Jump to content

Talk:Vlachs/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Distinct

It also depends on how far you define 'distinct'. Would you care to detail? Total distinction (complete separateness) is not accepted by the majority of scholars, nor is it even possible, regardless of nationalist views. There is much more nationalism in your extreme separating views than in any other view. James 007 15:06, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I understand "distinct" here to mean that Vlachs are not a kind of Romanians, but rather a closely related, yet distinct people. Zocky 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I know, but the text can be read in different ways. It has to be detailed. And actually, you mean to say "Aromanians", not "Vlachs". Vlach is synonymous with Romanian.James 007 15:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. Rumanian = Vlach does not necessarily imply that Vlach = Rumanian. Zocky is right to say that Vlachs are not a kind of Rumanians. They're not. Rumanians are a kind of Vlachs. In other words, Rumanian is a meronym, not a synonym, of Vlach. Simple logic.--Theathenae 16:07, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Nope, you got it twisted. Vlach is an indefinite blanket term which applies equally to any of the four branches. Your personal conception is a misconception. James 007 16:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Distinct in the same way that Castilians and Catalans are distinct, or Catalans and Occitans. Similar, but definitely distinct. The Rumanians were heavily influenced by the Slavs, the Aromanians have been largely absorbed by the Greeks. They are not the same people. User:Theathenae

Okay, that's fine. Taking it further is pseudo-scientific nationalism, which you claim to be against. I am suspicious though of how much distinctness he/she intends, and also of how much distinctness may be read into it. I agree that the four modern branches have become distinct, yet they come from the same trunk---and have the same origin. And from I what see in his edits, User:Theathenae does not want to admit that they come from the same trunk---and I don't mean vulgar latin, I mean the proto-language that led from vulgar latin to the four branches. James 007 15:28, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I believed that the Romanian propaganda beast was killed.Now I see that it has been brought back to life by the Romanian nationalist Decius.Decius,the propaganda that you and many other of your kin support was the reason for the murder of hundreds of Aromanians by the hands of Romanian agents back in 1900-1925AD,and it was the very reason for the bloody war between Aromanians and traitor Aromanians who believed you.You,the Romanian nationalists,must be ashamed for what your grandfathers did in Macedonia.--Pelasgos80 29 June 2005 14:09 (UTC)

The things you claim in that paragraph above sound like a point of view interpretation offered as history, not actual history. James 007 04:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I actually took the liberty to strike through Pelasgos' comment, as it is not only an interpretation, but totally untrue and an insult to the Romanians who all regard Aromanians as their brothers. He talks about Romanian "agents" murdering hundreds of Aromanians back in 1900-1925. That's nonsense as, quite the contrary, in that period Romania did more than ever for Aromanians, by trying to bring as many of them as possible in the Southern Dobrogea. That would have given them the chance preserve their culture, identity and traditions, if the territory wouldn't have been lost after WW2 (as opposed to the assimilation they're facing now, same as the Megleno-Romanians, Istro-Romanians and the Romanians in Timok Valley). Moreover, Romania didn't have any real "secret service" back then, with "agents" sent in neighbouring countries in "assassination missions". If they had anything remotely to an Intelligence Agency, one can be sure Aromanians would have been their last concern. Hungary, Russia, any other any other internal or external threat - I think they had enough to fill their agenda (I strongly doubt Aromanians were regarded as any threat and that the Romanian "agents" had nothing better to do than conduct hundreds of "assassination" missions among their brothers in the South). I hope the others will agree with me that Pelasgos' statement above is a too brutal twist of the historical truth, which would be better off this page. Hanumana

False and true facts about Vlachs of Serbia

  • In Serbia everybody is free to declare what ever nationality he choose in census (or not to declare anything if he want). - FALSE
Romanians are an official minority only in Vojvodina, not in Serbia, where they are not even listed in the census. Proof of the political struggle of the Romanian-Vlah groups for recognition as one single minority in Yugoslavia can be found here.
  • Vlachs in Timočka Krajina declare themselves in census as ethnic Vlachs and declare their language as Vlach language - TRUE
However that is not because they think they are a distinct nation with a different language from Romanians. It is because:
1. They are not given the "Romanian" option at the census
2. They don't really see a difference between Vlah and Romanian, however they want to preserve their identity as Vlahs, same as a Bavarian or Texan would want to keep theirs, sometimes even above the one of their country, without though rejecting the latter.
3. Same as the Rroma who think of themselves as "Gypsy", only because they were called as such by everybody for centuries, the Romanians in the Timok Valley were called Vlahs for hundreds of years, by whoever ruled over them (Otomans, Serbs...).
  • Vlachs in Timočka Krajina do not consider themselves Romanians. They think about themselves to be a distinct nation, different from both, Serbs and Romanians - FALSE (see also above)
They think of themselves as different from Serbs, but not from Romanians.

(Well...I dont know where I got this idea from. I am from Timočka Krajina and I can guarantee you that Vlachs in that area consider themselfs being Serbs. I never meat anyone who consider himself/herself being Romanian).

Surprising reality actually, is that not the Vlahs started to not consider themselves as Romanians anymore during the 20th century (assumption I met in Romania), but it's actually the Romanians who gradually stopped considering themselves as Vlahs in the 18th and the 19th century. Wallachia (or Vlahia) was the name given to the territory between the Southern Carpathians and the Danube, with its inhabitants being called as Vlahs (see also here). That applied of course as well to the people around these geographical borders, but with the same language and culture, therefore including the Vlahs in the Timok Valley, Northern Dobrogea, Southern Moldova etc. It was mainly the emancipation following the French Revolution and the 1848 Revolution, that made the majority start rejecting as pejorative a name that was given to them (much like more and more Rroma are rejecting the word Gypsy nowadays) and go back to the name that defines them as descenents of Romans in the area. However, while this emancipation took place in most of the Romanian territories, protected by the Romanian borders, it seems that it never arrived in the Timok Valley where, even now in the 21st century, the Romanians/Vlahs in the area are still refused the right to education in their own language. User:Hanumana

The further discussion about this can be seen here: Talk:Romanians of Serbia

Many Moldovans declared themselves to be Romanians, unless I'm mistaken. -Alexander 007 02:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
You mistake. Here you have Moldova census results:

> The census is hardly valid in that respect (so no point quoting any numbers), for various reasons:

1. Although speaking the same language with the other Romanians, considering the history of the region, some people prefer to identify themselves more with the ethnical origin (Roman/Romanian) some with the territory (Moldova)
2. In 1918, following the Russian Revolution, Moldova (back then Bessarabia) proclaimed independece and united with Romania. This shows they still identified themselves as one nation with the other Romanians back then.
3. After reoccupying the territory in 1944, Stalin took care that the 1918 episode would never happen again. Massive deportations in Siberia and Kazakhstan, harrasment and even executions of Romanian nationalists, the so called "organized starvation" follwing the war, the numerous Russian and Ukrainian immigrants brought there, the so called Moldavian language introduced (which was nothing else than Romanian, written in Cyrillic alphabet, with some Russian words forced into the dictionary) and a brain-washing propaganda education system - all these took care of ethnically replacing one third of the population and confusing the rest about their identity.
4. The result of Stalin's experiment in Moldova, is the poorest and last Communist country in Europe, where the ruling party still controls the media, manipulating the population through it, intimidates opposition candidates, sends journalists to jail, etc. In such a country, where people are not given any reason to even trust their privacy at a census, it is no wonder that most of them prefered to identify themselves with the territory and not the language/culture, if they knew that pleases the Government. User:Hanumana
Well, okay, then I was mistaken. But 66% of Moldovans declared that they speak Romanian in the last census (though I may be mistaken again, I don't stay up-to-date on this stuff as much as some editors around here). -Alexander 007 22:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I do not know how many Moldovans declared to speak Romanian language, but it is quite often in South-Eastern Europe that people do not declare in census the same language as their ethnicity. User:PANONIAN
Is it really? Can you give several examples (as you said "quite often")? Except for Montenegro maybe, where the separation is just political and has internal roots (not 50 years of external brain-washing propaganda), I can hardly think of other examples. ;) User:Hanumana

Vlach distributions

Map of areas inhabited by Vlachs


User:VMORO quoted official Bulgarian census figures (see below) for Vlach/Romanians that, if accurate, would make portions of the map above misleading. The density would be so low in some regions that it would become totally arbitrary in deciding which regions to color and which not to. However, it has been noted by outside sources that the Bulgarian census figures may be false. Till further looked into, we should not include the map in the article. -Alexander 007 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Bogdan and the Dobrujan Bulgarians, Turks and Tatars

According to the 1911 Encyclopedia, when Romania got Northern Dobruja in 1878, the region was inhabited by "alien elements", chiefly Bulgars, Turks, Tatars and Jews. So if you want to quote sources from 1910, then you should leave nearly the whole of northern Dobruja as inhabited by non-Romanians. VMORO 22:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK, Romanians formed around at least a third of the population in Dobruja in 1910. (My great-grandfather, included :-) Maybe you can find some exact data... there was a census in 1920, but I couldn't find any results on the Internet. bogdan | Talk
Bogdan, as long as you're here, I'm wondering why you colored regions where the density was so low. There are Vlachs in Athens also, but we wouldn't color Athens as a Vlach region. This isn't the first map of yours that was inaccurate, as I recall another one showing distribution of ancient Balkan languages that was rather erroneous. -Alexander 007 22:48, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
I don't see what all the fuss is about, and I don't see why Athens shouldn't be coloured either, considering a large chunk of the Vlachs now live there. There is really no such thing as a "Vlach region" in the sense of an area with a majority Vlach population, and the map, although obviously Rumanianist, makes no such claim anyway. I have a far bigger problem with the Vlashi of Μογλενά having the neologistic exonym "Megleno-Romanians" heaped on them.--Theathenae 18:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
It was never about the "majority" population. But any colored region should have a Vlach density that is higher in proportion to an adjacent region. If we want to show distributions, we would have to set a percentage per a given area, and if the percentage is negligible, we would not color a region. Such specific data may not be available, so it may not be possible for a Wikipedian to make such a map. -Alexander 007 02:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

User:Theathenae's vision of Roman Greece

I have seen such claims in various websites, but I don't recall any reputable scholars or linguists cited, and the idea itself, given the Jirecek line and what is known of Roman Greece and Byzantine Greece, is very unlikely. Removing the stuff. If somebody reintroduces it with suitable references, then fine, accomodations will be made. Otherwise, they will be reverted. Alexander 007 07:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Bring your references, you lugnut. Don't mass revert to your horrible version. It's bad reading. My reference, for one, is the Jirecek Line. Your reference is non-existent. Alexander 007 15:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Your idea that the Vlachs have no Greek ancestry is preposterous and can only be laughed at. You may believe that they are nothing but ethnically pure Rumanians, but you are wrong. That they have mixed with their Greek-speaking neighbours over the centuries is so obvious that it hardly warrants a mention.--Theathenae 15:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Theathenae, your above comment is disappointing, and I don't know why I expected something more. The article is speaking of the core of the ethnicity. Greeks, like Slavs, are a later adstratum, sure thing. Alexander 007 15:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Who's talking about Aromanians being "ethnically pure Romanians/Rumanians"? Can you link such an edit by me in Vlachs? Alexander 007 15:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Aromanians are also known as Arumanians; and there are 17th century Romanian documents that use the spelling Român, not Rumân for Romanian, so only a very lame anti-Romanian would insist on Rumanian. Alexander 007 00:16, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
What an absurd request. Theathenae has never produced a source. BTW you may want to look at what Britannica has to say on the issue: [1] and [2] :-))) Rex(talk) 15:45, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone seen Theathenae's latest edit yet. He says that the Vlachs are a group of peoples and not a people. Britannica though says: Vlachs also called Romanian , or Ruman member of a European people constituting the major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova, as well as smaller groups located throughout the Balkan Peninsula, south and west of the Danube River. Care to comment Theathenae; maybe give us your sources *lol* Rex(talk) 16:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Note: whatever edits Bonaparte may make should not be confused with my edits or my intentions. Regarding Theathenae, it is good to see that we have made progress; but any mass reverts and inclusion of unsourced info is not negotiable. His latest edits are at least getting more reasonable. Alexander 007 16:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
The reversions of my edits are motivated by nothing more than User:REX's personal vendetta against me and the other Greek editors. The current version is simply bad English: "several modern Latin people"? How many? 10? 20? 100,000,000? If one actually reads the article, one realises we are referring to the various Vlach peoples here, namely the Rumanians, Aromanians, etc. As for reverting my links to the relevant articles on the Slavs, Greeks, Albanians and Cumans, what can I say? I am thoroughly amused at the impact I must've had on the young Albanian's delicate psychology.--Theathenae 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
While I'm usually diametrically-opposed to Theathenae's views on Eastern Romance peoples-related issues, it is true that the Vlachs are not an ethic group or people, but rather a metagrouping, or a category of different ethnic groups. In this way, "Vlach peoples" is similar in usage to "Baltic peoples" or "Finnic peoples", referring to a group of ethnicities not one ethnicity. Ronline ✉ 08:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Of course. Except when discussing the situation in the period of Proto-Romanian. Alexander 007 00:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Proto-Vlach

If we are to accept User:Alexander 007's theory of a "Proto-Romanian" language from which all modern Vlach languages evolved, should the correct terminology not be Proto-Vlach instead? Vlach is the only term which covers all groups whose ancestors purportedly spoke the hypothetical tongue in question; Rumanian does not.--Theathenae 11:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I thank you for crediting the theory to me; however, I have no idea what gave you the conception that I originated the idea, unless you think I'm at least 100 years old. The name used to refer to this proto-language will be the name that is most common in specialized English usage/general English usage. No tricky tactics like linking redirects, because Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) specifies that in all cases a direct link is preferred. Alexander 007 11:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No, a 100-year-old would probably not pounce so quickly at my every move and waking sound. But you would agree with me that the term is rather misleading, would you not?--Theathenae 11:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It can be. But in Wikipedia, whatever is ascertained as the most common (or in a few cases, the term preferred by specialists in English, yet not the most common) term is used. In other words, if by some chance "Proto-Vlach language" was the preferred/most common term, then that's where the article will be and where the links will direct to. Alexander 007 11:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


leyteria sth dafnh bokota

Romanians were not called vlachs before

Hmm....Let me give you some sources...--Andrei George 18:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

From wikipedia:

Name

In English they are usually called Romanians or Rumanians except in some historical texts, where they are called Vlachs.

Romanian

The name "Romanian" is derived from Latin "Romanus". Under regular phonetical changes that are typical to the Romanian languages, the name was transformed in "rumân" (ru'mɨn). An older form of "român" was still in use in some regions. During the National awakening of Romania of early 19th century, the latter form was preferred, in order to emphasise the link with ancient Rome.

Vlach

The name of "Vlachs" is an exonym that was used by Slavs to refer to all Romanized natives of the Balkans. It holds its origin from ancient Germanic - being a cognate to "Welsh" and "Walloon" -, and perhaps even further back in time, from the Roman name Volcae, which was originally a Celtic tribe. From the Slavs, it was passed on to other peoples, such as the Hungarians (Olah) and Greeks (Vlachoi). (see: Etymology of Vlach) Vlach was also used for all Orthodox Christians. Wallachia, a region in Romania, takes its name from the same source.

Nowadays, the term Vlach is more often used to refer to the Romanized populations of the Balkans who do not speak the Romanian language but rather the Aromanian language and other Romance languages such as Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian. Aromanian, Istro-Romanian and Megleno-Romanian are the closest related languages to the Romanian language.

Daco-Romanian

To distinguish Romanians from the other Romanic peoples of the Balkans (Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians), the term Daco-Romanian is sometimes used to refer to those who speak the standard Romanian language and live in the territory of ancient Dacia (today comprising mostly Romania and Moldova), although some Daco-Romanians can be found in Serbia (which was part of ancient Moesia).

Toponyms

In the Middle Ages, Romanian shepherds migrated with their flocks in search of better pastures and reached Southern Poland, Croatia, Greece, and Eastern Thrace. This explains the number of place names derived from "Vlach" in the Balkans and beyond.

Anthroponyms

These are family names that have been derived from either Vlach or Romanian. Most of these names have been given when a Romanian settled in a non-Romanian region.

  • Oláh (37,147 Hungarians have this name)
  • Vlach
  • Vlahuta
  • Vlasa
  • Vlašic
  • Vlasceanu
  • Vlachopoulos

Vlachs(Romanians)

Basescu said vlachs are romanians! Băsescu le spune vlahilor că sunt români de Rompres [Pagina/basescu-le-spune-vlahilor-ca-sunt-romani_182126.html]

http://www.adevarulonline.ro/2006-04-20/Prima%Pagina/basescu-le-spune-vlahilor-ca-sunt-romani_182126.html

Preşedintele Traian Băsescu le-a reamintit românilor de la Vârşeţ că Vlahia nu mai există, ci există doar România care îi poate ajuta. Traian Băsescu s-a declarat nemulţumit că românii sunt divizaţi în două mari organizaţii şi îşi spun unii vlahi, iar alţii români-vlahi, subliniind că, divizaţi, ei nu mai pot reprezenta o forţă cu care să se poată negocia. --Andrei George 15:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the English language wikipedia. If you want to be heard, please speak English. `'mikka (t) 17:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me try...President T. Basescu told one more time to romanians from Vârşeţ that "Vlahia doesn't exit eny more, it exists only Romania that can help them. T. Basescu declared himself unsatisfied that romanians are divided in 2 big organizations, that one call themselves vlachs, others romanians-vlachs, underlying that divided, they can't represent a force with which one can negotiate." --Andrei George 17:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, disagreed. Basilescu's opinion is interesting, but it contradists to our article. The introduction is the summary of wikipedia article. For example, I am not sure that it is correct to confuse historical usage of the terms "vlachs" and "romanians". `'mikka (t) 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That is partly true. --Andrei George 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
But is also true that romanians were called vlachs before. So, where is the contradiction to have from the first line something like: Vlachs are romanians, if they really are? --Andrei George 18:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Basilescu may be right (or not) when speaking about modern vlachs. But this would be wrong to say this about old times. Vlachs were known before the self-recognition of the Romanian ethnicity. Saying simply "vlachs are romanians" would be misleading. Romaninas were not called vlachs before. For example, moldovans are also romanians. `'mikka (t) 18:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You don't know history. And his name is not Basilescu but Basescu. --Andrei George 18:08, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
So are you saying that Moldovans are not Romanians? `'mikka (t) 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Andrei, president Băsescu is talking about the Vlachs of Serbia, who speak Romanian (as opposed to Aromanian), not about all Vlachs. Vlachs is a blanket term for Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians. 18:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Hi, I've protected the article due to a lame edit war. I may have protected the the wrong version, if I have, please let me know! Seriously though guys, sort it out on the talk page. Feel free to apply to get this page unprotected at any point. - FrancisTyers 22:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

You certainly did not protected wrong version. The problem with this revert war is that User:Andrei George want to impose some kind of censorship here and not to alow to readers of Wikipedia to read that Moldovans and Vlachs declared to speak Moldovan and Vlach language in census. So, here is my question: is this censorship and deletion of useful information in accordance with the policy of Wikipedia? I do not think that it is. PANONIAN (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

PANONIAN are romanians from Serbia the right to say that they are romanians or not? Do they have the right to their own Church? No, they don't have the right. You don't allow them not even a Church to have it. You impose them that they are Vlachs and they are not romanians. You impose them to say that Vlachs language is not Romanian language. That's all about it. At least half of them (Vlachs from Serbia) recognize that they speak romanian and they are romanians. --Andrei George 19:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrei, of course that Romanians in Serbia have right to say that they are Romanians. According to 2002 census, there were 34,576 people in Serbia who declared that they are Romanians. They also have their church, here is the picture of Romanian church in village Ečka:

As for Vlachs in Serbia, they did not declared themselves as Romanians but as Vlachs, they did not declared Romanian language but Vlach, and they are mostly believers of the Serbian Orthodox Church. It is what they choosen, nobody forced them to anything. If you want, you can declare Borg or Klingon nationality in Serbia because you have right to declare anything. However, only larger ethnic groups are listed separatelly in the census results while smaller are listed all together in the "others" category. Second thing, all ethnic groups which are listed separatelly are recognized as separate ethnic groups by the state of Serbia. For example, there are people who declared themselves as Roma (Роми) and those who declared themselves as Gypsyes (Цигани), but they all are listed as Roma because name Gypsy (Циган) is considered to be only another name for Roma (Ром). On the contrary, Vlachs and Romanians are listed separatelly because it is considered that they are two separate ethnic groups. And it is like that because leaders of the Vlach community asked to be recognized as separate ethnic group, and state only respected the wish of its Vlach minority. You have today also some Vlachs who want to be recognized as Romanians, but you also have those who want to be recognized as Vlachs. State cannot violate human rights of its citizens who want to be recognized as Vlachs. Only those Vlachs who want to be recognized as Romanians will be recognized as Romanians, but not those who want to be recognized as Vlachs. As for the numbers how many Vlachs consider themselves Romanians, I can give you an example from 2002 census from the Bor municipality where much of the Vlach population live; according to the census in this municipality were 39,989 serbs, 10,064 Vlachs and 107 Romanians. Not a half certainly. :) PANONIAN (talk) 21:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection removed: edit war was caused by permbanned socks. `'mikka (t) 00:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Romanian culture

Romanian culture remained virtually uninfluenced by occupating people such as Hungarians and Slavs and developed itself to what it is today.

That's completely false. Romanian culture was influenced by both the Slavs (mainly South Slavs) and (to a lesser degree) by the Hungarians. Denying that is silly. bogdan 12:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:Historomania

Everything does not revolve around Romania. There are different POVs out there Greier, you must understand that. If we want to be neutral we cannot take one side. —Khoikhoi 16:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

You know, there are more Aromanians in Greece and Albania than in Romania. See what happened when I added those templates [3]. --Telex 16:34, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol, well after all, Romania is the best. ;) —Khoikhoi 00:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)


Why does "Vlax" redirect to "Vlachs" ?

If I understand well, Vlax is a Romani/Gypsy dialect. Why does is redirect here? Dpotop 10:06, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The botched-up logo jumps directly from the Byzantine so-called "Greece" to the Ottoman Greece and is a monument of incompetence in itself. It has no place in wikipedia. Shall I remind you that most of what is today's Greece was occupied and ruled by the Franks and Venetians in 1204. When the Turks finally occupied Athens in the 15th centurty this city was ruled NOT by the Byzantines but by the Franks (in fact the Florentine family of Acciauoli and before that was for many decades in the hands of the Catalans see link). Let alone the Cyclades, Dodecanesse, Euboea, Sporades, Crete, Ionian etc. etc. islands that were taken by the Ottomans NOT from the Byzantines but from the Franks, Venetian or Genoesse (as it was the case of Chios). This flawed logo does not mention these centuries of Frankish rule over Greece probably out of a false sense of patriotism. Let's not fake the history when editing for wikipedia for a start. Did I make myself understood? Apostolos Margaritis 08:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. It links to the article Roman and Byzantine Greece which has a section on (you guessed it) "Normans and Franks", which is where the issues you raised are described. I'm afraid this is how Greek history is broken up (including by non-Greek sources). If you OTOH think you know better, why don't you edit the template to make it more accurate - after all, I prefer fix attempts over whiny complaints. --Tēlex 09:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As I said in the edit summary, there is no good reason for the presence of the history series templates here, not being even history articles; and awnsering to a violation of WP:POINT by creating more and more templates, is not the solution.--Aldux 19:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I think Apostolos brings up the interesting issue of how the period of Latin Rule in Greece is so easily ignored. --Xenophonos 00:20, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Vlachs in Bulgaria

Can anyone give me sources? --PaxEquilibrium 02:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Roma groups known as the Vlax

There is a subdivision of the Roma people from this area called the Vlax. That redirect here. What is the relationship, if any, between them and the Vlachs? Perhaps someone more knowledgable than I could add something to the article to sort out this confusion.

The Vlax are Roma (Gypsies) who speak a form of Romanian. Though found at present mostly in Bulgaria and Serbia, they may have moved there in centuries past from the territory of modern Romania.C0gnate 21:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Vlax dialect IS NOT a form of Romanian. It is a Romani dialect with some Romanian (and other) loans. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.40.21.49 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Disambiguation?

I propose (with some hesitation) that Vlach becomes a disambiguation page, or similar. The rest of the article should be moved to East Romance peoples. The term "vlach" may also refer to Romanian Romani, and their dialect of /anylanguage/. The first paragraph starts such a disambiguation reason, but then the text treats East Romance peoples. The first para is good, the rest of the article is good, but they don't combine naturally. Opinions!? Said: Rursus 07:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with that. 99.9% of the usage of this word refer to the Eastern Romance people. The Romani gypsy dialect is usually called Vlax, with an "x", anyway. It has nothing to do with Vlachs, as I am one myself. bogdan 09:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Ah, correcting my somewhat unpolite formulation: dialect of Romani I mean, of course! So now, I'm going to search a suitable template for announcing the proposal. I'll be back soon. Said: Rursus 13:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Now I inserted the {{split|X|Y}} template. I hereby modify my opinion: Eastern Romance peoples according to the English language usage of the article. (Let's do Tellus'es best encyclopedia of all times!!) I'll return to take a look in one week! React, please! Said: Rursus 14:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Statal?

Is statal a word really? I can understand what's intended: municipal/municipality, but regarding states. But is the word statal correctly formed? Rursus 19:30, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

STATAL is an usual Romanian word. I use it daily, as a Romanian native. Please, see any Romanian-English dictionary.

Sorry, I wasn't clear about what I referred to. Statal in Romanian seems OK, but there's actually a "Statal Entities:" embedded into the English text. Is statal really an English adjective? My Romanian-Swedish dictionary says statal = Sw. statlig ≈ En. governmental or municipal or national or some such... Said: Rursus 07:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Statal is, indeed, a legitimate English adjective. It's weird and rarely used, but I can't really think of a better one here, unless "national" fits the bill. I don't know enough about the subject to say.themill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.9.9 (talk) 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Torna, torna, fratre

Just wondering but ...

This quote "Torna, torna, fratre" from 586 is often brought up as a specific example of the appearance of the Vlach ethnic group distinct from the Byzantines. I have never understood this claim/perspective. It is well known that there were many native Latin-speaking "Byzantines" during the 6th century as, of course, there had always been before. Emperor Justinian, for example, was a native Latin speaker and was emperor until 565. The suggestion seems to be that after the Fall of Rome in the 5th century the East suddenly became entirely Greek speaking and anybody left who spoke Latin was a foreigner. This certainly was not at all true. It may be that the Vlachs did descend from the Latin-speaking Byzantines but it is non-sensical to imply that Latin-speakers at this time were regarded as a separate or inferior ethnic group. Granted Latin was waning quickly during the 6th century but the Empire didn't suddenly go from being Greek and Latin to being completely Greek.

Is there some aspect of the history that I am missing?

--Mcorazao (talk) 03:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

POV Tag

I'm doing POV tag cleanup. Whenever an POV tag is placed, it is necessary to also post a message in the discussion section stating clearly why it is thought the article does not comply with POV guidelines, and suggestions for how to improve it. This permits discussion and consensus among editors. This is a drive-by tag, which is discouraged in WP, and it shall be removed. Future tags should have discussion posted as to why the tag was placed, and how the topic might be improved. Better yet, edit the topic yourself with the improvements. This statement is not a judgement of content, it is only a cleanup of frivolously and/or arbitrarily placed tags. No discussion, no tag.

Plus the tag was so old, and I see no discussion here of any dispute at all....Jjdon (talk) 21:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Few explanations needed

"most of them would take a Serbian identity during the 17 century ".
Please, can you give us the exact line where the authors say that? There're also some strange claims in this reference The Slavonian Census of 1698. Part I: Structure and Meaning, European Journal of Population, like:
"Habsburg military officers at the local level were certainly familiar with the joint household organization of their soldiers, especially since the regions west of Karlovac were than, as now, preponderantly Orthodox, among whom joint family organization is clearly traditional from the mediaeval Serbian evidence."(????)
 And this one: "Their existence in the area is suggested by mediaeval Serbian sources combined with 17th century evidence on Orthodox populations, Croatian historical sources of the 18th-19th centuries, and Austrian statutes of the 18th century."
Which Serbian sources? Serbia, that was at that time an integral part of Ottoman Empire, and wasn't existing under that name.
Authors obviously do not distinguish the meaning of the words "Serb" and "Serbian". Kubura (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Latin-speaking Greeks is a nonsense

  • Real Greeks never accepted to speak Latin as first language. Of course in the Eastern Roman Empire Latin was used as official language even at the time of Justinian and vulgar Latin was widely spoken in the Balkans north of the Jerecek line. The Latin speaking people were not only Illyrians and Tracians but also immigrants settled in the Balkan and Danube areas, coming from Italy and other provinces of the Roman Empire. Byzantine is a term given now to all the citizens of the Eastern Roman Empire: not only Greeks, but Sirians, Egyptians, Tracians, Illyrians, Italians, and other ethnic groups settled in the Empire --Deguef (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

VMRO and the Vidin Vlachs

According to the 1910 census, 1843 individuals have identified themselves using the ethnic names by which Aroumanians were referred to at that time, Tsintsars and Kutzovlachs. The same census, however, reports 80 000 Romanians and a total of 96 502 people whose mother tongue was Romanian. http://www.omda.bg/engl/narod/vlasi_arumani_engl.html

So, less a century ago, out of four million people, according to the census, in Bulgaria there were 96,500 people that spoke Romanian. Most of them were in the north-west of the country, in the Vidin area. According to "România şi popoarele balcanice", by Pârvan, Papahagi and al. (1913), they lived in 91 communes, of which 45 where inhabited only by Romanians and they estimated their number to be higher than 100,000. They also claim that, based on toponyms, it can be easy seen that Romanians once lived in areas even south of Sofia (but of course, Bulgarians, too also lived up north of Bucharest, in Romania :-) bogdan | Talk 20:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

If someone would soon create a new image that indicates Vlach population density, rather than just distribution, we would have less of an uproar here. -Alexander 007 22:00, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
According to census 2001 [4], there were 16 Romanians and 155 Vlachs in the region of Vidin whose total population stood at 130,074 people in the same year. If you are talking about this kind of density, then half of Europe should be inhabited by Romanians and Vlachs, as there are at least 0,1% Romanian emigrants everywhere in Europe. Your suggestion does not solve the problem - which is clearly Great Romanian ambitions of the author of the map. VMORO 22:15, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
What map are you talking about? If you refer to any of those above, I think they are both ± 100 years old, and I doubt the author suggests the situation is similar today. Either way, be it true that there is almost no Romanian left in the area, or that there are still quite a few thousands, the conclusion would not please a Bulgarian nationalist. Should the Romanians still be there in significant numbers, Bulgaria should have the decency (as EU member) to recognize them some rights. Should the Romanians be almost gone (as opposed to ± 100,000 at the begining of the previous century), the Bulgarian Government is then responsable for their assimilation/extintion (in the same way as the Romanian Government is responsible for the drastic decrease in numbers of the Germans and Jews in their country). User:Hanumana
If the figures are really that low, then I would agree to removing the image. I would prefer an image showing density rather than distribution, in any case. -Alexander 007 22:20, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a very interesting discussion. As a Vidin Vlah myself, all my life (33 years so far), I've never really considered myself anything other than Bulgarian...While some might attribute that to the Bulgarian state "assimilation" or "nationalistic" policy during the socialist years (and I admit, history classes in school were very important and we grew up under the campaign of the "1300-years-old Bulgaria" and "we've also given something to the world"-moto), interestingly enough, I don't remember my parents or grandparents(although their origins were from the Vlah villages on the Danube) ever considerring themselves Romanians either ....even though my grand-grand mom couldn't speak Bulgarian and some of my relatives knew and regularly visited relatives in Romania. I think rather that my grandparents and grand-grand parents considered themselves as naturalized Bulgarians. Whenever they were in the village or meeting with relatives, they used Vlah language (with the occasional Bulgarian words inbetween) because they claimed it was easier, but other than that, they never felt, demonstrated or passed on any feeling of belonging to a non-Bulgarian ethnic group and/or being Romanian. My parents' generation uses Vlah only occasionally (when talking to relatives) and my generation hardly knows the language (I never learned it). Needless to say, the Vlah language is only oral. When it comes to customs, it's even more blurry- I've never heard my grandparents singing Romanian songs, for example...the ring-dances traditions in my region are rather mixed, and the Serbian, Bulgarian and Romanian dances are the same...All the church rituals are done in Bulgarian... and as for weddings, baptising and funerals, the regional differences in Bulgaria when it comes to these events and other religious and non-religious customs and is so big, that I can't tell the difference between Vlah and non-Vlah ways of doing them. Anyway, if there was a census today, both me and my parents would write down "Bulgarian" in the "ethnicity" box, whereas I'm sure it would have been a dilemma for the previous generations in my family. My (grand)grandparents considered themselves Vlahs not as a minority but as a regional/linguistic group. The issue for me and my parents, however, is about nationality- and with Romiania's campaign about the Vlahs in BG, the notion has indeed become charged with nationalism. Declaring a Vlah origin automaticallly means declaring affiliaion with Romania, and in fact, many of my non-Vlah friends in Vidin managed to get university scholarships in Romania by producing fake papers that some of their ancestors were Vlah 90.184.88.86 08:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)Hristina.

In conclusion your ancestors were a pure example of indifferent and easy assimilable "vlachs". Is this a motive to be proud? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.122.34.226 (talk) 14:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why should it not be a motive to be proud? I do not particularly admire nationalism myself. It is quite interesting to me as a breton frenchman to study the other regional and often little-known linguistic minorities. In the case of the Vlachs, it seems to me that the linguistic and historical value of studying the language and how a group of Romanized people kept they language after centuries of being surrounded and ruled by peoples speaking a different language.84.114.151.93 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC).

Meaning

What does the following mean?

Only in Romania and the Republic of Moldova, the Vlach (Dacoromanian or Romanian proper) population consist an ethnic majority today.

Is this trying to say that the Vlach minority is only officially recognised in Romania and Moldova. If that is what is meant, then say so. If not, it needs rephrasing to make its meaning clear. Skinsmoke (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Before the creation of the Romanian state, all Dacoromanians (moder day Romanian(Moldovans, Vlachs of central Serbia)) were simply refereed to as "Vlachs". So in this case, when talking about Vlachs, subgroup Dacoromanians , it is saying that only in Romania and Moldova Vlachs (present day Romanians (in Moldova and Romania)) constitute majority of the population. I don`t understand why do you think this is unclear ? Adrian (talk) 12:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wallachian does not mean Vlach, NOT SYNONYM

Wallachian has a different meaning. Somebody from Wallachia. for Instance, Aromanians can be Vlach but they can not be Wallachian. OR IF those (Vlach, Wallachian) words had a mutual roots or origin, Aromanians would not have to be here.Fakirbakir (talk) 03:11, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

" By the late thirteenth century, many of these Wallachian Vlach client districts began a gradual process of consolidation. ".
So I think this sentence will be wrong If the Wallachian and Vlach have the same meanings. I know "Valach" was a German word, and a Slavic form is Vlach, however Wallachian is different, Wallachia is a historical and geographical region.Fakirbakir (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

non English text

Can SISPCM explain why this text [5] should be in the article? Most of it's not even written in English.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:44, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Removed text

during copy-edit by Baffle gab1978 (talk) 01:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Header:
Marked as unreferenced: (Note: the Megleno-Romanians nowadays call themselves "Vlaşi", but historically called themselves "Rămâni"[citation needed]
  • Etymology
marked as unreferenced: The word Vlach is of Germanic origin, from the word Walha, meaning "foreigner" or "stranger" – a name used by ancient Germanic peoples to refer to Romance-speaking and Celtic neighbours.[citation needed]
  • Word usage:
Marked as unreferenced, does not contain a single reference, thus constitutes original research:

Over time, the term Vlach (and its different forms) also acquired different meanings, like "shepherd" – from the occupation of many of the Vlachs throughout Central and Eastern Europe. In Albania, the opposite occurred: çoban "shepherd" (from Persian chopan, through Turkish) (Romanian - cioban ) came to mean "Vlach".[citation needed] Also, Italy is called Włochy in Polish, and Olaszország ("Olasz country") in Hungarian. The word "oláh" also exists in Hungarian, but describes only peoples from historical Moldova and Wallachia.[citation needed] The term Vlach can also be found in certain placenames where Roman descendants continued to live after the migrations of Germans and Slavs into new territories, for example Laško in Slovenia.

A name used[year needed] for the Southern Vlachs of Greece (Aromanians) is "Kutsovlach" (literally "limping Vlach"; possibly a reference to the way they spoke Greek) considered offensive.[citation needed] Tsinttsar was used[year needed] to refer to the Aromanians (mainly in the Slavic countries: Serbia, Republic of Macedonia and Bulgaria), derived from the way the Aromanians say the word 'five': "tsintsi"(Romanian - Cinci). The Morlachs or Mavrovalachi (Greek for "black Vlachs"), are a group living in the Dinaric Alps.

Throughout history, the term "Vlach" has often been used for groups which were not ethnically Vlachs, and often pejoratively.[citation needed] For example, it might have been used for any shepherding community or as a reference to Christians by Muslims (Karadjaovalides)[citation needed]. In the Croatian region of Dalmatia, Vlaj/Vlah (sing.) and Vlaji/Vlasi (plural) are the terms used by the inhabitants of coastal towns for the people who live inland, and is often intended to be pejorative, as in "barbarians who come from the mountains."[citation needed] In Greece, the word Βλάχος (Vláhos) is often used as a slur against any supposedly uncouth or uncultured person, but literally it means nothing more than countryperson and is often used as a synonym for Χωριάτης (Choriátis) which simply means villager.[citation needed] Maniots, for example, used the word to refer to lowland-dwelling Greeks, and the Maniots of Cargèse used it to refer to native Corsicans.[citation needed]


Etymology

"The name's origin is German for foreigner, just like Wales and Walloons."

So Wales and Walloons means "foreigner" as well? In what languages? Surely not German. --Menchi 06:50, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Not modern German, but in Germanic or proto-Germanic, the root of those words meant "foreigner". Adam Bishop 06:52, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The traditional Austrian pejorative term for non-german speakers of Italy is "Welsch", also the demi-monde slang of the 18th century, the code language between low-lifes and criminals was called "Rot-Welsch". So clearly the word "welsch" (notice that southern Germans only fairly recently changed a lot of "s" to "sch" sounds, so for a northener it of course has to be "wels") stood for "unintelligible utterings" (see greek root of the word "barbar") not very long ago. "Protogermanic" on the other hand is at least a thousand years off.


161.67.177.42 18:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Moebius05

Welsche Schweiz is the name for French and Italian Switzerland, Welsch Tyrol is Italian Tyrol, Walnut is a foreign nut but I doubt this is the source for your word. It's not just the southern Germans, WelSH is the form used all the way to England. But how would we have influenced Byzantine Greeks to use that word against the Romans? But I am always very amused about nazi slavs trying to become more German. It is almost like we never tried to enslave them all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.188.98.202 (talk) 11:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

"Vlachs" in western Balkans

There appears to be a dispute between the pro-Romanian and pro-Serb historians with regard to the people referred to as "Vlachs" or "Morlachs" in the western Balkans. Due to the fact they were often shepherds or cattle herders in the Dinaric Alps, some claim that the name Vlach ceased to have an ethnic meaning and rather acquired the economic one. Can we have this discussion elaborated/enlightened/debunked? somewhere in the articles linked from this one? TIA. --Joy [shallot] 21:09, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Initially, the Vlachs were indeed Albanian shepherds that traveled toward better pastures. Some reached Southern Bulgaria, where they were assimilated and now those population speak a Bulgarian dialect with many Romanian borrowings. They also reached mountains of Southern Macedonia and even Greece. In most of the cases they were assimilated, but their name remained locally as Vlachs.
About Morlachs... I began a stub Morlachs and I'll try to find more information. Bogdan | Talk 17:16, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The name "Vlah" in Bosnia (at least eastern Bosnia) was and is often used by Muslims to refer to Serbs (the local montagnards). I believe that usage is now considered offensive or at least politically incorrect. In Dalmatia (at least Split), "Vlaj" means anybody who came to the coast from behind the mountains and I don't think it has any ethnic connotations. In Slovenia, "Lah" (noun) and "laško" (adjective) simply mean "Italian". Zocky 12:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Romanians in Bulgaria

According to the latest census in Bulgaria (2001), 1,088 people identified themselves as Romanians (as opposed to 20,000 mentioned in this article), please use official data or otherwise quote your source. VMORO

Official data is however to be regarded with caution. It might reflect the reality or not, depening on the local politics regarding the minorities. On top of that, it can also be an indicator of how the respective ethnic group was treated by the majority, when comparing the current numbers with those of 50-100 years ago.

Bulgaria is not Serbia, where Romanians in the south of Danube are forced to declare themselves as Vlachs (and eventually most ended up accepting this identity), however it is also not Belgium. It is well known that the minority groups are complaining about Government's policy towards them.

However, be that 1,088 a real value, that should be very worrying for Bulgaria. According to the 1926 Bulgarian census, there were 83,746 Romanians in Bulgaria. If 80 years later 99% of the Romanians there are vanished (migrated, assimilated), that says a lot about how much they were allowed to preserve their culture and identity. As opposed to that for example, Romanians should be proud that the Hungarian minority not only preserved itself, but even increased a bit, if we compare the 1930 census to the one in 2002. Hanumana

Disputed

Muslim Greek Vlachs? Etz Haim 07:08, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They should have been resettled to Turkey in 1923, otherwise there were 3,500 of them in Vlachomeglen (before 1923). VMORO
There are no muslims in Meglen today and the muslims of the Greek part of Thrace don't have Vlach origin. I don't know about the Turkish part. Etz Haim 12:28, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think they were deported to Turkey according to the minority exchange treaty. I googled and found this. Bogdan | Talk 14:02, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Even the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs mentions the Vlachs and the need to protect minority rights on its official website, perhaps unaware of the existence of several thousand Muslim Vlachs within its own borders. [6]
Yes, they should have all been deported in 1923. There are no Muslim Vlachs in Greece nowadays. VMORO

Since people seem to agree on this, I've made the appropriate changes on the text of the article. Etz Haim 21:49, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Moldavia

Moldavia appeared on some mediaeval maps as "Wallachia something" (like "Wallachia Transalpina"), but I forgot that something. :-) Does anybody knows the name ? Bogdan | Talk 21:38, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Map

File:1880-geoturkeyethnographical.jpg
Vlachs1
Vlachs2

The two maps are an example of the distribution of the Vlachs in the 19th century, clearly they were almost no Vlachs in Dobrudzha. Their distributions in Serbia and Bulgaria are, likewise, much smaller than what is represented on the map.

There's a difference between that map and these. That map showed the regions where Romanian speakers lived, not claiming that they were the majority, but only that there were Romanian communities. These show what only what the majority was. Bogdan | Talk 15:53, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If we, on the other hand, assume that the map represents the distribution of Romanians nowadays, than there should be no Vlach "islands" in Bulgaria, Greece, Macedonia and Albania, and a very small such in Serbia. I furthermore object to the grouping of Aromanians and Romanians in one article, they speak different languages, may not and cannot be classified as one nation. VMORO 15:48, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)~

Austria-Hungary

As you can see on this map, actual Romanian population inside the Carpathian basin as of 1911 was much smaller than what is represented on that green map. That map, however, may be true, because of the forced romanization and harrassment of ethnic Germans and Hungarians, and the migration of Romanians to the newly occupied Transsylvania since 1920s. This process keeps on continuing even in the 21st century inside the EU... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.101.111.129 (talk) 21:17, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

The term Vlach was used for all Eastern Latin people. I'm not classifying as one people, but as a group of peoples. There are also articles on both Romanians and another on Aromanians. Bogdan | Talk 15:59, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Nope, not true, the Aromanians were mostly referred as Kutzovlachs or Tzintzars VMORO 16:11, Feb 9, 2005 (UTC)~
True. Read the 1911 Britannica article on Vlachs, if you don't believe me. Bogdan | Talk 17:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
"Kutzovlachs" is considered an 'offensive' by them, it means "limping Vlachs". Tzintzars comes from the way the Aromanians pronounce the word "five": 'tzintzi' (in Romanian it's 'cinci') and is used by the Slavs. Bogdan | Talk 13:05, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

VMORO and the map

File:Balkan serbs 1914.jpg

I assume that VMORO disagrees with a strip south of Danube (in Bulgaria), which used to be populated with Romanians. If you're arguing that there were no Romanians in Bulgaria, I'll tell you according to the 1926 Bulgarian census, there were 83,746 Romanians. (Note that the map shows the ethnic situation of early 20th century) Bogdan | Talk 15:51, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, Bogdan, and according to the Romanian census in 1931, there were 360,000 Bulgarians in Romania:-))).
The comment is biased, as most of them lived in territories which are not belonging to Romania anymore. --Hanumana
Indeed. Many of them in Southern Dobrogea and Bugeac. There were also a few in Wallachia and Banat, as descendents of the Bulgarians that came during the 17th-18th century, as refugees because of the Turkish persecutions.
But I don't see what has this to do with the Vlachs. Bogdan | Talk 17:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But, that's scarcely what I am arguing about. So, can you tell me which time period the map I removed is relevant for? Cause it seems that for different regions it is relevant for different time periods (certainly the one which is most beneficial to the Romanian point of view:-)) and that is factually inaccurate and essentially POV. VMORO

I told you: early 20th century. Anyway, what part of the map you disagree with ? Bogdan | Talk 17:41, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
About the strip in Bulgaria, I also found this map: [7]. I am telling you again: in that regions there were/are Romanian communities. Nobody is claiming that they formed a majority. Your maps only show the majority ethnicity, disregarding the minorities. Bogdan | Talk 17:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The map you are quoting is ridiculous - all Greeks were resettled long ago, there have almost never been any Albanians in Bulgaria, the "Sarakatjani" are called Karakachans and are concentrated around Sliven, the distributions of the Turks are inexact, etc. etc. etc. The map is, furthermore, Romanian, which explains the wiiiiide, haha, distribution of Romanians but whatever... As I said your map shows the best possible distribution for the Romanians of all times - which is not fair. Please, modify your map and put an approximated time period.
The regions I don't agree with: half southern Dobrudja is portrayed as Romanian, the whole of northern Dobrudja is portrayed as Romanian, the region of Vidin is portrayed as Romanian + the distributions of the Aromanians are humongous.
Why: southern Dobrudja has never been inhabited with Romanians, in 1913, there were 8,000 R. out of population of 260,000. Even at the height of the Romanian colonisation at the end of the 1930s, there were 40,000 Romanians as opposed to 150,000 Bulgarians and pretty much as many Muslims (Turks, Tatars and Gypsies). There were 28,000 R. in northern Dobrudja out of population of 160,000 in 1878. And there were, indeed, some 40,000-50,000 Vlachs in the Vidin area. But nowadays - and pretty much throughout the second half of the 20th century, there have been almost no Vlachs in the Vidin region (resettled or assimilated) and no Bulgarians in northern Dobridja (resettled or assimilated). Please, choose one of the regions.
The only reason why I am breaching the subject again is that the same map has appeared in History of the Balkans - and which I am hereby removing. Let's leave ungrounded nationalism to the own-language editions of Wikipedia. VMORO 20:53, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)~

Paeonians?

Paeonians? provide a reference for that. Historical sources indicate that they were mostly absorbed by the ancient Macedonians even before Rome conquered Macedon. After the attempted Paeonian revolt against Macedon, the Macedonians initiated a forced assimilation of the Paeonians, and also moved Thracians and other groups onto lands formerly held by Paeonians, to blot out the Paeonian people. In all likelihood, there were hardly any Paeonians left by the time the Romans came. James 007 14:53, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

fringe Etymology

Anonymous, I've heard of that idea before, but before you put it in the article provide recent scholarly references (non-Hungarian) that still seriously consider that option. James 007 01:13, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Whoever wrote that "the word Vlach could also come from the Greek peoples word "Vlahoi" which means Shepard/Goat herder" obviously has no idea what they're talking about.--Theathenae 07:54, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Decius, double check the edit history, it wasn't me who added that. KissL 28 June 2005 09:28 (UTC)

Sorry, honest mistake. I'm usually more careful. James 007 28 June 2005 09:31 (UTC)

It's ok. KissL 29 June 2005 12:08 (UTC)

New map

I made a new map that shows the paths the Vlachs took. If you disagree with anything, please say in this talk page.

Some things might be disputable, so that's why I'll explain the reasoning here:

  1. Maramureş -> Bukovina -- the legend of Dragoş following an aurochs could be at least partly true: not only that the earliest voivodes of Moldavia were from Maramureş (Dragoş, Bâc, Bogdan), but also Romanian spoken in Moldavia shares some features with the one spoken in Maramureş.
  2. Bukovina -> Moldavia, Bessarabia -- Bukovina has always been the political centre of the Principality of Moldavia and it was the most populated, so we can safely assume that it was inhabited earlier than the rest of Moldavia. Romanians from Transylvania couldn't have arrived from South because they would speak a dialect closer to Muntenian.
  3. Moldavia, Muntenia -> Dobruja -- this is quite clear -- in the North part of Dobruja you'd hear speaking "Moldavian", while in the south "Muntenian"
  4. Istro-Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians couldn't have followed other paths, because they were shepherds and they usually followed the mountains. The same is true to the Romanians that reached Poland, Slovakia and Czechia.

I still have one thing that I'm not sure of:

  • Does anyone knows whether Romanian of Făgăraş/Muntenia is closer to the language spoken in Ţara Moţilor or the one in Banat ?

The map is extrmely simplistic and is confusing: some arrows show original migration, some show recolonization...

A complete map would have at least 40 different regions (such as this map), but it would be much harder to follow.
As for original migration/recolonization -- in many cases it's very hard to tell which it was. bogdan | Talk

Merge to Aromanians

Vlach=Aromanian, there is no difference. Two articles are saying the same thing, they should be merged into one. --Rrallepermall (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

What's the difference? I fail to see it. If in the past the term Vlach has included the Romanian people, then we can explain it in the article, but currently the term Vlach is used as a synonym with Aromanian. --Rrallepermall (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Other editors below the difference in their comments below.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Vlach is/was an umbrella term for all groups speaking an Eastern Romance language in Southeastern Romania, while Aromanian is only one of the four major groups (Daco-Romanian, Aromanian, Megleno-Romanian and Istro-Romanian). Otherwise the article should be rewritten, because for the time being is a collection of OR and old ideas. Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Aromanians are part from the Vlach mega-community, that includes also other ethno-linguistic groups living in wider Balkano-Carpathian area. Jingiby (talk) 07:03, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Dacians from Anna Komnenos

Anna Komnenos wrote in the Alexiadis about an expedition (1087) of the Scythians, Sarmatians and Dacians, at the North of the Danube. Dacians was the term used By Anna instead of Vlachs. Some historians misiterpreted the term considering Dacians as Magyars. Anna Komnenos, Alexiadis, VII,Ed. Sayous p. 227

In the Anna Komnenos work, the name Dacia appears in 7 pages and Hungary only in 2 pages. About Dacia:

Book 7.1 ..Dacians crossed in 1087 the Danube led by Tzelgu and Solomon (Solomon was an exilled ex king of Hungary, who planned to sell Transylvania to Cumans if he regained his throne; Solomon was in conflict with Magyar leaders)

7.5...Frankish soldiers were passing through Dacia to Constantinople

7.12 Oaths completed in the presence of the witnesses from Dacia

8.4 Soldiers protecting the lands along the Ister against the inroads of the Comans and the Dacians...

8.8 the Dacians and the Thracians on the northern side of the Hercynian forests.

10. the chieftains of the Dacians decided no longer to observe their treaty with the Romans

10. Formerly they dwelt on the land separated from the Roman Empire by the Ister, but now they rose in a body and migrated into our territory. The reason for this migration was the irreconcilable hatred of the Dacians for their neighbours, whom they harassed with constant raids. QED — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.181.226 (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the Culture section

"Many Vlachs in mediaeval times were shepherds who drove their sheep through the mountains of south-eastern Europe. The Vlach shepherds reached as far as southern Poland and Moravia in the north by following the Carpathian range, the Dinaric Alps in the west, the Pindus mountains in the south, and the Caucasus Mountains in the east.[59] In many of these areas, the descendants of the Vlachs have lost their language, but their legacy still exists in cultural influences, customs, folklore, the way of life of the mountain people and in the place names of Romanian or Aromanian origin that are spread throughout the region. However, there are no place names of Romanian origin in Transylvania.[60]"

I don't see how the last sentence fits in, and a source was added here, but when examined via Google Book Search on page 18, I am unable to find where it claims that there are no place names in Transylvania of Romanian origin. Perhaps I've missed it, but regardless, I don't think it belongs in the Culture section, especially since there are no prior mentions to Transylvania. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation (p.18): "No place names or body of water of Romanian origin - which would indicate a continuity of Romanians - can be found in Transylvania". However I agree it may not fit here directly. Although the whole section is a mess and can be misinterpreted. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing that, I was having a hard time finding it. I do agree that we should find a better place to put that sentence in, I'm just not sure where it would belong. Perhaps if there was a sentence prior that about Transylvania/ns, then it would be more fitting. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted it. Fakirbakir (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I also propose that "Another part of the Vlachs, especially those in the northern parts, in Romania and Moldova, were traditional farmers growing cereal crops. Linguists believe that the large vocabulary of Latin words related to agriculture shows that they have always been a farming Vlach population. Cultural links between the Northern Vlachs (Romanians) and Southern Vlachs (Aromanians) were broken by the 10th century, and since then there were different cultural influences:[citation needed]
Romanian culture was slightly influenced by neighbouring people such as Slavs and Hungarians. The 19th century saw an important opening toward Western Europe and cultural ties with France.[citation needed]
Aromanian culture developed initially as a pastoral culture, later to be greatly influenced by the Byzantine Greek culture.[citation needed]" be removed due to lack of evidence, at least until someone finds proper sources to confirm. I think it's sloppy and untrue. Afro-Eurasian (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

"Mauricius"

What does the Strategikon of Maurice write of a Romance speaking population (or Vlachs) in the regions to the north of the Danube? Borsoka (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"The Song of the Nibelungs"

The Nibelungenlied also makes mention of Pechenegs, Poles hastening towards Attila's court. Does it prove that the Pechenegs had settled in the Pontic steppes before they departed from their homeland somewhere in the Altai Mountains? It must have been a very mystical experience: they must have been surprised when they arrived in the Pontic Steppes around 900 just to recognize that they had already settled there centuries before. Or did they have a time machine which enabled them to arrive there twice? Borsoka (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

More details needed about this edit

This request is for User:Borsoka. I'd like to know what source he refers in his edit (source 28 or source 29), and how does "the immigration of Vlachs from the Balkans to the Kingdom of Hungary in order to fight against the Tatars" contradict the fact that "in 1285, Vladislav IV the Cuman battled with Tatars and Cumans and arrived with his troops (made of orthodox Vlachs from Transylvania)". Some relevant quotes from the source would be appreciated. 79.117.177.12 (talk) 08:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear Anon, please read the relevant parts of a well referenced article. Borsoka (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Source misinterpretation regarding hipothesis of Illyrian origin of Albanians

With this edit (diff) Rolandi+ inserted the quote:

  • "Today scholars see Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians."

The source says:

  • "Traditionally scholars have seen the Dacians as ancestors of the modern Rumanians and Vlachs and the Illyrians as the proto-Albanians." - Fine, John Van Antwerp (1991). The Early Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Sixth to the Late Twelfth Century. University of Michigan Press. p. 10. ISBN 0-472-08149-7.

Furthermore the author explains that this traditional view is today challenged and explains that there are valid linguistic arguments "serious, nonchauvinistic" that Albanians came to Balkans from what is now Romania because it was also affected by large-scale invasion of Goths and Slavs in 4th-6th century.

It is obvious that author does not say that he or scholars today support Albanian-Illyrian hipotesis. On the contrary, he explains that it has been misused in Albanian nationalistic myth building with expansionistic purposes.

Rolandi+, please urgently revert your edit based on blatant misinterpretation of the source.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Antidiskriminator,I didn't add that source refering to Illyrians (This isn't an Illyrian related article).I added it only refering to Dacian-Vlach relationship.(so the part containing "Illyrians" can be deleted).It says traditionally scholars have seen Dacians as the ancestors of modern Romanians and Vlachs (and Illyrians as the proto-Albanians).Then the source says that perhaps this is not correct.

These all means that the main theory (as it says traditionally) is that dacians are the ancestors of vlachs.Then it says PERHAPS it's not correct(it doesn't say it is not correct,but perhaps).This means that there are other theories (which also are included in the article).So I don't see any problem about my edits.However talk to me about any problem relating to this case. Rolandi+ (talk) 14:53, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@Rolandi+: I've read the entire argument being postulated by Van Antwerp Fine, and am in agreement with Antidiskriminator that you've introduced WP:SYNTH via redaction to that which you are promoting. My recommendation would be to restore the content to where it stood where Antidiskriminator has noted your change in direction. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Iryna Harpy,I edit only what the reference says.So there is no problem with my edits.As for Antidiskriminator,as I said,the article is about Vlachs,not Albanians.So please,don't change my reference's citation.It's just a theory. Rolandi+ (talk) 09:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

There is obviously problems with your edits (a recurring matter).--Zoupan 10:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Where is the problem here Zoupan? Rolandi+ (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm more than happy to go through a blow-by-blow account of the WP:SYNTH you've been adding to the content (without even bothering with intext attribution such as which particular scholar advocates this theory).
Unfortunately, I'm about to log out for the day, therefore don't have time to thoroughly examine your contributions right now. I'm quite prepared to do so tomorrow as I'll have time to work on Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Go and examine my contributions .I am involved in an ANI,after that I will report you at ANI for your strange warning.Rolandi+ (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the ANI... and, per my reply on my own user page, I'm more than happy to be 'reported' by you at a later point in time. Understand that my patience is only the result of assuming good faith on your behalf, and the current ANI pressure on you. I'm quite prepared to engage with your recent contributions to this article once things have been settled there one way or another. Note, however, that you are doing yourself no favours by casting WP:ASPERSIONS regarding long-standing editors there. If you truly wish to develop an encyclopaedic resource you need to reign in your temper and stop making assumptions as to this being a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and being of the conviction that anyone who doesn't agree with your evaluation of sources as being POV, your personal enemy, and an enemy of WP:THE TRUTH. Not only are you going to alienate other editors, you're going to end up burning yourself out before you've even given yourself the opportunity to understand how Wikipedia works. Stop making this an ethnicity-based issue because it simply doesn't wash (and is against policy). I am not from the Balkans, nor do I have any sense of allegiance to nationalist issues: I follow what the RS actually tell us as opposed to cherry picking convenient one-liners from texts and turning them into POV SYNTH. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Exonym

Vlach is an exonym for Romanians and perhaps for other related people from Balkans. Political ideology of some countries does not accept fully this evidence. But there are a lot of exonyms in Europe: Nemet, Germans and Allemans for Deutches, Bulgarians for Slavs, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.166.131.85 (talk) 18:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Vlachs vs Romanians

What is the difference between Vlachs and Romanians? Why these articles are not merged together? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.218.30 (talk) 12:03, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

The difference between them depends on your political alignment. This is why the land of Transylvania is an issue between Magyars/Hungarians and Modern day Romanians Alexis Ivanov (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
The dispute about Transylvania has nothing to do with the discussion. There's historical, culutral, linguistical and ethnogenetical difference between the Vlachs north of Danube (Romanians) and Vlachs south of Danube (other non-"Romanians"). Some scholars by the term Vlachs do not consider the Romanians, but only populations south of Danube. Romanian scholars tried to interpret the Vlachs history, including of those south of Danube, through the origin and history of the Romanians thus making more confusion about the terms and specific populations history and identity. The articles should not be merged.--Crovata (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It does have to do with it, you can check the Daco-Roman continuity page in the Hungarian Wikipedia Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
You really did not understand the issue. The problem about the Daco-Roman continuity is related, but it is not the issue of the discussion.--Crovata (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

the real Ethymologie of the vlahs

The name for the oldest indigenous population of a region already used by Homer and Herodotus is the ancient Greek word "pelasgos". On the Greek peninsula the oldest indigenous people are the Thracians. After them came the Dorians and Ionians on this peninsula, forming together the later Greek ethnicity. Hence the "pelasgos" of which Homer and Herodotus report, are in the Greek peninsula the Thracians, denoted by the Greeks "pelasgos"

The origin of the word "vlachs" is from the ancient Greek "pelasgos" , by Slavic transcription of the Greek from the 6th century. In the Greek "pelasgos" pronounced "balasgos"

Slavic transcription of "balasgos"
  • b -> v
  • s-> c
  • g -> h
  • This results in "valachos".

That's proofs that the transcription is of Slavic origin, so it is an exonym and therefore it must by older than the 7th century.

There were already many regions named "vlahia", centuries before the "Vlahia" on the Danube. The name "Megaloblachia" appears in the sources for the first time in the 13. century with Niketas Choniates (CSHB, 81f1,lk-15; ed. Van Dieten, 638,50), Georgios Akropolites (k3,1;61,23-.25) and Pachymeres (1,83,11), although the toponymic Viachia, land of the Vlachs, existed from the 12. century both in western and Byzantine sources as name for certain regions of Thessaly. The name Vlachia came to be applied to Thessaly because of the large Vlach population settled in its mountainone regions from the time of the Slavic invasions. When the name first appears (in Benjamin of Tudela), it refers to the mountainous regions of south Thessaly, around Mt. Othrys.

With the beginning of the Ottoman invasion of the Balkan peninsula, in the 8th century, the indigenous population from soud of The Danube, has retreated over a longer period, to north of the Danube, from where the Aurelian retreat in 274 AD, withdrew them on the southern side of the Danube. A real Exodus then began with the 2nd Bulgarian-Walachian Empire since 1186 AD, and then led to the formation of the first Walachian principality north of the Danube in the 12th century. [1]46.5.2.45 (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Native vlachs in Bulgaria and Macedonia?

The presant vlachs population in Bulgaria and Macedonia is not native. They are migrants in 17-18 century. Both kind of vlachs. And the vlachs by Dunabe river from Bulgarian side are migrants from north of Dunabe around 17 century. And the aromanian vlachs in Macedonia and South Bulgaria are 18 century migrants from Pindus region (Epirus) from the Ali pasha destractions. Even it is known wich aromanian vilage from wich vilage in Pindus came. It is not correct in the article. Only the megleno vlachs are native for Macedonia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.237.139.253 (talk) 11:10, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Stecci

According to J. Fine and to other authors included in text, the authors of stecci were the Vlachs. Erasing references is VANDALISM. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.82.208 (talk) 08:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Fine says "erected by members of all denominations". The inscriptions on the tombstones are in Slavic and Cyrillic, and not Romance. Social group of Vlachs≠Eastern Romance-speaking peoples. They are characteristic of the region and not Eastern Romance (Vlach) peoples overall.--Zoupan 09:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


Please read carefully next references. All these books argue that Vlachs are authors of gravestones

1.J. Fine book at page 19: THE MAIN EVIDENCE WE HAVE ...IS DRAWN FROM VLACH GRAVESTONES !!!(page 19)

2.Read pages 52, 72, 176, 307. Lovrenovic, Dubravko (2013). Stecci: Bosansko i humsko mramorje srednjeg vijeka [Stecci: Bosnian and Hum marbles from Middle Age] (in Croatian). Ljevak. ISBN 9789533035468.

3. Read Cebotarev 1996, page 322: Cebotarev, Andrej (1996). "Review of Stecci and Vlachs: Stecci and Vlach migrations in the 14th and 15th century in Dalmatia and Southwestern Bosnia". Povijesni prilozi [Historical Contributions] (in Croatian). Zagreb: Croatian Institute of History. 14 (14).

4. Read Miloševic 1991, p. 8 Miloševic, Ante (1991). Stecci i Vlasi: Stecci i vlaške migracije 14. i 15. stoljeca u Dalmaciji i jugozapadnoj Bosni [Stecci and Vlachs: Stecci and Vlach migrations in the 14th and 15th century in Dalmatia and Southwestern Bosnia] (in Croatian). Split: Regionalni zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture.

5. Read Kurtovic 2013, Kurtovic, Esad (2013). "Vlasi i stecci" [Vlachs and stecci]. Radovi (in Bosnian). Sarajevo: Filozofski fakultet (16).


6.Read Kurtovic, Esad (2015). "Vlasi Drobnjaci i stecci (Crtica o Nikoli Raškovicu i njegovim nasljednicima)" [Drobnjaci Vlachs and stecci (A remark about Nikola Raškovic and his heiress)]. Godišnjak (in Bosnian). Sarajevo: ANUBiH (44): 303–316.


Also Find these arguments from "Stecak- stecci" Wikipedia page:

The exclusive relation between stećci and Bogomils was propagated from the late 19th century due to political and ideological reasons, like by Béni Kállay and Austro-Hungarian authorities who promoted post-Ottoman and pan-Bosnian identity because since 1878 the territory was part of Austro-Hungarian administration (Purgarić-Kužić, Branka (1996). "Dosadašnja istraživanja o stećcima". Radovi (in Serbo-Croatian). Zagreb: Institute of Croatian History. 28 (1): 242–253)

Although both Bosnian, Croatian and Serbian nationalism tried to annex them to their own culture, paradoxally, none of the three ethnic groups (Bosniaks, Bosnian Serbs and Bosnian Croats) in Bosnia and Herzegovina originally remember them in their collective consciousness, leaving them to nature or human destruction (which at least halved the number (Lovrenović, Dubravko (2013). Stećci: Bosansko i humsko mramorje srednjeg vijeka [Stećci: Bosnian and Hum marbles from Middle Age] (in Croatian). Ljevak. ISBN 9789533035468. p.36

Is better to read references instead to use speculations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.38.11 (talk) 08:39, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Vlachs. 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Image

Hello, i remember a while ago this image was in the top right corner of the article, why was it taken down? Scheianu (talk) 21:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

References about the Vlach origin of the funerary monuments (stecci)

References about the Vlach origin of the funerary monuments

1. Marian Wenzel, Bosnian and Herzegovinian Tombstobes-Who Made Them and Why?" Sudost-Forschungen 21(1962): 102-143

2. John V. A. Fine,, The Late Medieval Balkans: A Critical Survey from the Late Twelfth Century, University of Michigan Press, 1994, p.19

3. Lovrenovic, Dubravko (2013). Stecci: Bosansko i humsko mramorje srednjeg vijeka [Stecci: Bosnian and Hum marbles from Middle Age] (in Croatian). Ljevak. ISBN 9789533035468. pages 52, 72, 176, 307.

4. Cebotarev, Andrej (1996). "Review of Stecci and Vlachs: Stecci and Vlach migrations in the 14th and 15th century in Dalmatia and Southwestern Bosnia". Povijesni prilozi [Historical Contributions] (in Croatian). Zagreb: Croatian Institute of History. 14 (14) page 322

5. Miloševic, Ante (1991). Stecci i Vlasi: Stecci i vlaške migracije 14. i 15. stoljeca u Dalmaciji i jugozapadnoj Bosni [Stecci and Vlachs: Stecci and Vlach migrations in the 14th and 15th century in Dalmatia and Southwestern Bosnia] (in Croatian). Split: Regionalni zavod za zaštitu spomenika kulture. p. 8

6. Kurtovic, Esad (2013). "Vlasi i stecci" [Vlachs and stecci]. Radovi (in Bosnian). Sarajevo: Filozofski fakultet.

7. Kurtovic, Esad (2015). "Vlasi Drobnjaci i stecci (Crtica o Nikoli Raškovicu i njegovim nasljednicima)" [Drobnjaci Vlachs and stecci (A remark about Nikola Raškovic and his heiress)]. Godišnjak (in Bosnian). Sarajevo: ANUBiH (44): 303–316.

8. Benac, Alojz (1967). Stecci. Mala istoria umetnosti Jugoslavija (Serbian), Paperback

9. Malcom, Noel (1994). Bosnia: A Short History (Vlachs in Bosnia). Reprinted by permission of the author and New York University Press. New York University Press. ISBN 9780814755204.

10. A. P.Vlasto, The entry of the Slavs into Christendom, Cambridge, University Press, 1970, p.234, ISBN 978-0-521-07459-9

11. Arthur Evans, Antiquarian researches in Illyricum : Part I-IV, Nichol and Sons, 1883, p.33

12. Ivan Mužić "Vlasi i starobalkanska pretkršćanska simbolika jelena na stećcima", in Vlasi u starijoj hrvatskoj historiografiji (in Croatian), ed. Ivan Mužić, (Split: Muzej hrvatskih arheoloških spomenika, 2010), 215

Mužić, Ivan (2009). "Vlasi i starobalkanska pretkršćanska simbolika jelena na stećcima". Starohrvatska prosvjeta (in Croatian). Split: Museum of Croatian Archaeological Monuments. III (36): 315–349. (p. 215)

13. Marian Wenzel, Ornamental motifs on tombstones/Ukrasni motivi na stećcima, Publisher: Veselin Maslesa, Sarajevo, 1965, p.15

14. Marian Wenzel, Bosnian History and Austro-Hungarian policy: some Medieval Belts, the Bogomil Romance and the King Tvrtko Graves, Peristil, 30/1987

15. Maximilian Hartmuth, Mineral Exploitation and Artistic Production in the Balkans after 1250, In: Ottoman Metalwork in the Balkans and in Hungary. Hrsg. Ibolya Gerelyes & Maximilian Hartmuth. Budapest: Hungarian National Museum, 2015, p. 97-110 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.160.242 (talk) 07:11, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Collection of images belong to Commons. Detailed article about stecci exists. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Again, misinterpretation of terminology and history. Those monuments are specific to an area (the Dinaric) and period (1150–1500). There are only theories over the owners' ultimate ethnic antecedents ("Old Balkan")–though, in any case, their names as we know were Slavic and they spoke Slavic–which debunks, if you like, the "Romance commonwealth" theory that the user (troll?) suggests and tries to convince that there is persecution of some kind of non-existing minority. The work which the user stresses to be part of "Aromanians or Vlach" minority heritage is Hasanaginica, a work in Slavic, transcribed from Slavic. Again, "Vlach" is an exonym with wide spectrum, which the user manipulates into his POV.--Zoupan 12:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
There are over 15 references about the Vlach origin of stecci and only 2 original research (OR) against: Zoupan and Staszek! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.45.135 (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup

The article is a mess of information of various relevance. "Vlachs" is a historical term, and the article must discuss its usage. For example, Aromanians, etc., they have their own articles. If we know that the term "Vlachs" was applied in the past to Aromanians (and others), just say so, and leave the history of Aromanians to "Aromanians" but not repeat it here. And so on. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Fake category

Yes, I agree that Vlachs should rather be listed among the Eurasian nomads, but many editors debated this categorization. Why do you think that the transhumant ethnic groups is a fake category? Borsoka (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The answer is here. However, the term "vlach" does not designate an ethnic group. (Rgvis (talk) 09:46, 15 June 2018 (UTC))
  1. ^ Pelasgi - vlahi, vlah; Prof dr. Pachia-Tatomirescu, Cluj-Napoca
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Vlachs/Archive_1&oldid=1143741387"