![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I live there and i know that many Vlachs are ashamed to speak their own language and to present officially themselves as Vlachs but unofficially they all say they are Vlachs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanpolsartr ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Man, are magyars and hungarians the same? In Romanian you may say unguri/maghiari and means the same. Are Muntenii not romanians? They are. -- Chisinau 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
We speak about ethnic groups in Serbia where Vlachs and Romanians are not same. PANONIAN (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Very simple: Serbia recognize all of its minorities in the manner how they want to be recognized. If you want to be recognized as Romanian, you will be recognized as Romanian, if you want to be recognized as Vlach, you will be recognized as Vlach. I do not think that prime minister of Serbia said in Bucharest anything different. The fact is that in the past there were no Vlachs who wanted to be recognized as Romanians (that idea appeared among Vlachs very recently). Serbia will recognize that these Vlachs who want to be Romanians as Romanians, but it also will recognize those who want to be Vlachs as Vlachs. That is how things work here. PANONIAN (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Man, again they are romanians. Vlachs are romanians. Are you so kind of xenophob?
There are 2 things which can say who is a nation and who is not:
Vlachs in Serbia do not have Romanian, but Vlach national consciousness and they do not declare themselves as Romanians, but as Vlachs. No matter how Vlachs of Serbia and Moldovans are culturally and linguistically similar to Romanians, they simply are not Romanians. They are not Romanians because of same reason why Austrians are not Germans or why Montenegrins are not Serbs or why Americans are not English, etc. If somebody do not declare himself as Romanian in census, he is not Romanian. User:PANONIAN
Some of them are, some of them dont. You read only publications of one side. Read another side too. PANONIAN (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Who has right to present Serbian Vlachs as Romanians?! They have their national name, culture, tradition - identity and they are recognized by the Serbian Constitution an Law as Vlachs (Vlasi). The other ethnic group in Serbia are Romanians. Like PANONIAN said, in Serbia everyone is free to declare whatever nationality it choose in census! SERBIA - Census 2002: VLACHS Total: 40.054 ROMANIANS Total: 34.576 So, who gave right to itself to not respect these facts?! This is the act of basic rudeness! VLACHS ARE VLACHS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.114.197 ( talk) 22:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The further discussion about this can be seen here: Talk:Romanians of Serbia
However, this is Wikipedia and we don't have to write only "official" information, as that makes the article POV. All linguists claim they speak "Romanian language" not "Vlach language". Also I really doubt those people don't know they speak Romanian. Even in Moldova, where the propaganda for a "Moldavian language" was rather strong, about 2/3 said they spoke Romanian at the last census. bogdan | Talk 18:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, what about this: "they speak basically same language as Romanian, thought they call their language Vlach"? User:PANONIAN
Yes, but we called our self Vlachs in Serbian language, in our native mother-language we pronounce Io mis roman, ``Io vorbiesc romaniaste``, at least thats the way my gran-gran mother speaks. User:Xomelander
And how she call Romanians then? PANONIAN (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Stupid question Panonian. A similar question: how does an Alsacian german call the Germans?
Vlach=rumanian
rumanian=romanian.
Please read books, take informations and don't write those stupidities in Wikipedia.
Vlachs(in eastern Serbia) = Rumanians = Romanians
Romania=Rumania
The science has proven that the Vlachs in easter Serbia are ethnic Romanians(Rumanians) and they should be treated like that. The Article "Vlachs Of Serbia" should be merged with the Article "Romanians of Serbia".
Well, I recently read in the newspapers that leader of the Vlach National Council in Serbia claimed that Vlachs are not Romanians, but separate nation. So, tell that to him, not to me, ok? No matter how Vlachs and Romanians are similar, that does not mean that they are same, or you would say that Moldovans are Romanians too? There are also people in Serbia who claim that Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Croats and Macedonians are in fact Serbs, but are they? It is national consciousness what define is somebody a nation or. There are more examples: are Austrians really Austrians or just Germans? Are Wallonians really Wallonians or just French? etc, etc... Among Vlach community in Serbia there are Vlachs who are pro-Romanian, pro-Serb, and pro-Vlach. What I tried is to make an article based on the pro-Vlach view. Also, name "Rumani" was not only designation for Romanians. For example, Aromanians also call themselves "arumani", "ramani", etc. We also known that another Balkan Romance peoples are called "Megleno-Romanians", "Istro-Romanians", etc. But they are not same as Romanians. One more thing, even if we accept the view that Vlachs of Serbia are part of the Romanians of Serbia, that still does not mean that we should to merge this article into "Romanians of Serbia" because of the same reason why article "Romanians of Serbia" is not merged into article "Romanians". Another example is that we have articles about Magyars, about Szekely (part of Magyars), and about Szekely of Bukovina (part of Szekely). PANONIAN (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, please see this map from Vlach web site which show where Vlach population live:
Why they did not showed Banat Romanians to be a part of their people on this map? Can you explain that? PANONIAN (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Banat is also in Serbia, and Kovin (a town is Banat) is also marked on this map as area inhabited by Vlachs, but other towns in Banat inhabited by Romanians (like Vršac or Alibunar) are not marked. Why is that? To which area Kovin belong then? PANONIAN (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to say about my question what is a Vlach name for Romanians. The question is not stupid. I watched some TV show about music in eastern Serbia where Vlach musician talked about differences between Vlach, Serb, and Romanian music. So, that Vlach musician obviously made a difference between Vlachs and Romanians, so I presume that in the language spoken by Vlachs must be also words to designate this difference. PANONIAN (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
"Well, I recently read in the newspapers that leader of the Vlach National Council in Serbia claimed that Vlachs are not Romanians, but separate nation. So, tell that to him, not to me, ok?"
"No matter how Vlachs and Romanians are similar, that does not mean that they are same, or you would say that Moldovans are Romanians too?"
The question: no matter what president said, tell me why most of the citizens of Moldova then declared themselves as Moldovans in census? If they are Romanians, why they did not declared themselves as such? PANONIAN (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"It is national consciousness what define is somebody a nation or."
Where I jump to such conclusion? PANONIAN (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC) "So, that Vlach musician obviously made a difference between Vlachs and Romanians, so I presume that in the language spoken by Vlachs must be also words to designate this difference." I'm a Romanian, and I assure you, a understand EACH WORD spoken by a so-called "vlach". The hungarians called until the 19th century the romanians "vlahok". Now, they call them "romananok". What's the difference?
It's about their ethnicity what you question here, and the answer is that they are romanians.-- Chisinau 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"Another example is that we have articles about Magyars, about Szekely (part of Magyars), and about Szekely of Bukovina (part of Szekely)."
"There are more examples: are Austrians really Austrians or just Germans?"
"Also, name "Rumani" was not only designation for Romanians. For example, Aromanians also call themselves "arumani", "ramani", etc. We also known that another Balkan Romance peoples are called "Megleno-Romanians", "Istro-Romanians", etc. But they are not same as Romanians."
Look at the census results in Serbia, and everything will be clear to you:
PANONIAN (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
bogdan 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Forcible? Nobody forced anyone to change the words one uses. There were French borrowings, but this was done also by Bulgarians and Russians, for example. There was an idea in 19th century to eliminate Slavic words from Romanian and it was labeled as absurd.
Yes, most linguists think that Moesians and Geto-Dacians spoke the same language, labeled by some "Daco-Moesian", but that's off-topic here. Linking modern people to ancient peoples is nonsense. It's absurd to say that some are descendants from "Geto-Dacians" and others from the "Moesians".
Anyway, the Romanians of Wallachia and Vlachs of Serbia speak the same language! I mean even the same dialect! The southern "Wallachian" dialect is what became standard Romanian language.
So, Serbian language is identical to Bulgarian ? I learnt something new today, then. :-) bogdan 15:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
As for that paragraph about Romanization, I do not object that you remove it or change if it is not accurate (I have no idea is that correct or not, I just returned this because it was deleted by person who marked this deletion as "minnor edit" and did not explained reason for deletion). As for language, Serbian is not identical to Bulgarian, but is identical to Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, and all these four names are used in proper places, so why we should use name Romanian everywhere instead of Moldovan and Vlach? We cannot change census results, and the results say that Vlachs declared Vlach language. Therefor, I created redirect "Vlach language (Serbia)", which redirect to Romanian language. I also do not object that we can write in parenthesis "Romanian" everywhere where we have "Vlach". PANONIAN (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't allow them to have their own church in Romanian, where is the human rights in Serbia? So much to tell about the tollerance of Serbs.... -- Andrei George 09:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
There isn`t such a language called "Vlach". Hence it was removed. However, the mention of "declared to speak vlach language" was kept. Greier 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I demand (yes, I DEMAND, because that is why you are here for, correct?) moderators to do their job, to think logically and objective. Read the article, read the talk page, read links, and then take a decision about the article. Until then, please read this [5] greier 09:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The language on both banks of the Danube (in both Romania and Serbia) is the same, but for political reasons it's named differently. You can see a similar case in Moldova, where it's officially named Moldovan language. The Vlachs did not wanted to be identified with the other Romanians or with the Romanian state and preferred to have a distinct identity, although, as Xomelander says, they refer in their language as "romani" (romɨnʲ) and the language "romaniaste" (romɨnjaʃte). It seems that Serbia and Yugoslavia were very sensitive about ethnic issues and they did not wanted to be seen as "foreigners". "Vlachs" were known to be in the area for centuries, while "Romanians" seemed to the Serbs as something foreign.
I propose writing something like:
If you have a better proposal, please say it. :-) bogdan 10:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If this article is to treat the Vlachs of eastern Serbia and northwestern Bulgaria as a single ethnic group (which they are, I believe), then the article title is inappropriate — it includes only one country, but lists that a significant number of the population (10%) inhabits another one. I'd say Timok Vlachs might be a better name ( though possibly not very widely used), but I'd like to hear other suggestions and opinions before moving the page.
Anyway, apart from the mention of Vlachs in northwestern Bulgaria in the Ethnic group template and a brief reference in the body, this subgroup does not seem to be covered. Therefore, another solution may be to entirely remove any reference of them in this article, retain the title and start a new and separate one about the Vlachs of Bulgaria.
I myself would favour expanding the current article to cover Bulgarian Vlachs (and do it well), while being moved to a more suitable title. Todor → Bozhinov 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the only place where you hear of this so called "vlach language" is Wikipedia and wikipedia mirror sites. A google search shows mostly links refered to Aromanians. Not even a google search for term "vlach language" + Serbia + Timok doesn`t provide anything. Please find an official source for this, or read WP:OR and WP:CS. greier 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No I am not. Read what you are posting, so you wont make a full of your self. A quote from this link you provided: The Vlachs of Timok Kra-jina speak the Munten variant of the Daco-Romanian dialect, which has been adopted as the Romanian standard language. However, it is a modification of the dialect due to the influence of Slavonic and other languages. Neither of these two Romanian variants could be said to be a separate ‘Vlach language’. (commas not mines ;)). The other link proves exaclty my point: it shows links to wikipedia, wikipedia mirrors, and especially sites about Aromanians and Aromanian language. So sorry... even if they were valid, still no official source. greier 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the 2002 official census showing vlach language, not vlach people would do. greier 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Vlach is an exonym. In their language Vlachs never call themselves Vlach. Their self-designation is Rumân, while their language they call rumâneşce. Obviously while speaking Serbian Vlachs do refer themselves using the Serbian term Vlah. This is the same as a German saying he is German (instead of Deutsche) when speaking English or a Greek saying he is Greek (instead of Hellene). C0gnate 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-ro/00ah_ser.htm
According to the Census of 2002, there are about 40,000 Vlachs in Eastern Serbia. However based on population statistics going back to the turn of the 20th century, the number of Vlachs or people of immediate Vlach ancestry could be some 300,000. C0gnate 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed Pannonian's sentence that said Vlachs belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church because since 1830 they have had no choice in the matter. Prior to 1830 many of them belonged to the Romanian metropolitanate in Craiova, Romania. After that, as Serbia got these territories from the Ottomans, the Serbian Orthodox Church extended its jurisdiction over the Vlachs and sent the Romanian speaking priests back to Romania. Even today in Serbia proper (south of the Danube, i.e., not counting Vojvodina) the Serbian Orthodox Church is the only one legally recognized by the authorities. Thus saying the Vlachs belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church is the same as saying they are citizens of Serbia. Of course they are.
I also removed the reference to the Slava celebration of a family saint because 1) it is not uniquely Serbian, 2) since Vlachs have been under an imposed religious regime for a couple of centuries, the origin of the custom among them is uncertain. C0gnate 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.members3.boardhost.com/homolje/msg/1151736871.html
http://www.muzej-mpek.org.yu/radovi/slava_u_porecu.htm
Pannonian, I took out 'Slavic' in front of Serbs, and you put it back in. What kind of Serbs are there other than Slavic? Are there non Slavic Serbs? Maybe Latin Serbs or Turkish Serbs? C0gnate 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt we rename the article to more common name Timok Vlachs? Luka Jačov 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion, which might get us past this disagreement over the name of the article. The objection to Vlachs of Serbia is that some of them live in Bulgaria, and the objection to Timok Vlachs is that not all of them live in the Timok valley, so why not name the article Vlachs of Serbia and Bulgaria, and add a bit more information about the ones in Bulgaria? Is that an acceptable compromise? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- Stemonitis 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The is an article Moeso-Romanian language which is being considered for deletion. The article tries to talk about the language of Timok Vlachs, but fails to give any account about its distinction from Romanian other than that people's vocabulary is deminuished. I coppied the content of this page below. If there is anything useful from this text, use it in your article, and delete what is not useful: : Dc76 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Moeso-Romanian is a Romance language or more exactly a cluster of Romanian dialects spoken mainly south of the Danube in today's Southern Serbia (the former Moesia Superior) by an important autochthonous population in the region between Požarevac, Kladovo, Zaječar and Paraćin. Although aware of the fact that they use a form of Romanian as their home language, the speakers identify themselves as Serbs because they attend the Serbian Orthodox Church, and their faith, not their language serves as the basis of their national identity (a remnant of the Ottoman concept of national identity).
The number of speakers range between 20.000 and 100.000, and are scattered mainly in mixed villages with Serbian majorities, however no real data are available. They have been neglected by researchers in linguistics and anthropology because of their identity mimicry. As a result they have never been recognized as a national minority or ethnic group, unlike the Aromanians, who were an ethnic group in former Yugoslavia. In addition there is no press or official use of the language – unlike the Romanian speakers of Voivodina who are recognized as such and have enjoyed all minority rights since World War I. The Moeso-Romanian speakers living on the banks of the Danube can receive radio and TV from Romania and understand the language, while those living in the south have great problems understanding standard Romanian.
The very imprecise popular name of "Vlasi" (sg. "Vlah" – literally "foreigner, speaker of Latin or Celtic" < Volox, the name of a Celtic tribe of the Antiquity) is sometimes used in informal speech to refer not only to them, but equally to Voivodina Romanians and Aromanians of Macedonia. A portion of them migrated in the middle Ages to Muntenia (Ţara Românească) and Transylvania and they are likely related to the Bajaši (Boyash) of Croatia and the Beás of Hungary. A similar group, called Karavlax (black Vlasi – name designating initially the Romanians of Muntenia), survived in Bosnia until World War II.
Language
Moeso-Romanian resembles the Romanian dialect of neighboring Banat, and the rare Romanian researchers (all from Yugoslavia) of these dialects consider it a geographical variety of Daco-Romanian. In the phonetic field, Moeso-Romanian shares with the Banat dialect the evolution of [č] and [dž] (written ci, ce and gi, ge in standard Romanian) to soft [šj] and [žj]: ce faci? "what are you doing" being pronounced [šje fašj?] (this evolution is distinctive of the Moldavian evolution into [še faš?]). The distribution of the distinctive words nea/zapadă "snow" and ai/usturoi "garlic" in these dialects is controversial and cannot shed any light to their classification in the Romanian dialectal system.
Origin
As a matter of fact, the first mention of Latin being spoken in this area dates back to 79 B.C., and one may consider Moeso-Romanian as a remnant of a wide wave of latinization which in antiquity covered all the Balkan Peninsula. This position is maintained among others by Pavle Ivić who considers that a sizeable Roman population inhabited the Balkan from west to east across the former Yugoslavia in antiquity. A local form of Vulgar Latin was still spoken in Kosovo in the Middle Ages, as a Hrisolvulje by Czar Dušan evidences and other Romance languages were attested comparatively late on the Dalmatian coast and in Bosnia. Istro-Romanian is still in use near Rijeka and more southwards Aromanian in Greece and Albania are another attestation of a wide extension of Latin in the Balkans. In any case, speakers of Moeso-Romanian are most likely an autochthonous population, who switched very early to Latin and still use the Romance language of their ancestors.
Literature
There is no written literary tradition and the first attempts of collecting oral literature began only in the very last years of the 20 century by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Write down here through which paragraphs you went, for other editors to not repeat your work:
WARNING The text is from unknown source and cannot be used in wikipedia in any forms without proper reference to
reputable published sources according to
wikipedia rules. Any attempts to do otherwise will be reverted. `'
mikka 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The studies don't have that conclusion. They only have some numbers and statistics about the DNA. Drawing such a conclusion by yourself from those numbers is original research, which should not be used in Wikipedia. bogdan ( talk) 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Vlachs are not a distinct ethnic group. Instead, they belong to the dominant Orthodox culture wherever they live. They are Serbs in Serbia and Bosnia and Greeks in Greece and Albania. They would presumably be Bulgarians in Bulgaria except for the fact that Bulgarians are very fixated on language.
Vlachs are not Romanians. In fact, their language has its own ISO code.
In Orthodox countries, it's not a big deal that Vlachs speak a Romance language. People deny that the Vlachs belong to the local culture, but in my experience a Greek will have no particular problem with a Vlach but won't trust a Romanian.
In Muslim and Catholic countries, Vlachs are an ethnic minority, but they're still just a subset of the most prevalent Orthodox minority. Host countries like Albania and Bosnia sometimes take advantage of the Vlachs' confusing identity to isolate them from the Greeks or the Serbs, but their basic identity remains Greek or Serb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.125.237 ( talk) 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The sentence claiming that Dušan's Code prohibited marriage between Serbs and Vlachs is wrong. There is no such a statement in that law. Check for you self at http://www.dusanov-zakonik.co.yu/indexe.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.87.91 ( talk) 08:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Who has right to present Serbian Vlachs as Romanians?! They have their national name, culture, tradition - identity and they are recognized by the Serbian Constitution an Law as Vlachs (Vlasi). The other ethnic group in Serbia are Romanians. Like PANONIAN said, in Serbia everyone is free to declare whatever nationality it choose in census!
SERBIA - Census 2002: VLACHS Total: 40.054
ROMANIANS Total: 34.576
So, who gave right to itself to not respect these facts?! This is the act of basic rudeness!
VLACHS ARE VLACHS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.114.197 ( talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The 2002 census data is respected. But it is the Serbia government that has acquiescent (after diplomatic talks with Romania) to the the admission that Vlachs of Timok are a subset of Romanians. I remember when someone introduced a source about this fact in the article. The article however does not negate the distinctiveness of this community. Dc76\ talk 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Dc76\ talk 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to assertions made above by user 91.150.114.197, the Serbian Constitution does not mention Vlachs. The Serbian Constitution only mentions Serbs by name, other ethnic groups simply being referred to as other citizens of the state of Serbia.
Regarding the term Vlach as found in popular usage, in the media, and in government censuses, it is true that in many peoples' minds there is a distinction between Vlachs and Romanians. However Vlach and its variants Wallach, Wallachian, etc are well-known medieval exonyms for Romanians (cf. the medieval Romanian state of Wallachia or Vlachia). Moreover the Vlachs of Serbia, in their own speech, which consists of dialects of Romanian, call themselves Romanian. There is also ample evidence, mentioned in the Wiki article, of a substantial Vlach origin from the adjacent territory of modern Romania. Nevertheless it is also true that most Vlachs of Serbia today do not self-identify with the modern Romanian people or state. This is partly a result of the complete lack of education on Vlach origin, history, language and culture in Serbian schools. There also is no media (papers, TV, radio, etc) or religious services in Vlach, except for one single tiny church in the village of Malajnica near Negotin, under Father Bojan Aleksandrovic, which is under constant political and religious pressure to close down. Because of longstanding assimilationist pressure, only some 16% of the Vlachs of Serbia declared themselves as such in the last census, in 2002. The true number of Vlachs of Serbia is estimated at 250 000. C0gnate ( talk) 17:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to propose a renaming of the article, from Vlachs of Serbia into Vlachs of Central Serbia. Reason: see here the meaning of term "Vlach". This article refers to the Vlachs of Central Serbia. The Romanians of Vojvodina, which are Vlachs too like all the Romanian people, are not described in this article. -- Olahus ( talk) 08:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The terminology that would correspond to the one used in Serbian (Vlasi severnoistocne Srbije) is Vlachs of North-East Serbia. 'Central Serbia' suggests a region to the South-West of the Vlach area, (since traditionally Vojvodina was considered to be outside the original, early 20th century, boundaries of Serbia) so I think that would be misleading. But 'Vlachs of North-East Serbia' would be OK. C0gnate ( talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read the source [9], and didn't find the basis for the following sentence:
The origins of the Vlachs, who live in northeastern Central Serbia, are not well known to most Vlachs, principally because the subject is forbidden to be taught in Serbian schools. [1] As Daco-Romanian-speakers, the Vlachs have a connection to the Roman heritage in Serbia.
No such user ( talk) 11:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I live there and i know that many Vlachs are ashamed to speak their own language and to present officially themselves as Vlachs but unofficially they all say they are Vlachs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanpolsartr ( talk • contribs) 11:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Man, are magyars and hungarians the same? In Romanian you may say unguri/maghiari and means the same. Are Muntenii not romanians? They are. -- Chisinau 18:02, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
We speak about ethnic groups in Serbia where Vlachs and Romanians are not same. PANONIAN (talk) 18:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Very simple: Serbia recognize all of its minorities in the manner how they want to be recognized. If you want to be recognized as Romanian, you will be recognized as Romanian, if you want to be recognized as Vlach, you will be recognized as Vlach. I do not think that prime minister of Serbia said in Bucharest anything different. The fact is that in the past there were no Vlachs who wanted to be recognized as Romanians (that idea appeared among Vlachs very recently). Serbia will recognize that these Vlachs who want to be Romanians as Romanians, but it also will recognize those who want to be Vlachs as Vlachs. That is how things work here. PANONIAN (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Man, again they are romanians. Vlachs are romanians. Are you so kind of xenophob?
There are 2 things which can say who is a nation and who is not:
Vlachs in Serbia do not have Romanian, but Vlach national consciousness and they do not declare themselves as Romanians, but as Vlachs. No matter how Vlachs of Serbia and Moldovans are culturally and linguistically similar to Romanians, they simply are not Romanians. They are not Romanians because of same reason why Austrians are not Germans or why Montenegrins are not Serbs or why Americans are not English, etc. If somebody do not declare himself as Romanian in census, he is not Romanian. User:PANONIAN
Some of them are, some of them dont. You read only publications of one side. Read another side too. PANONIAN (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Who has right to present Serbian Vlachs as Romanians?! They have their national name, culture, tradition - identity and they are recognized by the Serbian Constitution an Law as Vlachs (Vlasi). The other ethnic group in Serbia are Romanians. Like PANONIAN said, in Serbia everyone is free to declare whatever nationality it choose in census! SERBIA - Census 2002: VLACHS Total: 40.054 ROMANIANS Total: 34.576 So, who gave right to itself to not respect these facts?! This is the act of basic rudeness! VLACHS ARE VLACHS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.114.197 ( talk) 22:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The further discussion about this can be seen here: Talk:Romanians of Serbia
However, this is Wikipedia and we don't have to write only "official" information, as that makes the article POV. All linguists claim they speak "Romanian language" not "Vlach language". Also I really doubt those people don't know they speak Romanian. Even in Moldova, where the propaganda for a "Moldavian language" was rather strong, about 2/3 said they spoke Romanian at the last census. bogdan | Talk 18:03, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, what about this: "they speak basically same language as Romanian, thought they call their language Vlach"? User:PANONIAN
Yes, but we called our self Vlachs in Serbian language, in our native mother-language we pronounce Io mis roman, ``Io vorbiesc romaniaste``, at least thats the way my gran-gran mother speaks. User:Xomelander
And how she call Romanians then? PANONIAN (talk) 22:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Stupid question Panonian. A similar question: how does an Alsacian german call the Germans?
Vlach=rumanian
rumanian=romanian.
Please read books, take informations and don't write those stupidities in Wikipedia.
Vlachs(in eastern Serbia) = Rumanians = Romanians
Romania=Rumania
The science has proven that the Vlachs in easter Serbia are ethnic Romanians(Rumanians) and they should be treated like that. The Article "Vlachs Of Serbia" should be merged with the Article "Romanians of Serbia".
Well, I recently read in the newspapers that leader of the Vlach National Council in Serbia claimed that Vlachs are not Romanians, but separate nation. So, tell that to him, not to me, ok? No matter how Vlachs and Romanians are similar, that does not mean that they are same, or you would say that Moldovans are Romanians too? There are also people in Serbia who claim that Montenegrins, Bosniaks, Croats and Macedonians are in fact Serbs, but are they? It is national consciousness what define is somebody a nation or. There are more examples: are Austrians really Austrians or just Germans? Are Wallonians really Wallonians or just French? etc, etc... Among Vlach community in Serbia there are Vlachs who are pro-Romanian, pro-Serb, and pro-Vlach. What I tried is to make an article based on the pro-Vlach view. Also, name "Rumani" was not only designation for Romanians. For example, Aromanians also call themselves "arumani", "ramani", etc. We also known that another Balkan Romance peoples are called "Megleno-Romanians", "Istro-Romanians", etc. But they are not same as Romanians. One more thing, even if we accept the view that Vlachs of Serbia are part of the Romanians of Serbia, that still does not mean that we should to merge this article into "Romanians of Serbia" because of the same reason why article "Romanians of Serbia" is not merged into article "Romanians". Another example is that we have articles about Magyars, about Szekely (part of Magyars), and about Szekely of Bukovina (part of Szekely). PANONIAN (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
One more thing, please see this map from Vlach web site which show where Vlach population live:
Why they did not showed Banat Romanians to be a part of their people on this map? Can you explain that? PANONIAN (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
Banat is also in Serbia, and Kovin (a town is Banat) is also marked on this map as area inhabited by Vlachs, but other towns in Banat inhabited by Romanians (like Vršac or Alibunar) are not marked. Why is that? To which area Kovin belong then? PANONIAN (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Just to say about my question what is a Vlach name for Romanians. The question is not stupid. I watched some TV show about music in eastern Serbia where Vlach musician talked about differences between Vlach, Serb, and Romanian music. So, that Vlach musician obviously made a difference between Vlachs and Romanians, so I presume that in the language spoken by Vlachs must be also words to designate this difference. PANONIAN (talk) 15:11, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
"Well, I recently read in the newspapers that leader of the Vlach National Council in Serbia claimed that Vlachs are not Romanians, but separate nation. So, tell that to him, not to me, ok?"
"No matter how Vlachs and Romanians are similar, that does not mean that they are same, or you would say that Moldovans are Romanians too?"
The question: no matter what president said, tell me why most of the citizens of Moldova then declared themselves as Moldovans in census? If they are Romanians, why they did not declared themselves as such? PANONIAN (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"It is national consciousness what define is somebody a nation or."
Where I jump to such conclusion? PANONIAN (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC) "So, that Vlach musician obviously made a difference between Vlachs and Romanians, so I presume that in the language spoken by Vlachs must be also words to designate this difference." I'm a Romanian, and I assure you, a understand EACH WORD spoken by a so-called "vlach". The hungarians called until the 19th century the romanians "vlahok". Now, they call them "romananok". What's the difference?
It's about their ethnicity what you question here, and the answer is that they are romanians.-- Chisinau 17:16, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
"Another example is that we have articles about Magyars, about Szekely (part of Magyars), and about Szekely of Bukovina (part of Szekely)."
"There are more examples: are Austrians really Austrians or just Germans?"
"Also, name "Rumani" was not only designation for Romanians. For example, Aromanians also call themselves "arumani", "ramani", etc. We also known that another Balkan Romance peoples are called "Megleno-Romanians", "Istro-Romanians", etc. But they are not same as Romanians."
Look at the census results in Serbia, and everything will be clear to you:
PANONIAN (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
bogdan 22:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Forcible? Nobody forced anyone to change the words one uses. There were French borrowings, but this was done also by Bulgarians and Russians, for example. There was an idea in 19th century to eliminate Slavic words from Romanian and it was labeled as absurd.
Yes, most linguists think that Moesians and Geto-Dacians spoke the same language, labeled by some "Daco-Moesian", but that's off-topic here. Linking modern people to ancient peoples is nonsense. It's absurd to say that some are descendants from "Geto-Dacians" and others from the "Moesians".
Anyway, the Romanians of Wallachia and Vlachs of Serbia speak the same language! I mean even the same dialect! The southern "Wallachian" dialect is what became standard Romanian language.
So, Serbian language is identical to Bulgarian ? I learnt something new today, then. :-) bogdan 15:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
As for that paragraph about Romanization, I do not object that you remove it or change if it is not accurate (I have no idea is that correct or not, I just returned this because it was deleted by person who marked this deletion as "minnor edit" and did not explained reason for deletion). As for language, Serbian is not identical to Bulgarian, but is identical to Croatian, Bosnian, and Montenegrin, and all these four names are used in proper places, so why we should use name Romanian everywhere instead of Moldovan and Vlach? We cannot change census results, and the results say that Vlachs declared Vlach language. Therefor, I created redirect "Vlach language (Serbia)", which redirect to Romanian language. I also do not object that we can write in parenthesis "Romanian" everywhere where we have "Vlach". PANONIAN (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You don't allow them to have their own church in Romanian, where is the human rights in Serbia? So much to tell about the tollerance of Serbs.... -- Andrei George 09:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
There isn`t such a language called "Vlach". Hence it was removed. However, the mention of "declared to speak vlach language" was kept. Greier 18:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I demand (yes, I DEMAND, because that is why you are here for, correct?) moderators to do their job, to think logically and objective. Read the article, read the talk page, read links, and then take a decision about the article. Until then, please read this [5] greier 09:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
The language on both banks of the Danube (in both Romania and Serbia) is the same, but for political reasons it's named differently. You can see a similar case in Moldova, where it's officially named Moldovan language. The Vlachs did not wanted to be identified with the other Romanians or with the Romanian state and preferred to have a distinct identity, although, as Xomelander says, they refer in their language as "romani" (romɨnʲ) and the language "romaniaste" (romɨnjaʃte). It seems that Serbia and Yugoslavia were very sensitive about ethnic issues and they did not wanted to be seen as "foreigners". "Vlachs" were known to be in the area for centuries, while "Romanians" seemed to the Serbs as something foreign.
I propose writing something like:
If you have a better proposal, please say it. :-) bogdan 10:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
If this article is to treat the Vlachs of eastern Serbia and northwestern Bulgaria as a single ethnic group (which they are, I believe), then the article title is inappropriate — it includes only one country, but lists that a significant number of the population (10%) inhabits another one. I'd say Timok Vlachs might be a better name ( though possibly not very widely used), but I'd like to hear other suggestions and opinions before moving the page.
Anyway, apart from the mention of Vlachs in northwestern Bulgaria in the Ethnic group template and a brief reference in the body, this subgroup does not seem to be covered. Therefore, another solution may be to entirely remove any reference of them in this article, retain the title and start a new and separate one about the Vlachs of Bulgaria.
I myself would favour expanding the current article to cover Bulgarian Vlachs (and do it well), while being moved to a more suitable title. Todor → Bozhinov 16:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems that the only place where you hear of this so called "vlach language" is Wikipedia and wikipedia mirror sites. A google search shows mostly links refered to Aromanians. Not even a google search for term "vlach language" + Serbia + Timok doesn`t provide anything. Please find an official source for this, or read WP:OR and WP:CS. greier 14:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
No I am not. Read what you are posting, so you wont make a full of your self. A quote from this link you provided: The Vlachs of Timok Kra-jina speak the Munten variant of the Daco-Romanian dialect, which has been adopted as the Romanian standard language. However, it is a modification of the dialect due to the influence of Slavonic and other languages. Neither of these two Romanian variants could be said to be a separate ‘Vlach language’. (commas not mines ;)). The other link proves exaclty my point: it shows links to wikipedia, wikipedia mirrors, and especially sites about Aromanians and Aromanian language. So sorry... even if they were valid, still no official source. greier 15:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, the 2002 official census showing vlach language, not vlach people would do. greier 15:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Vlach is an exonym. In their language Vlachs never call themselves Vlach. Their self-designation is Rumân, while their language they call rumâneşce. Obviously while speaking Serbian Vlachs do refer themselves using the Serbian term Vlah. This is the same as a German saying he is German (instead of Deutsche) when speaking English or a Greek saying he is Greek (instead of Hellene). C0gnate 20:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-ro/00ah_ser.htm
According to the Census of 2002, there are about 40,000 Vlachs in Eastern Serbia. However based on population statistics going back to the turn of the 20th century, the number of Vlachs or people of immediate Vlach ancestry could be some 300,000. C0gnate 19:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I removed Pannonian's sentence that said Vlachs belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church because since 1830 they have had no choice in the matter. Prior to 1830 many of them belonged to the Romanian metropolitanate in Craiova, Romania. After that, as Serbia got these territories from the Ottomans, the Serbian Orthodox Church extended its jurisdiction over the Vlachs and sent the Romanian speaking priests back to Romania. Even today in Serbia proper (south of the Danube, i.e., not counting Vojvodina) the Serbian Orthodox Church is the only one legally recognized by the authorities. Thus saying the Vlachs belong to the Serbian Orthodox Church is the same as saying they are citizens of Serbia. Of course they are.
I also removed the reference to the Slava celebration of a family saint because 1) it is not uniquely Serbian, 2) since Vlachs have been under an imposed religious regime for a couple of centuries, the origin of the custom among them is uncertain. C0gnate 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
http://www.members3.boardhost.com/homolje/msg/1151736871.html
http://www.muzej-mpek.org.yu/radovi/slava_u_porecu.htm
Pannonian, I took out 'Slavic' in front of Serbs, and you put it back in. What kind of Serbs are there other than Slavic? Are there non Slavic Serbs? Maybe Latin Serbs or Turkish Serbs? C0gnate 21:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Shouldnt we rename the article to more common name Timok Vlachs? Luka Jačov 16:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion, which might get us past this disagreement over the name of the article. The objection to Vlachs of Serbia is that some of them live in Bulgaria, and the objection to Timok Vlachs is that not all of them live in the Timok valley, so why not name the article Vlachs of Serbia and Bulgaria, and add a bit more information about the ones in Bulgaria? Is that an acceptable compromise? - GTBacchus( talk) 07:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
It was requested that this article be renamed but the procedure outlined at WP:RM#Requesting potentially controversial moves did not appear to be followed, and consensus could not be determined. Please request a move again with proper procedure if there is still a desire for the page to be moved. Thank you for your time! -- Stemonitis 01:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
The is an article Moeso-Romanian language which is being considered for deletion. The article tries to talk about the language of Timok Vlachs, but fails to give any account about its distinction from Romanian other than that people's vocabulary is deminuished. I coppied the content of this page below. If there is anything useful from this text, use it in your article, and delete what is not useful: : Dc76 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Moeso-Romanian is a Romance language or more exactly a cluster of Romanian dialects spoken mainly south of the Danube in today's Southern Serbia (the former Moesia Superior) by an important autochthonous population in the region between Požarevac, Kladovo, Zaječar and Paraćin. Although aware of the fact that they use a form of Romanian as their home language, the speakers identify themselves as Serbs because they attend the Serbian Orthodox Church, and their faith, not their language serves as the basis of their national identity (a remnant of the Ottoman concept of national identity).
The number of speakers range between 20.000 and 100.000, and are scattered mainly in mixed villages with Serbian majorities, however no real data are available. They have been neglected by researchers in linguistics and anthropology because of their identity mimicry. As a result they have never been recognized as a national minority or ethnic group, unlike the Aromanians, who were an ethnic group in former Yugoslavia. In addition there is no press or official use of the language – unlike the Romanian speakers of Voivodina who are recognized as such and have enjoyed all minority rights since World War I. The Moeso-Romanian speakers living on the banks of the Danube can receive radio and TV from Romania and understand the language, while those living in the south have great problems understanding standard Romanian.
The very imprecise popular name of "Vlasi" (sg. "Vlah" – literally "foreigner, speaker of Latin or Celtic" < Volox, the name of a Celtic tribe of the Antiquity) is sometimes used in informal speech to refer not only to them, but equally to Voivodina Romanians and Aromanians of Macedonia. A portion of them migrated in the middle Ages to Muntenia (Ţara Românească) and Transylvania and they are likely related to the Bajaši (Boyash) of Croatia and the Beás of Hungary. A similar group, called Karavlax (black Vlasi – name designating initially the Romanians of Muntenia), survived in Bosnia until World War II.
Language
Moeso-Romanian resembles the Romanian dialect of neighboring Banat, and the rare Romanian researchers (all from Yugoslavia) of these dialects consider it a geographical variety of Daco-Romanian. In the phonetic field, Moeso-Romanian shares with the Banat dialect the evolution of [č] and [dž] (written ci, ce and gi, ge in standard Romanian) to soft [šj] and [žj]: ce faci? "what are you doing" being pronounced [šje fašj?] (this evolution is distinctive of the Moldavian evolution into [še faš?]). The distribution of the distinctive words nea/zapadă "snow" and ai/usturoi "garlic" in these dialects is controversial and cannot shed any light to their classification in the Romanian dialectal system.
Origin
As a matter of fact, the first mention of Latin being spoken in this area dates back to 79 B.C., and one may consider Moeso-Romanian as a remnant of a wide wave of latinization which in antiquity covered all the Balkan Peninsula. This position is maintained among others by Pavle Ivić who considers that a sizeable Roman population inhabited the Balkan from west to east across the former Yugoslavia in antiquity. A local form of Vulgar Latin was still spoken in Kosovo in the Middle Ages, as a Hrisolvulje by Czar Dušan evidences and other Romance languages were attested comparatively late on the Dalmatian coast and in Bosnia. Istro-Romanian is still in use near Rijeka and more southwards Aromanian in Greece and Albania are another attestation of a wide extension of Latin in the Balkans. In any case, speakers of Moeso-Romanian are most likely an autochthonous population, who switched very early to Latin and still use the Romance language of their ancestors.
Literature
There is no written literary tradition and the first attempts of collecting oral literature began only in the very last years of the 20 century by the Serbian Academy of Sciences and Arts.
Write down here through which paragraphs you went, for other editors to not repeat your work:
WARNING The text is from unknown source and cannot be used in wikipedia in any forms without proper reference to
reputable published sources according to
wikipedia rules. Any attempts to do otherwise will be reverted. `'
mikka 19:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The studies don't have that conclusion. They only have some numbers and statistics about the DNA. Drawing such a conclusion by yourself from those numbers is original research, which should not be used in Wikipedia. bogdan ( talk) 19:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Vlachs are not a distinct ethnic group. Instead, they belong to the dominant Orthodox culture wherever they live. They are Serbs in Serbia and Bosnia and Greeks in Greece and Albania. They would presumably be Bulgarians in Bulgaria except for the fact that Bulgarians are very fixated on language.
Vlachs are not Romanians. In fact, their language has its own ISO code.
In Orthodox countries, it's not a big deal that Vlachs speak a Romance language. People deny that the Vlachs belong to the local culture, but in my experience a Greek will have no particular problem with a Vlach but won't trust a Romanian.
In Muslim and Catholic countries, Vlachs are an ethnic minority, but they're still just a subset of the most prevalent Orthodox minority. Host countries like Albania and Bosnia sometimes take advantage of the Vlachs' confusing identity to isolate them from the Greeks or the Serbs, but their basic identity remains Greek or Serb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.125.237 ( talk) 03:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The sentence claiming that Dušan's Code prohibited marriage between Serbs and Vlachs is wrong. There is no such a statement in that law. Check for you self at http://www.dusanov-zakonik.co.yu/indexe.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.87.91 ( talk) 08:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Who has right to present Serbian Vlachs as Romanians?! They have their national name, culture, tradition - identity and they are recognized by the Serbian Constitution an Law as Vlachs (Vlasi). The other ethnic group in Serbia are Romanians. Like PANONIAN said, in Serbia everyone is free to declare whatever nationality it choose in census!
SERBIA - Census 2002: VLACHS Total: 40.054
ROMANIANS Total: 34.576
So, who gave right to itself to not respect these facts?! This is the act of basic rudeness!
VLACHS ARE VLACHS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.150.114.197 ( talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
The 2002 census data is respected. But it is the Serbia government that has acquiescent (after diplomatic talks with Romania) to the the admission that Vlachs of Timok are a subset of Romanians. I remember when someone introduced a source about this fact in the article. The article however does not negate the distinctiveness of this community. Dc76\ talk 01:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Dc76\ talk 01:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Contrary to assertions made above by user 91.150.114.197, the Serbian Constitution does not mention Vlachs. The Serbian Constitution only mentions Serbs by name, other ethnic groups simply being referred to as other citizens of the state of Serbia.
Regarding the term Vlach as found in popular usage, in the media, and in government censuses, it is true that in many peoples' minds there is a distinction between Vlachs and Romanians. However Vlach and its variants Wallach, Wallachian, etc are well-known medieval exonyms for Romanians (cf. the medieval Romanian state of Wallachia or Vlachia). Moreover the Vlachs of Serbia, in their own speech, which consists of dialects of Romanian, call themselves Romanian. There is also ample evidence, mentioned in the Wiki article, of a substantial Vlach origin from the adjacent territory of modern Romania. Nevertheless it is also true that most Vlachs of Serbia today do not self-identify with the modern Romanian people or state. This is partly a result of the complete lack of education on Vlach origin, history, language and culture in Serbian schools. There also is no media (papers, TV, radio, etc) or religious services in Vlach, except for one single tiny church in the village of Malajnica near Negotin, under Father Bojan Aleksandrovic, which is under constant political and religious pressure to close down. Because of longstanding assimilationist pressure, only some 16% of the Vlachs of Serbia declared themselves as such in the last census, in 2002. The true number of Vlachs of Serbia is estimated at 250 000. C0gnate ( talk) 17:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I want to propose a renaming of the article, from Vlachs of Serbia into Vlachs of Central Serbia. Reason: see here the meaning of term "Vlach". This article refers to the Vlachs of Central Serbia. The Romanians of Vojvodina, which are Vlachs too like all the Romanian people, are not described in this article. -- Olahus ( talk) 08:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
The terminology that would correspond to the one used in Serbian (Vlasi severnoistocne Srbije) is Vlachs of North-East Serbia. 'Central Serbia' suggests a region to the South-West of the Vlach area, (since traditionally Vojvodina was considered to be outside the original, early 20th century, boundaries of Serbia) so I think that would be misleading. But 'Vlachs of North-East Serbia' would be OK. C0gnate ( talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
I have read the source [9], and didn't find the basis for the following sentence:
The origins of the Vlachs, who live in northeastern Central Serbia, are not well known to most Vlachs, principally because the subject is forbidden to be taught in Serbian schools. [1] As Daco-Romanian-speakers, the Vlachs have a connection to the Roman heritage in Serbia.
No such user ( talk) 11:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)