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 |
Census and many other official documents including ones from National council of Vlachs in Serbia show that Vlachs call themselves a Vlachs. So using in article many not sourced material or material that could be classified as propaganda or discriminatory purporting that they call themselves Romanians is not ethical and it is discriminatory towards Vlachs. Loesorion ( talk) 16:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
What they feel is not synonymous with what they are,– what the fuck? Are you saying that people do not have the right to declare their ethnic affiliation, but that it is instead determined by ... what? DNA? Blood cells? Crane shape? Skin color? Such theories have been discredited a century ago.
Otherwise, we could say that the Moldovans are not Romanians because they do not identify themselves as such.– And we do say so, as witnessed by the article Moldovans. Welcome to the modern theory of ethnogenesis. Most Vlachs of Serbia stopped identifying with Romanians, therefore they are not Romanians anymore.
Of all the peoples called Vlachs over history, those from Serbia are the "true Vlachs"?– No, not at all. "Vlach" just happens to be the name they prefer to go ba.
Why is the "Vlach" language so similar to Romanian, but distinct?– It's an archaic Romanian dialect indeed, who said otherwise? No such user ( talk) 11:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, [...] the social construct that ethnic groups share a similar gene pool has been contradicted within the scientific community as evidenced by data finding more genetic variation within ethnic groups compared to between ethnic groups
Ethnic groups may be subdivided into subgroups or tribes, which over time may become separate ethnic groups themselves due to endogamy or physical isolation from the parent group.– and that's what we arguably have in the Vlach case...
Max Weber maintained that ethnic groups were künstlich (artificial, i.e. a social construct) because they were based on a subjective belief in shared Gemeinschaft (community). Secondly, this belief in shared Gemeinschaft did not create the group; the group created the belief.
To Barth, ethnicity was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external ascription and internal self-identification.
it does not change the fact that they are Germans, as they have ever been. citation needed You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, it lags for about a century from the scientific consensus on ethnogenesis and modern principles of self-determination.
No matter how hard I try, I will never be a Thai,– well, that just proves that you don't feel like a Thai, i.e. you do not have a reason to be one nor identify as one. Now, just imagine a Serbian Vlach declaring that
No matter how hard I try, I will never be a Romanian.No such user ( talk) 10:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a law in Romania that stipulates "Romanians everywhere" policies meaning Romanian linguistic and cultural stock consist of: Aromanians, Bessarabians, Bukovinians, Cutzo-Vlachs, Daco-Romanians, Farsherots, Hertzans, Istro-Romanians, Danube Latins, Macedo-Romanians, Maramures natives, Meglenites, Megleno-Romanians, Moldovans, Moldo-Vlachs, Rramanians, Rumanians, Wallachians, Vlachs, Volons, Macedo-Armans(all of them forming single Romanians nation). So it is clear that Romania as state pretends to declare all mentioned national groups as single Romanian nation. While that is untrue regarding language(they do not speak all same language so they do not understand each other), culture, DNK analysis(that show people called Romanians nowadays consist of at least 3 different nations) and of top of that people from mentioned groups do not declare themselves Romanians at legal binding census. So we have here people who are promoting such policies of Romania state here in this article and disregards people who not declare themselves as Romanians as non existent outside Romania law. Romania law does not implies on encyclopedic matters. You want sources on all mentioned not a problem - even if you can find all mentioned by yourself if you wanted and had guts to recognize obvious things it is not problem for me to provide sources(for ones that promote single Romanian nations denying others same right's), but in meantime stop discriminating Vlachs of Serbia and promoting hearsay on this article, stop deleting sourced materials and pretend to know more about Vlachs of Serbia then Vlachs themselves. Loesorion ( talk) 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
What false assumption? Cited law exists in Romania, so you like one part other you don't like - what have that with deleting all sourced edits you are doing. And please cite references headlines you are talking about - 7 reference? You are obviously talking about some references not added by me - Rumen., Daskalov; Tchavdar., Marinov (2013-01-01). National ideologies and language policies. Brill. ISBN 9789004250765. OCLC 948626914. not added by me. 6 reference - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vlach - is obvious from headline that is talking about Vlach and I quote from it "Vlach is the English-language term used to describe such an individual." so article is not talking about martians but Vlachs. 10 reference not added by me. And so on. This only show you are editing or better to say deleting all my work without even reading it in first place. And guts are needed to read and understand prior edit, to discredit in a way you are doing it could be done by anybody, and you are btw discrediting mostly someone else sources not mine and in same time discrediting yourself as editor. So you draw your conclusion who are Vlach by discrediting sources, nice, how about for start stopping with your definition who is who for people declared in LEGAL BINDING CENSUS who they are before you continue further edits because that is all you are doing now. And you delete section about Vlach cuisine, you don't like dish so do not eat it, nobody is forcing you, I don't mind what you like to eat so please stop such childish ridiculous editing of this article just by deleting all sourced materials for fun or personal stubbornness and total disregards toward others editors hard work as it seems to me now. Loesorion ( talk) 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Reading through, there were numerous sentences with improper grammar and phrasing to the point of incomprehensibility. Someone who has expertise on the Vlachs and good English needs to go through and figure out what those confusing sentences mean and rewrite them. -- Hussierhussier1 ( talk) 02:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Are Vlachs ethnic Romanians? Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
So first of all, I am a Romanian. Bear in mind I have a bias regarding this topic. Still, I will try to present my arguments in a neutral manner. I also want to clarify that my aims here are to achieve consensus on Vlachs being Romanians and to merge this article.
I am opening this RfC to clarify the situation of the Timok Vlachs in Wikipedia. I opened a RfC earlier to discuss the status of the article Vlach language in Serbia before. It was successful and the article got merged with another into the new Romanian language in Serbia. Note that this RfC is probably going to be similar to that one and I will refer to it and to arguments and sources that I used there quite often. Here is a link to that RfC: [2].
Introduction
Eastern Europe is a mostly ethnically Slavic area, but there are several exceptions, such as the Hungarians or several Romance-speaking groups. For the latter we can identify several separate ethnic groups, such as
Istrian Italians, though those originate from the former Republic of Venice. Other Romance Balkan groups form a linguistic and ethnic grouping, formed by the Romanians,
Aromanians,
Megleno-Romanians and
Istro-Romanians. They're all geographically separate from the other, which has caused them to drift apart over the centuries. See a map here
[3].
Romanians are the only of these peoples with a state of their own. Still, several Romanian-speaking communities live outside its borders, into Serbia, Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria. These Romanian communities are geographically contigious with those at Romania, unlike the rest of Balkan Romance-speaking peoples widely considered as their own ethnic groups. For Serbia's case, Romanian-speaking peoples are divided into two regions. One is Banat (northeastern Serbia), here these Romanian-speakers are universally known as ethnic Romanians. Currently, they're, in theory, the only focus of the article Romanians of Serbia. Then there is the Timok Valley (southeastern Serbia). Its Romanian-speakers are the focus of this article, and there's an ongoing controversy regarding their ethnic affiliation, with some saying they are Romanians (mostly Romanians themselves) while others saying they're different (Serbs and most Vlachs). By "controversy", I mean everything, from real life day-to-day interactions between Timok Vlachs themselves (which I will note are a mostly rural community, with all the implications of this in education and other topics), to mass media (newspapers, Internet videos...), to the opinions of populations outside of the area where they life, and also academically (which is what we ought to focus on in Wikipedia). Currently, this article, by virtue of existing but also by its contents, implies an ethnic differentiation between the Timok Vlachs and the Romanians. But I find the arguments used on the article to be weak, and to not reflect what academia actually says.
An example from the article: "Some Romanians, as well as international linguists and anthropologists, consider Serbia's Vlachs to be a subgroup of Romanians. However, the results of the last census showed that most Vlachs of Eastern Serbia opted for the Serbian and Vlach exonym vlasi (= Vlachs) rather than rumuni (= Romanians)". The assertion that these census results disprove the claim that Timok Vlachs are considered ethnic Romanians by researchers is WP:Original research. The source is only the census itself. Also note that this can be easily explained because Timok Vlachs tend to call themselves Vlasi in the Serbian language (the language of the census) but as rumân or something similar in their own, Romanian language, which is close to the român that Romanians in Romania use. The use of this ethnonym by Timok Vlachs does not necessarily imply a conscious self-differentiation from Romanians.
What is the academic consensus?
Most English-language sources seem to avoid the debate of whether the Timok Vlachs are Romanians or not. This includes Serbian scholars. See this article
[4] (Ivkov-Džigurski et al.), the name of the authors seem Serbian to me, perhaps there's even a Timok Vlach author among them. The article says at page 63 "The first one [group of peoples referred to as Vlachs] is ethnically, linguistically and spatially close or identical to today's Romanians. Broadly speaking, this group lives in the territories of South-Eastern Serbia and Bulgaria.
" They continue on page 65 saying "It can be argued that after World War I, the traditional Serbian name "Vlasi" started being used for the entire Romanian population that lived within the territories between the rivers Morava, Danube and Timok.
" and on page 66 that "The name "the Vlachs" started being imposed together with the systematic repression of the fact that these Vlachs have any connection with the Romanians and especially Romania (Dragić 2002: 11)
". The latter is a quote of an article written by Serbian authors referencing the work of another Serbian author. Some Vlachs authors seem to consider that the Timok Vlachs are Romanians. I am quoting this at page 50, Vlach ethnologist Paun Es Durlić believes that "Thus, according to the ethnic instinct and ethnic consciousness, the Vlachs belong to the Romanian people, but according to the national consciousness, they are Serbs
". This is included in a paper by Annemarie Sorescu-Marinković, who is another Vlach researcher. She refers to the Timok Vlachs as "Vlach Romanians" throughout this paper of her
[5]. Una Vasiljević, another Vlach professor, repeatedly refers to the Timok Vlachs as Romanians in her paper
[6] (see pages 268 and 269). She is a professor of Romanian in the Timok Valley and identifies herself as Romanian
[7], but note that the paper was published by the University of Belgrade itself.
And what do they themselves think?
Census results show few Romanians recorded in the Timok Valley. Most of the people there chose "Vlach" over "Romanian" in these censuses. This doesn't necessarily imply the Timok Vlachs here are explicitly and directly differentiating themselves from the Romanians but rather using their mostly commonly used ethnonym, and in Serbian. We also have the example of the
Bunjevci, a group of people that while they preferred to refer to themselves as "Bunjevci" in Serbian censuses, are still considered an ethnic subgroup rather than one of their own in Wikipedia. Furthermore, there's evidence that there's a movement for adopting a Romanian ethnic identity among the Timok Vlachs. Coming back to
Ivkov-Džigurski et al., on page 68 there are the following statements:, "After the regime change in 2000, the new Serbian government passed a National Minority Law, which enabled the Vlachs to formulate their own political programmes. After much internal strife and conflict they finally produced a Joint Declaration of the Vlachs/Romanians of Eastern Serbia in May, 2002. The Declaration's core elements are that the Vlachs should be regarded as a national minority whose native country is Romania (this means that they are not only an 'ethnic group'), that their standard language is Romanian, and that their church services are to be held in the Romanian language.
" I am not knowledgeable on this topic, but I believe that in Serbia, minorities are legally allowed to form some kind of central organization for themselves. The Romanians in Vojvodina have their own, see
National Council of the Romanian National Minority. I think such May 2002 declaration came from something similar. Therefore, it's a pretty authoritative organization in this topic. By the way, that quote mentions that Vlachs were allowed to make their own political formations. One such example is the
Vlach People's Party. In their website
[8], they use the name Partia Neamului Rumânesc, "Romanian People's Party". The party is led by
Predrag Balašević (Vlach from Podgorac), who in an interview by a Romanian newspaper
[9] made statements such as "The situation faced by Romanians from Timoc is, unfortunately, similar to that of Romanians from Bulgaria, from Bessarabia, and so on.
" or "For so long, we didn't have Romanian schools, we didn't learn the Romanian language, we didn't have newspapers, Church, administration, nothing of ours - and yet, the Romanians from Timoc preserved their language identity, traditions and customs.
". There are some other figures, such as
Dușan Pârvulovici, another Vlach (I don't know from which locality) from the Timok Valley, who said in 2021 "Long live our Romanian nation!
"
[10], or
Bojan Aleksandrović, another Vlach (native of Malajnica, in the Timok Valley) and also a priest who strove for the establishment of
a church in his hometown aligned with the Romanian Orthodox Church
[11] and who has organized Romanian-language events along with Pârvulovici
[12]. Note that with this, I am not attempting to cherrypick sources as if to show that actually all Vlachs identify as Romanians or something and that I've come here to show a hidden truth, but that there's also a Romanian movement among the Vlachs. The notion that only authors and nationalists from Romania think that the Timok Vlachs are Romanians would be an erroneous one. In this thesis, there is info showing the existence of several Timok Vlach organizations in favor of adopting a Romanian ethnic and linguistic identity and others against it
[13].
Timok Vlachs in history
The designation of the Timok Vlachs may be controversial today, but it clearly wasn't in the past. Here are some more quotes from
Ivkov-Džigurski et al., page 67: In official documents and serious studies that have been conducted in the last or at the beginning of this century, the Vlachs were labelled as Romanians – their self-sufficient name was respected within their own populations. Later, it went hand in hand with the process of "teaching" them how to declare themselves, accompanied by direct or indirect repression. This was particularly the characteristics of the last couple of censuses [held in Yugoslavia and Serbia].
". It appears that the Timok Vlachs originate from modern Romania, more precisely from Oltenia and Banat (linguistically speaking, the Timok Vlachs speak one of the two dialects, their speech is not a single compact dialect), from where they migrated in the 18th century as a result of wars in the region. There's little support for the Timok Vlachs being an autochtonous group originating from the Timok Valley. I'm quoting
this paper at page 2. Also, looking at ethnic maps from the past centuries by several non-Romanian and non-Serb researchers, the Timok Vlachs are widely considered as Romanians. See maps from
1861,
1870,
1877,
1881,
1898,
1910,
1913,
1917,
1918 (one of the authors is a Serb),
1922. In the past, as early as 100 years ago, it seems that the academic consensus was that the Timok Vlachs belonged to the Romanian ethnicity. Still, it is worth noting that a Romanian researcher George Vâlsan noted in 1913 that the Romanian national counciousness of the Timok Vlachs was weak, although they had a strong ethnic instinct. We also have a declaration by the Council of Europe itself, which argues that while their modern ethnic classification is disputed, "The predominant view is that the majority of the population which identifies itself as Vlach is descended from groups originating from Banat, parts of Transylvania and Oltenia in the 18th and 19th centuries.
" (
[14], pages 22-23). These are regions today in Romania, except part of Banat, though Romance-speakers there are also considered Romanians anyway.
There's thus four ideas to carry on mind here:
Now, I think we have several options:
Also bear in mind that the Timok Vlachs are not restricted only to Serbia, but also to Bulgaria. As we mentioned above, the two groups composing the Romanian community in
actual Serbia are identifiable by regions. [...] These two regions are Banat [...] and the Valley of Timoc (which includes territories
which are part of actual Serbia and Bulgaria).
[15] p. 40. See these maps
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]; the Vlachs at southeastern Serbia and the ones at northwestern Bulgaria form a contiguous, Romanian-speaking population artificially divided by political borders. But those at Bulgaria are considered Romanians. This is also the stance we take at Wikipedia, as
Romanians in Bulgaria indeed includes the Romanian-speakers at this northwestern corner of Bulgaria bordering Serbia's Timok Valley. This shows that the division between the Timok Vlachs and the Romanians is purely a political issue, as this Romanian-speaking group in Bulgaria is undisputedly considered as belonging to the Romanian ethnicity in academia (for examples, see
Talk:Romanians in Bulgaria#Justification on move; I also invite users here to provide references proving otherwise). In my opinion, we shouldn't divide a defined ethnic subgroup purely over politics. We would require other arguments, like linguistics or ethnography or maybe even history, but I see a lack of arguments for the differentiation of Vlachs and Romanians in all of these fields of study.
So, academia proves a strong link between the Romanians and the Timok Vlachs. Furthermore, this article is short and problematic (see tags on the article), and much of its information does not actually cover the Timok Vlachs, but the presence of a population called "Vlach" in the history of Serbia (see explanation why this can be out of scope of this article below). Romanians of Serbia is also a short article, and even though it is supposed to only cover those Romanians at Banat (see its infobox), it includes lots of information on the Timok Vlachs, much of which is repeated in this article. I believe that if both belong to the same ethnicity, and if their respective articles are short and overlap, it will not be difficult to effect a merge of both articles, which will end this artificial differentiation not backed by academic sources. Therefore, I support Option 3.1.; still, I considered that some users could consider information on this controversy notable enough for its own article, so Option 3.2. remains reasonable for me.
By the way, I think that the article should be renamed even if none of these options are chosen. "Vlach" has been a name in the past commonly used for Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians; that is, all Romance-speaking peoples in the Balkans. There are more Romance-speaking peoples in Serbia, see Romanians of Serbia for info on the Romanians that live in Vojvodina (nobody disputes that they are Romanians), Aromanians in Serbia for the Aromanians living scattered throughout Serbian cities and Megleno-Romanians#Serbia for info on the Megleno-Romanian settlers in Vojvodina. There's already the article Vlachs in medieval Serbia, which is not exclusive to the Timok Valley. Thus, I think the article should get a more precise title that would leave it clear that the scope of the article is the present, living in the 21st century Romance-speaking group living in the Timok Valley. This could be " Timok Vlachs" or " Vlachs of the Timok Valley", or perhaps " Vlach Romanians of the Timok Valley". All this being only if the article is to be kept. Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Even those Aromanians and Vlachs who did accept a level of cultural connection with Romanians, refused being classified as part of the Romanian ethnos.
In the case of Timok Valley Vlachs,... part of Vlachs in Eastern Serbia strongly advocate the idea of belonging to Romania and therefore, treating the Vlachs as part of Romanian identity in Serbia. The Serbian state does recognize the Romanian minority (mostly in Vojvodina) but is not too keen on accepting such an interpretation on Vlachs.
As can be evident from the census results alone, modern Vlachs do not consider themselves ethnic Romaniansnot necessarily, the Timok Vlachs simply used the name they normally use in Serbian (the language of the census) to call themselves, which is "vlasi". For this to be enough to prove that the Timok Vlachs consciously rejected their relationship with the Romanians through this would need sourcing. By the way, census results prior to World War I registered all Timok Vlachs as Romanian. Do you propose that we treat them as Romanian until then and afterwards as a different ethnic group?
they have a distinct cultural traditions and lores than Romanians of Banatcould you elaborate on which are these?
speak markedly different dialect, some going as far as considering it a different language.no not really. Timok Vlachs don't even have a compact dialect of their own. Some speak archaic Banat Romanian while some speak archaic Oltenian Romanian. This statement suggests you haven't even taken a quick look at the RfC, because I state at its start that there was a RfC prior to this one that determined Timok Vlachs speak Romanian [23]. That one had the support of four users.
but for the start it failed to present the issue in a neutral mannerI will appreciate any feedback regarding this so that I can rewrite any non-neutral parts of this RfC. What did you mean exactly? I am not sure you will be able to tell as you haven't read what I've written above.
and was simply too much of a WP:TLDR that anyone apparently considered responding in a month.the past RfC had a similar length and yet it was successful. If this one did not attract much discussion it was not because of the RfC length. A contentious issue requires argumentation and discussion. If I had only written the initial question it would have been a ridiculous RfC.
Your point of view of the Vlach issue is clear, and it goes against the realityyes, I had disclosed my point of view at the start of the RfC. But I don't understand how can it go against reality when it is shared by other members of the Timok Vlach community.
Even those Aromanians and Vlachs who did accept a level of cultural connection with Romanians, refused being classified as part of the Romanian ethnoscan hardly be any clearer, so please do not gaslight me that
the first quote does not talk about the Timok Vlachssince it obviously does, if you care to read the whole page. Aromanians and Vlachs are indeed two distinct groups, and the source does not conflate them in any point. Nobody denies that the Vlachs are of Romanian origin and that their dialect(s) are archaic Romanian. But once more, we are dealing with an ethnic group which consider themselves separate from Romanian ethnos, and have common identity, traditions, lores, and mostly language, and live in a compact area. That alone makes them an ethnic group by definition. Your own peculiar definition of ethnic group (
what they feel is not synonymous with what they are) is noted, but does not align with the modern understanding of ethnogenesis and the principle of self-determination. Yes, there is a certain group within Vlachs that advocates for their Romanian identity, but I've already demonstrated by 2011 census results alone (35000 Vlachs vs. 2600 Romanians in Central Serbia) that they are just that, a minority.
.
Is it possible to add demographic evolution. I can provide that, but don't want to waste my time if this is censored Phillipe de Roy ( talk) 17:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Vlachs are considered to be one of constitutive people enumerated in Constitution in North Macedonia. There should be a reference to this, as this creates a confusion in Wikipedia. There cannot be two different population using same name, especially as this is recognized in the Constitution of a sovereign state
Takins as...as well as the historical fact that Macedonia is established as a national state of the Macedonian people, in which full equality as citizens and permanent co-existence with the Macedonian people is provided for Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romanies and other nationalities living in the Republic of Macedonia, and intent on:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/36714/70972/F511737559/MKD36714%2520Eng.pdf TRIBALIA212 ( talk) 03:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Цвијетић, Лепосава., Попис становништва и имовине у Србији 1834. године, Мешовита грађа (Miscellanea) XIII (1984), Историјски Институт, Београд, стр. 9–118. http://archive.org/download/Miscellanea13/Miscellanea13251984.pdf
Гавриловић, Јован., Прилог за географију и статистику Србије. Главни извод пописа Србије у години 1846, Гласник ДСС III (1851), стр. 186–190. http://books.google.rs/books?id=eRUWAQAAMAAJ
Гавриловић, Јован., Прилог за географију и статистику Србије. Главни извод пописа Србије у години 1850, Гласник ДСС IV (1852), стр. 227–248. http://books.google.rs/books?id=ufwjpKZsXVMC
Гавриловић, Јован., Главни извод пописа у Србији године 1854/55, Гласник ДСС IX (1857), стр. 224–226. http://books.google.rs/books?id=UxcWAQAAMAAJ Државопис Србије, 1863. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1863/Pdf/G186311001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1865. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1865/Pdf/G186511001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1869. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1869/Pdf/G186911001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1874.. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1874/Pdf/G187411001.pdf
Кретање људства у Србији од 1874.-1879. године http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1879/Pdf/G187911002.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1879. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1879/Pdf/G187911001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1882. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1882/Pdf/G188211001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1883. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1883/Pdf/G188311001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1884. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1884/Pdf/G188411001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1889. Свеска XVI http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911002.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1889. Свеска XIV http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911001.pdf
Статистика краљевине Србије, 1892. I део http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1892/Pdf/G189211002.pdf
Статистика Краљевине Србије, 1892. II део http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1892/Pdf/G189211001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1893. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1893/Pdf/G189311001.pdf
Попис становништва и домаће стоке у Краљевини Србији 31 децембра 1910. године, 1911. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1911/Pdf/G191111001.pdf
Присутно становништво (грађанско и војничко, трајно и пролазно присутно) по матерњем језику и вероисповести, попис 1921. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1921/Pdf/G19214001.pdf
Присутно становништво по вероисповести и матерњем језику, попис 1931. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1931/Pdf/G19314001.pdf
Стално становништво по народности, попис 1948. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1948/Pdf/G19484001.pdf
Before the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859, the Vlachs in eastern Serbia were officially known as "Romanians". On the other hand, the country of Wallachia (the name of which was derived from "Vlach"), was known in Serbian as Влашка / Vlaška. Furthermore, in ethnographic studies of the 19th or early 20th century, the Vlachs of eastern Serbia were regarded as Romanians in an undisputed way. However, after 1859 and the formation of the first modern Romanian state, this practice was reversed, with the name of "Vlach" being imposed over on the community of eastern Serbia to break similarities with the Romanians; this was intensified after the creation of Yugoslavia.
The above text is plainly factually wrong. Romanians were considered as such until 1948 census in Yugoslavia. I copy official census books from Principality of Setbia, Kingdom of Servia, Kingdom of SCS and Yugoslavia. The name Vlach was used before 1866 as the internationally was known Wallachia, not the other way around. I am frustrated with so many factual errors in this article
109.93.126.254 (
talk) 17:41, 11 May 2023 (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 |
Census and many other official documents including ones from National council of Vlachs in Serbia show that Vlachs call themselves a Vlachs. So using in article many not sourced material or material that could be classified as propaganda or discriminatory purporting that they call themselves Romanians is not ethical and it is discriminatory towards Vlachs. Loesorion ( talk) 16:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
What they feel is not synonymous with what they are,– what the fuck? Are you saying that people do not have the right to declare their ethnic affiliation, but that it is instead determined by ... what? DNA? Blood cells? Crane shape? Skin color? Such theories have been discredited a century ago.
Otherwise, we could say that the Moldovans are not Romanians because they do not identify themselves as such.– And we do say so, as witnessed by the article Moldovans. Welcome to the modern theory of ethnogenesis. Most Vlachs of Serbia stopped identifying with Romanians, therefore they are not Romanians anymore.
Of all the peoples called Vlachs over history, those from Serbia are the "true Vlachs"?– No, not at all. "Vlach" just happens to be the name they prefer to go ba.
Why is the "Vlach" language so similar to Romanian, but distinct?– It's an archaic Romanian dialect indeed, who said otherwise? No such user ( talk) 11:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, [...] the social construct that ethnic groups share a similar gene pool has been contradicted within the scientific community as evidenced by data finding more genetic variation within ethnic groups compared to between ethnic groups
Ethnic groups may be subdivided into subgroups or tribes, which over time may become separate ethnic groups themselves due to endogamy or physical isolation from the parent group.– and that's what we arguably have in the Vlach case...
Max Weber maintained that ethnic groups were künstlich (artificial, i.e. a social construct) because they were based on a subjective belief in shared Gemeinschaft (community). Secondly, this belief in shared Gemeinschaft did not create the group; the group created the belief.
To Barth, ethnicity was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external ascription and internal self-identification.
it does not change the fact that they are Germans, as they have ever been. citation needed You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, it lags for about a century from the scientific consensus on ethnogenesis and modern principles of self-determination.
No matter how hard I try, I will never be a Thai,– well, that just proves that you don't feel like a Thai, i.e. you do not have a reason to be one nor identify as one. Now, just imagine a Serbian Vlach declaring that
No matter how hard I try, I will never be a Romanian.No such user ( talk) 10:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
There is a law in Romania that stipulates "Romanians everywhere" policies meaning Romanian linguistic and cultural stock consist of: Aromanians, Bessarabians, Bukovinians, Cutzo-Vlachs, Daco-Romanians, Farsherots, Hertzans, Istro-Romanians, Danube Latins, Macedo-Romanians, Maramures natives, Meglenites, Megleno-Romanians, Moldovans, Moldo-Vlachs, Rramanians, Rumanians, Wallachians, Vlachs, Volons, Macedo-Armans(all of them forming single Romanians nation). So it is clear that Romania as state pretends to declare all mentioned national groups as single Romanian nation. While that is untrue regarding language(they do not speak all same language so they do not understand each other), culture, DNK analysis(that show people called Romanians nowadays consist of at least 3 different nations) and of top of that people from mentioned groups do not declare themselves Romanians at legal binding census. So we have here people who are promoting such policies of Romania state here in this article and disregards people who not declare themselves as Romanians as non existent outside Romania law. Romania law does not implies on encyclopedic matters. You want sources on all mentioned not a problem - even if you can find all mentioned by yourself if you wanted and had guts to recognize obvious things it is not problem for me to provide sources(for ones that promote single Romanian nations denying others same right's), but in meantime stop discriminating Vlachs of Serbia and promoting hearsay on this article, stop deleting sourced materials and pretend to know more about Vlachs of Serbia then Vlachs themselves. Loesorion ( talk) 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
What false assumption? Cited law exists in Romania, so you like one part other you don't like - what have that with deleting all sourced edits you are doing. And please cite references headlines you are talking about - 7 reference? You are obviously talking about some references not added by me - Rumen., Daskalov; Tchavdar., Marinov (2013-01-01). National ideologies and language policies. Brill. ISBN 9789004250765. OCLC 948626914. not added by me. 6 reference - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vlach - is obvious from headline that is talking about Vlach and I quote from it "Vlach is the English-language term used to describe such an individual." so article is not talking about martians but Vlachs. 10 reference not added by me. And so on. This only show you are editing or better to say deleting all my work without even reading it in first place. And guts are needed to read and understand prior edit, to discredit in a way you are doing it could be done by anybody, and you are btw discrediting mostly someone else sources not mine and in same time discrediting yourself as editor. So you draw your conclusion who are Vlach by discrediting sources, nice, how about for start stopping with your definition who is who for people declared in LEGAL BINDING CENSUS who they are before you continue further edits because that is all you are doing now. And you delete section about Vlach cuisine, you don't like dish so do not eat it, nobody is forcing you, I don't mind what you like to eat so please stop such childish ridiculous editing of this article just by deleting all sourced materials for fun or personal stubbornness and total disregards toward others editors hard work as it seems to me now. Loesorion ( talk) 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Reading through, there were numerous sentences with improper grammar and phrasing to the point of incomprehensibility. Someone who has expertise on the Vlachs and good English needs to go through and figure out what those confusing sentences mean and rewrite them. -- Hussierhussier1 ( talk) 02:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Are Vlachs ethnic Romanians? Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
So first of all, I am a Romanian. Bear in mind I have a bias regarding this topic. Still, I will try to present my arguments in a neutral manner. I also want to clarify that my aims here are to achieve consensus on Vlachs being Romanians and to merge this article.
I am opening this RfC to clarify the situation of the Timok Vlachs in Wikipedia. I opened a RfC earlier to discuss the status of the article Vlach language in Serbia before. It was successful and the article got merged with another into the new Romanian language in Serbia. Note that this RfC is probably going to be similar to that one and I will refer to it and to arguments and sources that I used there quite often. Here is a link to that RfC: [2].
Introduction
Eastern Europe is a mostly ethnically Slavic area, but there are several exceptions, such as the Hungarians or several Romance-speaking groups. For the latter we can identify several separate ethnic groups, such as
Istrian Italians, though those originate from the former Republic of Venice. Other Romance Balkan groups form a linguistic and ethnic grouping, formed by the Romanians,
Aromanians,
Megleno-Romanians and
Istro-Romanians. They're all geographically separate from the other, which has caused them to drift apart over the centuries. See a map here
[3].
Romanians are the only of these peoples with a state of their own. Still, several Romanian-speaking communities live outside its borders, into Serbia, Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria. These Romanian communities are geographically contigious with those at Romania, unlike the rest of Balkan Romance-speaking peoples widely considered as their own ethnic groups. For Serbia's case, Romanian-speaking peoples are divided into two regions. One is Banat (northeastern Serbia), here these Romanian-speakers are universally known as ethnic Romanians. Currently, they're, in theory, the only focus of the article Romanians of Serbia. Then there is the Timok Valley (southeastern Serbia). Its Romanian-speakers are the focus of this article, and there's an ongoing controversy regarding their ethnic affiliation, with some saying they are Romanians (mostly Romanians themselves) while others saying they're different (Serbs and most Vlachs). By "controversy", I mean everything, from real life day-to-day interactions between Timok Vlachs themselves (which I will note are a mostly rural community, with all the implications of this in education and other topics), to mass media (newspapers, Internet videos...), to the opinions of populations outside of the area where they life, and also academically (which is what we ought to focus on in Wikipedia). Currently, this article, by virtue of existing but also by its contents, implies an ethnic differentiation between the Timok Vlachs and the Romanians. But I find the arguments used on the article to be weak, and to not reflect what academia actually says.
An example from the article: "Some Romanians, as well as international linguists and anthropologists, consider Serbia's Vlachs to be a subgroup of Romanians. However, the results of the last census showed that most Vlachs of Eastern Serbia opted for the Serbian and Vlach exonym vlasi (= Vlachs) rather than rumuni (= Romanians)". The assertion that these census results disprove the claim that Timok Vlachs are considered ethnic Romanians by researchers is WP:Original research. The source is only the census itself. Also note that this can be easily explained because Timok Vlachs tend to call themselves Vlasi in the Serbian language (the language of the census) but as rumân or something similar in their own, Romanian language, which is close to the român that Romanians in Romania use. The use of this ethnonym by Timok Vlachs does not necessarily imply a conscious self-differentiation from Romanians.
What is the academic consensus?
Most English-language sources seem to avoid the debate of whether the Timok Vlachs are Romanians or not. This includes Serbian scholars. See this article
[4] (Ivkov-Džigurski et al.), the name of the authors seem Serbian to me, perhaps there's even a Timok Vlach author among them. The article says at page 63 "The first one [group of peoples referred to as Vlachs] is ethnically, linguistically and spatially close or identical to today's Romanians. Broadly speaking, this group lives in the territories of South-Eastern Serbia and Bulgaria.
" They continue on page 65 saying "It can be argued that after World War I, the traditional Serbian name "Vlasi" started being used for the entire Romanian population that lived within the territories between the rivers Morava, Danube and Timok.
" and on page 66 that "The name "the Vlachs" started being imposed together with the systematic repression of the fact that these Vlachs have any connection with the Romanians and especially Romania (Dragić 2002: 11)
". The latter is a quote of an article written by Serbian authors referencing the work of another Serbian author. Some Vlachs authors seem to consider that the Timok Vlachs are Romanians. I am quoting this at page 50, Vlach ethnologist Paun Es Durlić believes that "Thus, according to the ethnic instinct and ethnic consciousness, the Vlachs belong to the Romanian people, but according to the national consciousness, they are Serbs
". This is included in a paper by Annemarie Sorescu-Marinković, who is another Vlach researcher. She refers to the Timok Vlachs as "Vlach Romanians" throughout this paper of her
[5]. Una Vasiljević, another Vlach professor, repeatedly refers to the Timok Vlachs as Romanians in her paper
[6] (see pages 268 and 269). She is a professor of Romanian in the Timok Valley and identifies herself as Romanian
[7], but note that the paper was published by the University of Belgrade itself.
And what do they themselves think?
Census results show few Romanians recorded in the Timok Valley. Most of the people there chose "Vlach" over "Romanian" in these censuses. This doesn't necessarily imply the Timok Vlachs here are explicitly and directly differentiating themselves from the Romanians but rather using their mostly commonly used ethnonym, and in Serbian. We also have the example of the
Bunjevci, a group of people that while they preferred to refer to themselves as "Bunjevci" in Serbian censuses, are still considered an ethnic subgroup rather than one of their own in Wikipedia. Furthermore, there's evidence that there's a movement for adopting a Romanian ethnic identity among the Timok Vlachs. Coming back to
Ivkov-Džigurski et al., on page 68 there are the following statements:, "After the regime change in 2000, the new Serbian government passed a National Minority Law, which enabled the Vlachs to formulate their own political programmes. After much internal strife and conflict they finally produced a Joint Declaration of the Vlachs/Romanians of Eastern Serbia in May, 2002. The Declaration's core elements are that the Vlachs should be regarded as a national minority whose native country is Romania (this means that they are not only an 'ethnic group'), that their standard language is Romanian, and that their church services are to be held in the Romanian language.
" I am not knowledgeable on this topic, but I believe that in Serbia, minorities are legally allowed to form some kind of central organization for themselves. The Romanians in Vojvodina have their own, see
National Council of the Romanian National Minority. I think such May 2002 declaration came from something similar. Therefore, it's a pretty authoritative organization in this topic. By the way, that quote mentions that Vlachs were allowed to make their own political formations. One such example is the
Vlach People's Party. In their website
[8], they use the name Partia Neamului Rumânesc, "Romanian People's Party". The party is led by
Predrag Balašević (Vlach from Podgorac), who in an interview by a Romanian newspaper
[9] made statements such as "The situation faced by Romanians from Timoc is, unfortunately, similar to that of Romanians from Bulgaria, from Bessarabia, and so on.
" or "For so long, we didn't have Romanian schools, we didn't learn the Romanian language, we didn't have newspapers, Church, administration, nothing of ours - and yet, the Romanians from Timoc preserved their language identity, traditions and customs.
". There are some other figures, such as
Dușan Pârvulovici, another Vlach (I don't know from which locality) from the Timok Valley, who said in 2021 "Long live our Romanian nation!
"
[10], or
Bojan Aleksandrović, another Vlach (native of Malajnica, in the Timok Valley) and also a priest who strove for the establishment of
a church in his hometown aligned with the Romanian Orthodox Church
[11] and who has organized Romanian-language events along with Pârvulovici
[12]. Note that with this, I am not attempting to cherrypick sources as if to show that actually all Vlachs identify as Romanians or something and that I've come here to show a hidden truth, but that there's also a Romanian movement among the Vlachs. The notion that only authors and nationalists from Romania think that the Timok Vlachs are Romanians would be an erroneous one. In this thesis, there is info showing the existence of several Timok Vlach organizations in favor of adopting a Romanian ethnic and linguistic identity and others against it
[13].
Timok Vlachs in history
The designation of the Timok Vlachs may be controversial today, but it clearly wasn't in the past. Here are some more quotes from
Ivkov-Džigurski et al., page 67: In official documents and serious studies that have been conducted in the last or at the beginning of this century, the Vlachs were labelled as Romanians – their self-sufficient name was respected within their own populations. Later, it went hand in hand with the process of "teaching" them how to declare themselves, accompanied by direct or indirect repression. This was particularly the characteristics of the last couple of censuses [held in Yugoslavia and Serbia].
". It appears that the Timok Vlachs originate from modern Romania, more precisely from Oltenia and Banat (linguistically speaking, the Timok Vlachs speak one of the two dialects, their speech is not a single compact dialect), from where they migrated in the 18th century as a result of wars in the region. There's little support for the Timok Vlachs being an autochtonous group originating from the Timok Valley. I'm quoting
this paper at page 2. Also, looking at ethnic maps from the past centuries by several non-Romanian and non-Serb researchers, the Timok Vlachs are widely considered as Romanians. See maps from
1861,
1870,
1877,
1881,
1898,
1910,
1913,
1917,
1918 (one of the authors is a Serb),
1922. In the past, as early as 100 years ago, it seems that the academic consensus was that the Timok Vlachs belonged to the Romanian ethnicity. Still, it is worth noting that a Romanian researcher George Vâlsan noted in 1913 that the Romanian national counciousness of the Timok Vlachs was weak, although they had a strong ethnic instinct. We also have a declaration by the Council of Europe itself, which argues that while their modern ethnic classification is disputed, "The predominant view is that the majority of the population which identifies itself as Vlach is descended from groups originating from Banat, parts of Transylvania and Oltenia in the 18th and 19th centuries.
" (
[14], pages 22-23). These are regions today in Romania, except part of Banat, though Romance-speakers there are also considered Romanians anyway.
There's thus four ideas to carry on mind here:
Now, I think we have several options:
Also bear in mind that the Timok Vlachs are not restricted only to Serbia, but also to Bulgaria. As we mentioned above, the two groups composing the Romanian community in
actual Serbia are identifiable by regions. [...] These two regions are Banat [...] and the Valley of Timoc (which includes territories
which are part of actual Serbia and Bulgaria).
[15] p. 40. See these maps
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]; the Vlachs at southeastern Serbia and the ones at northwestern Bulgaria form a contiguous, Romanian-speaking population artificially divided by political borders. But those at Bulgaria are considered Romanians. This is also the stance we take at Wikipedia, as
Romanians in Bulgaria indeed includes the Romanian-speakers at this northwestern corner of Bulgaria bordering Serbia's Timok Valley. This shows that the division between the Timok Vlachs and the Romanians is purely a political issue, as this Romanian-speaking group in Bulgaria is undisputedly considered as belonging to the Romanian ethnicity in academia (for examples, see
Talk:Romanians in Bulgaria#Justification on move; I also invite users here to provide references proving otherwise). In my opinion, we shouldn't divide a defined ethnic subgroup purely over politics. We would require other arguments, like linguistics or ethnography or maybe even history, but I see a lack of arguments for the differentiation of Vlachs and Romanians in all of these fields of study.
So, academia proves a strong link between the Romanians and the Timok Vlachs. Furthermore, this article is short and problematic (see tags on the article), and much of its information does not actually cover the Timok Vlachs, but the presence of a population called "Vlach" in the history of Serbia (see explanation why this can be out of scope of this article below). Romanians of Serbia is also a short article, and even though it is supposed to only cover those Romanians at Banat (see its infobox), it includes lots of information on the Timok Vlachs, much of which is repeated in this article. I believe that if both belong to the same ethnicity, and if their respective articles are short and overlap, it will not be difficult to effect a merge of both articles, which will end this artificial differentiation not backed by academic sources. Therefore, I support Option 3.1.; still, I considered that some users could consider information on this controversy notable enough for its own article, so Option 3.2. remains reasonable for me.
By the way, I think that the article should be renamed even if none of these options are chosen. "Vlach" has been a name in the past commonly used for Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians; that is, all Romance-speaking peoples in the Balkans. There are more Romance-speaking peoples in Serbia, see Romanians of Serbia for info on the Romanians that live in Vojvodina (nobody disputes that they are Romanians), Aromanians in Serbia for the Aromanians living scattered throughout Serbian cities and Megleno-Romanians#Serbia for info on the Megleno-Romanian settlers in Vojvodina. There's already the article Vlachs in medieval Serbia, which is not exclusive to the Timok Valley. Thus, I think the article should get a more precise title that would leave it clear that the scope of the article is the present, living in the 21st century Romance-speaking group living in the Timok Valley. This could be " Timok Vlachs" or " Vlachs of the Timok Valley", or perhaps " Vlach Romanians of the Timok Valley". All this being only if the article is to be kept. Super Ψ Dro 17:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Even those Aromanians and Vlachs who did accept a level of cultural connection with Romanians, refused being classified as part of the Romanian ethnos.
In the case of Timok Valley Vlachs,... part of Vlachs in Eastern Serbia strongly advocate the idea of belonging to Romania and therefore, treating the Vlachs as part of Romanian identity in Serbia. The Serbian state does recognize the Romanian minority (mostly in Vojvodina) but is not too keen on accepting such an interpretation on Vlachs.
As can be evident from the census results alone, modern Vlachs do not consider themselves ethnic Romaniansnot necessarily, the Timok Vlachs simply used the name they normally use in Serbian (the language of the census) to call themselves, which is "vlasi". For this to be enough to prove that the Timok Vlachs consciously rejected their relationship with the Romanians through this would need sourcing. By the way, census results prior to World War I registered all Timok Vlachs as Romanian. Do you propose that we treat them as Romanian until then and afterwards as a different ethnic group?
they have a distinct cultural traditions and lores than Romanians of Banatcould you elaborate on which are these?
speak markedly different dialect, some going as far as considering it a different language.no not really. Timok Vlachs don't even have a compact dialect of their own. Some speak archaic Banat Romanian while some speak archaic Oltenian Romanian. This statement suggests you haven't even taken a quick look at the RfC, because I state at its start that there was a RfC prior to this one that determined Timok Vlachs speak Romanian [23]. That one had the support of four users.
but for the start it failed to present the issue in a neutral mannerI will appreciate any feedback regarding this so that I can rewrite any non-neutral parts of this RfC. What did you mean exactly? I am not sure you will be able to tell as you haven't read what I've written above.
and was simply too much of a WP:TLDR that anyone apparently considered responding in a month.the past RfC had a similar length and yet it was successful. If this one did not attract much discussion it was not because of the RfC length. A contentious issue requires argumentation and discussion. If I had only written the initial question it would have been a ridiculous RfC.
Your point of view of the Vlach issue is clear, and it goes against the realityyes, I had disclosed my point of view at the start of the RfC. But I don't understand how can it go against reality when it is shared by other members of the Timok Vlach community.
Even those Aromanians and Vlachs who did accept a level of cultural connection with Romanians, refused being classified as part of the Romanian ethnoscan hardly be any clearer, so please do not gaslight me that
the first quote does not talk about the Timok Vlachssince it obviously does, if you care to read the whole page. Aromanians and Vlachs are indeed two distinct groups, and the source does not conflate them in any point. Nobody denies that the Vlachs are of Romanian origin and that their dialect(s) are archaic Romanian. But once more, we are dealing with an ethnic group which consider themselves separate from Romanian ethnos, and have common identity, traditions, lores, and mostly language, and live in a compact area. That alone makes them an ethnic group by definition. Your own peculiar definition of ethnic group (
what they feel is not synonymous with what they are) is noted, but does not align with the modern understanding of ethnogenesis and the principle of self-determination. Yes, there is a certain group within Vlachs that advocates for their Romanian identity, but I've already demonstrated by 2011 census results alone (35000 Vlachs vs. 2600 Romanians in Central Serbia) that they are just that, a minority.
.
Is it possible to add demographic evolution. I can provide that, but don't want to waste my time if this is censored Phillipe de Roy ( talk) 17:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Vlachs are considered to be one of constitutive people enumerated in Constitution in North Macedonia. There should be a reference to this, as this creates a confusion in Wikipedia. There cannot be two different population using same name, especially as this is recognized in the Constitution of a sovereign state
Takins as...as well as the historical fact that Macedonia is established as a national state of the Macedonian people, in which full equality as citizens and permanent co-existence with the Macedonian people is provided for Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romanies and other nationalities living in the Republic of Macedonia, and intent on:
https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/36714/70972/F511737559/MKD36714%2520Eng.pdf TRIBALIA212 ( talk) 03:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
Цвијетић, Лепосава., Попис становништва и имовине у Србији 1834. године, Мешовита грађа (Miscellanea) XIII (1984), Историјски Институт, Београд, стр. 9–118. http://archive.org/download/Miscellanea13/Miscellanea13251984.pdf
Гавриловић, Јован., Прилог за географију и статистику Србије. Главни извод пописа Србије у години 1846, Гласник ДСС III (1851), стр. 186–190. http://books.google.rs/books?id=eRUWAQAAMAAJ
Гавриловић, Јован., Прилог за географију и статистику Србије. Главни извод пописа Србије у години 1850, Гласник ДСС IV (1852), стр. 227–248. http://books.google.rs/books?id=ufwjpKZsXVMC
Гавриловић, Јован., Главни извод пописа у Србији године 1854/55, Гласник ДСС IX (1857), стр. 224–226. http://books.google.rs/books?id=UxcWAQAAMAAJ Државопис Србије, 1863. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1863/Pdf/G186311001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1865. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1865/Pdf/G186511001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1869. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1869/Pdf/G186911001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1874.. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1874/Pdf/G187411001.pdf
Кретање људства у Србији од 1874.-1879. године http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1879/Pdf/G187911002.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1879. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1879/Pdf/G187911001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1882. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1882/Pdf/G188211001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1883. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1883/Pdf/G188311001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1884. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1884/Pdf/G188411001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1889. Свеска XVI http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911002.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1889. Свеска XIV http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911001.pdf
Статистика краљевине Србије, 1892. I део http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1892/Pdf/G189211002.pdf
Статистика Краљевине Србије, 1892. II део http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1892/Pdf/G189211001.pdf
Државопис Србије, 1893. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1893/Pdf/G189311001.pdf
Попис становништва и домаће стоке у Краљевини Србији 31 децембра 1910. године, 1911. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1911/Pdf/G191111001.pdf
Присутно становништво (грађанско и војничко, трајно и пролазно присутно) по матерњем језику и вероисповести, попис 1921. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1921/Pdf/G19214001.pdf
Присутно становништво по вероисповести и матерњем језику, попис 1931. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1931/Pdf/G19314001.pdf
Стално становништво по народности, попис 1948. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1948/Pdf/G19484001.pdf
Before the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859, the Vlachs in eastern Serbia were officially known as "Romanians". On the other hand, the country of Wallachia (the name of which was derived from "Vlach"), was known in Serbian as Влашка / Vlaška. Furthermore, in ethnographic studies of the 19th or early 20th century, the Vlachs of eastern Serbia were regarded as Romanians in an undisputed way. However, after 1859 and the formation of the first modern Romanian state, this practice was reversed, with the name of "Vlach" being imposed over on the community of eastern Serbia to break similarities with the Romanians; this was intensified after the creation of Yugoslavia.
The above text is plainly factually wrong. Romanians were considered as such until 1948 census in Yugoslavia. I copy official census books from Principality of Setbia, Kingdom of Servia, Kingdom of SCS and Yugoslavia. The name Vlach was used before 1866 as the internationally was known Wallachia, not the other way around. I am frustrated with so many factual errors in this article
109.93.126.254 (
talk) 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)