavic identity inherited from their mother Maria should be emphasized here. And by the way, Lunt has written quite a bit over his career, but you should be able to tell from the accompanying references what exact book-length work of Lunt's I was pointing to. CRCulver 09:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Crculver, your interest on human rights and ethnic minorities is simply anachronistic. See WP:NOR please. Miskin 13:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your noble pretentions ring hollow when coupled with the abscence of facts that accompanies them. For their mother's descent you have only mentioned the Vitta but you have (1) not supplied any direct quote, (2) not anwsered my objections on it as a historical work detailed in the Cyril talk page, (3) not attempted to disprove the sources by actual historians explicitly stating that they were Greek, (4) not anwsered my argument that following your logic there can be no limit on the inflationary tendencies of multiple identification again detailed in the Cyril talk page. As for Lunt again you have (1) not cited book chapter and verse as I have done, instead vaguely asserted that he supports your position, (2) this as I have shown (by citing an exact passage) is false sinceLunt himself explicitly calls the brothers Greek. Further (3) Lunt, like the other OCS linguists you mention is not a historian and hence not the expert to be consulted in determining a historical fact such as the brothers' ethnicity. Finally please follow up this discussion on the Cyril talk page so that other users may follow the exchange of arguments as well as so that it is in context within the framework of the Cyril and Methodius discussion. I will be copy pasting this segment to Cyril Talk for completeness. Please respond there. Xenovatis 19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo…rtutis_lt.html Pope John Paul II.
 * 1 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. “
 * 2 Encyclopedia Britannica Saints Cyril and Methodius: "(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.
 * 3 "Cyril and Methodius….two Greek brothers..." Lunt, Slavic Review, June, 1964, p. 216
 * 4 “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)
 * 5 “Kyrillos and Methodios were born in Thessalonica and were Greeks in origin, not Slavs” (V.Bogdanovich, History of the ancient Serbian literature, Belgrade 1980, pg.119).
 * 6 “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)
 * 7 “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)
 * 8 “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)
 * 9 “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)
 * 10 “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)
 * 11 “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
 * 12 “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)
 * 13 The Slav Pope John Paul II who in 31/12/1980 (in an official encyclical-Egregiae Virtutis-to the Catholic Church) and 14/2/1981(in the St. Clement church in Rome) said that Cyrillos and Methodios were “Greek brothers, born in Thessalonica”
 * 14 “Cyrillus autem et Methodius fratres, Graeci, Thessalonicae nati…”http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/j…irtutis_lt.html
 * 15 “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)
 * 16 “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)

Xenovatis (talk) 17:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm no scholar, but I'm pretty sure that he would call himself a "Roman" i.e. a subject of the Byzantine Empire. So I'm pretty sure we can say that Cyril was a Byzantine monk and everyone should be happy. --Michalis Famelis (talk)  01:18, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Greeks
I am not sure why 86.145.183.125 changed "Byzantine Greek" into "Greek". I think the Byzantine Greek identity is a more accurate description and the article the link was referring to is quite illuminating. Or is there anyone disputing the "Byzantine Greek" identity of St. Cyril and Methodius? Tankred 23:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Byzantine Greek' is more accurate than simply 'Greek' because it refers to a specific historical era and links to specialised article. Miskin 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately Greek nationalists (ruling over the world?) will keep trying to make people believe that brothers ethnicity is "pure" Greek. Of course these same nationalists have checked their own ancestors up to Alexander the Great. My opinion is that where there is such big dispute (i.e. no minority claiming something), opinions of both sides should be mentioned --- Nedkoself bias resist 12:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been discussed over and over again and it was never proved that an alternative view exists. The Byzantine Greek identity is not disputed by anyone except some editors like Nedko who fail to see what NPOV is about. In order to include an alternative view per NPOV in the article it has to be proved that such a view exists and possesses a minimum amount of credibility in western scholarship. Wikipedia is not a place for publishing original thought. Nedko, your disruptive behaviour had been criticised even by administrators in the past but unfortunately not much has changed since then. Mind WP:NPA while you're at it, such hostile and uncivil comments could get you in trouble. Miskin 13:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

does anybody know anything about the bulgarian name constantine- cyril also had? does this refer to a name with which he had been called since his boyhood, since a certain point during his lifetime, after the inaguration of the two brother's mission, or after he had died and-or sanctified? any sources?Eumix 20:58, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

St. Cyril's name was Crho (Цьрхо), probably Old Bulgarian variant of present-day Kircho, and St. Methodius' name was Strahota (Страхота). --20:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC) --Vladko (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you reffering to Vladko and do you have any sources? Do you mean birth names or something else? Thanks.Xenovatis (talk) 23:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

You can find this theory in a book published in Bulgarian by two German Slavicists: Hoffer Edle von Sulmthal, Angelika:                                            Signatur: V/1220a Za Kiril i Metodij : opit za opredeljane narodnostta na slavjanskite apostoli Konstantin i Medodij i objasnenie na njakoi svărzani s tozi văpros obstojatelstva = Ein Versuch zur Bestimmung der Nationalität der Slawenapostel Konstantin und Methodi und zur Deutung einiger damit zusammenhängender Umstände = Opyt ustanovlenija narodnostnoj prinadležnosti slavjanskich apostolov Konstantina i Mefodija i ob-jasnenie nekotorych, svjazannych s etim voprosom, obstojatel'stv = An attempt to establish the nationality of the Slav Aposteles Constanine and Methodius and an explanation of some circumstances related to this questions / Angelika Hoffer Edle von Sulmthal; Michael Margaritov. -   Sofija: Izdat. na Otečestvenija front, 1989. - 325 S. ; 16,5 cm --Vladko (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I can't speak Bulgarian but thanks for taking the time to answer. Take care.Xenovatis (talk) 08:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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