Talk:Cyril and Methodius/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Neutrality

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neutral WP Reliable Academic Source saying they were Slavs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope that this fixes things...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said:

1. We do not know their ethnic origins.

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

3. Their intellectual affinities were pointing to their Slave orientation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Slavic nationalist

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

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

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

Falsifying sources

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

Maria, the "maybe" Slav

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let me propose a solution. It is needed that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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