This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vlachs of Serbia 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, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I'm Serb from Romania. My grandparents and other old people in the village where I lived used to call the native Romanians "Vlasi"(serb word for Vlahs) and not "Rumuni" (Romanians). I would like to have this statement added to the article. We live our daily lives separated from today's Serbia for more than a century - a direct contact was almost non-existent after the 1st world war when new eastern european countries were formed. Moreover, my grandparents were almost illiterate, attending only a bit of primary school, like most of their generation of that time and nobody forced them to call the Romanians that way. I think it was a common thing among elderly Serbs , most of them living in other romanian villages near the serbian-romanian border, to call the Romanians "Vlachs". Younger Serbs' generations call them "Rumuni"(serb word for "Romanian"). As I didn't have time to do study the matter thoroughly, I just came across some videos with TV programmes in this "language" after a quick search on the internet. Speaking both serbian and romanian language, i noticed the following differences (compared to the standard Romanian language):
-the letter "t" is replaced by "ć" in words, similar to "-ce" in the romanian Banat dialect, for ex. "uice" instead of "uite"(engl. "look! ") . The same applies for "d", being replaced by "đ" - rather serbian influence - somewhat similar to ekavic and ijekavic dialects of the serbian language -the grammar is simpler -there are no modern words(or serbian words are used instead), wrong or less plural and genitive forms, same words that have a different meaning in the standard/modern romanian language or were used in the past, etc. It might seem a big difference at first glance, but it's not. With a bit of "cleaning" it would reduce significantly the "linguistic distance" to the standard romanian, and sound more like serbian and croatian(or British/American English). Even "uncleaned"(like now) it doesn't look like another language. The difference would remain bigger than the one between serbian and croatian, but much smaller than that between serbian and macedonian. 217.80.214.152 ( talk) 10:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
To define as minority, this cannot be free choice of an induvidiual to belong to any minority nor the state whose citizens these individuals are The CoE of OBLIGATORY clarification to the FCNM, clearly says that it is the right of an individual to FREELY choose whether to be treated as minority or not, not to freely choose to belong to any minority without OBJECTIVE CRITERIA https://rm.coe.int/16800c10cf Further more, UN opinion report to the CCPR on the defintion of minority clearly states following "The existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by that State party but requires to be established by objective criteria" https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/0e1a35/pdf/ This means that the state cannot decide on its existence or not. As such, I think that there are not a single author who before 2010, when issue was politized claimed that there is separate Vlach minority. Even self declaration in this case says that this the Romanian minority as members, before 2010 and forced promotion of vlahism, in Romanian declared as Romanian. The problem is it translation from Romanian to Serbian and than to English
Knowing that this population in all census before 1948 was considered Romania, as well as Serbian ethnologist, like T. Dordevic, a founder together with Cvijic of Serbian ethnography, as well in all official documents, this is the clear ethnic engineering
Also Cvijic mention Romanians in this are in 1923.
"It has remained unexplained until now why some families in Homolj and Mlava, both Serbian and Romanian, are called Jelins."
https://archive.org/details/KrozNaseRumune
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3ma9plMXxAEUjk1S2tNTTV2Qlk/edit?usp=drive_web
For following reason
1. There is no objective scientific criteria in Serbian ethnography before 2010, who considered this population nothhing else but Romanians 2. In census before 1948, Romanianans was used to designate 3. Archivial records like the annual Ministy of education report, used always Romanian 4. The right to self declaration doesnt mean to choose randomly any minority, but a right to be treated or not 5. The population in Romanian declare as Romanian 6. Vlach also refer to Aromanian population. Creation a new group with the same name is seen by Aromanians as the attack on their identity 7. There is not even single member of the community, which can be accepted as relevant, and not doing folk linguistics, as WIKIPEDIA is exactly doing now, has no position as such
I would like to cite less known source in French from 1990s: Dimitrijević-Rufu, Dejan (1998): Identités contextuelles. Le cas d’une communauté „roumaine” de Serbie, Cahiers Balkaniques 25 – „Les Oublié des Balkans”, 91–117.
On fold lingustic/anthropology practised on wikipedia here more
Manovich, Diane (2014): Folk Linguistics and Politicized Language: the Introduction of Minority Language Education for the Vlachs in Serbia (submitted to CEU Nationalism Studies Program in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts), Budapest ( http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2014/manovich_diane.pdf).
Also one of best linguistic on Romance languges Weigand,in the begining if 20th considered these nothinhg but Romanians
Weigand, Gustav (1900): Die rumänischen Dialekte der kleinen Walachei, Serbiens und Bulgariens. Siebenter Jahresbericht des Instituts für Rumänische Sprache 7 (1900), 1-92.
There is also twenty moore other reasons why this article should be considered to have biased, one sided view
As for objective criteria this letter sent to Serbian Academy clearly point this:
https://acad.ro/mediaAR/pctVedereAR/2020/d0220-ScrisoareAcademiaSarba.pdf
109.93.173.29 (
talk)
19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Due to proverbial erroneous Serbian ethnic censuses (enough for this is decline to 1360 persons in 1961) alternative data for ethnicity should be also used. The only one which is publicly available is the number of adult voters registered in special voters Registry from 2022, which show significant discrepancy (knowing that these data is only about adult population and the rate for other minorities of adults who are register in this registry is low). Namely according to this registry https://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/extfile/sr/files/additionalDocuments/337/858/ODLUKA%20O%20KONA%C4%8CNOM%20BROJU%20BIRA%C4%8CA.pdf there are 23 AlexLucca ( talk) 13:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Knowing that before 1948, Vlachs didn't exist as such in Serbia, but in censuses, government documents,church records Romanian was used, even as such were included in accompanying documents to Versaille Treaties, known by the name Romanian in Serbia and foreign press, etc I proposed the definition as such The Vlachs (Romanian: rumâń; Serbian: власи / vlasi), considered officially as Romanians until 1948, are a Romanian-speaking population group living in eastern Serbia, mainly within the Timok Valley OR The Vlachs (Romanian: rumâń; Serbian: власи / vlasi), known as Romanians before 1948, are a Romanian-speaking population group living in eastern Serbia, mainly within the Timok Valley 188.120.99.194 ( talk) 02:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The whole part that talks about 1859, as a year when name change happened is completely untrue. I don't how did you come to this data, but the year should be moved to 1948. Sources among thousands that exist are for example Serbian censuses from 1884 http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911002.pdf Page 42 to 48 and 306 to 318 1890 http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1893/pdf/G189311002.pdf 1900
1900 https://www.zajednicavlahasrbije.com/Statisticki%20godisnjak%20Kraljevine%20Srbije.pdf 1921 https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G1921/Pdf/G19214001.pdf 1931 178.223.206.56 ( talk) 03:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vlachs of Serbia 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, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I'm Serb from Romania. My grandparents and other old people in the village where I lived used to call the native Romanians "Vlasi"(serb word for Vlahs) and not "Rumuni" (Romanians). I would like to have this statement added to the article. We live our daily lives separated from today's Serbia for more than a century - a direct contact was almost non-existent after the 1st world war when new eastern european countries were formed. Moreover, my grandparents were almost illiterate, attending only a bit of primary school, like most of their generation of that time and nobody forced them to call the Romanians that way. I think it was a common thing among elderly Serbs , most of them living in other romanian villages near the serbian-romanian border, to call the Romanians "Vlachs". Younger Serbs' generations call them "Rumuni"(serb word for "Romanian"). As I didn't have time to do study the matter thoroughly, I just came across some videos with TV programmes in this "language" after a quick search on the internet. Speaking both serbian and romanian language, i noticed the following differences (compared to the standard Romanian language):
-the letter "t" is replaced by "ć" in words, similar to "-ce" in the romanian Banat dialect, for ex. "uice" instead of "uite"(engl. "look! ") . The same applies for "d", being replaced by "đ" - rather serbian influence - somewhat similar to ekavic and ijekavic dialects of the serbian language -the grammar is simpler -there are no modern words(or serbian words are used instead), wrong or less plural and genitive forms, same words that have a different meaning in the standard/modern romanian language or were used in the past, etc. It might seem a big difference at first glance, but it's not. With a bit of "cleaning" it would reduce significantly the "linguistic distance" to the standard romanian, and sound more like serbian and croatian(or British/American English). Even "uncleaned"(like now) it doesn't look like another language. The difference would remain bigger than the one between serbian and croatian, but much smaller than that between serbian and macedonian. 217.80.214.152 ( talk) 10:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
To define as minority, this cannot be free choice of an induvidiual to belong to any minority nor the state whose citizens these individuals are The CoE of OBLIGATORY clarification to the FCNM, clearly says that it is the right of an individual to FREELY choose whether to be treated as minority or not, not to freely choose to belong to any minority without OBJECTIVE CRITERIA https://rm.coe.int/16800c10cf Further more, UN opinion report to the CCPR on the defintion of minority clearly states following "The existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by that State party but requires to be established by objective criteria" https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/0e1a35/pdf/ This means that the state cannot decide on its existence or not. As such, I think that there are not a single author who before 2010, when issue was politized claimed that there is separate Vlach minority. Even self declaration in this case says that this the Romanian minority as members, before 2010 and forced promotion of vlahism, in Romanian declared as Romanian. The problem is it translation from Romanian to Serbian and than to English
Knowing that this population in all census before 1948 was considered Romania, as well as Serbian ethnologist, like T. Dordevic, a founder together with Cvijic of Serbian ethnography, as well in all official documents, this is the clear ethnic engineering
Also Cvijic mention Romanians in this are in 1923.
"It has remained unexplained until now why some families in Homolj and Mlava, both Serbian and Romanian, are called Jelins."
https://archive.org/details/KrozNaseRumune
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3ma9plMXxAEUjk1S2tNTTV2Qlk/edit?usp=drive_web
For following reason
1. There is no objective scientific criteria in Serbian ethnography before 2010, who considered this population nothhing else but Romanians 2. In census before 1948, Romanianans was used to designate 3. Archivial records like the annual Ministy of education report, used always Romanian 4. The right to self declaration doesnt mean to choose randomly any minority, but a right to be treated or not 5. The population in Romanian declare as Romanian 6. Vlach also refer to Aromanian population. Creation a new group with the same name is seen by Aromanians as the attack on their identity 7. There is not even single member of the community, which can be accepted as relevant, and not doing folk linguistics, as WIKIPEDIA is exactly doing now, has no position as such
I would like to cite less known source in French from 1990s: Dimitrijević-Rufu, Dejan (1998): Identités contextuelles. Le cas d’une communauté „roumaine” de Serbie, Cahiers Balkaniques 25 – „Les Oublié des Balkans”, 91–117.
On fold lingustic/anthropology practised on wikipedia here more
Manovich, Diane (2014): Folk Linguistics and Politicized Language: the Introduction of Minority Language Education for the Vlachs in Serbia (submitted to CEU Nationalism Studies Program in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts), Budapest ( http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2014/manovich_diane.pdf).
Also one of best linguistic on Romance languges Weigand,in the begining if 20th considered these nothinhg but Romanians
Weigand, Gustav (1900): Die rumänischen Dialekte der kleinen Walachei, Serbiens und Bulgariens. Siebenter Jahresbericht des Instituts für Rumänische Sprache 7 (1900), 1-92.
There is also twenty moore other reasons why this article should be considered to have biased, one sided view
As for objective criteria this letter sent to Serbian Academy clearly point this:
https://acad.ro/mediaAR/pctVedereAR/2020/d0220-ScrisoareAcademiaSarba.pdf
109.93.173.29 (
talk)
19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Due to proverbial erroneous Serbian ethnic censuses (enough for this is decline to 1360 persons in 1961) alternative data for ethnicity should be also used. The only one which is publicly available is the number of adult voters registered in special voters Registry from 2022, which show significant discrepancy (knowing that these data is only about adult population and the rate for other minorities of adults who are register in this registry is low). Namely according to this registry https://www.rik.parlament.gov.rs/extfile/sr/files/additionalDocuments/337/858/ODLUKA%20O%20KONA%C4%8CNOM%20BROJU%20BIRA%C4%8CA.pdf there are 23 AlexLucca ( talk) 13:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Knowing that before 1948, Vlachs didn't exist as such in Serbia, but in censuses, government documents,church records Romanian was used, even as such were included in accompanying documents to Versaille Treaties, known by the name Romanian in Serbia and foreign press, etc I proposed the definition as such The Vlachs (Romanian: rumâń; Serbian: власи / vlasi), considered officially as Romanians until 1948, are a Romanian-speaking population group living in eastern Serbia, mainly within the Timok Valley OR The Vlachs (Romanian: rumâń; Serbian: власи / vlasi), known as Romanians before 1948, are a Romanian-speaking population group living in eastern Serbia, mainly within the Timok Valley 188.120.99.194 ( talk) 02:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The whole part that talks about 1859, as a year when name change happened is completely untrue. I don't how did you come to this data, but the year should be moved to 1948. Sources among thousands that exist are for example Serbian censuses from 1884 http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911002.pdf Page 42 to 48 and 306 to 318 1890 http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1893/pdf/G189311002.pdf 1900
1900 https://www.zajednicavlahasrbije.com/Statisticki%20godisnjak%20Kraljevine%20Srbije.pdf 1921 https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G1921/Pdf/G19214001.pdf 1931 178.223.206.56 ( talk) 03:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)