This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aromanians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello. I've just added a pic with their flags. The vast majority of scientists, Greece and Diaspora, consider them autochthonous in Northern Greece. ( Makedonovlah ( talk) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)) Hey everybody.I've just removed the proposed flag as it has nothing to do with the vast majority of the Aromanians nor their historic background.It would be better for this flag to be presented as the banner of the organizations they used it and not for the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierikos ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The Aromanians are predominantly Orthodox Christians, and follow the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar. During medieval times (around the 10th and 11th century), many Aromanians passed to Paulicianism (Bogomilism), a Christian secte. Majority of Bogomil Aromanians emerged in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Later, all Bogomils were reconverted to Christianity but many Bogomil Aromanians of Herzegovina passed to Islam. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, all Aromanians were Serbianized, frequenting churches in Serbian language. 79.112.100.38 ( talk) 10:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Bolt Escargot and MacedoRoman, all discussion of this article should take place here, not on each others' user talk pages. —valereee ( talk) 12:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The section basically repeats the entire content of List_of_Aromanians, is completely without references, and is silly long. I suggest deleting all but the maybe three or four most important and merging the rest into the list article. —valereee ( talk) 13:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
To all users of the current page.
Recently there has been a forced revert of the last version of the page imposed by ‘’ Theroadislong ‘’ due to the complaint of the user ‘’Super Dromaeosaurus’’ made directly to him by accusing my edits as disruptive, (whereas his are constructive…) and because he can not keep the pace of my edits, mainly for the three points mentioned below.
My viewpoint is that the current content is not just wrong but harms the Aromanain identity, by presenting them as Romanian migrants in the Balkans, which is nothing else but false.
Specifically,
1. Terms like ‘’Macedo-Romanians’’ or ‘’Megleno-Romanians’’ and anything else Romanian related have nothing to do with Aromanians and must not be accepted to describe the Aromanian identity.
a)The first term is a pure fiction, it does not represent any ethnical identity. There have never been such people in the Balkans. The term is an invention of Romanian scholars of the XVIII-th century, promoted in order to serve the national interest in the Balkans. It implies that Aromanians are Romanians from Macedonia. The absurdity in its zenith. Users who support those sources based on the XVIII-th century ideology and terminology should bring evidence of Romanians that have lived in Macedonia. There have never been Romanians in ancient or modern Macedonia. For the respective century it was normal and common to act in that way, because all Balkan states were doing the same, trying to impose their opinion on the Aromanian issue, namely each state was trying to ‘’convince’’ the Aromanians and the ‘’world’’ that Aromanians are Romanians, Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians and so on. The so-called ‘’recent sources’’, they are anything but recent. They just recycle the theory and terminology of the XVIII-th century, and it is done mainly by Romanian scholars. Today that is unacceptable and the most important, it is irrelevant and has no effect on the matter. Aromanians have been officially recognised both internationally by the European institutions and by Balkan states as a distinct nation. Wikipedia cannot disregard the above decisions and their social, political and juridical effects. Much more its users.
b)The second term relates to a distinct ethnical group which are very close (the closest among all other Latin people) to Aromanians, but not the same.
2. Use of the terminology ‘’Dacian’’ or similar to it with the purpose of describing the Aromanian identity. Aromanians are native, indigen, people of southern and western Balkans. Dacians have never been part of the respective region. Thus Aromanians are descendant of ancient Thracians and Illyrians and have nothing to do with Dacians and anything else Dacian related. Thus the respective terminology is irrelevant to the Aromanian identity and must not be accepted. Users who contest the reality, do it for other purposes. In any case, they have to prove their point of view with relevant and valid evidence on the matter.
3. Native/indigen to. Aromanians are native in the southern and western Ballkans. The vast majority of their settlements are found in central and northern Greece, southern and central Albania, south west North Macedonia, south west Bulgaria, Southern Serbia, and less in Montenegro, Bosnia, and Croatia. Whoever contest this must prove their point of view with relevant and valid evidence on the matter.
I am waiting your opinions on the matter, because I would like to resume my editing process. I am looking forward to having a constructive discussion on the matter and to reach into a fair and just conclusion.
Thank you Legione-Romana ( talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not interested in your comments! Bring evidence that Aromanians are Romanians who migrated from modern Romania to their current settlements. Until then everything that states that will be deleted! Finito! Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, the sources provided to support the term Macedo Romanian are not neutral. They are biased, namely only from Romanian scholars. Furthermore, they are outdated. They recycle the Romanian terminology of the 18-century. Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Please read carefully what I have writen. I do not need to bring any evidence.The users who support the current content should do so. I contest the current content as unsourceable, meaning in some cases there are no sources at all but just abusive use of the terminology, in other cases the sources are outdated or irrelevant. Legione-Romana ( talk) 10:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
“Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions.” I suggest you find sources for your content. Theroadislong ( talk) 12:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The current version has been imposed by a forced revert. I contest it! Since new unsourced content is not acceptable at all, I reserve the right to delete the current unsourced content, which contains misleading information! Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
12>Benevedes, Eli; Lally, Owen; Li, Hung-En; Perlee, Abigail; Piombino, Eileen (2021). Investigating the Impacts of Earthquakes on Ethnic and Religious Groups: Bucharest, Romania (PDF) (Thesis). Worcester Polytechnic Institute. pp. 1–63.
Used to support the term Macedo Romanian. Since when sismological studies of politechnic institutes constitute scientific research in order to determine ethnic identities?! Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:17, 3 April 2021
Read above about the term "Macedo-Romanian"! Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Please stop recycling the so-called sources that use the Romanian terminology of the 18-th century. If you want to support the term you should bring neutral and modern studies on the discipline of ethnology. The page is about Aromanians and their modern national identity, not about earthquakes, wedding or fictional identities of the past. Legione-Romana ( talk) 12:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add half aromanian field marshal of the greek army /info/en/?search=Alexandros_Papagos to the notable list Katakai123 ( talk) 15:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It is illiterate to describe the Aromanians as Paleo-Balkan people who "spoke Vulgar Latin"! In the Origin section is barely mentioned that these Paleo-Balkan peoples intermarried with some Roman legionaries in the context of some nationalistic Balkan theories about the Aromanians!
The article lacks some basic analysis about the Latin colonisation (mainly from Italia, Hispania and Narbonensis) in the Balkans (civil and military) as a core of the Ethnogenesis processes of the new ethnic group and the relative wight of the peripheral Paleo-Balkan and later Slavic cultural and genetic admixtures!
I think that the article should mention both the population which was counted as Cincari and the ones counted as Vlasi in the total number of Aromanians in Serbia.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 13:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
There are no Aromanians in south Serbia less 15.000. There are around 300 Aromanians (2011) who almost exclusively live in Belgrade popis2011.stat.gov.rs 77.243.23.232 ( talk) 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Detailed etnographic study on Aromanians and their number in the Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and N.Macedonia https://ro.scribd.com/doc/28227905/Rezumat-Teza-Doctorat-Romanii-Din-Balcani-Dorin-Lozovanu Or same study if not registered at Scribd https://www.yumpu.com/ro/document/read/16099940/populatia-romaneasca-din-peninsula-balcanica-paun-es-durlic Data are based on the begining of 2000s census results There is an update of the study from 2018 but it is not available online 77.243.23.232 ( talk) 17:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Please make corrections regarding Aromanians in Serbia part. Herzegovina has never been part of Serbia therefore designed section regarding Radimlja and Bosnia tombstones called stecak are incorrectly placed under wrong header. Aromanians or Cincars were part of Bosnian cultural tapestry for centuries and there should have been a section devoted to them under header “Aromanians / Cincars in Bosnia-Herzegovina”. 100.1.65.36 ( talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to add Arameans to the 'Not be confused with' entry at the top of the article. As words Aromanians and Arameans are very close to and perhaps easily confused with each other. Both relate to groups which are much less well known than Armenians or Romanians in my view. I hope this is non-contentious. 217.155.59.206 ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Number of Aromenians in Serbia 2022 is 21013 ( https://data.stat.gov.rs/Home/Result/3104020102) 2A02:3032:301:28D:E413:E18A:2880:6120 ( talk) 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Botushali, most estimates give figures of this number. Thede Kahl (2001) gives at least 100,000 ( p. 156), Matilda Caragiu Marioțeanu cited 70,000–100,000 (1984, that one is quite old I know), Nicolae Saramandu gave 60,000–100,000 (1988; for both see p. 220). The lowest estimate I've seen was by Max Demeter Peyfuss at 20,000 (too lazy to look up the source). Aromanian cultural organizations usually give 200,000–250,000 but that's for sure exaggerated. There are many more by the way. It's not up to editors to decide this, but what amount seems reasonable to you? I had been looking for an estimate that I had seen some time ago citing 60,000, which had been done by a state Albanian geographic institute or something like that, but I cannot find it anymore. That would look like an ideal outcome if the source is found. It's noteworthy that Kahl mentions this estimate, cited to "official Albanian sources" without mentioning that survey by the geographical society or whatever it was, I don't remember. I found many other sources mentioning this figure and citing it vaguely to "official Albanian sources". Is that good? Or given Kahl's authoritative status we could use his personal 100,000 and the 60,000. In any case a figure of 139,000/3.6% does not seem that unreasonable to me. Apparently 92% of Albanians have declared their ethnicity as Albanian, and many estimates of Greeks tend to include Aromanians. Here is an Aromanian teen explaining he lives just like a normal Albanian [3]. They are the big minority with the highest degree of integration, specially outside the areas with Greek population. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Population Statistics
Local populations identify their language by the following terms: Armâneaști, Armânească, Armâneșce, Rrămăneaști, Machiduneaști, Aromână, Vlașki, Vlach and their ethnicity by Armân, Aromân, Rămăn, Arumanian, Vlach, Arumun, Aromunian, Macedo-Romanian, Macedo-Rumanian, Țiți, Român, Grec, Macedonean. The main regions in the Balkans where populations of Aromaninans reside are Thessaly, Epirus, Central Albania, North Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania (Dobruja) (Lozovanu, 2008; Lewis, 2009). The only recent official censuses that record Aromanians are from Albania3 and North Macedonia4 where the language has an official status in local communities, but the total number does not exceed 18,000 members in total in both countries. The largest communities are in Greece, according to Kahl (2006), and the numbers are estimated at the order of hundreds of thousands. However, the last census of 1951, which numbered Aromanians, found only 40,000 people self-declaring as such5. The second largest community is likely to be in Romania, where Aromanians have been given land through colonization and Romanization of the Dobruja region, since the end of XIXth century to the beginning of the XXth century (Gica et al., 2009; Clark, 2015). The last Romanian census that included Aromanians was held in 2002 (Lozovanu, 2008) and numbered approximately 25,000 people. Except for the notable exceptions of Albania and North Macedonia where specific localities have Aromanian designated as official language, the language is rarely spoken outside private homes and family contexts (Lewis, 2009), access to public schools is severely limited, and therefore many Aromanians lose language skills and become assimilated by the dominant linguistic group. Given this situation, here we reiterate the urgency to develop linguistic resources that can contribute to the preservation of the Aromanian cultural heritage.
are estimated at the order of hundreds of thousands. However, the last census of 1951, which numbered Aromanians, found only 40,000 people self-declaring as such. The second largest community is likely to be in Romania... The last Romanian census that included Aromanians was held in 2002 (Lozovanu, 2008) and numbered approximately 25,000 people.So if the order of highest Aromanian population is at first Greece, followed by Romania at 25,000 people back in 2002, then I presume Albania would therefore be third. As such, the number needs to be something below 25,000. Unless someone is able to find other recent sources that discuss the number of Aromanians in Albania in 2024-ish, then I find it difficult to agree to a number that goes beyond a few thousand. Even if we decide on ~20,000, it seems a little generous as a figure for citizens with an exclusive ethnic Aromanian identity in Albania. A lot of the Aromanians have already left or assimilated in previous generations, and so even though the number of Albanians with at least partial recent Aromanian ancestry may go into the tens of thousands, I do not think the number of "full-blooded" Aromanians or self-identifying Aromanians nears that.
During my fieldwork, I had the possibility to observe the registrations closely and very intensively, and I could evaluate the process of how data were collected in the field. Very few respondents claimed that they had met with Census field operators, others affirmed that the section on ethnicity and religion had been ignored during the registration. Hence, Official Statistics as they appear online on the official site were not reliable. Some figures in the Census also tend to increase the percentage of the Greek community and reduce the number of Aromanian/Vlachs who live in the area. This, to some extent, is a result of Greek policies that have assimilated a large number of Vlach communities in south Albania.;
Due to partial work in the field, Census 2011 conducted by INSTAT Albania lacked major data from villages with Aromanian communities and in many areas in Korça as well. The priest of the Aromanian church in Korça told me in an interview (2011), “Nobody knocked at our doors. We didn‘t even see how the form was made”. Some community members affirmed that “when it came to responding to religion and ethnicity section, INSTAT field employers neglected our replies‘. Therefore, the first Albanian census which had to include questions on the citizens’ identity (religion and ethnicity), was not representative, at least the section on identity and origins resulted in a failing process. After 80 years in which they have had not been able to openly express their ethnic and religious identity, not only minority communities but also Albanians did not find space to use this right.. Seems to be in line with previous allegations of irregularities in censuses in Albania.
The numbers and estimates of the Vlach populations are thus not clear in the pluralistic societies of Southeastern Europe. If members of the younger generation do not speak Vlach anymore, even at home, and hardly understand it, can they still be classified as "ethnic" Vlachs? The censuses are based on self- declaration, on what people declare themselves to be. In a still rather traditional — even patriarchal — society such as the Republic Of Macedonia, self-declaration often hides cultural diversity. Families where the father is Macedonian declare themselves as Macedonian even though the mother might be a member of the Vlach minority (but a reverse situation is also possible). People have often declared a Macedonian idendty because of political patriotism, even if they speak Vlach. During Yugoslav times many members of potentially vulnerable minorities identified themselves as "Yugoslavs".547 The Vlach population has often easily adjusted its identity to the surrounding national thinking (as we will see later on). [...] In Albania, the numbers are not clear either. Winnifrith's respected study, Vlachs, published in 1987, clearly contains errors, particularly conceming the number of Vlachs in Albania, and the author has himself corrected his underestimations in his more recent book from 1995, where he claims that the Vlach population in Albania may even number 200,000. During communist times, the Vlachs were not considered to be a separate ethnic minority. Because of the closed society and difficult economic situation, the Vlach villages nevertheless managed to preserve their language and culture, the younger generation much better than in the neighboring countries559. In Albania, the collapse of the communist regime led to a resurgence of Aromanian nationalism and later to recognition in the new Albanian constitution of the Aromanian community as a national minority. Estimates of the numbers of the Vlachs in Albania vary from 100,000 up to 200,000, but they also include people who do not use the Aromanian language anymore. All the same, Albania is the only country where the Vlachs constitute a relatively significant percentage of the total population (around 2 percent). Usually the Vlachs have been included in the numbers of the "Greek Orthodox minority", as they also live in the same areas as the Greek- speakers in the south of the country. This raises the question of which characteristic is understood as the most significant in classifying populations: language or religion. In the census of 2001 both ethnicity and religon as separate categories were omitted, which led to a boycott by Greek and Macedonian minorities.
By the way, for your rationale you've employed the 2002 Romanian census, while at the same time Kressing and Kaser (2002) is being regarded as outdated.Kressing and Kaser are not a census, they’re estimates. How exactly they got these estimates I am not sure.
There seem not to be recent estimates.There is, it is the 2023 census. Plus the 2024 source above by Bato, which does not provide an estimate, but says Romania has a larger community numbering approximately 25 k, i.e. in Albania are less than those old estimates.
There is no evidence that Aromanians have decreased by over 90% in two decadesThere is no evidence that Aromanians did not decrease by 90% either. Hence we stick to the in-date sources. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
And no, we are not here to "find a middle ground" with your POV").
There is no evidence that Aromanians did not decrease by 90% either.this needs no verification as the other is clearly an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I am not asking for this however, I am uniquely asking that sources that contradict this extremely low number are left next to it. Romania might or might not have a bigger Aromanian community today but the sources I am attempting to include does not contradict this. Also the words of researchers who do not seem to be subject experts on the Aromanians are being given in my opinion too much absolute value. Petrariu & Nisioi (2024), who only say the community in Romania is "likely" the second biggest, give figures and in such an order quite similar to those on the infobox here actually. They don't seem to be based on deep research on their part and the use of this part of their article to refute estimates by subject experts from two decades ago is illogical. Super Ψ Dro 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Aromanians article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Hello. I've just added a pic with their flags. The vast majority of scientists, Greece and Diaspora, consider them autochthonous in Northern Greece. ( Makedonovlah ( talk) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)) Hey everybody.I've just removed the proposed flag as it has nothing to do with the vast majority of the Aromanians nor their historic background.It would be better for this flag to be presented as the banner of the organizations they used it and not for the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierikos ( talk • contribs) 10:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
The Aromanians are predominantly Orthodox Christians, and follow the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar. During medieval times (around the 10th and 11th century), many Aromanians passed to Paulicianism (Bogomilism), a Christian secte. Majority of Bogomil Aromanians emerged in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Later, all Bogomils were reconverted to Christianity but many Bogomil Aromanians of Herzegovina passed to Islam. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, all Aromanians were Serbianized, frequenting churches in Serbian language. 79.112.100.38 ( talk) 10:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Bolt Escargot and MacedoRoman, all discussion of this article should take place here, not on each others' user talk pages. —valereee ( talk) 12:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
The section basically repeats the entire content of List_of_Aromanians, is completely without references, and is silly long. I suggest deleting all but the maybe three or four most important and merging the rest into the list article. —valereee ( talk) 13:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
To all users of the current page.
Recently there has been a forced revert of the last version of the page imposed by ‘’ Theroadislong ‘’ due to the complaint of the user ‘’Super Dromaeosaurus’’ made directly to him by accusing my edits as disruptive, (whereas his are constructive…) and because he can not keep the pace of my edits, mainly for the three points mentioned below.
My viewpoint is that the current content is not just wrong but harms the Aromanain identity, by presenting them as Romanian migrants in the Balkans, which is nothing else but false.
Specifically,
1. Terms like ‘’Macedo-Romanians’’ or ‘’Megleno-Romanians’’ and anything else Romanian related have nothing to do with Aromanians and must not be accepted to describe the Aromanian identity.
a)The first term is a pure fiction, it does not represent any ethnical identity. There have never been such people in the Balkans. The term is an invention of Romanian scholars of the XVIII-th century, promoted in order to serve the national interest in the Balkans. It implies that Aromanians are Romanians from Macedonia. The absurdity in its zenith. Users who support those sources based on the XVIII-th century ideology and terminology should bring evidence of Romanians that have lived in Macedonia. There have never been Romanians in ancient or modern Macedonia. For the respective century it was normal and common to act in that way, because all Balkan states were doing the same, trying to impose their opinion on the Aromanian issue, namely each state was trying to ‘’convince’’ the Aromanians and the ‘’world’’ that Aromanians are Romanians, Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians and so on. The so-called ‘’recent sources’’, they are anything but recent. They just recycle the theory and terminology of the XVIII-th century, and it is done mainly by Romanian scholars. Today that is unacceptable and the most important, it is irrelevant and has no effect on the matter. Aromanians have been officially recognised both internationally by the European institutions and by Balkan states as a distinct nation. Wikipedia cannot disregard the above decisions and their social, political and juridical effects. Much more its users.
b)The second term relates to a distinct ethnical group which are very close (the closest among all other Latin people) to Aromanians, but not the same.
2. Use of the terminology ‘’Dacian’’ or similar to it with the purpose of describing the Aromanian identity. Aromanians are native, indigen, people of southern and western Balkans. Dacians have never been part of the respective region. Thus Aromanians are descendant of ancient Thracians and Illyrians and have nothing to do with Dacians and anything else Dacian related. Thus the respective terminology is irrelevant to the Aromanian identity and must not be accepted. Users who contest the reality, do it for other purposes. In any case, they have to prove their point of view with relevant and valid evidence on the matter.
3. Native/indigen to. Aromanians are native in the southern and western Ballkans. The vast majority of their settlements are found in central and northern Greece, southern and central Albania, south west North Macedonia, south west Bulgaria, Southern Serbia, and less in Montenegro, Bosnia, and Croatia. Whoever contest this must prove their point of view with relevant and valid evidence on the matter.
I am waiting your opinions on the matter, because I would like to resume my editing process. I am looking forward to having a constructive discussion on the matter and to reach into a fair and just conclusion.
Thank you Legione-Romana ( talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not interested in your comments! Bring evidence that Aromanians are Romanians who migrated from modern Romania to their current settlements. Until then everything that states that will be deleted! Finito! Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Again, the sources provided to support the term Macedo Romanian are not neutral. They are biased, namely only from Romanian scholars. Furthermore, they are outdated. They recycle the Romanian terminology of the 18-century. Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Please read carefully what I have writen. I do not need to bring any evidence.The users who support the current content should do so. I contest the current content as unsourceable, meaning in some cases there are no sources at all but just abusive use of the terminology, in other cases the sources are outdated or irrelevant. Legione-Romana ( talk) 10:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
“Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions.” I suggest you find sources for your content. Theroadislong ( talk) 12:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
The current version has been imposed by a forced revert. I contest it! Since new unsourced content is not acceptable at all, I reserve the right to delete the current unsourced content, which contains misleading information! Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
12>Benevedes, Eli; Lally, Owen; Li, Hung-En; Perlee, Abigail; Piombino, Eileen (2021). Investigating the Impacts of Earthquakes on Ethnic and Religious Groups: Bucharest, Romania (PDF) (Thesis). Worcester Polytechnic Institute. pp. 1–63.
Used to support the term Macedo Romanian. Since when sismological studies of politechnic institutes constitute scientific research in order to determine ethnic identities?! Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:17, 3 April 2021
Read above about the term "Macedo-Romanian"! Legione-Romana ( talk) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Please stop recycling the so-called sources that use the Romanian terminology of the 18-th century. If you want to support the term you should bring neutral and modern studies on the discipline of ethnology. The page is about Aromanians and their modern national identity, not about earthquakes, wedding or fictional identities of the past. Legione-Romana ( talk) 12:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add half aromanian field marshal of the greek army /info/en/?search=Alexandros_Papagos to the notable list Katakai123 ( talk) 15:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
It is illiterate to describe the Aromanians as Paleo-Balkan people who "spoke Vulgar Latin"! In the Origin section is barely mentioned that these Paleo-Balkan peoples intermarried with some Roman legionaries in the context of some nationalistic Balkan theories about the Aromanians!
The article lacks some basic analysis about the Latin colonisation (mainly from Italia, Hispania and Narbonensis) in the Balkans (civil and military) as a core of the Ethnogenesis processes of the new ethnic group and the relative wight of the peripheral Paleo-Balkan and later Slavic cultural and genetic admixtures!
I think that the article should mention both the population which was counted as Cincari and the ones counted as Vlasi in the total number of Aromanians in Serbia.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 13:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
There are no Aromanians in south Serbia less 15.000. There are around 300 Aromanians (2011) who almost exclusively live in Belgrade popis2011.stat.gov.rs 77.243.23.232 ( talk) 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Detailed etnographic study on Aromanians and their number in the Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and N.Macedonia https://ro.scribd.com/doc/28227905/Rezumat-Teza-Doctorat-Romanii-Din-Balcani-Dorin-Lozovanu Or same study if not registered at Scribd https://www.yumpu.com/ro/document/read/16099940/populatia-romaneasca-din-peninsula-balcanica-paun-es-durlic Data are based on the begining of 2000s census results There is an update of the study from 2018 but it is not available online 77.243.23.232 ( talk) 17:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Please make corrections regarding Aromanians in Serbia part. Herzegovina has never been part of Serbia therefore designed section regarding Radimlja and Bosnia tombstones called stecak are incorrectly placed under wrong header. Aromanians or Cincars were part of Bosnian cultural tapestry for centuries and there should have been a section devoted to them under header “Aromanians / Cincars in Bosnia-Herzegovina”. 100.1.65.36 ( talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to add Arameans to the 'Not be confused with' entry at the top of the article. As words Aromanians and Arameans are very close to and perhaps easily confused with each other. Both relate to groups which are much less well known than Armenians or Romanians in my view. I hope this is non-contentious. 217.155.59.206 ( talk) 11:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Number of Aromenians in Serbia 2022 is 21013 ( https://data.stat.gov.rs/Home/Result/3104020102) 2A02:3032:301:28D:E413:E18A:2880:6120 ( talk) 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Botushali, most estimates give figures of this number. Thede Kahl (2001) gives at least 100,000 ( p. 156), Matilda Caragiu Marioțeanu cited 70,000–100,000 (1984, that one is quite old I know), Nicolae Saramandu gave 60,000–100,000 (1988; for both see p. 220). The lowest estimate I've seen was by Max Demeter Peyfuss at 20,000 (too lazy to look up the source). Aromanian cultural organizations usually give 200,000–250,000 but that's for sure exaggerated. There are many more by the way. It's not up to editors to decide this, but what amount seems reasonable to you? I had been looking for an estimate that I had seen some time ago citing 60,000, which had been done by a state Albanian geographic institute or something like that, but I cannot find it anymore. That would look like an ideal outcome if the source is found. It's noteworthy that Kahl mentions this estimate, cited to "official Albanian sources" without mentioning that survey by the geographical society or whatever it was, I don't remember. I found many other sources mentioning this figure and citing it vaguely to "official Albanian sources". Is that good? Or given Kahl's authoritative status we could use his personal 100,000 and the 60,000. In any case a figure of 139,000/3.6% does not seem that unreasonable to me. Apparently 92% of Albanians have declared their ethnicity as Albanian, and many estimates of Greeks tend to include Aromanians. Here is an Aromanian teen explaining he lives just like a normal Albanian [3]. They are the big minority with the highest degree of integration, specially outside the areas with Greek population. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
2. Population Statistics
Local populations identify their language by the following terms: Armâneaști, Armânească, Armâneșce, Rrămăneaști, Machiduneaști, Aromână, Vlașki, Vlach and their ethnicity by Armân, Aromân, Rămăn, Arumanian, Vlach, Arumun, Aromunian, Macedo-Romanian, Macedo-Rumanian, Țiți, Român, Grec, Macedonean. The main regions in the Balkans where populations of Aromaninans reside are Thessaly, Epirus, Central Albania, North Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania (Dobruja) (Lozovanu, 2008; Lewis, 2009). The only recent official censuses that record Aromanians are from Albania3 and North Macedonia4 where the language has an official status in local communities, but the total number does not exceed 18,000 members in total in both countries. The largest communities are in Greece, according to Kahl (2006), and the numbers are estimated at the order of hundreds of thousands. However, the last census of 1951, which numbered Aromanians, found only 40,000 people self-declaring as such5. The second largest community is likely to be in Romania, where Aromanians have been given land through colonization and Romanization of the Dobruja region, since the end of XIXth century to the beginning of the XXth century (Gica et al., 2009; Clark, 2015). The last Romanian census that included Aromanians was held in 2002 (Lozovanu, 2008) and numbered approximately 25,000 people. Except for the notable exceptions of Albania and North Macedonia where specific localities have Aromanian designated as official language, the language is rarely spoken outside private homes and family contexts (Lewis, 2009), access to public schools is severely limited, and therefore many Aromanians lose language skills and become assimilated by the dominant linguistic group. Given this situation, here we reiterate the urgency to develop linguistic resources that can contribute to the preservation of the Aromanian cultural heritage.
are estimated at the order of hundreds of thousands. However, the last census of 1951, which numbered Aromanians, found only 40,000 people self-declaring as such. The second largest community is likely to be in Romania... The last Romanian census that included Aromanians was held in 2002 (Lozovanu, 2008) and numbered approximately 25,000 people.So if the order of highest Aromanian population is at first Greece, followed by Romania at 25,000 people back in 2002, then I presume Albania would therefore be third. As such, the number needs to be something below 25,000. Unless someone is able to find other recent sources that discuss the number of Aromanians in Albania in 2024-ish, then I find it difficult to agree to a number that goes beyond a few thousand. Even if we decide on ~20,000, it seems a little generous as a figure for citizens with an exclusive ethnic Aromanian identity in Albania. A lot of the Aromanians have already left or assimilated in previous generations, and so even though the number of Albanians with at least partial recent Aromanian ancestry may go into the tens of thousands, I do not think the number of "full-blooded" Aromanians or self-identifying Aromanians nears that.
During my fieldwork, I had the possibility to observe the registrations closely and very intensively, and I could evaluate the process of how data were collected in the field. Very few respondents claimed that they had met with Census field operators, others affirmed that the section on ethnicity and religion had been ignored during the registration. Hence, Official Statistics as they appear online on the official site were not reliable. Some figures in the Census also tend to increase the percentage of the Greek community and reduce the number of Aromanian/Vlachs who live in the area. This, to some extent, is a result of Greek policies that have assimilated a large number of Vlach communities in south Albania.;
Due to partial work in the field, Census 2011 conducted by INSTAT Albania lacked major data from villages with Aromanian communities and in many areas in Korça as well. The priest of the Aromanian church in Korça told me in an interview (2011), “Nobody knocked at our doors. We didn‘t even see how the form was made”. Some community members affirmed that “when it came to responding to religion and ethnicity section, INSTAT field employers neglected our replies‘. Therefore, the first Albanian census which had to include questions on the citizens’ identity (religion and ethnicity), was not representative, at least the section on identity and origins resulted in a failing process. After 80 years in which they have had not been able to openly express their ethnic and religious identity, not only minority communities but also Albanians did not find space to use this right.. Seems to be in line with previous allegations of irregularities in censuses in Albania.
The numbers and estimates of the Vlach populations are thus not clear in the pluralistic societies of Southeastern Europe. If members of the younger generation do not speak Vlach anymore, even at home, and hardly understand it, can they still be classified as "ethnic" Vlachs? The censuses are based on self- declaration, on what people declare themselves to be. In a still rather traditional — even patriarchal — society such as the Republic Of Macedonia, self-declaration often hides cultural diversity. Families where the father is Macedonian declare themselves as Macedonian even though the mother might be a member of the Vlach minority (but a reverse situation is also possible). People have often declared a Macedonian idendty because of political patriotism, even if they speak Vlach. During Yugoslav times many members of potentially vulnerable minorities identified themselves as "Yugoslavs".547 The Vlach population has often easily adjusted its identity to the surrounding national thinking (as we will see later on). [...] In Albania, the numbers are not clear either. Winnifrith's respected study, Vlachs, published in 1987, clearly contains errors, particularly conceming the number of Vlachs in Albania, and the author has himself corrected his underestimations in his more recent book from 1995, where he claims that the Vlach population in Albania may even number 200,000. During communist times, the Vlachs were not considered to be a separate ethnic minority. Because of the closed society and difficult economic situation, the Vlach villages nevertheless managed to preserve their language and culture, the younger generation much better than in the neighboring countries559. In Albania, the collapse of the communist regime led to a resurgence of Aromanian nationalism and later to recognition in the new Albanian constitution of the Aromanian community as a national minority. Estimates of the numbers of the Vlachs in Albania vary from 100,000 up to 200,000, but they also include people who do not use the Aromanian language anymore. All the same, Albania is the only country where the Vlachs constitute a relatively significant percentage of the total population (around 2 percent). Usually the Vlachs have been included in the numbers of the "Greek Orthodox minority", as they also live in the same areas as the Greek- speakers in the south of the country. This raises the question of which characteristic is understood as the most significant in classifying populations: language or religion. In the census of 2001 both ethnicity and religon as separate categories were omitted, which led to a boycott by Greek and Macedonian minorities.
By the way, for your rationale you've employed the 2002 Romanian census, while at the same time Kressing and Kaser (2002) is being regarded as outdated.Kressing and Kaser are not a census, they’re estimates. How exactly they got these estimates I am not sure.
There seem not to be recent estimates.There is, it is the 2023 census. Plus the 2024 source above by Bato, which does not provide an estimate, but says Romania has a larger community numbering approximately 25 k, i.e. in Albania are less than those old estimates.
There is no evidence that Aromanians have decreased by over 90% in two decadesThere is no evidence that Aromanians did not decrease by 90% either. Hence we stick to the in-date sources. Ktrimi991 ( talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
And no, we are not here to "find a middle ground" with your POV").
There is no evidence that Aromanians did not decrease by 90% either.this needs no verification as the other is clearly an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I am not asking for this however, I am uniquely asking that sources that contradict this extremely low number are left next to it. Romania might or might not have a bigger Aromanian community today but the sources I am attempting to include does not contradict this. Also the words of researchers who do not seem to be subject experts on the Aromanians are being given in my opinion too much absolute value. Petrariu & Nisioi (2024), who only say the community in Romania is "likely" the second biggest, give figures and in such an order quite similar to those on the infobox here actually. They don't seem to be based on deep research on their part and the use of this part of their article to refute estimates by subject experts from two decades ago is illogical. Super Ψ Dro 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)