Talk:Slavic speakers of Greek Macedonia/Archive 8

Deleted passage
The passage below was deleted several times. Can everybody explain what is the problem, because I think, it will be better to discuss this issue. It is pritty referenced. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

''Large areas of north Greece were Slavic for about 1200 years until the past century. The existence of any ethnic minorities is rejected by Greece and the government has followed assimilation policies and has discriminated against them. The ideology of the Greek state is that the entire population should be Greek and the Greek government’s official position is that there are no ethnic minorities and virtually the entire population is ethnically Greek, but that there exists only a "small group of Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks," who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect" but have a "Greek national consciousness". Greek authorities declined to recognise a Slavic minority and provide minority rights and the stance of Greece remains firm today and the minority is called with what authors describe as an “absurd and racially arrogant notion Slavophone Greeks”, an official stance “maintaining the fiction that the minorities in Greece are really Greeks” and that Greece is a homogeneous country. Such an inconsistent claim of the Greek government in the Macedonia naming dispute is that the Slavic speakers in the Republic of Macedonia are "Slavs" and not Greek, and must not pretend for the name Macedonia, while the fact is that Greco-Yugoslav(Macedonian) border is an artificial one constructed arbitrary in 1913 and did not in any way that precisely separated so called "Slavophone Greeks" from true Slavs. Since 1913 Greek Macedonia has been subjected to a policy of forcible assimilation and Hellenization, whose first stages were exceeding population exchanges and changing place and personal Slavic names of the local inhabitants, all Slavic speakers, especially these with Macedonian and Bulgarian identity were deprived from the right to speak their language and names at home, beaten, terrorized, imprisoned, repressed by the police, tortured or exiled to camps in islands, they were subjected to inhumane methods of extermination and assimilation. including war crimes against little children(gouging their eyes, murder, rape, etc.) The different were deprived from their right of expressing national identity although a policy of systematic extermination was carried out against what is described by the state with an utopian demarcation as "own people". The education system propagandized “Macedonia has always been Greek” and the events of settlement of a densest number of Slavic tribes(at least 5), Phrygians, Illyrians, Thracians, Vlachs and any other people in the region was refuted in historical schoolbooks. The term “ρευστή εθνική συνείδηση” (fluid national consciousness) was invented in an attempt to grasp a non-national reality and claim that the minority was bilingual, although the members of the Slavic minority were early more often fluent in Turkish than Greek. Although a considerable part resisted, the forced assimilation and extermination has been quite successful and made the Slav ethnicity in Greek Macedonia virtually extinct. ''
 * For one thing, it is definitely not written in a neutral tone. There are multiple places where the choice of adjective and clause phrasing is quite radically anti-Greek.  --Taivo (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe the author Judist (talk) can suggest some changes in text to make it more neutral and acceptable to the community here. Jingiby (talk) 13:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I can, of course, only state my own objections (one of which is tone) and cannot vouch for anyone else's objections. Fixing the tone is just step one.  If others object to the content as a whole, that's another entire problem.  --Taivo (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * OK! Let be patient for several days, if there are some kind of objections per se. Jingiby (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, User:Taivo. In its current state, this text can never be placed on the article as it is a WP:NPOV violation and, if it is restored again, it will be removed without any prior warnings. Judist should heel to the administrator's warnings and refrain from similar disruptions in the future, including reinserting this biased content back to the article. In the event he does so, a topic-wide ban on all Macedonia and Balkan articles for him is very likely this time. As for the text, only some information - not all - can make its place into the article. But even that information could be filtered for its neutrality and tone. --S ILENT R ESIDENT  11:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jingiby.


 * Taivo, I am sorry for my tone, I hope you were misled by my tone from my last edit summaries and that the passage is not the case? I read Manual of Style/Words to watch "There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with caution" I also checked WP:VULGAR, it says "Wikipedia is not censored and its encyclopedic mission encompasses the inclusion of material that might offend. Quoted words should appear exactly as in the original source. ". As you see most of the passage contains quotes in commas, which are official stances of the Greek government. As Wikipedia is not censored this should stated in the article. On what grounds can object to something of such primary importance can be objected ? There are also quotations from Britannica and many claims are for Greek authors, there are several who acknowledge the "forced Hellenization" and "severe repression" of the minority during at least the extreme dictator Metaxas and this is expressed in the sources of the Greek authors Konstantinos Mousukas and Yannis Hamilakis. Whatever the truth offends, must be expressed without censorship and bias in this website, the claims were reported as in the sources. Do you agree with that? This is a due weight supported by enough authors and nationalities. But you are welcome to criticize. Could you please be more concrete about the tone? --Judist (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My attitude toward this edit's tone was not based on your edit summaries. To suggest so is to disparage my long-term skills as a Wikipedia editor.  Your edit is fundamentally biased in an anti-Greek direction and hiding behind "I'm just quoting my sources" is to abrogate your own responsibility to be a neutral editor.  You chose to pick and use the most biased sources and to quote them directly rather than paraphrase or summarize them in a neutral fashion and with neutral vocabulary.  Indeed, Wikipedia prefers summaries of sources rather than direct quotes when the original material is biased and the vocabulary offensive.  Has there been an anti-Slavic bias among Greek authorities over time?  Yes.  We know that.  But your extended harangue using the most biased language you could find in your sources is far from a neutral summary of the situation.  It's not your edit summaries.  It's your failure to present material in an unbiased manner and then hiding behind your excuse, "I'm just quoting my sources".  That is not far from "I was just following orders."  --Taivo (talk) 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * But your tone is only one of my objections. Since you seem unwilling to even think that your tone is offensive in a broad sense, then I will also point out other objections.  There are multiple places where you have listed lurid details that are not encyclopedic and themselves bias the reader.  What is the point of mentioning that little children had their eyes gouged out other than to prejudice the reader against the Greek perpetrators?  It's a lurid detail that is placed here simply to inflame anti-Greek passions.  There are multiple instances of this.  --Taivo (talk) 16:19, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't intend to disparge you. I agree the passage to be transformed and the details of torture you mentioned moved to other section, removed, abbreviated or whatever. Would you try to transform it so that it fit better? Can you go ahead to the next step?


 * The point is as I said that there should be no censorship. I didn;t say I just cite sources, I said I represent them as in the tone presented by MOS. You allege me of hiding behind claims and thus justifying the removal of a whole passage? Isn't that bizzare? You can't know what are others' mentality and we care about the content, the contributors are not our business. I object to a complete removal and censorship of the passage. That (e.g.) part of Armenian Genocide should be censured simply because inflame anti-Turkish passions is not passing in Wikipedia, is it? Wikipedia is not censored and truth may be sometimes presented as offensive as it is. Isn't Holocaust, other genocides, etc, everything in detail. Why do even to question that? The reader may be prejudiced in all directions, everybody has different perceptions and we can't handle them. We should care about the information, the neutrality ignores the editors and the readers. It contains an official stance of the Greek government, biased or not, this should be noted. As for the rest, If smb finds one view so biased I simply suggest somebody to try to find more of a counter view for a balance. I will not re-add this passage in the article if nobody supports it until consensus from you. If somebody else wants it readded in the article, then go ahead and add it, correct it or whatever. Best.--Judist (talk) 17:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Equating the suppression of Slavic culture in northern Greece to the Holocaust and Armenian Genocide is like equating a teaspoon of flour to a German chocolate cake. --Taivo (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

New proposal the identity section, with excluded potential undue weight, which would rather be appropriate in other sections: ''The existence of any ethnic minorities is rejected by the Greek state officially. The minority was subjected to inhumane methods of extermination and assimilation, an unjustified terror against a minority claimed to be part of the "Greek race". The ideology of the Greek state is that the entire population should be Greek and the Greek government’s official position is that there are no ethnic minorities and virtually the entire population is ethnically Greek, but that there exists only a "small group of Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks," who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect" but have a "Greek national consciousness". The stance of Greece remains firm today and the whole minority is called with what authors describe as an “absurd and racially arrogant notion Slavophone Greeks”, an official term “maintaining the fiction that the minorities in Greece are really Greeks” and that Greece is a homogeneous country. Such an inconsistent claim of the Greek government in the Macedonia naming dispute is that the Slavic speakers in the Republic of Macedonia are "Slavs" and not Greek, and must not pretend for the name Macedonia, while the fact is that Greco-Yugoslav(Macedonian) border is an artificial one constructed arbitrary in 1913 and did not in any way that precisely separated so called "Slavophone Greeks" from true Slavs. The utopian demarcation “ρευστή εθνική συνείδηση” (fluid national consciousness) was invented in an attempt to grasp a non-national reality and claim that the minority was bilingual, although the members of the Slavic minority were early more often fluent in Turkish than Greek. According to some authors, the forced assimilation and extermination has been quite successful and made the Slav ethnicity in Greek Macedonia virtually extinct. '' Judist (talk) 11:34, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you seriously think that the above "revision" follows the dictates of WP:NPOV, then you are seriously in need of some education on Wikipedia standards and practices. I didn't get past the first two sentences before it was clear that you have no idea how to edit neutrally on Wikipedia.  Sorry, but that version is equally unacceptable as a violation of WP:NPOV.  --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The first two sentences represent facts and are neutral. What to state for a state, in which all citizens are alleged to be ethnic Greeks officially by the government? I don't know any current government in the world with more extensive and long-standing assimilation policy than this one, do you? It can maybe sounds not too neutral, but a fact. Now you left without telling what you insist to be changed? I am lost like this. Propose a wording and try to get consensus after compromise with others? If you are simply insisting that the passage may not be corrected by me and should be left out, please state that, without provoking me for further attempts of cooperation. Best--Judist (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't have to build a consensus for this, you do. You need to look up the word "neutral" in the dictionary.  You clearly don't know the meaning of it.  And if you seriously are unable to see what violates WP:NPOV about this then your chances of building a consensus for any wording you propose are zero.  But just so you can see why other editors reject your wording, I'll show from the beginning the earliest examples:  "The minority was subjected to inhumane methods of extermination and assimilation, an unjustified terror".  Anti-Greek wording is clearly found in "inhumane" and "unjustified terror".  As I stated in an earlier comment, hiding behind "those are the words of my sources" is just lazy editing and violates WP:NPOV.  Why don't you include any pro-Greek sources?  Why don't you use anti-Macedonian wording, too, if you want to truly be neutral with this type of prejudicial use of inflammatory vocabulary?  That's just the beginning.  You clearly have an anti-Greek axe to grind.  I'm not pro-Greek (just see the accusations of being Macedonian that are regularly hurled at me on pages related to that nation), but this wording of yours is egregiously anti-Greek.  If I (who regularly defends Macedonia's right to use the name "Macedonia") can see your bias and am aghast that you claim it's "neutral", then you are in serious trouble when it comes to being able to objectively edit Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 22:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Judist, when will you ever understand what WP:NPOV, one of the Wikipedia's core content policies, is? After years of advises, warnings and two blocks, one could have expected from you that you have had more than enough time to familiarize yourself with the project's core policies. Not knowing some of the minor rules in Wikipedia after that many years, is very understandable and forgivable. There is always a minor rule or two which we may not be aware of, regardless of our time in Wikipedia. But not knowing still one of the three core content policies (really, there are only 3 here, not more!) is not forgivable. This is a tragic irresponsibility, not befitting an editor of Wikipedia. At this rate, I couldn't be surprised if you start someday creating articles such as Ethnic Macedonian Genocide, which could greatly befit as article title for your text, given the tone of it. Very saddening. There is nothing more I can add to what Taivo has told you already. Your text can by no means be added into the article, even in the case where you have managed to address the problematic tone of it. --S ILENT R ESIDENT  04:40, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi everybody. As I see here is no consensus on the proprosed by Judist variant. I try yet to make some another proposal in hope to reach a NPOV. It is as follows: Today the existence of Slavic ethnic minority is denied by the Greek state. In the past this group was a subjected to different methods of combined assimilation, an today it is claimed to be part of the "Greek race".[16][17][2][18] The position of the Greek state is that the entire Slavic population in Greece is ethnically Greek,[17][19] and it is only a "small group of Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks", who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect", but has a "Greek national consciousness".[20] Such a claim of the Greek government does not accept the fact, that northern Greek border does not in any way precisely separate so called "Slavophone Greeks" from another "true Slavs" - Macedonian and Bulgarian. The idea of such kind of fluid national consciousness, was invented in the early 20-th century as an attempt, to grasp a non-national fictional reality. In this way, the different assimilation policies hold during the 20-th century, including forced ones, has been quite successful and made the Slav ethnicity in Greek Macedonia virtually extinct today.Jingiby (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is better, but still violates WP:NPOV. It's fine from the beginning up until "Greek national consciousness" (the tone, that is, I'm not saying anything about whether this should be in the article or not).  Then with "Such a claim" it divulges back into the opinionated and prejudicial anti-Greek rant that is totally inappropriate for Wikipedia and stays in that mud until the end.  Put it on your personal blog page, but it doesn't belong here.  --Taivo (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Dear Judist and Jingiby, it seems you have confused Wikipedia for a personal WP:BLOGSPOT where such texts can be used freely. Like how Taivo has said (and he is quite clear, I don't understand why you are forcing him to repeat himself), please keep such content away from the article. The sooner this is understood, the better. We have already spent way too much time educating you about WP:NPOV, about what POV is and what it is not. Don't get me wrong, it is nice for me and Taivo to help you get familiarized with the project's core content policies, and, usually we do not WP:BITE you the editors about that, especially if you are newcomers. But thing is - you aren't exactly newcomers to the project. You have been quite old members of Wikipedia, from what I can see. And I am sure Taivo and I shouldn't be spending much more time here teaching you about the obvious (which I am afraid has become quite clear by now). Wikipedia in fact discourages such lengthy educational talks as this current one, and rather suggests sanctions to be imposed, as per WP:NOTGETTINGIT, where it states: "If the community spends more time [...] educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." and rather encourages the editors to move on and shift their focus on other articles that would really need our attention. --S ILENT R ESIDENT  16:01, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Taivo either insists others to correct the passage according to his views or the passage to be completely removed(I don't get it so far) and said: " Put it on your personal blog page, but it doesn't belong here" which, either of both, violates the policy Taivo cited. Namely, the Neutral_point_of_view claims: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. "

Taivo, you somehow left the rewording to other editors, with the expectation to constantly object new proposals and to insist for removal of the tones of source of due weight, but suprise- you are violating the policy above and most you can do is to propose a rewording by yourself, the passage may not be removed out of here to a blog.

Sources to be included here are measured on WP:DUE and WP:UNDUE weight, i.e. amount of non-fringe authors, who maintain a specific view. I added the sources to the proposal, a significant majority of the authors agree that there was assmilation policies(Britannica states "long standing policies of assimilation"), so this a due weight and cannot be removed, but a rewording can be attempted through the "normal editing process". "''The existence of any ethnic minorities is rejected by the Greek state officially. The minority has been subjected to a long-standing govenrment policy of assimilation,  extermination, including inhumane methods and terror, against a minority claimed to be part of the "Greek race".  The ideology of the Greek state is that the entire population should be Greek and the Greek government’s official position is that there are no ethnic minorities and virtually the entire population is ethnically Greek, but that there exists only a "small group of Slavophone Hellenes" or "bilingual Greeks," who speak Greek and "a local Slavic dialect" but have a "Greek national consciousness". The stance of Greece remains firm today and the whole minority is called with what authors describe as an “absurd and racially arrogant notion Slavophone Greeks” , an official term “maintaining the fiction that the minorities in Greece are really Greeks” and that Greece is a homogeneous country. Such an inconsistent claim of the Greek government in the Macedonia naming dispute is that the Slavic speakers in the Republic of Macedonia are "Slavs" and not Greek, and must not pretend for the name Macedonia, while the fact is that Greco-Yugoslav(Macedonian) border is an artificial one constructed arbitrary in 1913 and did not in any way that precisely separated so called "Slavophone Greeks" from true Slavs. The utopian demarcation “ρευστή εθνική συνείδηση” (fluid national consciousness) was invented in an attempt to grasp a non-national reality and claim that the minority was bilingual, although the members of the Slavic minority were early more often fluent in Turkish than Greek. According to some authors, the forced assimilation and extermination has been quite successful and made the Slav ethnicity in Greek Macedonia virtually extinct. ''"

If you also can find a minority of pro-Greek sources, which claim that there was no assimilation, add it. Apart from the sources- the rest, is the wording, which you have the right insist to change here, but Wikipedia is not censored and please stop repeating the nonsense to impose a censorship on such due weight. What seems biased to you can not be removed and moved to a non-existent blog, which claim of yours is also a bizzare violation of the good faith here. If you can not reword, but insist to remove the passage, then you are imposing censorship here and are useless for achieving the consensus according to the policies. All policies are also followed by the proposal of Jingiby, do you agree that the removed due passage violated the general rule of WP:NPOV#Achieving neutrality? The passage clearly must be returned back to the article and can experience change through "normal editorial process", the policy is clear. Agree with me, because I am alleged here to be much bad user. One allegator, who instead of discussing the content, continues allegations against me - SilentResident, is a biased editor, violates NPOV throughout the articles and removes anything that is not suited with the Greek point of view, can not find the balance and are falsely threating the alleged others for behaving like her with warnings for a topic ban throughout the talk pages. The user also tries to redirect all the administrators' attention of her biased disruptive agenda and extreme views to alleged users with superficial politeness and excuses like "reading disorder" and should be carefully watched by the administrators. As the Balkans were a very notable arena of ethnic cleansings and assimilation policies the scholars coined the term Balkanization for that. Remember the general rule above- simply do not remove sourced information. If you can't reword the text or add alternative views, you must leave it like that. Trying to reword is welcome. You don't have grounds for blanking, a disruptive editing, as the policies you cited are speaking against you.--Judist (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I agree with Judist. The case here is probably an attempt to impose here some kind censorship, and this deletion of the passage above, is a violation of the rules of Wikipedia. It resembles the case of Anastasia Karakasidou. Karakasidou received her undergraduate and graduate education in the US. She has a doctorate degree in social and cultural anthropology from Columbia University. Her disseration and early reearch is focused on the ethnicity and culture of the Slavic-speakers of northern Greece. Karakasidou's monograph is called “Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. Passages to nationhood in Greek Macedonia”. It was published by the University of Chicago Press in 1997. However several months earlier Cambridge University Press shocked the academic worlds by pulling Karakasidou’s book from their academic list. Cambridge officials claimed that her publication could endanger the security of their associates in Greece. Misha Glenny claims Karakasidou became a target of a campaign waged in the Greek media by extreme nationalists, who claimed that her work on issues of Slavic identity in Aegean Macedonia was treacherous. These claims were made at the height of the hysteria, encouraged by members of the Greek government. Cambridge University administration explained that its decision was made under the strong pressure of the British Embassy in Athens. Per Mark Mazower from University of Sussex her writings demonstrates that contrary to official rhetoric, the current people of Greek Macedonia ultimately derive from profoundly diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I propose again to put into the article my more neutral suggestion, and to discuss it sentence by sentence here. Keep in mind it is pretty sourced with academic references. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but your arguments do not make your biased text more eligible for use in the Wikipedia. Texts in which Greece is accused for organized exterminations, Ethnic cleansings and genocides against Ethnic Macedonians (a view which is held among Macedonian nationalists against, not only Greece, but also Bulgaria, and which is not backed by any serious historians, scholars and academics worldwide) have no place here. Stop dragging this discussion because it ain't happening. I very kindly recommend that you WP:DROPTHESTICK and back away. From me at least, do not expect to give you my consent as this won't happen. I will monitor the article to make sure these texts won't be added. In the case they are, they will be reverted as usual. Have a good day. --S ILENT R ESIDENT  09:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * There are policies and they cannot be dropped only to rise you to the status of an owner of Wikipedia.--Judist (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, again. I don't mention anywhere terms as ethnic Macednians, genocide, organized exterminations, ethnic cleansings etc. By the way prof. Karakasidou's family got frequent threats from Greek nationalists and she herself was warned even by the Secret Intelligence Service-Mi6, to be under a terrorist threat, because of her research on the field of ethnic identity of the Slavs from Greece. Maybe this case should be added to the text. Regards. Jingiby (talk) 10:44, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Jingiby, the article already has covered the issues of discrimination and Hellenization policies against the South Slavic community of Greece in a balanced way that contains no anti-Greek or anti-Ethnic Macedonian or anti-Bulgarian pov, which I believe is the best possible thing we can have for now. Coming here and insisting of your part on a certain anti-Greek bias only disrupts this progress toward improving and balancing the article, will find me firmly opposing. You and Judist have dragged this discussion too far but do not expect from me to change my position on this. --S ILENT R ESIDENT  11:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not my job to rewrite your personal prejudice and make it acceptable for the article. And your claim that it's "just what the sources say" is lazy editing and doesn't make it any more appropriate for Wikipedia.  You are clearly in the territory now of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and are wasting our time.  The bottom line is that your edit is unacceptable.  There is no consensus for inserting your personal hatred of Greeks into Wikipedia and it will be reverted if you do.  I will remind you that this article is subject to Wikipedia's discretionary sanctions per WP:MOSMAC and WP:ARBMAC and you can be blocked or banned if you persist and start an edit war.  You have failed to build a consensus here for your edits.  That's the fundamental requirement for inserting anything into Wikipedia.  --Taivo (talk) 15:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I second everything SilentResident and Taivo have said so far. Especially the part about this article being covered by discretionary sanctions. Khirurg (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * While Judist's suggested text is completely unacceptable, Jingiby's suggestion is fine up to a point. The last part, however, from "Such a claim...", seems to be the editor's own analysis. Unless this analysis can be sourced, it falls obviously under WP:OR, and even if it is sourced, it would have to be paraphrased as one point of view, not presented as Wikipedia's conclusion. --T*U (talk) 12:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd go for the suggestion of Jingiby, along with the request of TU-nor. Compromised enough, all the information is referenced to serious academics and Britannica. The rest should stop complaining as long as they are able to participate in the process of editing. It seems you didn't hear that. What policies of Wikipedia actually say is that information may be normally, but not necessarily added with consensus. Consensus (by everyone) is not a must and strict rule in Wikipedia for the case as you claim. There is also a pillar of Wikipedia "ignore all rules" if something improves the article. The general rule for the case claims that the passages should be reverted and be modified by editorial process, so this is what should normally be done in this case. The general rule Neutral_point_of_view: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process."--Judist (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because you shout in bold letters and stomp your foot about "compromised enough" doesn't mean that WP:CONSENSUS and other policies don't still apply. --Taivo (talk) 07:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * All of this material seems to already be covered under the section "Past Discrimination" and that your references could simply be added to the references already found in that section. If that's the case, then repeating the material in another section just to make a point is a violation of WP:NPOV as being a WP:POINTy edit.  --Taivo (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Posting another deleted passage for discussion.Judist (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok lets see, dear Judist, what you got again for us to discuss (and potentially waste more of our time with you). The passage you added does not really add much to the article, besides being a disguise for more POV of your part, especially on the section where you wrote: "''The Slavic tribes absorbed their allies the Avars and the Bulgars and some Byzantines, who were of various backgrounds (Aromanian, Illyrian, Thracian, Greek, Paeonian, Phrygian, Ancient Macedonian, etc.)".
 * As expected: classic WP:POV and WP:OR attempt to revive the Ancient Macedonians in the Byzantine era as a separate ethnic group from the Greeks and then link them ("absorbed") with the modern day Slavs, to establish an unbroken link between Ancient Macedonians and modern day's Ethnic Macedonians. Classic POV from the usual suspect. --S ILENT R ESIDENT  17:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)