![]() | 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 |
This article is seriously skewed towards (pan-)Romanian nationalist point of view.
In summary, there is lot of Fear, uncertainty and doubt spreading and almost zero data about actual state of Vlach human and national rights.
I think I need not continue. This is a typical Balkanic article, full of contradictory statements (depending on which side wrote it), inflation of national myths, and so on.
Yes, Vlachs are generally underrepresented, undereducated and neglected part of Serbian society, without education in their language. This article does an awful job in explaining that situation in neutral terms. 07:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I will divide my answer in several punctuations for easier navigation.
If you speak Romanian also you will find this links very interesting [11]; [12]; [13]. Adrian ( talk) 07:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I returned the NPOV tag, as the article again slided into one-side, namely viewed through Romanian eyes only or mostly. Parenthetic (Romanians) is downright POV-pushing. Let me take just one example, and there are many in this article:
There is the sentence "the Yugoslav authorities agreed to recognize the Romanian identity of the Vlach population in Central Serbia", which sounds seriously skewed. I would like to see the original text of the supposed 2002 agreement between Yugoslavia and Romania, reported by Adevărul. The point is, Serbian government is traditionally neutral in affairs of ethnic and regional self-determination of its citizens, so They cannot recognize identity that does not exist. For example, B92 for the same event says that [27] Ilijesku je istakao značaj koji za međusobne odnose dve države imaju "srpska manjina u Rumuniji i rumunska u Banatu i vlaška u Timočkoj krajini"., Iliescu stressed the importance of [...] Serbian minority in Romania, Romanian in Banat and Vlachs in Timok region.
Anyway, I found the original text, in Serbian: Sporazum između Savezne vlade Savezne Republike Jugoslavije i Vlade Rumunije o saradnji u oblasti zaštite nacionalnih manjina. It is very general, not even mentioning "Serbs", "Romanians" or "Vlachs" by name. The only relevant articles in definition are 1 and 2, of which I'll translate relevant parts:
Finally, here [28] is a neutral, thorough commentary of the agreement (unfortunately, some pages are missing), which do not support the reading of Adevărul, and this article. In sum, The agreement is purposefully left ambiguous on the Vlach/Romanian identity issue, because it is everyone's personal choice and human right.
I could go on and on with the analysis, sentence by sentence. I thought we concluded that the initiative of 15 European Council members is worthless? No such user ( talk) 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling that you are picking references, and no matter that are a 90% of them using the Vlach(Romanian) formulation, you chose to remove it, just to be more neutral? I don`t see it that way. Verifiability is the most important thing on wikipedia, and for all data that you changed exist valid sources, especially for the Vlach(Romanian) or Romanian(Vlach) formulation. As for your questions, I will try to answer them all and suggest a solution. I will answer as you ordered them.
Adrian ( talk) 11:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The position of the Romanian authorities in this respect is very clear-cut, President Basescu having moreover described the division as an “error” and called upon the two associations to unite. He considers that Romania can offer its protection to the Romanian ethnic minority and thus to the Vlachs as well.
81. The Serbian government for its part wishes to be as non-committal as possible on this issue. Some of the rapporteur’s contacts told him of their convictions that it is altogether in the interests of the Serbian authorities for the Romanian ethnic minority to remain divided so that it keeps smaller proportions,[...]
82. However, the rapporteur could not find any real interference by the authorities regarding this question. He does not consider abusive the conditions for registering an independent national council for the Vlach minority. At his explicit request during his meetings on the spot, the Serbian authorities assured the rapporteur that they would not object to the Vlachs’ joining with the Romanians under the umbrella of the national council for the Romanian minority if they decided to form a single large Romanian ethnic minority. The authorities do not encourage this amalgamation (that is not their role), neither do they prevent it.
83. It should also be observed that the 2002 census mentioned both the Romanian minority and the Vlach minority. The Advisory Committee saw this as a positive factor bearing witness to the authorities’ equal recognition of the identity of the two minorities within the meaning of Article 3 of the Framework Convention60.
74. Some believe that the Vlachs are part and parcel of the Romanian minority, others that they are a separate minority. The fact that the Vlachs have organised themselves independently from the Romanian minority by founding their own Council for the Vlach national minority shows that some of the Vlachs do not regard themselves as belonging to the Romanian minority.
76. Language is a subject on which the different sensibilities of the ‘Romanian’ ethnic minority clash. Some consider that since the Vlach language has no written form, the only written language common to the Romanian ethnic minority is literary Romanian. They see this as evidence that the Vlachs are members of the Romanian minority. Others, however, are making attempts to codify the Vlach language in order to assert this minority’s independence and distinctiveness a little more strongly.
85. The rapporteur was struck by the divergences of viewpoint even among the members of the Vlach minority over the question whether or not they belong to the Romanian ethnic minority. This argument causes infighting coloured by contrasting political interests, so much so that some members of the minority known as ‘Vlach’, who are even among the founding member of the national council for the Romanian minority based in Vojvodina, are almost considered traitors by their peers who advocate a separate Vlach minority.
So, while the rapporteur could observe the apparent cordiality of relations between the clergy of Serbian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church of Serbia, he is surprised that so much latitude of decision is left to Serbian Orthodox Church, whose influence in the recognition of other churches or religious communities seems exaggerated. He is also surprised at the importance of the status evidently granted to canon law in a secular state.
100. It has been reported that the use of the Vlach language in local administrations is not even entrenched in localities where the members of this minority represent over 15% of the population. This 15% proportion is prescribed by the national legislation [...]
101. The problem of education in the minority language is twofold: on the one hand it is hardly possible to teach in Vlach as this is an essentially oral language, and besides there is a shortage of qualified teachers to teach in Romanian.
I believe that this designation (that was present for a long time, until recently) at this article should be reintroduced. Foreign media, Romanian media calls them Romanians(Vlachs) ( [30]; [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]) and I notice that the Serbian media started to use that formulation also 1. Also Romanians(Vlachs) from Serbia call themselves as Romanians from Serbia. Since this formulation was removed on a very fast and bold notice, ignoring the references I believe with this new ref in the Serbian language can reintroduce this formulation. Also I believe that this article should be renamed as Vlachs(Romanians) of Serbia because the foreign documents, Romanian, Vlachs(Romanians) themselves and now the Serbians use this formulation as well. This article carries this name solely based on the Serbian POV while ignoring the Romanian, Vlach(Romanian) and foreign POV. Adrian ( talk) 12:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Please assume good faith WP:AGF. Very POV that I noticed the media circus? Purely political problem I call it. What is problematic about my previous comment that you needed to link it like I tried to hide it? Where is that fact? And here is what the other Vlach(Romanian) representatives say about them [55], [56], [57], [58], about that same "president" of the "nacional council". And that are only Serbian sources. As you can notice that statement is now present in the article and it is purely a political message and as such, it has the same value as Balasevic`s statements that are also included in the article, but did`t change anything. When we have a problem and 2 political sides "fight" and scientific data states something third, I call it purely political problem. It is his political duty to say this. This man did`t had a choice to say something else, who would be crazy to say something that will cost your job ? This man was not elected by the Vlach(Romanian) people to represent them but appointed by a political party. Balasevic was appointed by the Vlach political party, a political representative of this people.That is why the political component should be excluded from this problem, and if possible from this article. User:No such user talks about the freedom of expression, that is exactly the point, at this point the Vlach(Romanian) group doesn`t have this luxury but they are forced to be whatever need to preserve the political chair.
Also connected to the media circus, as you can notice Romania did`s asked for this group to be named as Romanians and nothing else (I must say that isn`t my POV either - to be precise, for this group to name Romanians and nothing else because they are not simply Romanians but a subgroup), but for the exclusion of the political component and "normal" guarantee for this minority [59] - . Before Dragojevic was the president of the council, the council had totally different data and position on this matter. Until the political party SPS inserted their representative, mister Dragojevic who isn`t a Vlach(Romanians) and who doesn`t have a clue what Vlach(Romanians) are. This person is positioned at this post as a party prey/reward after the elections and conducts the politic SPS wants. If you live in Serbia, you understand what am I talking about.
Ethnonym "Romani, Rumani" means Romanians, if it would be Romans then it would be written like that - Romans from Serbia and not Rumâni din Sârbie which by the letter u can`t be confused with Romans or Roma people. As someone who doesn`t know a word of Romanian(Vlach) language - like this president here(Radiša Dragojević), it is ridiculous to say that Romani, Rumani" means Romans. The intentional usage of letter u is to avoid confusion with other similar named groups (Rumani) like possible Romans here - and by the way all Romanians used this name "Rumanians". And let`s even say that this is the case, that means that almost any other nation isn`t what they are. Serbians are Slavs and they do not use the Serbian, but Slovenian language. If Vlachs(Romanians) from Serbia indeed think that they are some kind of Romans why aren`t they speaking the Latin language? Or Italian? Or whatever language Romans used. But their language is a variety of the Romanian language. Why aren't they Catholic but they asked for the Romanian orthodox Church? Why do they have the same cultural traditions as the Romanians from Oltenia? If for the Vlachs(Romanians) from Serbia this means some kind of Romans(Rome) then we call safely say that all Romanians are Romans because they use the same ethnonym "Romani, Rumani" to call themself. Also since this group first time appeared as something else than Romanians in 1953 [60] I doubt that they have a closer connection to any other ethnic group than to the one they used to declare them self. Adrian ( talk) 07:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Talking about search parameters, let's see how relevant are search results of Iadrian's parameter "vlachs/romanians of serbia". The first source he linked in this section talks about the Vlachs in Macedonia. The second and the third links talk about the Romanians in general, using the term "Vlachs (Romanians)" to indicate that these two words are synonyms. The fourth link is about some fights of the
Pechenegs and their allies against Byzantium in the 11th century. (I can't comment the Romanian links there.) Iadrian keeps claiming that the
Székelys are called "Szekelys (Hungarians)" on wikipedia. This is extremely strange, as that term is not even once used in the article about them, and what is even more strange, that term is not at all used in any of those four wikipedia articles he linked. (Now, what to think about that?)
The Vlachs of Serbia are by no means an often subject of English-language sources, but still one can find a number of them. In most of them, they are simply referred to as Vlachs (or Vlachs in Serbia, or Vlachs of Serbia): [69] by Laurence Mitchell; [70] by Simon Broughton, Mark Ellingham, and Richard Trillo; [71] by Linda Welters; [72] by Geert-Hinrich Ahrens; [73] by David Levinson; [74] by Anne Kindersley; etc. To add to these a book in English written by the most prominent ethnographer of the Vlachs of Serbia, Paun Durlić, who himself is a Vlach: [75].
That all shows the absurdity of Iadrian's proposal that the designation for this ethnic group should be "Vlachs (Romanians) of Serbia", instead of the clear and simple name "Vlachs of Serbia". It is pointless to continue this discussion. Vladimir ( talk) 17:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
About this, "letter by letter" translation of this name(Rumâni din Sârbie) is Romanians from Serbia. That is mentioned in the text that was removed by an IP user first. If you wish you can ask for an uninvolved editor who knows Romanian to translate it for you. Adrian ( talk) 03:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Overall, the sources used in this article are terrible, to put it mildly. Very little to none is sourced to peer-reviewed history and antropology books and papers, which must exist on the subject, and a lot to various political organizations of questionable veracity and apparent bias. Here's a brief overview:
And so on. Actually, apart from the census and few daily news sourced from Adevărul and B92, it's very hard to pick a cited source which is actually reliable and supports the text. It could be better scrapping them all and starting from scratch. No such user ( talk) 08:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vlachs of Serbia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vlachs of Serbia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Vlachs of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Vlachs of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.timoc.org/54_Bor_12092005/BROSURA.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
International agreement signed between governments of Yugoslavia and Romania in 2002. does not mention Vlachs. As that document is incorrectly used many time by different sources or statements in media as agreement about Vlach, instead as agreement on Serbian minority in Romania and Romanian minority in Serbia it is needed to remove all even sourced news that talk otherwise as they present blatant lie. In order to clarify this stance i here provide link to document content that is ratified into biding law by parliament of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - link http://fer.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ZAKON-o-ratifikaciji-sporazuma-izmedju-savezne-vlade-SRJ-i-vlade-Rumunije.pdf Loesorion ( talk) 22:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
In addition to previous mentioned agreement here I present link to Record of intergovernmental mixed commission between Republic of Serbia and Romania regarding national minority's that is related to implementation of International agreement signed between governments of Yugoslavia and Romania in 2002. http://fer.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Zapisnik-II-sednica-MMK-16.11.2011.pdf from I cite following paragraph:
In same document Romanian side opposed standardization of Vlach language and that is only time when Vlach are mentioned.
That document is often in media inaccurately called agreement between Serbia and Romania regarding that Serbia accepts Vlach can declare themselves as Romanians and gain favors for that declarations despite document represent only record of intergovernmental commission work and does not represent anything binding towards Vlach population in Serbia as often mentioned in media and some sources. Only valid agreement is one that parliament ratified. Loesorion ( talk) 23:09, 15 July 2020 (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 |
This article is seriously skewed towards (pan-)Romanian nationalist point of view.
In summary, there is lot of Fear, uncertainty and doubt spreading and almost zero data about actual state of Vlach human and national rights.
I think I need not continue. This is a typical Balkanic article, full of contradictory statements (depending on which side wrote it), inflation of national myths, and so on.
Yes, Vlachs are generally underrepresented, undereducated and neglected part of Serbian society, without education in their language. This article does an awful job in explaining that situation in neutral terms. 07:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I will divide my answer in several punctuations for easier navigation.
If you speak Romanian also you will find this links very interesting [11]; [12]; [13]. Adrian ( talk) 07:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
I returned the NPOV tag, as the article again slided into one-side, namely viewed through Romanian eyes only or mostly. Parenthetic (Romanians) is downright POV-pushing. Let me take just one example, and there are many in this article:
There is the sentence "the Yugoslav authorities agreed to recognize the Romanian identity of the Vlach population in Central Serbia", which sounds seriously skewed. I would like to see the original text of the supposed 2002 agreement between Yugoslavia and Romania, reported by Adevărul. The point is, Serbian government is traditionally neutral in affairs of ethnic and regional self-determination of its citizens, so They cannot recognize identity that does not exist. For example, B92 for the same event says that [27] Ilijesku je istakao značaj koji za međusobne odnose dve države imaju "srpska manjina u Rumuniji i rumunska u Banatu i vlaška u Timočkoj krajini"., Iliescu stressed the importance of [...] Serbian minority in Romania, Romanian in Banat and Vlachs in Timok region.
Anyway, I found the original text, in Serbian: Sporazum između Savezne vlade Savezne Republike Jugoslavije i Vlade Rumunije o saradnji u oblasti zaštite nacionalnih manjina. It is very general, not even mentioning "Serbs", "Romanians" or "Vlachs" by name. The only relevant articles in definition are 1 and 2, of which I'll translate relevant parts:
Finally, here [28] is a neutral, thorough commentary of the agreement (unfortunately, some pages are missing), which do not support the reading of Adevărul, and this article. In sum, The agreement is purposefully left ambiguous on the Vlach/Romanian identity issue, because it is everyone's personal choice and human right.
I could go on and on with the analysis, sentence by sentence. I thought we concluded that the initiative of 15 European Council members is worthless? No such user ( talk) 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
I have a feeling that you are picking references, and no matter that are a 90% of them using the Vlach(Romanian) formulation, you chose to remove it, just to be more neutral? I don`t see it that way. Verifiability is the most important thing on wikipedia, and for all data that you changed exist valid sources, especially for the Vlach(Romanian) or Romanian(Vlach) formulation. As for your questions, I will try to answer them all and suggest a solution. I will answer as you ordered them.
Adrian ( talk) 11:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
The position of the Romanian authorities in this respect is very clear-cut, President Basescu having moreover described the division as an “error” and called upon the two associations to unite. He considers that Romania can offer its protection to the Romanian ethnic minority and thus to the Vlachs as well.
81. The Serbian government for its part wishes to be as non-committal as possible on this issue. Some of the rapporteur’s contacts told him of their convictions that it is altogether in the interests of the Serbian authorities for the Romanian ethnic minority to remain divided so that it keeps smaller proportions,[...]
82. However, the rapporteur could not find any real interference by the authorities regarding this question. He does not consider abusive the conditions for registering an independent national council for the Vlach minority. At his explicit request during his meetings on the spot, the Serbian authorities assured the rapporteur that they would not object to the Vlachs’ joining with the Romanians under the umbrella of the national council for the Romanian minority if they decided to form a single large Romanian ethnic minority. The authorities do not encourage this amalgamation (that is not their role), neither do they prevent it.
83. It should also be observed that the 2002 census mentioned both the Romanian minority and the Vlach minority. The Advisory Committee saw this as a positive factor bearing witness to the authorities’ equal recognition of the identity of the two minorities within the meaning of Article 3 of the Framework Convention60.
74. Some believe that the Vlachs are part and parcel of the Romanian minority, others that they are a separate minority. The fact that the Vlachs have organised themselves independently from the Romanian minority by founding their own Council for the Vlach national minority shows that some of the Vlachs do not regard themselves as belonging to the Romanian minority.
76. Language is a subject on which the different sensibilities of the ‘Romanian’ ethnic minority clash. Some consider that since the Vlach language has no written form, the only written language common to the Romanian ethnic minority is literary Romanian. They see this as evidence that the Vlachs are members of the Romanian minority. Others, however, are making attempts to codify the Vlach language in order to assert this minority’s independence and distinctiveness a little more strongly.
85. The rapporteur was struck by the divergences of viewpoint even among the members of the Vlach minority over the question whether or not they belong to the Romanian ethnic minority. This argument causes infighting coloured by contrasting political interests, so much so that some members of the minority known as ‘Vlach’, who are even among the founding member of the national council for the Romanian minority based in Vojvodina, are almost considered traitors by their peers who advocate a separate Vlach minority.
So, while the rapporteur could observe the apparent cordiality of relations between the clergy of Serbian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church of Serbia, he is surprised that so much latitude of decision is left to Serbian Orthodox Church, whose influence in the recognition of other churches or religious communities seems exaggerated. He is also surprised at the importance of the status evidently granted to canon law in a secular state.
100. It has been reported that the use of the Vlach language in local administrations is not even entrenched in localities where the members of this minority represent over 15% of the population. This 15% proportion is prescribed by the national legislation [...]
101. The problem of education in the minority language is twofold: on the one hand it is hardly possible to teach in Vlach as this is an essentially oral language, and besides there is a shortage of qualified teachers to teach in Romanian.
I believe that this designation (that was present for a long time, until recently) at this article should be reintroduced. Foreign media, Romanian media calls them Romanians(Vlachs) ( [30]; [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]) and I notice that the Serbian media started to use that formulation also 1. Also Romanians(Vlachs) from Serbia call themselves as Romanians from Serbia. Since this formulation was removed on a very fast and bold notice, ignoring the references I believe with this new ref in the Serbian language can reintroduce this formulation. Also I believe that this article should be renamed as Vlachs(Romanians) of Serbia because the foreign documents, Romanian, Vlachs(Romanians) themselves and now the Serbians use this formulation as well. This article carries this name solely based on the Serbian POV while ignoring the Romanian, Vlach(Romanian) and foreign POV. Adrian ( talk) 12:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Please assume good faith WP:AGF. Very POV that I noticed the media circus? Purely political problem I call it. What is problematic about my previous comment that you needed to link it like I tried to hide it? Where is that fact? And here is what the other Vlach(Romanian) representatives say about them [55], [56], [57], [58], about that same "president" of the "nacional council". And that are only Serbian sources. As you can notice that statement is now present in the article and it is purely a political message and as such, it has the same value as Balasevic`s statements that are also included in the article, but did`t change anything. When we have a problem and 2 political sides "fight" and scientific data states something third, I call it purely political problem. It is his political duty to say this. This man did`t had a choice to say something else, who would be crazy to say something that will cost your job ? This man was not elected by the Vlach(Romanian) people to represent them but appointed by a political party. Balasevic was appointed by the Vlach political party, a political representative of this people.That is why the political component should be excluded from this problem, and if possible from this article. User:No such user talks about the freedom of expression, that is exactly the point, at this point the Vlach(Romanian) group doesn`t have this luxury but they are forced to be whatever need to preserve the political chair.
Also connected to the media circus, as you can notice Romania did`s asked for this group to be named as Romanians and nothing else (I must say that isn`t my POV either - to be precise, for this group to name Romanians and nothing else because they are not simply Romanians but a subgroup), but for the exclusion of the political component and "normal" guarantee for this minority [59] - . Before Dragojevic was the president of the council, the council had totally different data and position on this matter. Until the political party SPS inserted their representative, mister Dragojevic who isn`t a Vlach(Romanians) and who doesn`t have a clue what Vlach(Romanians) are. This person is positioned at this post as a party prey/reward after the elections and conducts the politic SPS wants. If you live in Serbia, you understand what am I talking about.
Ethnonym "Romani, Rumani" means Romanians, if it would be Romans then it would be written like that - Romans from Serbia and not Rumâni din Sârbie which by the letter u can`t be confused with Romans or Roma people. As someone who doesn`t know a word of Romanian(Vlach) language - like this president here(Radiša Dragojević), it is ridiculous to say that Romani, Rumani" means Romans. The intentional usage of letter u is to avoid confusion with other similar named groups (Rumani) like possible Romans here - and by the way all Romanians used this name "Rumanians". And let`s even say that this is the case, that means that almost any other nation isn`t what they are. Serbians are Slavs and they do not use the Serbian, but Slovenian language. If Vlachs(Romanians) from Serbia indeed think that they are some kind of Romans why aren`t they speaking the Latin language? Or Italian? Or whatever language Romans used. But their language is a variety of the Romanian language. Why aren't they Catholic but they asked for the Romanian orthodox Church? Why do they have the same cultural traditions as the Romanians from Oltenia? If for the Vlachs(Romanians) from Serbia this means some kind of Romans(Rome) then we call safely say that all Romanians are Romans because they use the same ethnonym "Romani, Rumani" to call themself. Also since this group first time appeared as something else than Romanians in 1953 [60] I doubt that they have a closer connection to any other ethnic group than to the one they used to declare them self. Adrian ( talk) 07:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Talking about search parameters, let's see how relevant are search results of Iadrian's parameter "vlachs/romanians of serbia". The first source he linked in this section talks about the Vlachs in Macedonia. The second and the third links talk about the Romanians in general, using the term "Vlachs (Romanians)" to indicate that these two words are synonyms. The fourth link is about some fights of the
Pechenegs and their allies against Byzantium in the 11th century. (I can't comment the Romanian links there.) Iadrian keeps claiming that the
Székelys are called "Szekelys (Hungarians)" on wikipedia. This is extremely strange, as that term is not even once used in the article about them, and what is even more strange, that term is not at all used in any of those four wikipedia articles he linked. (Now, what to think about that?)
The Vlachs of Serbia are by no means an often subject of English-language sources, but still one can find a number of them. In most of them, they are simply referred to as Vlachs (or Vlachs in Serbia, or Vlachs of Serbia): [69] by Laurence Mitchell; [70] by Simon Broughton, Mark Ellingham, and Richard Trillo; [71] by Linda Welters; [72] by Geert-Hinrich Ahrens; [73] by David Levinson; [74] by Anne Kindersley; etc. To add to these a book in English written by the most prominent ethnographer of the Vlachs of Serbia, Paun Durlić, who himself is a Vlach: [75].
That all shows the absurdity of Iadrian's proposal that the designation for this ethnic group should be "Vlachs (Romanians) of Serbia", instead of the clear and simple name "Vlachs of Serbia". It is pointless to continue this discussion. Vladimir ( talk) 17:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
About this, "letter by letter" translation of this name(Rumâni din Sârbie) is Romanians from Serbia. That is mentioned in the text that was removed by an IP user first. If you wish you can ask for an uninvolved editor who knows Romanian to translate it for you. Adrian ( talk) 03:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Overall, the sources used in this article are terrible, to put it mildly. Very little to none is sourced to peer-reviewed history and antropology books and papers, which must exist on the subject, and a lot to various political organizations of questionable veracity and apparent bias. Here's a brief overview:
And so on. Actually, apart from the census and few daily news sourced from Adevărul and B92, it's very hard to pick a cited source which is actually reliable and supports the text. It could be better scrapping them all and starting from scratch. No such user ( talk) 08:38, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vlachs of Serbia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 06:09, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vlachs of Serbia. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:57, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Vlachs of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:06, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Vlachs of Serbia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.timoc.org/54_Bor_12092005/BROSURA.pdfWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:41, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
International agreement signed between governments of Yugoslavia and Romania in 2002. does not mention Vlachs. As that document is incorrectly used many time by different sources or statements in media as agreement about Vlach, instead as agreement on Serbian minority in Romania and Romanian minority in Serbia it is needed to remove all even sourced news that talk otherwise as they present blatant lie. In order to clarify this stance i here provide link to document content that is ratified into biding law by parliament of Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - link http://fer.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/ZAKON-o-ratifikaciji-sporazuma-izmedju-savezne-vlade-SRJ-i-vlade-Rumunije.pdf Loesorion ( talk) 22:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
In addition to previous mentioned agreement here I present link to Record of intergovernmental mixed commission between Republic of Serbia and Romania regarding national minority's that is related to implementation of International agreement signed between governments of Yugoslavia and Romania in 2002. http://fer.org.rs/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Zapisnik-II-sednica-MMK-16.11.2011.pdf from I cite following paragraph:
In same document Romanian side opposed standardization of Vlach language and that is only time when Vlach are mentioned.
That document is often in media inaccurately called agreement between Serbia and Romania regarding that Serbia accepts Vlach can declare themselves as Romanians and gain favors for that declarations despite document represent only record of intergovernmental commission work and does not represent anything binding towards Vlach population in Serbia as often mentioned in media and some sources. Only valid agreement is one that parliament ratified. Loesorion ( talk) 23:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)