Jump to content

Talk:East–West Schism/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 8

Criticism of reconciliation efforts

I deleted text which read very much like original research with this edit. In an effort to help provide sourced material on the general topic, I used Google Search and Google Books to look for sources. As it turns out, all I could find in the first few pages of results were Catholic sources which I used to support these two edits ([1] and [2]). I fear that my use of Catholic sources will re-inforce LoveMonkey's impression that I have a pro-Catholic bias. In this case, my use of Catholic sources are an artifact of the fact that no other suitable sources came up in response to my search requests. If there are other non-Catholic sources that can be used here, I would be more than amenable to using them. I just couldn't find any. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC) I will also note that it would really help if the appropriate text from the Metropolitan of Kalavryta's criticism were translated into English. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Here is a non-polished English translation of some extracts from the Metropolitan's blog of 21 November 2008:
THE POPE, THE PATRIARCH AND THE … UNITY OF THE CHURCHES
His All-Holiness the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomaios is once more in the epicentre of publicity with regard to the theological Dialogue between East and West, Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism.
...
The participation of our revered Patriarch in the worship of the Catholics and his prayer in common with the Pope evokes in many not only disquiet but also grief. The sacred Canons do not permit it! In the liturgy of Ravenna he was condemned for his exceedingly bold steps. And now too he is being condemned. He shows that he is transgressing the allowed limits in East-West communion. The common proclamation of the Symbol of Faith is an act of worship! Certainly it does not reach the bounds of sharing the Common Cup, i.e., the shared offering of the unbloody Sacrifice, but it does not cease to be a confession of Faith. Since we have many and many differences in our Dogma and Faith, since in its last phase (Ravenna 2007) the Theological Dialogue created so many disturbances among the Orthodox, our steps should be very very cautious. ...
...
...
1. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement can bear fruit unless the Roman Catholics stop their proselytism at the expense of the Orthodox in Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and anywhere else in the erstwhile Eastern Bloc.
2. No attempt at rapprochement can bear fruit unless the Roman Catholics abolish the Unia in Greece and everywhere else.
3. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement can bear fruit likewise unless the Roman Catholics cleanse themselves of the guilt laid upon them all these last years spilling the innocent blood of the Orthodox in Bosnia, in Croatia, by Stepinać and anybody else. And all that was done in the name of the Faith of our Christ!
4. No, absolutely no, attempt at rapprochement can bear fruit unless the Roman Catholics cleanse themselves of the guilt that they have shouldered by financing the Muslims in the war of Bosnia against the Orthodox, a crime committed only a few years ago. It has been written and said to satiety that the Vatican was at the time financing the Muslims in the war of Bosnia Herzegovina. We had the opportunity, when bringing supplies of food etc. to Serbia, to visit personally the battlefield in the front line and the zone of combat at the time that the Serbs were besieging Goražde and we heard with our own ears from the mouth of the Hero General Mladić that a) the vehicles of the United Nations that were taking food to the Muslims had hidden behind the food in the vehicles weapons and war material, and that b) the financier for the purchase of those weapons was the Vatican!
– A little later exactly the same information was given to me, quite confidentially, by an official political personage of the Ministry of National Defence.
– So whatever official visits there are between Constantinople and the Vatican, whatever prayers in common and concessions are granted, whatever good-will steps are taken by the Orthodox, there is no question of Unity of the two Churches unless beforehand the guilt of these crimes is not cleansed, crimes that inevitably bring to mind the events and crimes in the time of the Crusades! It appears that nothing has changed since then.
... Esoglou (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Esoglou editing on this article?

The arrangement was that Esoglou would not edit on this article and therefore neither would I. So now I am going to edit on this article. And I am going to add Orthodox opinions to this article. Lets see if Esoglou is going to stick to the promise that he made. LoveMonkey (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no! Esoglou's violation of the agreement (if it was a violation) does not entitle you to breach your end of the agreement. Please stop it now. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you know what the agreement is? If so please post it as since there is now an actual agreement lets stick to that instead of you telling me to stop posting. Can you do that? LoveMonkey (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
"Do you know what the agreement is? If so please post it"
The actual wording of the agreement is here. However, during the discussion of the wording, I offered an interpretation, which included the following clauses: "Esoglou will not edit in articles and sections specifically devoted to EO information. [...] LM will not edit in articles and sections specifically devoted to RC information." You then posted, "I agree with what Phatius wrote above." Thus, you agreed not to edit any article "specifically devoted to RC information". Is this article "specifically" devoted to RC information? Arguably it is not: it is equally about both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and the same article arguably cannot be "specifically" about two different religions.
However, in your original post in this talk page section, you wrote, "The arrangement was that Esoglou would not edit on this article and therefore neither would I. So now I am going to edit on this article." To me, this can only mean that (1) you believed that the editing restrictions forbid you and Esolgou from editing that article, and (2) you started editing it anyway to "get back" at Esoglou. I find this appalling. Either this article is not specifically about either Catholicism or Orthodoxy, in which case Esoglou may edit it, or it is specifically about both Catholicism and Orthodoxy, in which case you are in violating the editing restrictions by editing here. It's that simple. If you think Esoglou is breaking the rules, alert Ed or another admin. Don't break the rules yourself. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 07:10, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

However, why are you telling people to slap some sense into me about this at all?[3]? Now that's appalling. Why are you involved in this and taking Esoglou's side and assuming he is right? Because you make no statement here right now that Esoglou is not right? I can ask you to be even handed and that's not assuming anything, show me, don't tell me. Why are you assuming or involved in this at all? I remove a single word from the article in a weeks worth of editing and you exhibit this type of behavior. Your conduct is beyond bizarre. Why are you involved in this? Esoglou has informed you that he has already alerted Ed so why don't you let the administrators handle it? As it is quote obvious that whatever was going on is already over and done and people have moved on. Look at the article history one edit by me on this article in a week. I have posted more to the talkpage here. Why are you so alarmed? Why are you making statements like this?

Why are you so involved that you should feel appalled by my edits at all? And who are you to be appalled about any of this? Don't you think your a little out of line? Of the edits I did what agreement did they break? As what you posted and the link show as far as I can tell that I have broken no agreement. As for my comment before the agreement with Ed. Esoglou stated that he would not edit this article if I did not edit it. This is before the agreement with Ed. Esoglou was engaging in WP:OWN on this article. So I agreed to not edit it AS LONG AS ESOGLOU DID NOT. When Esoglou edited the article he then allowed me to. So I made changes to it that I have wanted to make and had wanted to make for some time but had not done so because I agreed I would not edit unless Esoglou edited. There are two different agreements here and you Phatius, don't know what going on. But here you are none the less. There is still more changes and information I would like to add to the article. But as for now I don't have the time and am wasting even more of my time having this conversation here with you.

Esoglou has friends like you who over react like this. Why could he not get you to remove the "vandalism" from the article? Why, because Esoglou has a history of making promises that he does not keep and that he breaks for "innocent" reasons and or "mistakes or accidents" that Esoglou continues to make and claim it's just once or it was OK no big deal. That's of course the rule for him and nobody else as this whole exchange is evidence of that. When in fact its not OK and he should leave it alone. As for the agreements on this article. Esoglou voided the 1st agreement. However that does not mean what I have agreed to with Ed on here is void at all, quite the contrary it is valid and as best as I can tell and in good faith the recent edits I did to this article adhere to it. LoveMonkey (talk) 12:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
-- Edits by Esoglou on the article since the agreement for both of us to not edit on the article was made. NOTE I ignored almost all of them until now as I feel that since we have clear restriction from Abcom that there is no need to used the old agree upon agreement of both abstaining from the article and since Esoglou broke that original agreement first..

  • .March 8th 2011 [4]
  • .Jan8th2011[5]
  • . Jan6th 2011[6]
  • . Dec7th 2010 [7]
  • .Nov28th 20102011[8]
  • .Nov9 2010 [9]
  • .Sept 10th 2010 [10]

LoveMonkey (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you telling me that there was an earlier agreement to the effect that neither of you would edit East-West Schism as long as the other did not? Good grief. Apparently I did misinterpret the situation. I'm going to step out of this argument, since I clearly don't follow the Byzantine intricacies LM-Esoglou politics closely enough to help here. I frankly don't think that either you or Esoglou should be editing this article, but I can't see anything in the literal wording of the current editing restrictions that prevents you two from doing so. I guess the letter without the spirit really is deadly sometimes... --Phatius McBluff (talk) 19:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is no consensus that the 1054 event is the primary topic for the term "Great Schism", so a dab there is more appropriate than moving this article there. It may be appropriate to move Western Schism to Great Schism, or redirect Great Schism to Western Schism, but there does not seem to be any enthusiasm for doing either here at this discussion. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:23, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

East–West Schism → Great Schism – "Great Schism" is the common name for the event. There is already a hatnote directing users looking for the Western Schism to that article, since "Great Schism" redirects here, so there would be pretty much no change except for the bypassing of that unnecessary redirect. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Oppose. Try searching Google Books for "Great Schism" and you get more references to the phrase in relation to the Great Western Schism than to the East-West one. Esoglou (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The present form is natural and immediately informative, and relatively immune to ambiguity. It conforms to policy at WP:TITLE, and punctuation guidelines at WP:MOS. NoeticaTea? 07:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Support. The EO calls it the Great Schism.[11] I have other sources. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose, but... Much to my surprise, a google scholar search yields far more hits for the later Western schism than for the 1054 schism, as does Google books limited to university presses. While "Great Schism" may be the common name for the 1054 event, it's also used extensively for the later event, and so it would be inappropriate to have Great Schism as the title of this page. I would, however, support a move to Great Schism of 1054, currently a redirect. ("East-West Schism" is also attested with what appears to be equal frequency (often both titles appear side-by-side), but my searches suggest it's sometimes used parenthetically, and in some texts refers to other schisms, such as during the cold war. "Great Schism" itself should probably be a disambiguation page.) How would people feel about that? VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
    • Useful analysis, VK. I would prefer "Great Schism of 1054" over "Great Schism"; but I still think the present title "East–West Schism" is unproblematic and well supported in reliable sources. So far I'd stick with that. When we see a schism referred to, before anything about dates we want to know what the two sides are, yes? Well, east and west. NoeticaTea? 03:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree that the current title is unproblematic enough and perfectly well attested, and wouldn't complain if no change were made. It's just if it were me, I'd prefer Great Schism of 1054, as that's how I prefer my history.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Question - based on the above, might there be general support for making Great Schism into a disambiguation page? -GTBacchus(talk) 21:33, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I support this proposal of a disambiguation page. Esoglou (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes - in this case it would be positively useful, as the earlier and later schisms are in similar topic areas.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, I've created a dab page there. If one of the two schisms has a clear claim to being the primary topic, we can implement a redirect quite easily, but the names seem to combine the advantages of recognizability, precision, and clear uniqueness, whereas "Great Schism" shows some variability. Does this change, and the discussion here, obviate the need for this move request? -GTBacchus(talk) 22:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Use of the term Catholic by itself

Catholic means universal, thus it needs a noun attached to it to make sense. We should refer to the Church of Rome as Roman Catholic and the Eastern churches as Orthodox Catholic. Every church in existence believes it is the universal church! The Nicene Creed states "...I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church..." That belief by the originating Christian centers has not changed. Thus they believe they are the universal church. Many Protestant churches recite the Nicene Creed! I wonder if they really understand it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.32.254.227 (talk) 19:57, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Great Schism 1054.svg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Great Schism 1054.svg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 21:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Great Schism with former borders (1054).png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Great Schism with former borders (1054).png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

E-W schism map of Iaaasi and its unreliable reference

File:Great Schism 1054 with former borders.png

Originally the map was created in Hungarian wikipedia, later banned User Iaaasi multiply falsified it many times-See the history of the picture- Iaaasi depicted the political dreams of ultra nationalist Great Romania Party (& its ruler Corneliu Vadim Tudor) on that map, that party tried to prove that most territory of present-day Hungary was romanian and therefore Orthodox. That laughable ultranationalist extremist political fantasies and claims are not supported by even Romanian scientific academy and academic historians too.) Wikipedia is not the place where extremist ideologies (and maps) of chauvinist political organisations are spreadable. (Great Romania Party)

The sock puppets and the maps of banned users (user:Iaaasi) must be deleted/removed from wiki, even if they changed their internet providers. Fake references without URL in the citation are not reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.92.110.45 (talk) 10:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Could you provide some links to show this? It would really help others to make a judgement.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 10:20, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I have given one Internet link to the cited book. A better image can be got on www followed by 4shared followed by .com followed by /file/8USRUV21/Dragan_Brujic_-_Vodic_kroz_sve.html. The images on the site I gave can also be viewed full screen. Esoglou (talk) 10:57, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Use picassaweb for pictures, it's free, and it doesn't use external applications which could be harmfull for computers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.58.99 (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Semantic problems of orthodox in map

discussion from the talk page of the disputed map

Do the borders of the states in this map follow religious or political lines? Please clarify. ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 14:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

This map contains several inaccuracies that need to be corrected before it can be used with articles. First: The Livonian coast around the Gulf of Riga was definitely not Christian in 1054. When Saint Meinhard arrived there in 1184, he only found pagan Livonians in the area who over the next 30 years were converted to Catholicism. Second, in 1054 the border between Estonians and the Russian principalities ran along the Narva River and Lake Peipus, mutual raids notwithstanding. This is where the border still lay 150 years later in 1208, when the Livonian Crusade was launched to convert the pagan Estonians to Catholicism. According to the current map, however, the eastern half of Estonia was supposedly Orthodox already by 1054. Please upload a corrected version of the map, this version should be deleted. --Vihelik (talk) 15:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


The political borders are correct. Please don't delete this map which is based on real western political maps/sources. The map represents so called state-religions in >>>sovereign<<< states with estabilished church hierarchy and church infrastructure.


Just look the maps of Europe in the 11-12th century.:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1097.jpg

http://www.old-map-blog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/map_19th_centuryKI_europe_in_the_11th_century.jpg

http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Europa-im-Hochmittelalter-(.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Europe_1000.jpg --Framedropped (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Framedropped (talk • contribs)

Oh, really? Than explain the Catholic areas in the Orthodox Byzantine State (aprox. area of modern Albania), the Orthodox areas in Catholic Croatia (on the southern border) and the religious mosaic in Prussia. Moreover, why isn`t the Emirate of Sicily painted green (i.e. muslim) if the color is an expression of the state-religion? If the map follows political borders + state-religios than what are all these issues? Please stop adding the map to articles since the map is factually wrong, or correct it: e.g. half of the Kingdom of Hungary is Orthodox (Romanian and Serbian) and the lands outside the Carpathian arch, possibly under Petcheneg political dependency, are also Orthodox (Romanian). ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 10:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh, and please add pagan areas in the hearth of the Kingdom of Hungary. Poor Gerard Sagredo and Bystrík didn't die for nothing... Ta ta! ITSENJOYABLE (talk) 10:24, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also add that southern Italy (which in 1054 was part of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire) and Sicily, were under the jurisdiction of the Partriarchate of Constantinople, since the Empreror Leo III transferred these territories from the jurisdiction of Rome in 740 (and as far as I know, they returned to Rome's jurisdiction only after the Normans conquered these regions), but the map seems to ignore this. And also (as already noted by someone else) the situation depicted in Transylvania does not seem very accurate, since there was a considerable Eastern Orthodox presence there, even in the 13th century there are mentioned to be a significant number of Orthodox monasteries there ("Pope Innocent III expressed in a number of letters between 1204—1205 his discomfort over the great number of Orthodox monasteries in Transilvania, Banat, and Crisana", "That the number of Greek-Orthodox churches and monasteries was large enough, is to be inferred from several letters Pope Innocent III wrote during 1204—1205"). Another problem is that Armenia is shown as Eastern Orthodox, but it is non-Chalcedonian. I am not really against the idea of having a map showing the religious situation after east-west schism (although, this schism does not really have a fixed start), however, I think it's obvious that the current map needs some fixes. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:07, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/631511/Vlach

Pope Innocent III wrote a letter because he worried about that new phenomenon.

And another interesting letter from 1234:

Pope Gregory IX sent a letter to Bela, Prince of Transylvania (later King Bela IV.( asking him "in the name of God" to grant asylum to "those poor Vlach refugees" who wished to escape the harsh rule of the Cumans.The asylum was granted, and the first three groups of Vlach immigrants entered Transylvania from the South, and were settled, under their own chieftans, in the Forgaras, Hunyad and Bansag districts, on specially designated mountain-pastures called in the royal documents as "Silva Vlachorum", Forest of the Vlachs. These Vlach immigrants, who received asylum within the Hungarian Kingdom, and others who followed later, became the ancestors of the Transylvanian Rumanians. Officially they were called VLACHS, from which the Hungarian name OLAH and the German name Wallach derived, in contradistinction to the Rumelians and later Rumanians who did not enter the Western culture-circle but stayed East and South of the Carpathians under Byzantine and later Slavic influence" finally evolving at the end of the nineteenth century into Rumania.

The existentence of Vlachs (similar to Daco-Roman ancestor theory of Romanians) in Transylvania is controversal and

discussed. Therefore all famous Western Encíclopedias write about the official Romanian Daco-Roman theory (as Romanians want to see their past) but they mention the immigration Theory about Vlach shepherd nomads. There aren't Valch material proofs (buildings cemeteries) in Transylvania before 13th century. The earliest contemporary sources are the Byzantine chronicles the Kievian Chronicles and later the Polish Chronicles. These chronicles are also support and depict the Vlach migration theory.

What did the old contemporary foreign chronicles write about Transylvania:

http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/dfacts/dfacts01.htm#heading2


Similar to most folks of Balkan (except Croats and Greeks /Byzantine empire/), the vast majority of Vlachs (romanians) remained in their shepherd-nomadic lifestyle until the early 17th century.

The Daco-Roman discuss have a lot of literature, it can fill in a minor library. However it is offtopic.

Were they christian? Perhabs they were babtisted, however the church infrastructure and skilled clergy lacked. It was more like a christian-like superstition than a real christian population and faith. It was true for serbians until the 12th century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.183.192 (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The arguments and counter-arguments regarding the Vlach presence in Transylvania are discussed in more details in the Origin of Romanians article, and I don't think it's necessary to bring that debate here, the issues discussed here are more about the religious situation during the times of the East-West Schism (regardless of the ethnic situation). There are sources (as shown above) mentioning a considerable Orthodox monastic presence in Transylvania around the years 1204-1205, and this can also mean that the Orthodox were probably the majority (since the total number of Orthodox Christians must have been higher than the number of Orthodox monks), and I also doubt that a large number of Orthodox monasteries, can just suddenly appear as a new phenomenon. (And regarding, the religious situation of the regions which became known as Wallachia, I think the claim that it was pagan, it's just an unsourced assumption, if the Orthodox influence extended as far as Transylvania, and actually as far as northern Russia, I think it could rather be easily assumed that there was some Orthodox influence in Wallachia as well.) Cody7777777 (talk) 12:37, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem is the age. Our time is 1054 which is the middle of the XI.century. However, 1204-1205 is the XIII. century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.228.236 (talk) 11:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

There are also sources mentioning Eastern Orthodox influence in Transylvania before 1054, "the gyula in charge of Transylvania and the territory east of the River Tisza was baptised in Byzantium...the gyula did not attack Byzantium any more, he maintained his Orthodox faith of the Byzantine rite", "Gyula had Greek Orthodox priests brought to Transylvania to convert his people.", "Jula I (Gyula) had close relations with Byzantium — around 950 — , adopting the Orthodox confession", "One was Gyula, a relation of Stephen's and ruler of Transylvania. The other was Ajtony, the wealthy master of the southern part of the country. Both adhered to the eastern stream of Christianity and their Orthodox priests came from the nearby Byzantine Empire...", "...Gyula of Transylvania, and as late as 1030, Ajtony, lord of the Maros region, who both were Greek Orthodox...", "In the first years of the 11th century, Prince Achtum of Banat built a monastery in the name of St. John the Baptist in Morisena, where he settled some "Greek monks" (ie, Orthodox monks).", "...a chieftain known as Achtum (in Hungarian, Ajtony)...was baptized according to the Orthodox rite...There is evidence for the promotion of Orthodoxy in and around Szeged in the first quarter of the eleventh century", (I think there is enough evidence showing, in Transylvania, an Eastern Orthodox presence in the 10th-13th centuries). Cody7777777 (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)


The vast majority of the early christians in Hungary was Otrhodox in the 10th century. Transylvania wasn't more orthodox than the other part's of the country. However Christians were minority that time. Orthodox church had many followers also in northern (present-day slovakia) and central parts of the country. Stephen's father, Prince Géza estabisilished catholic bishopry in the westernmost part of the country. Therefore the existence of greek (orthodox) or latin (catholic) church didn't mean ethnic background yet.

Gyula and other names are just fantasy. Gesta Hungaroroum is not a reliable source. It isn't considered as reliable source by western scholars. (Hungarian Slovak Serbian historians din't support the Gesta). Only Romanians considers tha gesta as a reliable source. Read the Gesta Hungarorum article. Gesta Hungaorum has serious contradictions/paradox with other more reliable sources, (like Byzantine chronicles , polish chronicles and kievian Nistor chronicle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.201.133 (talk) 13:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the map. I repaired the borders in connection with Prussia (User: Vihelik mentioned some problems) , and the northern borders. In addition, St Stephen of Hungary and Miesko I of Poland chose the western Christianity around 1000, these are facts. Those were deeply Catholic states where the Eastern Christianity was almost banned.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

However. Before Stephen's reign the "greek" Chruch had more followers than "latin" church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.239 (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Before Stephen,the population of Principality of Hungary was mostly pagan. Fakirbakir (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
If Eastern Orthodox Christianity was so quickly banned from Transylvania, then why was there still a considerable Orthodox monastic presence there during the years 1204-1205? ("Pope Innocent III expressed in a number of letters between 1204—1205 his discomfort over the great number of Orthodox monasteries in Transilvania, Banat, and Crisana", "That the number of Greek-Orthodox churches and monasteries was large enough, is to be inferred from several letters Pope Innocent III wrote during 1204—1205"). I think there was enough evidence shown above about this (please also check the earlier posts), and at least, unless there is a considerable number of sources claiming that Transylvania was entirely Western Catholic, I think there's no reason to show it this way. And as said above, that's not the only problem, southern Italy (Calabria) and Sicily were under the jurisdiction of Constantinople in 1054, and they were brought under Rome's jurisdiction only after the Normans conquered these territories ("...Sicily and the rest of Byzantine Italy almost immediately. Placing the churches of these territories under the control of their new papal suzerain was only a matter of time...Invariably, the growing Norman menace was also disturbing for the patriarchate, since it was rapidly and increasingly undermining the Byzantine rite in Calabria and Apulia, where a sizable Orthodox population was still to be found.", "In 1059 the next pope, Nicholas II, desiring to increase papal power and reestablish authority over Southern Italy, met with the Norman leader Robert Guiscard and recognized him as the “Duke of Puglia and Calabria and future Duke of Sicily” in exchange for Robert's oath of loyalty to the pope. Robert swore to place all the churches in his state under papal jurisdiction, and thus the survival of these churches came to depend on their recognition of Rome's jurisdiction....In Calabria the Normans replaced Greek bishops when they could, and when this was not possible due to local opposition, they exacted only loyalty to Rome."). And as also said before, Armenia is not Eastern Orthodox (as currently shown in this map), it is non-Chalcedonian. Cody7777777 (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
I have just one problem. Raguza (Dubrovnik). It was under Croatian control prior to 1054 if I am right, but I am not sure. Maybe we should repair those borders there (the surrounding area of Raguza). According to this map http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Europa-im-Hochmittelalter-(.jpg Raguza was part of the Croatian state.Fakirbakir (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Kindom of Hungary had Greek-Ortodox churches in the XI-XII-XIII centuries, I do not deny that. These churches were spread !everywhere! in Hungary (not just Transylvania) and the greatest number of them was in Pannonia and Southern Hungary. (of course, later, Transylvania because of the Vlach migration from XIII centuries)
  • We know about Ortodox monasteries, Marosvar (Torontal county), Dunapentele (Fejer county), Visegrad (Esztergom county), Veszpremvolgyi (Veszprem county) St Demeter (Szeremseg county), (Sources: VI clement pope's letter to bishop of Nitra 1344 or Innocent III's letter 1204).
  • The number of Ortodox churches was marginal (as compared to Catholic Churches) in Kingdom of Hungary and those had mostly Greek (moreover Slav and Hungarian) nones and monks
  • By the XIII century, The majority of these churches, monasteries was controlled by the western clergy.(The history of churches of Transylvania from XIII-XIV centuries is another story)Fakirbakir (talk) 17:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
First, I wish to thank you for fixing southern Italy and Armenia. Regarding the religious situation of Hungary, most of the sources posted earlier were explicitly speaking about Transylvania (and except those, the following also explicitly refer to Transylvania, "One complication was that the Orthodox Church, with its legitimately married priests, retained many outposts in eastern Transylvania in the 11th and 12th centuries","The Greek-Orthodox religious influence touched Transylvania the most. Many of the Magyar chieftains (later noblemen) converted not to Roman, but to Byzantine Christianity...", so I think there are enough sources which would support representing Transylvania in blue color on this map. However, if there was a considerable Orthodox influence also in Pannonia, then in that case, I think that Transylvania, and parts of Pannonia and Southern Hungary should be shown with both colors (by having orange and blue lines shown on these lands). I have still not seen yet any sources claiming that there was an overwhelming "Roman Catholic" majority in Transylvania (or in all of Hungary), and in that case showing only Orange color in Pannonia and Transylvania could give the impression that these lands were nearly entirely Western Catholic. Cody7777777 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Transylvania was a Catholic district, diocese. Gyulafehervar was the centre of Diocese of Transylvania (established 1009). http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Hungary_11th_cent.png There were Ortodox churches (Southwest Transylvania, Banat), but the majority of the churches was Catholic.(After 1000, St Stephen forced the development of ecclesiastical, He tried to achieve (and it was successful) a 'western' standard development (Every 10 villages had to get a church among others). Do not forget there was a pagan mass. Pagan revolts were a lot. Fakirbakir (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we need to support our views with reliable secondary scholarly sources (such as books written by modern historians, and a map from Wikipedia, or any other wiki website, cannot be considered a reliable source for another Wikipedia map or article, and the presence of a "Roman Catholic" diocese in Translyvania does not actually mean that there wasn't also a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence there), please check Wikipedia:Verifiability for more information (it states there that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true....Articles on Wikipedia or on websites that mirror its content should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference"). There were already enough sources shown above, claiming explicitly that there was a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence in Transylvania during these times, and unless there are shown other more reliable sources explicitly claiming that there was an overwhelming "Roman Catholic" majority in Transylvania, showing Transylvania on the map as being only "Roman Catholic" can be considered Original Research. Cody7777777 (talk) 19:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
More religious maps about middle ages:
Fakirbakir (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
In Transylvania (and Southern Hungary, Pannonia), prior to Stephen, we can talk about stronger Greek-Orthodox presence (for instance the chieftains Gyula or Koppany), however after the coronation (in 1000), the catholic church founded Catholic bishoprics and began to proselytize the population (and little doubt that included Romanians in Transylvania).Source, after the !East-West Schism! we can observe growing Orthodox Romanian presenceSource, moreover nobility required adherence to Catholicism (If they had wanted social and political privileges). Hungary become a deeply Catholic state where the Greek-Orthodox church was marginal.Fakirbakir (talk) 10:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
The first sources starting from the 12th century about Orthodox Romanians in Transylvania.[12]Fakirbakir (talk) 13:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for posting these maps and books. But many of these maps are more about the Avignon-Rome schism([13],[14]), and even have some serious errors, such as an Islamic Constantinople before 1453 ([15],[16]), another one does not even show Transylvania. You have also shown a map about the Western schism from the Vatican tours website, but I could also mention another map from an article shown on the Vatican tours website about the East-West Schism, and it shows Transylvania as "Eastern Orthodox" (however, that map has some other problems). Others do not show the year when they're represesnting the division([17],[18], it should also be noted that the last one was made in the year 1915, making it quite old). The one representing a period closer to this map seems to be the 1097 map, but it it was made in the year 1926, also making it somewhat old. However, I don't think a map can have more weight than a scholarly book (on Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources states: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources, such as in history"), the following support a significant Orthodox presence in Transylvania during the 11th century: "A history of East Central Europe: East Central Europe in the Middle Ages, 1000-1500", by Jean W. Sedlar, published by the "University of Washington Press" in the year 1994, ISBN 9780295972909, "...the Orthodox Church, with its legitimately married priests, retained many outposts in eastern Transylvania in the 11th and 12th centuries...", a book titled "The ethnic history of Transylvania" by Endre Haraszti (who seems to be a Hungarian historian, he also wrote another book where he speaks about the vlach migration, so he obviously does not refer to Romanians when he speaks about Eastern Orthodox religious influence), published by the "Danubian Press" in the year 1971, ISBN 9780879340049, "The Greek-Orthodox religious influence touched Transylvania the most. Many of the Magyar chieftains (later noblemen) converted not to Roman, but to Byzantine Christianity...", there is also a book published in 1975 by the St. Bonaventure University (which is a "Roman Catholic" university) which states "The Greek missionaries did a thorough job because, about 1000, King Stephen's uncle, Gyula of Transylvania, and as late as 1030, Ajtony, lord of the Maros region, who both were Greek Orthodox", another book which is titled "The legend of Basil the Bulgar-slayer" by Paul Stephenson, and published in 2003 by the Cambridge University Press, claims that "There is evidence for the promotion of Orthodoxy in and around Szeged in the first quarter of the eleventh century" (this actually refers to southern Hungary).
Now regarding the books you posted, I still do not see where are they claiming that the Eastern Orthodox influence in Transylvania was just marginal (or non-existent), this one claims that the Hungarians "began proselytizing Transylvania's indigenous people. There is little doubt that these included some Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church" (there is no claim here that this made the "Eastern Orthodox" presence absent or just marginal, and it even suggests that there were Romanians who remained faithful to the Eastern Orthodox Church). This other book you posted states "Participation in the social status and po- litical privileges of the nobility required adherence to Catholicism, prompting the resistance of pre-Christian Hungarians and Cumans in Hungary, then increasingly of the Orthodox Romanians after the East-West Church schism of 1054", this also does not say that the Eastern Orthodox presence was just marginal or inexistent (it just claims that there was increased resistance of Orthodox Romanians, after East-West schism of 1054, against conversion, and this doesn't mean that there wasn't a significant Eastern Orthodox presence there, and we're referring here to all Eastern Orthodox populations, not just Orthodox Romanians). And the last book you shown, also does not claim that there was no Eastern Orthodox presence in Transylvania during the 11th century (or that it was marginal), it just claims that "In historical sources starting from the 12th century, the Transylvanian Romanians are mentioned as belonging to the Eastern (“schismatic”) Church." (but this refers only to Transylvanian Romanians, not to all "Eastern Orthodox" people, and this does not mean that there was no "Eastern Orthodox" presence in Transylvania during the 11th century).
I admit that there was also a "Roman Catholic" presence in Transylvania, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't also a significant "Eastern Orthodox" presence there (and there are enough sources supporting this), in my opinion this wiki map should show both religions present in Transylvania and southern Hungary (by showing several blue and orange lines on these lands). I also wish to underline again, that when we're talking here about "Eastern Orthodox Christians" we're not referring here specifically to Orthodox Romanians (regardless when they appeared), it's not important for this map if these Eastern Orthodox Christians in Transylvania during the 11th century were Magyars, Slavs, Romanians, Bulgars or others (this is not an ethnic map, this map is supposed to just show how these religious influences extended around 1054, regardless of who these people were). Cody7777777 (talk) 14:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I was asked by Cody to weigh in on whether there was an Orthodox presence in Transylvania as of 1054. I consulted a history of the Church by Fr. Mircea Păcurariu (an expert in the field), and it appears that, yes, the Orthodox Church continued to function in Transylvania after the province's incorporation into the Kingdom of Hungary. To be sure, the Hungarian authorities and the papacy strove to convert the native population to Catholicism, for instance replacing Orthodox bishops with Catholic ones. However, Păcurariu concludes that an Orthodox hierarchy, including bishops, remained, as well as monasteries and stone churches with numerous believers. For instance, a document of 1205 mentions an Orthodox bishop in either Hunedoara or Bihor, while the previous year, King Emeric, writing to the Pope, mentioned "Greek" (i.e., Orthodox) bishops and monks in his domains. So yes, the Eastern Rite Orthodox Church survived in Transylvania as of 1054, and was followed by a good many inhabitants there. I would suggest cross-hatching Transylvania and Eastern Hungary on the map. - Biruitorul Talk 15:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a question. Is there any reliable source which not only states but also substantiates that there was a significant Orthodox presence in Transylvania around the year 1054? Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
And just few remarks. (1) Byzantine and Slavic sources mention that Gyula was baptised in Constantinople around 948 and he was followed to Tourkia by a Greek bishop. However, when his grandson, Stephen I of Hungary conquered around 1003 "King Gyula's kingdom", it was still inhabited by pagans accourding to the contemporary Annals of Hildesheim. Therefore, based on the fact that Gyula was baptised it cannot be stated that afterward a significant Orthodox population inhabited Crisana and Transylvania. For example, there is no archaeological evidence that a Christian population inhabited any part of Transylvania in the course of the 10th century; maybe a small church found in Alba Iulia (which was the seat of the Gyula) can be dated to the period, but it has not been proven yet. (2) The Legend of St. Gerard actually mentions that Achtum was baptised according to the Greek faith, but the same source also describes him as a non-perfect Christian who had seven wifes. Moreover, the same source also describe the proces how the inhabitants of Achtum's domain were Christianized after Achtum had been defeated by Csanád. (3) None of the letters written by Pope Innocent III or Emeric of Hungary mentions bishoprics specifically in Transylvania, Crisana or the Banat. They refer to Orthodox bishoprics that existed in the Kingdom of Hungary. And under Béla III and Emeric significant parts of modern Bosnia and Serbia were annexed (for a short period) to the kingdom. Borsoka (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Except the books mentioned earlier, I have also found the following book, titled "Byzantium and the Magyars" by Gyula Moravcsik (an author who has written many books on these topics), which also offers more details regarding the "Eastern Orthodox" influence on Hungary "The oldest Hungarian books of liturgy preserved from the 11th — 12th centuries show that the feasts of several saints (St. Nicholas. St. John of the Flowers, and others) were held on the basis of the Byzantine, and not the western calendar.Thus, for instance, St. Demetrius' day was celebrated on 26 October, instead of 8 November. Further Byzantine influence can be seen in the celebration of St. Ivan's day or in the Hungarian cult of the Virgin Mary.Hungary was the first country where the Presentation of the Virgin Mary had been made a feast at the end of the 12th century.One should add the great cult of St. George at the beginning of the age of Arpad's dynasty as a further manifestation of the eastern influence. We find followers of the Orthodox Church in Hungary even after the 13th century.", (the last part could even suggest that there were more Eastern Orthodox Christians before the 13th century), the same book also makes the claims that "The influence of the Greek Church was strongest in eastern Hungary", and that "It appears from a letter written in 1234 by Pope Gregory IX to Bela IV that there were at the time many Magyars living in Transylvania who belonged to the Eastern Church". Cody7777777 (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your answer. But I think my above question is still valid: is there any reliable source which substantiates and not only states that there was a significant Orthodox population in the Kingdom of Hungary around the year 1054? Latin liturgical books adopting some Orthodox practices can prove the influence of Orthodox practices, but as they were written for Western liturgical use cannot prove the existence of Orthodox believers (Believers for whose liturgy follows the Western rite cannot per definitionem be Orthodox). The letter of Pope Gregory IX written in 1234 to Béla IV does not mentions any Magyars living in Transylvania who belonged to the Eastern Church. The letter refers to (1) the Roman Catholic Diocese of Cumania (to the east of Transylvania) (2) where the Hungarian and German immigrants converted to Orthodoxy under the influence of the local (Orthodox) Romanians (Victor Spinei (2009). The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century. Brill. ISBN 978-90-04-17536-5, p. 155.) Catholic Hungarians who converted to Orthodoxy somewhere to the east of the Carpathians around 1234 cannot prove or suggest the existence of an Orthodox Hungarian population somewhere to the west of the Carpathians around 1054. Borsoka (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
I mentioned before Greek-Orthodox monasteries were in Szeremseg, Pannonia, Southern Hungary. I also did read something about Russian monks next to Tihany abbey ('Barat-lakasok') and it was dated by the 11th century (Andrew I, but unfortunately, I do not remember source exactly). That is also fact St Stephen chose the 'Western Christianity'. Hypothetically, before Stephen, The Eastern Christian church was stronger. However, there was a pagan mass. After the coronation, 54 years elapsed until the Schism and there was a serious 'western' proselytization. Whether there was a significant Orthodox presence or that was just marginal by 1054? Now I am really unsure.Fakirbakir (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear Cody7777777, thank you for your remarks. I must accept that the source you cite substantiates the claim that there were Orthodox monasteries in Hungary (Let's forget, that the small monastery at Hodos was built as a Catholic monastery and it was a Catholic monastery until 1293 when it was destroyed by the Cumans. It was later rebuilt by Serbs in the 14th century and thus it became an Orthodox monastery.) Just one remark, the claim that married priest in the 11th century in Hungary proves the influence of Orthodox church (even it is based on a reliable source) is totally misleading: in the 11th century there were not only married priests, but also married bishops in Hungary (similarly to Norway, Scotland and other Western countries far from any Orthodox influence) - and the Orthodox Church prohibited the marriage of bishops even before the Western Church. Nevertheless, I accept that the reliable sources substantiate the above claim, and our task is to summarize the text of reliable sources and not to present our own concerns. :) Borsoka (talk) 19:41, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for the information you provided, it's interesting to learn about the married priests and bishops, and the monastery from Hodos. I'm glad we reached a consensus. Cody7777777 (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I have repaired the map. I had to reassess my point of view. I found a detailed dissertation about this theme. It seems well established and contains reliable sources from -among others- Hungarian historians. [19] Unfortunately,It is in Hungarian, however it states the Hungarian Kings (especially Andrew I 1046-1060, Geza I 1074-1077), cultivated very good relations with the Byzantine Empire in the 11th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 22:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. The current version is indeed an improvement. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The map is wrong. The map is about the state religions after the great schism. The orthodox believers hadn't episcopates in medieval Hungary. Stil the majority of the population was catholic and the Hungarian kings were vassals of Virgin Mary (aka papal state) , the depiction of the Hungarian state (with 10 catholic episcopates and two archepiscopates) as a half orthodox state is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.167.28 (talk) 19:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1. The Orthodox believers had no episcopate around 1054 in Hungary, but they had in Medieval Hungary (for example the one established for Gyula) 2. Around 1054 there were 8 bishoprics and 2 archbishoprics in Hungary 3. The Hungarian kings were not vassals of the Holy Virgin, the kingdom of Hungary was dedicated to her according to the legends of King St Stephen written at the end of the 11th century. (Moreover around 1074 Pope St Gregory VII claimed that St. Stephen had become the "vassal" of St Peter, that is the king had accepted the suzerainty of the Holy See.) 4. The map does not represent "half Orthodox population". Actually, I do not accept the claim that there were any significant Orthodox population in Hungary around 1054, but because there are reliable sources which substantiate (or better to say seem to substantiate) this claim, we should not take it simply aside. Borsoka (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The crown was sent from Rome. It's clear and traditional proof for vassalage —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.183.164.203 (talk) 06:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Contemporary source (Theotmar of Merseburg) mentions that St Stephen received the crown "with the favor and the urging" of the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto III. But I think this is a new discussion. Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Andrew I was Greek-Orthodox,
      • He was not Greek-Orthodox. He was baptised according to the Greek rite in Kiev before the Great Schism. But all the dioceses in Hungary were in the hands of bishops of the Latin rite during his reign. There is only one reference to Orthodox bishops in Hungary before the 13th century - the Greek Hierotheos who followed Gyula around 953 to Transylvania from Constantinoples. The Orthodox bishoprics in the 13th century Hungary were located most probably in the newly conquered Bosnian and Serbian territories.
  • He established Orthodox monasteries, around 1050(for instance Tihany, Visegrad),
      • He established monasteries that followed the Greek rite, but he also established Benedictine monasteries (Tihany Abbey).
  • Andrew I and Geza I got crowns from the Byzantine Empire.
      • Stefan Nemanjić the first crowned king of Serbia received the crown from the Pope, although Serbia was an Orthodox country and he was Orthodox. Similarly Kaloyan of Bulgaria received a crown from the Holy See, although he and his country was Orthodox.
  • We can presume Orthodox monasteries in Tihany, Veszprevolgy, Marosvar, Dunapentele, Visegrad, St Demeter(Szeremseg).
      • They are not just presumptions, they are facts. Those monasteries existed until the 13th century.
  • We can assume Orthodox bishopric in Hungary in the 11th century (Turkia Metropolita), however It is debated, Gyula Kristo disagree with this.
      • Yes, we can assume. Or we can also assume Buddhist monks in Pécs in the 9th century. :)
  • A lot of temples had names of Eastern Orthodox saints in the 11th century.
      • Not eastern Orthodox saints, but saints who were popular in the Orthodox Church. But those saint (St. Nicholas, St. Demetrios, the Holy Virgin, St. George...) were also venerated by the Latin rite Church.
  • A lot of churches have been built in Greek-Orthodox style at this time.
      • Similarly to a lot of Venetian churches. And some Orthodox churches were built in Western style.
We talk about around 1054. I am sure the Catholic Church was very 'strong' at this time, but I had to reassess my opinion in connection with Orthodox presence, please read this dissertation what I mentioned before, It is Hungarian work, from Hungarian historians. My problem is rather the Catholic-Pagan-Orthodox ratios. Fakirbakir (talk) 10:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
      • The Hungarian work looks like a well-written reliable source (and it qualifies a reliable source for WP purposes). However, lots of "probably", "might be", etc. expressions can be read in that source. Yes, Hungarian Greek Catholics have from the 19th century tended to trace back the origins of their Church to the ancienest Hungarians who followed the Greek rite, instead of to Serb, Romanian, Rusin Hajdús. Nevertheless, I would like to emphasize that my personal concerns are not relevant here against reliable sources (even if they only seems to be reliable, in my view). Borsoka (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you suggest in connection with the map? Fakirbakir (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironically , there are only latin writings sources letters from these monastries & churches. They were under the control of Catholic church hierarchy, therefore they were (similar to the monarchs kings of Hungary) on the party of Roman Pope after the schism. The depiction of Hungary as a semi-orthodox state is laughable. Moreover the map represents state religions of countries, orthodox have never been state religion of Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.69 (talk) 07:39, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The map was not meant to represent state religions (for example, you can see that both religions are represented in north-western part of the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire, Armenia was also part of that emprie, but since it was mostly non-Chalcedonian it is not shown as Eastern Orthodox, also Sicily was part of an Islamic emirate, but the map shows only Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox influences), and anyway, if the king Andrew I was Eastern Orthodox, then it also makes sense to show some Eastern Orthodox influence in Hungary. I have also found something in the following book by Cyril Mango and published by the Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780198140986 "Furthermore, monastic houses containing 'Greeks' and allowing for Orthodox styles of asceticism were founded by King Andrew I near Visegrad and on an Athos-like peninsula jutting into Lake Balaton.These sites lay beyond the lands in southern Hungary where Orthodox priests and churches were particularly prominent in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.", and even if these sources would be wrong, they cannot be ignored by Wikipedia. Cody7777777 (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

These (partly) greek monastries churchs were bilingual latin/greek, they didn't support Constantinople in the power-strugle after/in 1054, they supported the Roman pope. They didn't produced charters letters and other writigs in greek langauage, they used exclusively latin in their written language. Of course they used greek language for some religious singing. There weren't orthodox Hungarian kings, because the Archbishop of Esztergom was catholic, and he was the only person who had the right for coronation. These kings (who was babtisted by orthodox) had to convert to roman catholicism before the coronation.


All of the founder charters of these abbeys were written in latin. Again: In the history of medieval Hungary, there weren't greek writings which were created in Hungary. All medieval Hungarian written letters charters and documents were written in Latin language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.69 (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The deed of foundation of Veszpremvolgy monastery was written in Greek-Byzantine style.Fakirbakir (talk) 18:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


And nothing more... After the death of Stephen I, the Orthodox relgion wasn't more relevant than the Judaism or the Islam in medieval Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.21.208 (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If you state something, you have to prove that point of view with source. I am willing to fix the map if you give us reliable source in this theme. The distribution of religions in Kingdom of Hungary is not an obvious thing in the 11th century.Fakirbakir (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

You can't prove the relevance of greek monks in the country after the reign of saint stephen. You can't cite written sources in greek language, however tons of contemporary written sources are in latin. Again, you can't prove that these "orthodox" (?) monks were under tha controll of church hierarchy of Constantinople after the schism. Your sources didn't write abot these basic facts, which had key-relevance in this topic.

Wikipedia is based mainly on secondary scholarly sources, not on our interpretations of primary sources (please check Wikipedia's policy for more information, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources"). Even if you are right, since there are secondary sources claiming that there was an Eastern Orthodox presence in southern Hungary, they cannot be ignored by Wikipedia. (Also, regarding you're earlier edit summary, the source mentioned earlier by Fakirbakir was Hungarian, not Romanian or Serbian.) Cody7777777 (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Again, the map is about the break schism between Roman hierarchy and Byzantine-greek church hiearachy. These eastern rite followers became part of roman hierarchy. (similarly to Eastern Catholic Churches in modern period). Therefore they became a greek-rite version of the sceptered roman catholic church in Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.211.137 (talk) 16:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

This map shows the extension of "Western Catholic" and "Eastern Orthodox" influences during the 11th century, and the secondary sources shown earlier mentioned an "Eastern Orthodox" (not a "Roman Catholic" Greek-Rite) presence in southern Hungary.Cody7777777 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


No. I knew the originator of the map. It's about the religious power-struggle between the Papacy and Constantonople centered church from 1054.

What do you mean 'from 1054'? This map demonstrates power-struggle of religions or positions of religions at the eve of the East-West Schism (1054). Not from, or from to. We talk about the middle of the 11th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, you don't know the originator of the map. After the great schism, constantinople centered Eastern church hierarchy hadn't power in Hungary. It was similar to the Greek Catholic Church. These orthodox weren't more than the "greek branch" of Roman catholic church. Constantinople centered church defeated when Stephen became the first king of Hungary. The greek-speaking churches became the part of Roman Catholic hierarchy (led by the Pope). Read the history of the file. The theme / name of the map is not the language/rite, but the Scism. The schism is about the power strugle over the countries, therefore the language of the church is not relevant in the topic. Check mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Although I tend to accept 84.2.153.109's view (there is no contemporary reference to or other evidence of significant Orthodox communities in the Kingdom of Hungary around 1054), but WP is written based on reliable sources and some of these sources suggest that there were such communities in the medieval kingdom. Therefore, I think for the time being the discussion of this specific issue should be closed. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Your version of map is about the church languages instead of east-west schism. The original designer of the map is not allowed to redraw his map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The books and authors don't support your claims. After Stephen's death ,the existence of 10 or 15 DENOMINATED orthodox churches doesn't matter in such a large kingdom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.153.109 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

As already said before, there are secondary sources which claim that there was an "Eastern Orthodox" presence in southern and eastern Hungary during the 11th century, they do not talk about a "Roman Catholic Greek-Rite", they clearly use the expressions "Orthodox" or "Eastern Orthodox", and these terms have been used when describing the Churches in communion with Constantinople, meaning that these Eastern-Rite Churches from Hungary were in communion with Constantinople (or "Eastern Orthodox"). Some of these secondary sources were also published by reputed universities([20][21]). They could be wrong, but our personal views, are not really important for Wikipedia (especially, if they're not supported by secondary sources). I think these things were already explained clearly enough before (and although I do not really want to not assume good faith on your actions, to be honest I have to say that I'm nearly starting to feel like I'm "feeding a troll" by replying). (I would also like to add that the East-West Schism is not just a conflict of jurisdictions, or "power-struggle", between Rome and Constantinople, it is a much more comlpex issue, also involving theological and rite differences, and it does not really have a fixed beginning, many differences where already starting to become obvious since the so-called "Photian Schism", 1054 is only a conventional date, but obviously this map shows the situation around 1054, and it should also be noted that the conflict during the years 1053-1054 had also started from rite differences, such as unleavened or leavened bread used in the Eucharist, so these rite differences also had an importance in this conflict.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


Again, the sources and authors didn't support the idea that the greek churches were under the controll of Constantinople ( Not the patriarches of Constantinople but the Byzantine Emperors were the top religious leaders of Orthodox church until the middle of 12th century, when the other Orthodox churches started to separate from Constantinople. ) Two antagonistic church-hierarchy in one country (led by a foreign moarchs who were overlords of orthodox countries at that time yet) was impossible. That greek languge or orthodox rite churches were under the roman catholic hierarchy. (similar to greek catholic church from the 18th century). The map is about the Schism. The schism is only about the break between Constantinople and Rome-led churches. You were not allowed to redraw this map. The designer (Tobi85) didn't allow it for you.

I think there is a misunderstanding in the above statement. None of the materials made for WP belong to any of the editors. There is no need for any licence to redesign any of the materials. (Nonetheless, I still tend to accept the above view. Hungarian monarchs whose wifes followed the Orthodox rite set up monasteries that followed the Greek rite. Some Orthodox monasteries were founded by Hungarian tribal leaders, for example by Achtum, who had adopted Orthodox Christianity for political purposes. The territories where other monasteries were situated, such Sremska Mitrovica, were annexed by the Kingdom of Hungary. But none of the monasteries were subordinated to the jurisdiction of the Ecumenical Patriarch, they were under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic diocesian prelate. But, as reliable sources claim that those monasteries belonged to the Orthodox religious community, we cannot ignore them.) I still suggest that the debate should be taken aside for some period (let's say for 30-60 days).Borsoka (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Dear User:84.2.153.109! This map is a public domain. We have a right to edit that. If Tobi85 did not like it he could withdraw that -with good justification, of course-. And again, we talk about 1054. I can not disregard a Hungarian dissertation about this theme. I can not disregard Gyula Moravcsik's work. The dissertation is about -among others- religions in Kingdom of Hungary in the 11 th century. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, your biggest problem, that your books and authors didn't support your imaginations & claims. All of the greek churches in Hungary belonged to Rome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.21.128 (talk) 07:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you please share with us the reliable sources your above claim is based on? The "books of Fakibakir" substantiate the claim that there were Orthodox monasteries in the Kingdom of Hungary. Even if we do not accept that idea, we have to accept the fact that many scholars follow it. I do not like repeating myself but I still suggest that the endless and pointless debate should be suspended for a while. Borsoka (talk) 07:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you please share with us the reliable sources your above claim (that greek rite churches of Hungary belonged to Constantinople/Byzantine Emperor) is based on? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.152.142 (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I should not even reply, but please check the sources from the earlier posts (they explicitly stated that there were Orthodox communities in southern and eastern Hungary, and in English the words "Orthodox" and "Eastern Orthodox" do not describe a "Roman Catholic Greek-Rite", these words in English describe the religious community which also includes the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople). I don't think it is really necessary to post these sources again, especially if you intend to ignore them. (And the map legend just writes "Orthodox Church" and "Catholic Church", it does not write "Churches under the jurisdiction of Rome" and "Churches under the jurisdiction of Constantinople", so we need only sources claiming that there were Orthodox communities in Hungary, it doesn't even matter which bishops had jurisdiction over these communities.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


These greek-rite churches weren't more than the medieval analogous of Papacy led Greek Catholic Churches. However there aren't English terms/idioms for that medieval phenomenon. Therefore the books mentioned that greek-rite churches very simple: "Orthodox". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.22.236 (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Cited: "Another source of conversion to Christianity was Byzantium, which affected the geographically close southern parts of Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania. As a function of the political relations of Hungarian kings, monasteries and convents belonging to the Byzantine Church were founded sporadically in the eleventh century, even in the central and western parts of the country." The architecture of historic Hungary (P. Lövei p. 11.)Fakirbakir (talk) 19:55, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
I've repaired the map because of the sourse (spread sporadically).Fakirbakir (talk) 11:38, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

However the situation which you mentioned existed before the great schism. After the schism, these greek churches became the scepter of Archbishop of Esztergom. Therefore Your reasoning wasn't correct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.91.8 (talk) 18:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC) Note: IP 84.0.91.8 is a sockpuppet of the banned user Stubes99 (Iaaasi (talk) 06:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC))

I would like to see a source about that. I am willing to fix the map if it is true. I mentioned two different sources about this theme, both of them assumed Orthodox presence in the eleventh century. Andrew I (1046-1060) was the biggest founder of Orthodox monasteries. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
For instance, !after 1054!, Andrew I established a Greek-Orthodox monastery in 1056 (in Visegrad).Moreover, monastery of Visegrad was led by Byzantine rite till 1109.Magyarország képekben: honismertető album, Volume 1 /In Hungarian Fakirbakir (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see a supporting source for your statement. Please prove that Hungarian kings estabilished Byzantine ruled churches and risked a papal excommunication after 1054. This greek-speaking churches weren't bízantine ruled churches especially after the schism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.58.99 (talk) 13:05, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Dragan Brujić-based map

I restored the long subsection immediately above this, because I think that "Don't mess up this page" is by no means a sufficient explanation for deleting it. However, I think it has little relevance to the present problem, which, as I see it, is whether the Dragan Brujić-based map is admissible to this Wikipedia article. In the first place, I think that the Dragan Brujić book must indeed be classified, in Wikipedia terms, as a reliable source - for the view of Dragan Brujić. A question can arise about the accuracy of the map as a depiction of the Brujić view. For one thing, even he doesn't claim that the whole of Sicily was on the Eastern side of the divide. (Besides, in 1054, wasn't practically the whole of Sicily in the power of the Moslem Arabs, who were soon conquered by the decidedly Western Normans? But that is by the way, since the map claims not to reflect the reality but only the view of Brujić.) And I think Brujić attributes more, not less, territory elsewhere to the Eastern side in 1054 than appears in the map, particularly in Anatolia. So while Brujić is a reliable source for the view of Brujić, the question must be asked whether the map accurately represents the view of Brujić. That is what should be discussed. Esoglou (talk) 15:52, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


I don't think so. Semantic problems: Are there any greek-speaking churches (mostly bilingual in Hungary) which are belonged to Byzantine rule? I think not. Using Greek language doesn't mean automatically Orthodox. Because they were under the controll of Archbishop of Esztergom. They were similar to the later Greek Catholic church, rather than Orthodox. The map has other serious problem, it depict territory of latter Vallachia and Moldavia as christian territory, despite the fact, that there aren't any material proofs (cemetries religious building churches monastries or other archeological founds) for the existence of christian spiritual life between the era from 600 A.D. to 1200. There aren't any contemporary sources and chronicles which support the existence of christian spiritual life there in that era.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.58.99 (talk • contribs)

We know about Byzantine monasteries in Kingdom of Hungary (south and central parts of Hungary) around 1054, but the map exaggerates this. The kingdom consisted of 10 Catholic bishoprics (there was no Orthodox bishopric) in the 11th century. There is no archeological evidence about existence of Orthodox churches in the pagan territory of Pechenges.Fakirbakir (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
That may be true, but to me it seems irrelevant to the question: Does the map accurately represent the (mistaken, if you wish) view of Dragan Brujić? Esoglou (talk) 16:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it does (even if I can not agree with his map).Fakirbakir (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Esoglou, I reverse your question: Is wikipedia an encyclopedia with reliable sources (and maps) or a playground of unreliable articles? Is there a place for this map with such known faults in an encyclopedia?

I think that, in Wikipedia terms, the Brujić book does qualify as a reliable source for one point of view. It is decades since I was able to converse in Serbo-Croat and even then I did not have a profound knowledge of the language, but I think that anyone who just looks at the maps in the book, which are in the main understandable even by people who know nothing of the language, will have to accept that it is the product of research (well conducted or not is for professional historians to judge, rather than for us). If you think it does not qualify as a reliable source, you or someone else can raise the question at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I think that the verdict there would be that the Brujić book qualifies for citation in Wikipedia no less than the Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land, the source of the other map and one that you do not question. Esoglou (talk) 19:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
No, Esoglou, I'm sorry to contradict but I think you are wrong when you say that the Brujić book qualifies for citation in Wikipedia no less than the Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land and also when you say that it is not for us to judge whether the research done by Brujić was well-conducted or not. IMHO, this is exactly the job of the Wikipedia editor. As writers of a tertiary source, it is our job to weigh secondary sources and choose the most reliable ones, sometimes presenting contradicting and opposing sources where that is necessary to provide the reader with an adequate understanding of the state of knowledge regarding a particular topic. I confess that I don't know who Dragan Brujić is but I suspect that he is not considered the authoritative voice on the history of the East-West schism. I should like to know if there are more authoritative sources who offer a map and, if there are not, why not. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Richard, have you looked at the book? I fear your ideas may be based merely on the highly simplified map presented in the article. The actual Brujić presentation strikes me as an impressive specialized atlas, with detailed information about each individual little area. When I say that it is not up to us editors to decide on our own authority, I mean in circumstances where there is disagreement among Wikipedia editors and there is a prima facie reliable source for an Eastern Orthodox view of the 1054 situation. To exclude that Eastern Orthodox view and limit the article merely to a Western view we need more than a majority vote among us that the Western presentation is more reliable. We need proof that the Eastern view is not just less reliable but positively unreliable. That requires an expert judgement.
If you, Richard, having examined the book, think it is not a well-researched publication and if nobody else defends it, then I will certainly withdraw my objection. I find it strange, after the hundreds of times that a certain editor whom you know well has accused me of being just a bigoted anti-Eastern Orthodox, to be defending an Eastern Orthodox view of history!
Am I mistaken in thinking that the objections being voiced (principally, if not entirely, by Hungarian newcomers to Wikipedia who must have been alerted by some common source) to the accuracy of the Brujić study concern only parts of the kingdom of Hungary of 1054, which as you know officially adopted Catholic Christianity in 1000? I find it not at all incredible that in these parts, which were not part of King Stephen's kingdom in 1000, but were added later, the situation in 1054 was as Brujić presents it: a mixture of Catholics, pagans, and - why not? - Christians led by missionaries who looked to Constantinople as the centre to which they owed ecclesiastical allegiance. I find that presentation at least as credible and perhaps even decidedly more credible than the rival presentation of that area as uniformly Catholic in 1054. In any case, it is a reliably sourced Eastern Orthodox view of where the line of division lay, a view that should be presented alongside the Western view given in the other map. Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The problems with Orthodox faith in Hungary, and the depicting territory of later moldavia and wallachia as christian places were serous errors. It might that other maps are correct, but this map shows that he didn't do serius researches in that area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.0.58.99 (talk) 19:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Brujić does not present those areas as uniformly Christian, not as uniformly pagan, not as uniformly Eastern Orthodox. Or am I mistaken? Esoglou (talk) 19:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Atlas-of-the-Historical-Geography-of-the-Holy-Land was a British University book.

DESIGNED AND EDITED BY GEORGE ADAM SMITH, D.D., LL.D.,LITT.D. PRINCIPAL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN FORMERLY PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT LANGUAGE, LITERATURE AND THEOLOGY UNITED FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW AND PREPARED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF J. G.BARTHOLOMEW,LL.D.,F.R.S.E., F.R.G.S. CARTOGRAPHER TO THE KING, AT THE EDINBURGH GEOGRAPHICALINSTITUT

http://www.scribd.com/doc/28041151/Atlas-of-the-Historical-Geography-of-the-Holy-Land-Smith

Professor JOHN DUNCAN, M.A., D.D. Professor JOHN FORBES, M.A., D.D., LL.D. Professor ANDREW BRUCE DAVIDSON,M.A., D.D., LL.D. Professor WILLIAM EOBERTSON SMITH, M.A., D.D., LL.D. Professor WILLIAM GRAY ELMSLIE, M.A., D.D.

The British Academics historians didn't make such a simple basic but huge error as Brujic did in his map.

To the user from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary

An off-topic message to the anonymous user who wants the map removed: You can continue editing anonymously, but since you are engaging in meritorical discussions on articles talk pages I strongly recommend that you create an account and log in. Doing so is easy, free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits. Also, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you don't do it, the bot will sometimes do it for you, but it has already missed many of your comments. Having comments not attributed to anyone makes the discussion much harder to follow. Please consider following those two suggestions. Thank you.

To everyone else: I'm sorry for posting an off-topic message for a user here but that user has already got many messages to the talk pages of many of the IP addresses that he used and ignored all of them. I am posting it here in hope that it will make the discussion easier to follow for everyone. —Rafał Pocztarski, Rfl (talk | contribs) 05:56, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Okay--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 07:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to both Rafał and the Pécs editor for the above.
To the Pécs editor: To exclude the 2005 book by Brujić from Wikipedia, what we need is a negative review by a reliable source, not an expression of our own opinion. Others might defend it by saying that in the 90 years since the publication of the 1915 book there have been advances in knowledge and that it is the 1915 book that should be excluded. I feel that Dotonj might well try to advance other difficulties in order to attack the 1915 book (and so would LoveMonkey, who usually reacts against anything I write - see above). No, I don't see attacks by us as enough for excluding either source.
Apologies, especially to Fakirbakir, for my mistaken remark above, based on my mistaken memory, about Anatolia. I would also point out that neither Brujić nor the Brujić-based map claim that the disputed Hungarian area and the area east of it was solidly Eastern Orthodox at the time. They only claim that there was some Byzantine-aligned Christian presence there. Esoglou (talk) 07:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Again: There were some (6-7???) Greek-speaking church building in such a large area, it doesn't mean that they were automatically ruled by Byznatine church. They were similar to later Greek Catholic Church which were under the rule of Roman Pope. It can mislead readers, because the map depicts the religious-political events and aftermatch of 1054--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 09:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The map represents the view of the 2005 book, a book that has not been shown to fall outside the Wikipedia classification as a reliable source. So, even if all of us disagree with what the book says, we cannot exclude a mention of it from Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 09:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Again, the author is not specialist (he is not religious historian) in this field of History. There were religious historian in the above mentioned British academic professors. Serbian historians archeologists have never made any archeological researches in the territory of Present-day Hungay. Therefore: if he had done some researches about the territory of present-day Hungary, he would have red only Hungarian authors in English or German language. The other serious problem: Material archeological proofs and contemporary chronicles sources didn't support the existence of Orthodox christian church in Vallachia and Moldavia before the 1200s. Christian archology founds before the 1200s in that territory would be a real archeological sensation! :) What was his sources to depict such a map? It is not a well documented map. Serious maps have references citations at the end of the pages.--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

That is only our unsourced opinion about the worth of the 2005 book. Does any reliable published source support that opinion? Esoglou (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Esoglou, your opinion is just a private opinion too, and that type of reasoning is not belong to the rational types of reasoning :)--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 13:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the majority of scholars supports User talk:User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary's opinion.Fakirbakir (talk) 14:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

"Does any reliable published source support that opinion?"(Esoglou) Which opinion do you think?--User from Pécs, Baranya, Hungary (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

I have raised the question at the noticeboard. The Pécs editor, Fakirbakir, Dotonj, and others may wish to present their arguments there. As you know, I have intervened in this long-discussed question only very recently. I will unreservedly accept whatever verdict is pronounced there. Esoglou (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Only Special books and literature and sources will help. We must search and find them instead of Dragan Brujić, who created an unsourced map and chapter. In the case of moldavia Wallachia the victory will be easy, the numbers of greek-language church of Hungary (under the rule of roman pope) are exaggerated, and they were not under the control of Byzantine chruch in the disputed century (XIth century)--188.36.194.20 (talk) 17:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

@188.36.194.20, it sounds as if you are proposing to construct a map on a country-by-country basis. Unfortunately, the result of such an effort would be original research and synthesis. We must find a map that a reliable source has created. I don't understand what you mean by the phrase "an unsourced map and chapter". Do you mean that Dragan Brujić provided no sources for his map?
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed compromise

Reviewing the discussion over the two maps, my impression is that there may be a bit of historiography at play and also a question of nuance. Reviewing the maps that have been presented in the discussion, I note that most of the maps are political in nature and some of them show the Western Schism rather than focusing on just the East-West Schism. Those maps are necessarily later than 1054 and so they may or may not reflect shifts in allegiance in the intervening centuries.

I think part of the problem is that the maps are presented in the lead section of the article without any commentary and thus various issues with the maps are being debated here and there is an attempt to resolve those issues here. Instead of continuing with this seemingly unresolveable debate, we could simply present the issues to the reader (with citations to reliable sources, of course). This would provide the reader with better information with which to interpret and judge the maps and sources with which to address any concerns the reader might have about the accuracy of the maps.

So my proposal would be to find an appropriate section to put the maps. My suggestion is that we create a separate section immediately after "Mutual excommunication of 1054". This new section would be titled "Allegiances of churches in 1054". The section would describe which churches gave their allegiance to Rome and which to the various Eastern churches. We could also note that Sicily was under Islamic control and the various issues about churches in Hungary. That would allow us to point to Dragan Brujić's map which provides a more nuanced approach than the map from the Atlas of the Historical Geography of the Holy Land in that it depicts areas where some churches had allegiance to the East and others to the West. If there are reliable sources to challenge the assertion of competing allegiances in those territories, we can present them in the text of the article. If there are competing maps, we could consider presenting those although presenting more than two maps is more likely to confuse the reader than to enlighten him.

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

OK... I was bold and implemented a variation of my proposal above. I changed the title of the new section to "Aftermath of the mutual excommunications" and included the quote from Bishop Kallistos (Ware).

I believe it is futile to argue over the maps and more valuable for us to agree to use both maps and explain them rather than to continue this debate which seems to have no end in sight. I have made a stab at capturing the crux of the issue with the Dragan Brujić map's depiction of Hungary as a country of mixed allegiances. I recognize that other issues have been raised with that map (e.g. Sicily). I am not sure whether those issues need to be addressed in this article so I invite further discussion before making further changes to the article text. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unreliability of Dragan Brujić

I think he doesn't work from sources when he depicted that map. There aren't orthodox churches and archeological founds in Great Hungarian Plain and Transylvania in the era. There were some greek-speaking churches in Transdanubia, Therefore it's interesting that he depicted Transdanubia as fully catholic until the great plain is depicted as orthodox and catholic. Archeological foulds of Christian Orthodox churches in Vallachia and Moldova in the contemporary (600AD-1200) era would be a great sensation for archeologists until this day. That really serious errors made it unreliable map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The book was constructed for Serbian schoolboys (not for university students), Don't forget that there are DE IURE "religious freedom" in Serbia and Romania, but de facto: Orthodox church works as state religion in this countries with privilegies, and they are central parts of the official Serbian state celebrations until this day. The orthodox faith is a strong power and the most influental part of the etchnic identity of Serbians until this day. Don't forget the teach of orthodox faith: "chosen heavenly nation ideology". The attacks and intolerance again western christian (various protestants and catholic) church-buildings are very frequent events in Serbia until this day. So the impartiality about orthodox faith is hardly expectable for a school book in such a circumstances and society.

Based on what you have written, I am personally of the opinion that the author may be less than totally reliable. However, I think you may not understand the Wikipedia policies of reliable sources and verifiability. Because the truth is so often difficult to pin down, Wikipedia looks less to ascertain the truth of an issue and looks to report the opinions of reliable sources about a matter. For better or worse, Dragan Brujić is considered a reliable source because his book has been published. You are not considered a reliable source. No Wikipedia editor is considered a reliable source, whether they are an anonymous editor as you are or if they have a registered account. Even if the Patriarch of Constantinople himself created an account, he would not be considered "reliable" because we have no way of verifying his identity and that his account has not been hijacked.
What is "reliable" are the published sources according to the criteria given in WP:RS. If we can verify that a source has said something, then we can reliably say that the source said it. This is an important point. Wikipedia is not saying that what the source said is true. What we are saying is that it is true that the source said it. Now, it may well be that other sources have contradicted the source and that the source may represent a minority or even fringe opinion. It is our job as Wikipedia editors to determine what are the majority, mainstream and minority opinions. We should not mislead the reader into thinking that a position is mainstream when it is not. See WP:UNDUE.
If you think that Dragan Brujić is wrong, it is up to you to find a reliable source that says so. The source does not have to mention Dragan Brujić by name. It would be sufficient for you to find reliable sources that challenge the theory that Kingdom of Hungary had both Orthodox and Catholic churches in 1054. That information could be included in the text my proposed new section.
If the appropriate supporting sources could be found, I imagine that we could write something like, "Some scholars assert that, in 1054, the Kingdom of Hungary had a mix of churches that had allegiance to Rome and others with allegiance to Constantinople. However, other scholars reject this theory and insist that no Orthodox Churches of that era have been found in the Great Hungarian Plain or Transylvania." This text would of course need to be grounded by naming specific sources. It would be ideal if we could determine and indicate which is the mainstream view and which is the minority view.
However, the text must be referenced with citations to reliable sources. We cannot rely on your personal knowledge and opinion to insert or remove text from Wikipedia. If such were allowed, Wikipedia would be hopelessly lost in the arguments of individual Wikipedia editors who may or may not know anything about the topic. This is why the policies are written the way they are.
--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


I think he doesn't work from sources when he depicted that map. There aren't orthodox churches and archeological founds in Great Hungarian Plain and Transylvania in the era. There were some greek-speaking churches in Transdanubia, Therefore it's interesting that he depicted Transdanubia as fully catholic until the great plain is depicted as orthodox and catholic. Archeological foulds of Christian Orthodox churches in Vallachia and Moldova in the contemporary (600AD-1200) era would be a great sensation for archeologists until this day. That really serious errors made it unreliable map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC) The book was constructed for Serbian schoolboys (not for university students), Don't forget that there are DE IURE "religious freedom" in Serbia and Romania, but de facto: Orthodox church works as state religion in this countries with privilegies, and they are central parts of the official Serbian state celebrations until this day. The orthodox faith is a strong power and the most influental part of the etchnic identity of Serbians until this day. Don't forget the teach of orthodox faith: "chosen heavenly nation ideology". The attacks and intolerance again western christian (various protestants and catholic) church-buildings are very frequent events in Serbia until this day. So the impartiality about orthodox faith is hardly expectable for a school book in such a circumstances and society.

The religious intolerance in Serbia is well documented in modern (post milosevic) era in diplomatic affairs. Many social scientist (American and European) researched the cause of religios intolerance in modern Serbian society. Read some: http://www.google.hu/search?gcx=w&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%22religious+intolerance%22#sclient=psy-ab&hl=hu&source=hp&q=%22religious+intolerance%22+serbia&pbx=1&oq=%22religious+intolerance%22+serbia&aq=f&aqi=g-vL1&aql=1&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=768l2572l0l2683l7l6l0l0l0l0l242l1046l0.2.3l5l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=1b37bed111704e2d&biw=1920&bih=1017


Books about it: http://www.google.hu/search?q=%22religious+intolerance%22+serbia&btnG=K%C3%B6nyvek+keres%C3%A9se&tbm=bks&tbo=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 19:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Was the Kingdom of Hungary Catholic, Orthodox or both in 1054?

Recognizing that Wikipedia and other wikis are not reliable sources, I offer the following information from Wikipedia and Orthodox Wiki: From Kingdom of Hungary in the Middle Ages...

In connection with adopting Christianity, the question of vital importance was whether Hungary should join the western or the Eastern Orthodox Church. Initially (around 948) the Hungarian noblemen joined the Byzantine Church. In the autumn of 972 Saint Adalbert of Prague was sent as bishop of the Hungarians byPope Silvester II to spread western Christianity among the Hungarians. He christened Géza and his family. His wife, Sharolt, had been baptized by a Greek bishop in her early childhood. The decision to accept the second christening was dictated by foreign relations. The last phase of the Hungarian raids was directed against the southeast, and this alienated the Byzantines. It may have been a warning to the Hungarian principality when the Byzantine emperor abolished the political and religious independence of Bulgaria in the mid 11th century, after a period of short integration of the First Bulgarian Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire.
Consequently, the Hungarian chief prince needed the political, moral, and occasional military help of the German empire because of the Byzantine threat. Adopting western Christianity was thus both a cultural and a political event for the Hungarians. During Géza's reign, the plundering campaigns came to an end. His efforts to establish a country independent of other powers was almost successful before he died.
2.2 The Reign of István (Stephen)
When Géza died the issue of succession to the throne created tension at the court: by ancestral right Koppány should have claimed the throne,[2] but Géza chose his first-born son to be his successor. The fight in the chief prince's family started after Géza's death, in 997. Koppány took up arms, and many people in Transdanubia joined him. The rebels represented the old faith and order, tribal independence and the pagan belief. His opposer, Vajk Stephen, got the name István (Stephen) when he was christened, at that time theprince of Nitra, supported by the loyal Magyar lords and German and Italian knights wanted to join European Christian community of independent states. Stephen won the throne struggle[2] and became chieftain/prince. The victory of the Christian István over the pagan Koppány in the battle for succession was of the utmost importance in determining the future course of Hungarian history.
Stephen consolidated his rule by ousting other rival clan chiefs and confiscating their lands. Stephen then asked Pope Sylvester II to recognize him as king of Hungary.[2] The pope agreed, and legend says Stephen was crowned on Christmas Day in the year 1000. The crowning legitimized Hungary as a Western kingdom independent of the Holy Roman and Byzantine empires. It also gave Stephen absolute power, which he used to strengthen the Roman Catholic Church and Hungary.[2] Stephen ordered the people to pay tithes and required every tenth village to construct a church and support a priest. Stephen donated land to support bishoprics and monasteries,[2] required all persons except the clergy to marry, and barred marriages between Christians and pagans. Foreign monks worked as teachers and introduced Western agricultural methods. In the earliest times Hungarian language was written in a runic-like script. The country switched to the Latin alphabet under Stephen. From 1000 to 1844, Latin was the official language of the country.

From Orthodox Wiki...[

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Orthodoxy_in_Hungary Orthodoxy in Hungary]

The Kingdom of Hungary, or "Realm of the Crown of St. Stephen", encompassed a very different area than the modern nation of Hungary. In one sense, one could speak of the Patriarchate of Karlowitz (Sremski Karlovci), later integrated into the Serbian Orthodox Church, as the only "Hungarian Orthodox Church" in history. The Sremski Karlovci, formed in 1765, was comprised of all the Orthodox Serbs found in the Kingdom of Hungary, and consisted of six suffragan sees on Hungarian territory.

It would seem that the Catholic Church dominated but that there was indeed an Orthodox presence prior to 1000 and some Orthodox churches may have lingered on. There were certainly enough Orthodox to create six suffragan sees in 1765. I don't have any information on what happened between 1000 and 1765 but I think these two sources establish that we need to understand the history of the Orthodox in the Kingdom of Hungary better before accepting or rejecting Dragan Brujić's perspective. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:58, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

First of all, there was a pagan mass in 1054 (Vata pagan uprising). According to Lövei "monasteries and convents belonging to the Byzantine Church were founded sporadically in the eleventh century, even in the central and western parts of the country"(The architecture of historic Hungary ( p. 11.). For instance, Andrew I established a Greek-Orthodox monastery in 1056 (in Visegrad), but he also established Benedictine monasteries (for instance Tihany Abbey). Monastery of Visegrad was led by Byzantine rite till 1109. We know about Ortodox monasteries, Marosvar (Torontal county), Dunapentele (Fejer county), Visegrad (Esztergom county), Veszpremvolgyi (Veszprem county) St Demeter (Szeremseg county).
However there were no Orthodox bishoprics (Catholic Church had 10) in the 11th century. St Stephen "chose" the western Christianity. The Orthodox church got stronger when remarkable Orthodox Serb and Romanian populations settled in Hungary (South and East Hungary) from the 13-14th centuries, but the major waves arrived during the Turkish Wars (1526-1686)(Romanian refugees settled from Moldavia to Transylvania, Serbs from Serbia mainly to Ottoman Hungary). I recommend this page. History of Christianity in Hungary Fakirbakir (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Don't forget that the ethnic (and consequently religious) composition of Transylvania (the S-E part of 1054 Hungary) is highly disputed. There are 2 very divergent theories: the one presented by you, and the other one claiming a Romanian (Orthodox) majority in Transylvania (for more details see Origin of Romanians) 82.186.39.90 (talk) 22:04, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, let us examine some actual sources (not just Wiki articles) - here is quotation from one source: "In predominantly Catholic Hungary the adherents of Orthodoxy — meaning primarily the Vlachs of Transylvania — became subject to increased Catholic pressures in the second half of the 13th century. Some Vlachs responded by moving across the Carpathians", also (same source): "Louis proclaimed that Hungary was a Catholic kingdom and began persecuting the Orthodox church, despite the large number of his subjects who were Orthodox in religion". Clearly, this source refers to Orthodoxy in the Kingdom of Hungary in the 13th-14th century, i.e. before subsequent migrations, and it also speaks about an emigration of Orthodox Christians from the kingdom, not about their immigration. So, there were indeed native Orthodox Christians in the areas that were administered by the Kingdom of Hungary during initial time period of its existence. Now, we can have a debate about a question how many Orthodox Christians lived there an in which territory. There are other sources that confirming presence of Vlachs (Romanians) and South Slavs (Serbs, Bulgarians) in the territories that were administered by the Kingdom of Hungary around 11th century. Of course, I can agree that majority of population in the Kingdom of Hungary was indeed Catholic, but an sizable part of population was Orthodox. Therefore, some source maps that showing Kingdom of Hungary as entirely Catholic in 1054 are in fact showing only dominant religion on a state level, but certainly not an dominant religion on local level in entire territory that was administered by the kingdom. Having that in mind, we can certainly use two types of maps that can present situation in 1054: 1. maps that showing dominant religion on state level and 2. maps that showing dominant religion of local level. Author Dragan Brujić used lines to mark areas which were religiously mixed (or at least partially mixed) and where sizable number of Orthodox Christians was present. This is, of course, just one of the possible ways of presentation of this subject. I would not say that any of the possible approaches is a priori incorrect or wrong. We do not have an detailed settlement-based population census from the 11th century and therefore we are simply unable to draw an fully accurate map of religion distribution in that century. All historical maps about that century are drawn only approximatively and all of them are rather representing views of certain historians instead fully exact descriptions of historical situations (for example, we do not even know exact borders of the Kingdom of Hungary in that century - we know only approximative borders because we simply do not have an original map from 11th century that show these borders in accordance with modern cartography). Thus, I do not see that anything is wrong with map that was published in the book of Dragan Brujić. This book is named "A guide through the Byzantine World" and contains 44 historical maps related to the history of the Byzantine Empire and the Balkans. These maps are of very good quality and are pretty accurate since other sources are confirming info that is presented in these maps. So, I do not see why this source would not be credible. As for an specific map from that book that show situation in 1054, I already said that data presented in that map is simply a question of approach and I do not think that this map actually contradicts to those maps that showing Kingdom of Hungary as entirely Catholic. All these maps are only showing different approaches to the same subject and I do not see why both approaches cannot be presented in Wikipedia. PANONIAN 22:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems that, while repeated "edit conflict" messages prevented me from intervening, discussion has led to the conclusion that there is indeed no Wikipedia reason for limiting the views mentioned to one only. Esoglou (talk) 06:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PANONIAN that we need not force ourselves to choose one map or one view over the other. However, I don't think we need to go into a lot of detail regarding the Kingdom of Hungary in this article. The details could be discussed in History of Christianity in the 11th century or History of Christianity in Hungary. For the purposes of this article, it should be sufficient to mention that Hungary became Catholic under Stephen I although there were Orthodox missionaries and nuns in parts of Hungary at the time; thus, any large-scale map will have difficulties capturing the details at the local level. Tell the reader what the issue is and point him at the details in History of Christianity in the 11th century and/or History of Christianity in Hungary. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:15, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think a detailed complex map is any time preferable to a inaccurate simpler one. We must decide what we want to depict: the state (official) religions or population's confessional affiliation. If we choose the first variant, the map would look like that http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Great_Schism_1054_with_former_borders-.png (poliical borders would correspond to the religious borders), while in the second variant it would have more details GiovanniB (talk) 08:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
I don't see why we should single out for comment the part of Hungary that the Brujić-based map and Brujić himself present as mixed in 1054 and the 1915 map presents as wholly Catholic at some unspecified date. Doesn't Sicily, which the Brujić-based map presents as wholly Orthodox, Brujić himself as partly Orthodox and partly Moslem, and the 1915 map as Moslem-occupied but on the Western side of the division, call for comment more than that? And take the southernmost part of Italy, Western according to the 1915 map, Eastern according to Brujić. Take the Baltic countries and Finland, which in 1054 were still pagan, but which the 1915 map, which makes no mention of 1054 or any precise date, presents as Catholic? The two maps present two different views and, since they are well enough sourced, may be recorded as such. On the other hand,GiovanniB's map is at present unsourced and so cannot be included in Wikipedia. Esoglou (talk) 10:12, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
It is obvious that the 1915 map refers to the whole Middle Ages (up to 14th century, see the legend) GiovanniB (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
And so the problem is coming up with a sourced map which captures the complexity of all the issues and represents the situation as of 1054 rather than later and not some generic period like "the Middle Ages". It's almost better to just use Brujić's map and explain what the issues are with it (e.g. indicate that the Kingdom of Hungary became Catholic under Stephen I but that there were Orthodox churches and monasteries). We need to remember that this is a summary article and so we should provide a high-level overview, leaving the details to detailed articles such as History of Christianity in the 11th century and/or History of Christianity in Hungary. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The representation of Sicily in the 1915 map shows that it is intended to show the division from 1054 on: it gives Sicily as still in Arab hands; but the Normans conquered it in 1068. Esoglou (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Just one thing: map from the book of Dragan Brujić in fact does not show entire Europe: it shows only southeastern Europe and western Asia. Map that is used in this article is in fact primarily based on this source and then modified in accordance with data provided by Dragan Brujić. As for Sicily and southern Italy, Dragan Brujić shows them as religiously mixed (not as entirely Orthodox). In fact, map revision that depicted these areas as entirelly Orthodox came from user Fakirbakir who edited this map in 18:15, 7 November 2010 and then this modified map was edited by user Iaaasi who introduced data about Central Europe from Dragan Brujić's book. So, we either should ask user Fakirbakir what source he used for southern Italy either we should modify this map to reflect southern Italy as religiously mixed. PANONIAN 13:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

"Now, we can have a debate about a question how many Orthodox Christians lived there an in which territory. There are other sources that confirming presence of Vlachs (Romanians) and South Slavs (Serbs, Bulgarians) in the territories that were administered by the Kingdom of Hungary around 11th century."

Be more concret: Please name at least 5 orthodox or orthodox built churches (or their ruins) in the territory Great Hungarian Plain, or please name at least 5 orthodox or orthodox built churches (or their ruins) in Transylvania from the 11th century. Thank You!


MATERIAL PROOFS, ARCHEOLOGY: There are no proofs for the existence of Serbs in the territory of Hungary before the Ottoman attacks of Serbia. There weren't Southern slavic population in the territory of Kingdom of Hungary before the era of Ottoman attacks. Before the Hungarian conquest there were only western Slavic population in present-day viovodina. Don't confuse the western slavic people with southern-slavic people. Ancient western slavic people had different folk arts in archaeological founds, and they have so very different biological genetical bacground (Y and mt DNA markers.) that they weren't in the same genetic cluster! http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/genmap1.jpg Forexample Serbian historians mention very rarely that the exclusively western slavic archeological founds in whole territory of kingdom of Hungary, in most cases they remained silent:-) For Bulgaria, the bulgarian semi nomadic state conquered the territory of transylvania, but there weren't southern slavic cultural archeological founds there were only western slavic folk archelogical founds before the Hungarian conquest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is your personal opinion which is not backed by any evidence. It is well known that South Slavs migrated to the Balkans from the Pannonian plain and some of them remained in that plain. Of course, it is debatable whether these Slavs were Orthodox or Catholic, but according to various sources they were both. Second archbishop of Serbian Orthodox church in the 13th century (Saint Arsenije I Sremac) was born in Syrmia, so your claim that Serbs did not lived in that region is simply ridiculous. Also, according to this Slovak source (and other sources), Slavic population of Vojvodina was part of southern Slavic branch. As for genetics, modern South Slavs are somewhat genetically different from original Slavs because of the mix with native Balkanic populations, but that does not mean that modern South Slavs have "different biological genetical bacground" than original Slavs (genes of original Slavs are part of the biological genetical bacground of modern South Slavs). PANONIAN 13:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
And by the way, mister 46.107.170.246 this hate speech comment about Serbia disqualifies you as serious participant in any discussion. PANONIAN 13:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hate speech? Did you read the cited and linked books (with google books) from the University professors of Harvard, Yale and Princeton? And books published by United nations? Do you think that amerikan academics and United nations are generally Serb-haters? :(((( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


The early history of serbs contains very few contemporary sources (Byzantine venetian and later Hungarian chronicles) before the end of 13th century. Their historians had to fill these ernomous information gaps/ditches with something. The lack & rarity of contemporary sources gives a wide area/space for the speculative history writing in the area of slavic orthodox balkan(aka: pravoslavs).

According to all contemporary sources. Serbs were christianized in the era of: Vlastimir_of_Serbia, therefore we can not talk about christan serbs during the era of slavic migrations.


The Serbs are genetically so "close" to the other (the real) western and eastern slavic people as the Walloons to the Sicilians. (both population speak neo-latin languages without common genetical origin and without common real genetical ancestors/forefathers.) Genetically the serbs and southern slavic pepople are not slavic, just slavic speaking. Serbs are descendants of native balkan populations (like the thracians) which were under the rule of slavic minority after the slavic migrations) You can't change your genes, you can only inherit it from your parents. However everybody can learn languages. It is very true for historic populations too. It is called as "Language shift" by historians. There are n — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 16:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is hate speech and you know that very well since you avoided to log in - logged users could be blocked because of such statements. Also, I do not see that you provided any source that confirms any of your statements - you only posted your personal opinion about "religious tolerance in Serbia" which is not even close to reality. Also, where I spoke about "Christian Serbs in the time of Slavic migration"? I spoke about Orthodox Serbs in Pannonian plain in the period of 10th-14th century. As for question of Serb genetic origin, it is roughly some 40% Slavic, 40% Illyrian and 20% other (at least according to one of the studies about this question). So, the issue of notable genetic difference between northern and southern Slavs does not come from the fact that Serbs do not have Slavic genes, but from the fact that northern Slavs were also mixed with other peoples who have different genes. Also, Slavic Serbs mixed with Romanized descendants of Illyrians mostly during Ottoman period, thus medieval Serbs in the Balkans had more Slavic genes and were genetically more similar to Serbs and other South Slavs who lived in Pannonian plain. PANONIAN 18:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml 15% R1a haplogroup marker in Serbia. 40%....? are you serious? :))) It is a very very low ratio.....

I posted that link with google books in the earlier version of the article: (you can not change the history of talkpage) http://www.google.hu/search?q=%22religious+intolerance%22+serbia&btnG=K%C3%B6nyvek+keres%C3%A9se&tbm=bks&tbo=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.107.170.246 (talk) 18:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

As the authors of the books state: The myth of the "Heavenly Serbia" (the myth about the manifestation of the radical union of nation and church) is the most responsible for religious etchnic conflicts in serbian society. It remained a self-image and the strongest point of the modern Serbian identity, and that caused the intolerance genocide and attacks against the believers of other religions (muslisms, western christians: catholics protestants and their churches) in modern Serbia.

I'm still waiting for the place names of 5-5 orthodox church/religious buildings/ruins in Great Hungarian Plain, Transylvania in the 11th 12th century... :))))

First: do you want to suggest that old Slavs were fully genetically homogeneous and that they had only R1a haplogroup marker? They certainly were much more heterogeneous that that. As for links, they speak about Serbia during the rule of Milošević. Did you forgot that he was overthrown in 2000? It is insulting to use quotations from book published in 1999 and to connect them with democratic Serbia in 2011. As for Orthodox churches, I did not investigated how many churches of various religions existed in Pannonian Plain in that time. Just see map on page 51 in this source: http://www.cartileonline.eu/carte/1025738/dragan-brujia-vodia-kroz-svet-vizantijeDragan If sources like this one are saying that Orthodox Christians existed in that area, that is good enough for Wikipedia. If you want to contest this source you simply have to provide one that saying that Orthodox Christians did not existed in that time and place. Also, on page 79, this same source have another map that showing religious situation around 14th century, in which religious situation was more close to one that you describing and where areas inhabited by Orthodox Christians are significantly smaller. However, this specific article speaks about situation in 1054, which is presented in first map. PANONIAN 21:21, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There are tons of western university-press books in the cited google-book searcher, which contains only 1-4 years old books about religious intolerance in post-Milosevic Serbia


Well it's official estimation, invading (original) proto-Slavs left very little archeological evidences, and it seems that original Balkan population isn't much linguistically different from them. R1A (measured between 10-18%) mostly appeared after the slavic migration in balkan, the other haplogroups like E1b1b I2a etc... are native ancient haplogroup markers of Balkan populations since the prehistoric times (betwen 40,000 and 10,000 years ago)

But it is the offtopic part of my text.


Again: to avoid the so-called "speculative history writing" (which is an own specific of many countries which have very few sources from an era) use only original sources & informations of the past: the cemetries the ruins cultic places/churches and contemporary chronicles and letters.

CENTRUM CENSEO:

I'm still waiting for the place names of 5-5 orthodox church/religious buildings/ruins in Great Hungarian Plain, Transylvania in the 11th 12th century... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.210.16 (talk) 11:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

More white wash edit warring

This edit by Richard shows that he has a POV. Richard is a pro Roman Catholic POV pusher [22]. Why would Richard take the original wording of this section as POV? At what point did the Nicene Creed in the East include the filioque? Please show me evidence that it did. As the allegation that it did by the Roman Catholic Representative is without evidence so too would be Richard's thin Roman Catholic skin. As he is implying in his very poor wording in this edit of his that it is a matter of Eastern opinion (i.e. POV in his edit summary) that the East did or did not remove the filioque.

If it never was how it this so? Note there is nothing in the transcripts from the councils on the creed ever indicating that such a thing was even on the minds of the Eastern Fathers. It was not in the Creed and such a teaching was not even up for debate. Could he please provide proof of this being a matter of opinion of the Eastern Orthodox as what is there to argue here about the Creed in the East NEVER containing the filioque and that being a matter of opinion? It's an historical FACT. Because a fact is something that is a matter of historical evidence. How is the Eastern Orthodox position an opinion to argue for? As if the Creed never contained the filioque from its place of inception and or the community that conceived it, how now is it simply a matter of POV or opinion that it never contained something -THAT IT NEVER CONTAINED? Lunacy and edit warring. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:00, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This type of behavior is edit warring plain and simple.. As if THE FACT that the original Creed as it was written stayed that way and that it was never in the East then modified to have the filioque added to it is a matter of opinion and not FACT. HOW SO? This needs to be reported as a clear case of edit warring POV. How is such a thing not a fact and just a matter of opinion. LoveMonkey (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


there's even more nonsense in the article like the old claim of eastern 'caesaropapism' 87.202.140.110 (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Validity of the 1054 excommunication by the papal legates

The text in the lead reads "The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful, since Pope Leo had died, while Cerularius's excommunication applied only to the legates personally." Two points:

First of all, we say that Cerularius' excommunication applied "only to the legates personally" but this is also true of the legates' excommunication of Cerularius and so we should say that in the lead as well.

Secondly, I'm not fully comfortable with the phrase "The validity of the Western legates' act is doubtful" partly because it fails to stipulate who is doubting the validity and also because it suggests that Wikipedia is asserting that the validity is doubtful. I would prefer to say something more explicit. Who exactly doubts or doubted the validity of the Western legates? Is it the Eastern church, the Western church or both? Has the Vatican ever said anything regarding the validity or scope of the excommunication? According to the text in the main body of the article, the New Catholic Encyclopedia points out that the excommunication applied only to Cerularius. This suggests that the NCE considers the excommunication of the papal legates to have been valid. The article text references John Norwich to support the point that "Some have questioned the validity of the bull on the grounds that Pope Leo IX had died at that time and so the authority of the legates to issue such a bull is unclear." But who is it exactly that has questioned the validity of the bull? Is it just Norwich that is questioning the validity of the bull or is Norwich just documenting that others (who?) have questioned the bull's validity? --Pseudo-Richard (talk)

Saying that the excommunication applied only to the legates personally is a repetition of part of what was said immediately before: "The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates."
"Disputed" would be better than "doubtful". For the view that the legates' action was invalid, see for instance this. For the view that the decree was valid, see for instance [... - one reason why I have not replied sooner is that I was looking for this source that I had come across, which I considered quite a good source, and which treated the question from the point of view of a student of the Constantinople patriarchate, but which I have been too busy to find again and am now abandoning the search. Probably too I intended to write more than what follows. But I am too tired to reconsider what I wrote.
By the way, the statement somewhere that, after placing the bull of excommunication on the altar, Humbert and his companions immediately went back to Rome is an over-simplification: they left for Rome but then at the invitation of the emperor returned to Constantinople and only when no compromise could be reached did they finally return to Rome. Esoglou (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:East–West_Schism/Archive_4&oldid=1136687165"