Talk:Modestus (Apostle of Carantania)

Apostle of Carinthia vs. Apostle of Carantania in the title of the page
Although I have nothing against the denomination Modestus (Apostle of Carinthia), I think the title Modestust (Apostle of Carantania) is better. The polity he was sent to was in fact known as Carantania. Although there can be no doubt that Carinthia is descended from the Slavic principality of Carantania, they are still two different entities. Therefore, I think the page should be moved to Modestus (Apostle of Carantania). I'll wait for any comments. Viator slovenicus (talk) 13:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

"Apostle of..."?
@Viator slovenicus: '''"called...Apostle of Carantania or Apostle of the Carantanians" ? ''' You added these two denominations of Modestus to my text. I did quite some research, but although the Alpine Slavs in the area of present Carinthia were of course those of Carantania, and although Modestus of course evangelized the Carantanians, I have never come across these descriptions of Modestus that you have mentioned. Could you supply at least one serious reference for each, I mean apart from www.carantha.net/Jožko Šavli-infected sources, of course? It's because of factual truth in WIKIPEDIA. Thank you. Marschner (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can provide the sources next week: I'm on the move, so to say, right now. As I've said, I find the denomination "Carantania" better than "Carinthia", although I'm not opposed to it. In the meantime, I can remove the Carantanians that so obviously bother you (although I see no reason why). BTW, I don't use carantha.net among my sources; I don't think I've ever read it. Viator slovenicus (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of Wp, I suggest we discuss things before reverting people's contributions without any explanations. I personally believe "Apostole of Carantania" is a much better title: during Modestus' activity, the polity was known as Carantania and he was instrumental in Christianizing the Slavic (proto-Slovene) Carantanians. Carinthia is a later derivation. And although I don't want to deny the continuity between the two, nor am I against the denomination "Apostle of Carinthia" as an alternative name, I think there is no consistent argument of why the title "Apostle of Carinthia" is better than "Apostle of Carantania". I thus sstrongly suggest the title be reverted again to Modestus (Apostle of Carantania), as Marus Tusar already did. Viator slovenicus (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Marcos G. Tusar & Viator slovenicus  

Modestus was, of course, an apostle of Carantania, but has he ever been called that ? According to the Wp-entry "Apostles" Roman-Catholic tradition has reserved this title for another saint, the one that commissioned Saint Modest. I quote: "Apostle to Carantania: Bishop Vergilius of Salzburg (745–84)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles-). I've grown up in Carinthia, and in all my long life I've always heard Modestus called " der Apostel von Kärnten" or "apostol Koroške". In all the English sources I know his description is that of a "bishop of Carinthia", and locally he has been honoured with the epithet of "Apostle". Go to External Links on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_saints! It's always "Carinthia", never "Carantania"? And may I ask you, if Modestus is so important to you that you start an editing war even with an administrator, why don't the two you also concern yourselves with the Slovene site? The list of "Apostol" there gives 12 so-called Apostols from Skandinavia to Armenia, but none of Koroška or Karantanija! In all of Slovene Wikipedia only one "Modest" is mentioned, and that is a type of seagull! Marschner (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Marschner, despite my passionate adherence to the wikipedia policy of discussing issues through, I am not going to discuss on such a level. Your contribution (if we may call it that way) is full of senseless accusation and to be honest, I cannot really understand your point. I would ask you to rephrase your contribution, otherwise I cannot respond you. Regards, Viator slovenicus (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

"Alpine Slavs"?
I suggest not to call "alpine slavs" to the slovenes of the mddle ages. The Slavs were already separated into different people by that time (middle ages). They have they proper name...slovenes...if not please maka an entry with an article and an explanation of what is an Alpine Slav, his supposed culture, languagge, etc. --Marcos G. Tusar (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

@ Marcos G. Tusar O.k., I go completely agree with your claim that "the Slavs were already separated into different people by that time (middle ages) and had different names"  - didn't I mention the "Carantanians"? But just as the Bavarians at the time were by no means  "Germans", those Carantanians were no Slovenes  - yet (see your Ljubljana-Professor Peter Štih!), and let me quote an already much-used quotation: " Sclavi qui dicuntur Quarantani, or Slavs called Caranthanians" - Sclavi/ Slavs,  mind you, NOT Slovenes! And as they had settled in the Alps, you don't want them called Balkan Slavs, do you? Or Elb-Slavs, or Eastern Slavs, or..., not even Yugo-Slavs, am I not right? Marschner (talk) 16:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Celtic settlement on Magdalensberg
Although there is full agreement that on Magdalensberg there was once an important Celtic city, no traces of this settlement have been discovered so far(cf. Verena Gassner et al., ''Am Randes des Reiches. Die Römer in Österreich (=Österr. Geschichte 15 BC - 378 AD)'', Vienna 2003, p.47). All the excavation so far has resulted only in findings from the Roman period, which might be due to the concentration hitherto on the centre of the extensive settlement, and that was obviously completely "upgraded" by the Romans prior to their building a new provincial capital at the foot of the mountain. This is why I put in my question mark, which was removed. Although archaeologists had long believed that they were excavating a princely or royal Celtic town, the excavation team seems convinced now that they had in fact always been excavating remains that were actually of Roman origin. Marschner (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

"comprised of" in a quotation
User Giraffedata "fixed" a quotation from a source ("comprised of" ->"comprised of"), which is not permissible however poor the language of the source may be. This is why I undid his "fixing". But I added [sic!], which is the customary thing if there is something peculiar in the source quoted. Okay? Marschner (talk) 14:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)