Talk:Vlachs of Serbia

Proposal

I want to propose a renaming of the article, from Vlachs of Serbia into Vlachs of Central Serbia. Reason: see here the meaning of term "Vlach". This article refers to the Vlachs of Central Serbia. The Romanians of Vojvodina, which are Vlachs too like all the Romanian people, are not described in this article. --Olahus (talk) 08:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a good idea. iadrian (talk) 09:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course we redirect all the possible names and the old ones to the new name of the article.iadrian (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a redirection requests the move of all the possible names. --Olahus (talk) 20:53, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The terminology that would correspond to the one used in Serbian (Vlasi severnoistocne Srbije) is Vlachs of North-East Serbia. 'Central Serbia' suggests a region to the South-West of the Vlach area, (since traditionally Vojvodina was considered to be outside the original, early 20th century, boundaries of Serbia) so I think that would be misleading. But 'Vlachs of North-East Serbia' would be OK. C0gnate (talk) 00:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Basically the designation "Vlachs of North-East Serbia" is fine too. I just think that the designation "Northeastern Serbia" could include the Banat region too for some readers - which is not ment to be included in this article. Maybe the designations "Vlachs of Eastern Serbia" would be more accurate. When I said "Central Serbia", I ment this area.--Olahus (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Vlachs of Serbia refers to a population group in Serbia that identify as "Vlachs" in an ethnic sense (the Romanians of Serbia identify as Romanians in an ethnic sense), although "Vlachs" is a name for the wider group of Romanic people, the "Vlachs of Serbia" is not. You cannot change what these people identify as, and as they are a minority, the article name change is unneeded and their situation is to be explained in the intro.--Zoupan (talk) 16:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This article is seriously skewed towards (pan-)Romanian nationalist point of view.

• Starting from the lead, which uses Romanian exonyms for Zaiecar and Valea Timocului. We generally stick to one name for a toponym.
• ...we get to the next paragraph, "The name they identify with Rumâni din Sârbie in fact means Romanians from Serbia. The Romanian(Vlach) community consider Romania as their home country." Conveniently sourced from a dead link, http://www.cnmnr.org.rs/ko%20su%20vlasi.html. This is blatant lie. In general, Vlachs are serbianized to a great extent (most have Serbian names and surnames), they all speak fluent Serbian (unlike, e.g. Hungarians of Vojvodina) and their overall identification with Romania is fairly weak.
• The section "Identity" is separate from the section "Vlach identity" below, and contradictory. WP:POVFORK within the same article. Way to go.
• "...many deputies from the Council of Europe protested against Serbia's treatment of this population." WP:WEASEL. There actually were 23 deputees [1]. Similar initiatives and lobbying i the CoE are an everyday use. As long as the Council collectively did not vote about it, such declarations, quote "commits only the members who have signed it". In other words, pretty much any concerned group of MPs can sign pretty much whatever they want. Therefore, I argue that this is given WP:UNDUE promninence
• "In March 2007, the Vlach (Romanian) organizations announced the intention to put on trial the Serbian state. ". Which ones? How many members they have? Did they actually do it? If not, it's just a piece of POV-pushing. Sourced from dead link [2].

In summary, there is lot of Fear, uncertainty and doubt spreading and almost zero data about actual state of Vlach human and national rights.

• "The origins of the Vlachs/Romanians of northeast Serbia are not well known to most Vlachs, principally because nothing is taught about the subject in Serbian schools." This is true, but not much else is taught in Serbian schools either. Does the source actually say that? Sounds like a WP:SYNTH.
• " As Roman-speakers, the Vlachs can relate to the Roman ruins (forts, roads, palaces, graves, baths, aqueducts, mines, half-buried cities etc.) that are scattered in NE Serbia,[8][9] " This is sort of Kosovo myth, Romanian way. "My-nation-is-older-than-you" packed in

I think I need not continue. This is a typical Balkanic article, full of contradictory statements (depending on which side wrote it), inflation of national myths, and so on.

Yes, Vlachs are generally underrepresented, undereducated and neglected part of Serbian society, without education in their language. This article does an awful job in explaining that situation in neutral terms. 07:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will enumerate my response according to the points you made.

• 1) Using Romanian exonyms for Zaiecar and Valea Timocului is nothing new on wikipedia. In an article, about a special ethnic group, we use that nations`s language. But this can be corrected of course, to use only Serbian names.
• 2) the paragraph is identical translation that I provided "The name they identify with Rumâni din Sârbie in fact means Romanians from Serbia. The Romanian(Vlach) community consider Romania as their home country." - from the info box Rumâni din Sârbie means in English Romanians from Serbia. About the home country that info was on that dead link. Too bad I did`t made a print screen if I knew that someone would call this a "blatant lie". I remember it because I inserted it. Your personal opinion is that Romanians from Serbia don`t consider Romania as their home country, please respect the facts. As for the home country sentence since it is a dead link, of course it can be removed until the Romanian minority from Serbia re-activates their web page.
• 3) Section identity represents the facts about the current state/recognition of the Romanian minority. If that is also a problem, maybe we could change that section name into Legal status ?
• 4) About the deputies from the Council of Europe, if there are actually 23, then this can be easily corrected the word many deputies into 23 deputies to avoid weasel talk.
• 5) About that trial from March 2007, if it is a dead link then we could remove this sentence. I doubt that it was added without a source, but anyway, it is dead now and as such, that info can be removed.

In summary I can detect a little bit of so-called bad faith from you because you added the NPOV tag at the whole article, as such dismissing all info from it. Even if it is a well-referenced article considering others. This article was edited by many users and as such it is as it is. Maybe it is not the best article but we can improve it. As I see from the points that bother you, we can work on all of them. Therefore I will insert changes according to your points and remove the NPOV tag that I don`t think that is appropriate here. If you think that there are more problems here, please discuss it first to see if we can find a solution for it , and if we can`t agree then we could ask for help from some editor or third opinion... if all of that fails then we could put the NPOV tag. Also if I forgot to mention some of your points please let me know. Greetings. Adrian (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I added NPOV tag for the whole article, because it needs balancing as a whole. Not all sections are equally bad, but the first part is egregious.

2) It may be well true that Romanians from Serbia do consider Romania as their home country (though I'm not sure how this could be reliably sourced at all -- interview each and every one? Conduct a poll? Sorry, but that sounds like a bs; how can one generalize like that?). It is decisively not true for Vlachs of Serbia. Need I cite census data about how many of those declare as Vlachs and not Romanians (which would be a logical consequence)? Show me the facts, in form of serious studies of Vlach identity, and I will respect them. Who are/were those www.cnmnr.org.rs anyway? Ah, I see, ro:Consiliul Național al Minorității Naționale Române in Novi Sad. Doesn't it seem that they might be biased concerning Vlachs of Central Serbia? Note that Vlachs also have their National Council, http://vlasi.rs/index.php?page=10. Why not quote that?

See for example [3]. It is not a reliable source, and I do not offer it as one. However, it indicates that there are different opinion ("pro-Romanian" and "pro-Vlach") among Vlachs themselves concerning their identity (and, of course, as in any politics many just don't care). We should assign appropriate weight to each opinion. Unqualified statements like "The Romanian(Vlach) community consider Romania as their home country" raise red bullshit alarm in my eyes.

3) I agree that "Legal status" would be a better term.

4) I question the due weight of the CoA initiative signed by 23 MPs out of 321. To give you a hypothetic counterexample, I'm sure that Serbia could gather at least 50 MPs that would sign a declaration that Kosovo is part of Serbia. Weight of such initiative would be close to zero. Similar initiatives are exercise in futility.

I do not even question the veracity of facts, but I have huge issues how these facts are (cherry-)picked and presented. I hope that we can reach an acceptable version through further editing. No such user (talk) 10:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

2) I just wrote "word by word" from the source to make sure that it`s neutrality us preserved. That is their (national council) statement, how did they come by that info I don`t know. The problem is as you probably know that the divergences within the Romanian minority in Serbia exists and there are 2 main streams, pro and anti Romanian. The one from the national council was recognized as the official one from the government of Serbia (www.cnmnr.org.rs). That page is now dead and many appeared to "substitute" it without any legal claim. Because I have close ties in the Romanian national council in Serbia and in the Serbian national council in Romania. I doubt that http://vlasi.rs is the official page of the Vlach(Roumanian) minority. You can notice that by their domain name (vlasi.rs - not .org.rs) and it would be some abbreviation like cnmv or cnmr -as it was until now. Actually you can see that this appear to be some rouge organization of the anti-Romanian group http://vlasi.rs/index.php?cat=7&id=225. The idea was to unify those pages and at the main page to choose the council from Voivodina and from Serbia. Please see - http://www.cnr.org.rs/, http://www.timocpress.info/sr/ and http://www.protopopiatuldaciaripensis.rs/?p=273. This will be the next official page but it is still under construction http://www.comunitatea-romanilor.org.rs/index21.htm. The http://vlasi.rs carefully avoid to mention any relation with the Romanian people :). I think that tells us everything. Anyway, I just put that statement that was on the Vlach(Roumanian) web page, word by word, nothing more. Since it is a dead link now I have deleted it as requested.

3) Ok. Then Legal status is allright.

4) I agree. What is your suggestion to do with this statement? Maybe we should remove it ? Or say something like "23 out of 321" ?

Well as you can see from the history of the article many users edited it, including me. If we can improve it, why not :). Adrian (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why the domain name should be relevant. National minority councils are not governmental organizations (though they are State-approved), and they're free to pick their websites as they see fit. The website does say "Nacionalni savet Vlaške nacionalne manjine Srbije", and certainly looks legitimate to me, in the sense that they were elected by all voters who consider themselves Vlachs (which is probably a disjunctive set from one who consider themselves Romanians, and who voted for CNR.)
There obviously is a friction between two political factions. It's not surprising that the Vlach council is so "Anti-Romanian", and that the Romanian council claims that "all Vlachs consider Romania their homeland". But I doubt that it's possible that two councils would be united in near future, despite the initiative from CNR, and it's not our business to solve anyway. Note that even Bosniaks of Serbia (who certainly claim to be one people) are divided on loyalty to two Islamic Communes, and Bunjevci also have arguably two national councils: Bunjevci and Croats.

I'm kind of busy now, but we can continue later. I'll try to edit the article when I find some spare time. No such user (talk) 13:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Subsection

I don't understand Adrian's reasoning. [4] names Radiša Dragojević the President of the Vlach National minority council, confirmed by Socialist Party in Petrovac na Mlavi. The views of the Vlach national council should be noted foremost in this article, instead of those of the Romanian national council - although the views of the Romanian council could also be added. I reverted to a version better suited, as it has the necessary introduction, as well as proper tags. The Vlachs and Romanians should absolutely be treated as two different groups, although kin - labeling them "Romanians" is wrong, not only from their own perspective. Adrian undid the correct version, and until he has added sources outwitting the Vlach national council's, the claims (statute) made by the latter will stay. --Zoupan (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The current Vlach council in Serbia is not recognized as an official one because it represents only a part of the Romanian minority in Serbia(as I stated in my comments before). There are numerous attempts to create this kind of version you are trying to revert to, of course omitting all this references. You opinion on this matter ("The Vlachs and Romanians should absolutely be treated as two different groups, although kin - labeling them "Romanians" is wrong") is your personal opinion and as such please keep it to yourself WP:SOAP. There are numerous references, as a matter of fact even this partially recognized Vlach(Romanian) council states about the cultural and luinguistical relations between Romanians and Vlachs of Serbia. If there is a problematic statement or problematic parts of the article please write a new section and we can discuss them. Saying simply that you don`t accept the stable version of the article(version that was established(before me or you) and kept as such, removing referenced statements WP:SOURCE) isn`t very helpful. Please write a new section and state the problematic parts or statements that you wish to discuss about changes to this article. Adrian (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood the status of the group. Vlachs refers to the population in Timok, not Vojvodina. Can you show me proof of the Vlach council being unofficial, or, just show me the official councils homepage? That is not my personal opinion, but the information found on the National council of Vlachs's Declaration, and general knowledge, the introduction on the better-suited-version is removed and i dont see why (it gives you crucial information on this group's identity), and why in the world have you added "(Romanians)" after every "Vlachs" (I have seen this on other articles as well) ?? Again, they are two "different" groups - they are separate in identity, statistics, national councils, etc. None referenced material is removed, only added, so I should claim that for you. Just read the talk page, and then please revert to the correct version, with you additions if you have any. --Zoupan (talk) 15:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I will divide my answer in several punctuations for easier navigation.

• The national council of Vlach minority of Serbia is being a subject of several political controversies even incidents [5], [6]. To start from the previous national council that was pro-Romanian and issued declarations like "Vlachs are Romanians" and others. They even had a joint web page with the Romanian minority from Vojvodina. (http://www.cnmnr.org.rs/). This page is down when Vlasi.rs "appeared". Until then the national council was under Predrag Balasevic [7] , when they moved the seat from Bor to Petrovac. Now it is under Radisa Dragojevic, a SPS party representative that even before had "anti-Vlach(Roumanian)" actions [8]. Now under new leadership they have totally new information "about us" and carefully avoid to mention the Vlach relation to the Romanians. Just to point it out, anything of this text is not my personal opinion. Even here there are information that support this version of the article [9] (I assume you speak Serbian, if not, I will try to provide for a translation)

• Preci dаnаšnjih Vlаhа bili su u to vreme obesprаvljeni seljаci, gotovo robovi, pod stegom bojаrа u rumunskim kneževinаmа severno od Dunаvа, Vlаškoj i Moldаviji, ili pod vlаšću Austrije i Mаđаrske nа području Bаnаtа i Erdeljа, а deo u nimаlo boljem položаju u Besаrаbiji ili u Dobruii. Istorijski podаci govore o hiljаdаmа seljаkа koji nаpuštаju ove oblаsti i beže preko Dunаvа nа jug, u oblаst između Morаve i Timokа, posebno tokom fаnаriotskog režimа koji je u dvemа rumunskim kneževinаmа vlаdаo više od jednog vekа (1711-1821)... - Talking about migration of people from modern-day Romania to Timocka Krajna.
• Rаvničаri se zovu Cаrаni, jer su poreklom iz Tara rumaneasca kаko se nа rumunskom jeziku zvаlа rаvničаrskа kneževinа Vlаškа (i oni su zаprаvo Vlаsi proprie dicti), а stočаri se zovu Ungurijаni, jer su im preci nаjvećim delom doselili iz krаjevа pod vlаšću Ungura (Mаđаrа). Obe grupe govore аrhаičnim vаrijаntаmа jezikа koji je nаstаo iz bаlkаnskog lаtinitetа. - 2 groups, one from Transylvania and another from Wallachia
• Ovаj živаlj je do Berlinskog kongresа popisivаn pod imenom Vlаsi, jer gа je Srbijа s prаvom vezivаlа zа Vlаšku, ili zа njene susedne oblаsti sа srodnim stаnovništvom. U Drugom svetskom rаtu obični ljudi se više ne izjаšnjаvаju kаo Rumuni, аli sve češće ni kаo Vlаsi. Tаko se desilo dа Vlаhа nа popisu iz 1961.godine bude svegа 1339! -
• U Srbiji dаnаs, nа korаk od Evropske unije, jednа sаsvim osobenа ljudskа zаjednicа, osobene istorije i duhovne kulture, trаži mogućnost dа s njom uđe u tаj veliki, novi svet, а dа što mаnje ošteti onаj deo svogа bićа koji je čine posebnom: i u odnosu nа Rumuniju, sа čijeg su prostorа došli njeni dаleki preci, i u odnosu nа nа Srbiju, u čije stvаrаnje je utkаlа sаv svoj potencijаl.

• I would rather avoid "general knowledge" because where I come from/live the word "Vlach" is just a name for Romanians that live outside modern-day Romania.
• The official name of this minority in English language is Vlach(Romanians) or Timok Romanians of Serbia, referring to as Romanians from Serbia. ex: 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6. It is probably a direct translation from the name they identify with Rumâni din Sârbie = Romanians from Serbia.
• They are 2 separate political entities, that doesn`t necessarily mean that they are 2 separate ethnic groups. For administrative purposes between Vojvodina and Serbia. [10]

About this selective revision there is a clear removal of any possible connection to the Romanians and Romanian languageVlach language in Serbia therefore I don`t see anything that this article could benefit (improve) from this removal of referenced information.Adrian (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

If you speak Romanian also you will find this links very interesting [11]; [12]; [13]. Adrian (talk) 07:06, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I see where Adrian and Zoupan come from, but we should take care not to take too seriously accounts of each side ("pro-Romanian", including one within Romania, and "pro-Serbian" one.) Thus, we should use some more neutral sources, particularly for difficult claims of ethnic affiliation. Here's the one which, I think, summarizes the situation quite fairly:

{{cite book|title= Serbia, 3rd ed.|author= Mitchell, Laurence |ISBN=9781841623269 |publisher=Bradt Travel Guide Series |url= http://books.google.com/books?id=hQBUJVwjcjsC&pg=PA36 |year= 2010}} No such user (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Saying that Vlachs(Romanians) from Serbia are simply Romanians is maybe to harsh or exaggerated, but to remove every connection to the Wallachia and Romanians is also an exaggeration. There is no doubt that this population use the Romanian language (Romanian varieties/dialect) and that they came from Romanians states, that is one of the reasons I have changed the lead info from being a "subgroup of Romanians" (since the national council changed it`s mind) to "culturally and linguistically related". I believe that is according to the present sources. Adrian (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

25.01.2012

The phrase "culturally and linguistically related" is correct. However, it should be noted that "related" does not mean "the same", which is implied by the term "Vlachs (Romanians)". There is no such thing as the "official name of this minority in English" that you talked about above. You posted 6 links: The first link is a site that offers low-cost, no-frills personal language teaching in and around the United Kingdom, and the linked page has nothing to do with the Vlachs of Serbia, but indicates that a synonym for the Romanian language is "Vlach". The second link contains copies of Wikipedia articles. The third and forth link are the same, a political pamphlet signed by 23 individuals mostly from Romania, Moldova, Azerbaijan, and Georgia - all beacons of democracy and prosperity LOL. The fifth link clearly distinguishes between Vlachs and Romanians: The Assembly therefore encourages the members of the Romanian and Vlach minorities ... The sixth link is a site funded by the government of Romania. All in all, the "official name of this minority in English" is not "Vlachs (Romanians)". As Vlachs of Serbia see themselves as an ethnic group distinct from Romanians, which is clearly stated in the very document that you cited in the article, the term "Vlachs (Romanians)", if applied to the Vlachs of Serbia, could actually be an insult to them. In any way, it is inappropriate in this context.

Even greater problem in the article (in its current version) are the first two paragraphs of the "Origins" section. It starts with a silly sentence, The origins of the Vlachs, who live in northeastern Central Serbia, are not well known to most Vlachs, principally because the subject is forbidden to be taught in Serbian schools, which is not at all backed by the cited source. Or could you point to the place in the source that backs that silly claim? It is followed by a history of Serbia in Roman times and Middle Ages, which is utterly irrelevant for this population, which started to settle in Serbia in the early 18th century, as is a well known and established fact. This sentence is especially nonsensical: As Daco-Romanian-speakers, the Vlachs have a connection to the Roman heritage in Serbia. The agrarian and cattle-raising population whose distant ancestors adopted the language of their conquerors, Romans, has a connection to the Roman heritage of the land in which they started to settle in the 18th century??? In short, the first two paragraphs of the "Origins" section should be simply removed as thematically irrelevant (setting aside that they are also factually wrong in the above mentioned and other points).

There are other strange statements: Other Balkan peoples, notably the Serbs adopted the Christian traditions of the Vlachs. Exactly which traditions? Badnjak? Česnica? Slava? Zapis? Đurđevdan? All traditions? Vlachs christianized the Balkan peoples? There are two 19th-century maps that show the same thing. One would be enough. Nikola Pašić was an Aromanian, not a Vlach of Serbia. Etc., etc. It's pathetic what this article has been turned into. Vladimir (talk) 17:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indeed there is not such thing as the official name for this ethnic group in the English language, however, pages like [14] (the one you said are people from Moldova, Georgia, etc) - that doesn`t really matter where those people are, it is the Council of Europe, and as such institution it has an immense credibility in the world. In almost every official English document you can find this formulation Vlach/Romanian. Also the designation in the Romanian (Vlach) language Rumâni din Sârbie literally translated means Romanians from Serbia. Since they identify like that in their own language, why should that be insulting in any way? The other link also from the Council of Europe [15] indeed states this 2 groups as distinct ones, but if you analyze it you will notice that this resolutions appeals to the Romanian and Vlach communities to overcome their political differences, not ethnographic. The link that copies wikipedia should be removed of course - Wikipedia or pages that mirror wikipedia content can`t be used as valid sources. The confusion comes from the Serbian designation "Vlasi" which is used to call all Romanticized(Latin) population. Also about their language, they call it Vlach(Romanian) [16] - you can find it under Clan 2. Also their main political representative is using the same name "Vlach(Romanians)" - Vlaska Demokratska stranka Srbije [17].

• Also this link explicitly states that Vlach(Romanians) usage [18] - look for the definition, page 68. Also this links in the English language as well: [19] - page 62, last sentance in the first part of the page; [20]; [21]; [22]. All in English language and all use Vlach(Romanian) name for this group.
• About the first link you descibed, we can`t really jundge if something is low-cost ( and even if it is) - is it unreliable then? About the documents comming from the six link is founded by the departament for diaspora (of Romania) - is it unreliable just because it is founded by the government of Romania? By that same logic, is any Serbian institution,or web page reliable because it is founded by the Serbian government?

• I inserted those 19th century maps , from 2 respectable - different researchers, because on the map there is no difference between Vlachs, Romanians or Moldovians. Until 1930 "Vlachs" did`t existed, but the Romanians from Serbia "became" Vlachs as a result of political disputes and influences. If you analyze in the article also, the censuses, you can also notice that until 1931, "Vlachs" did`t existed. All in all, politically, they are 2 distinct groups, but ethnographic-ally they are the same - which all maps and documents confirms.

• As for the origins section, I agree it needs some restructuring and references. I will try to investigate that very claim. I suggest to add citation needed tag for the school info, and in the ref doesn`t appear in let`s say 2 weeks we delete it. As for the second paragraph I agree that it should be instantly removed, it has no sense.

• As for the traditions, I really don`t know much about this subject, but since you are more familiar with this you could improve it and remove problematic, unsourced statements.Adrian (talk) 18:12, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that you don't insist on the claim that there is an "official name of this minority in English". I understand that you want to emphasize a Romanian character of this ethnic group by terming them as "Vlachs (Romanians)", fearing that there is an intention of their de-Romanization, although the first sentence clearly states that they are "culturally and linguistically related to Romanians". However, there are inconsistencies in your statements. You said above: Saying that Vlachs(Romanians) from Serbia are simply Romanians is maybe to harsh or exaggerated... But when you write "Vlachs (Romanians) of Serbia", does that not mean that Vlachs of Serbia are simply Romanians? What other purpose has the word "Romanians" placed within parentheses there? This is supposed to be an encyclopedic article, not a politically colored text in support of a political party or a political cause. Documents you linked have their own motivations for using "Vlachs/Romanians" or "Romanians/Vlachs", which are not quite compatible with a motivation to write an encyclopedic article. If the words "Vlach" and "Romanian" are after all synonyms in English, then it should be either "Vlachs of Serbia" or "Romanians of Serbia". However, as you correctly observed, saying that this ethnic minority are simply Romanians may be an exaggeration. Therefore, the simple, clear, and well-established name "Vlachs of Serbia" is best. Possibly you see the rather clumsy construction "Vlachs (Romanians) of Serbia" only as a step toward the deletion of Vlachs altogether, eventually leaving only Romanians.

The confusion comes from the Serbian designation "Vlasi" which is used to call all Romanticized(Latin) population. Well, in modern Serbian, in present-day contexts, Vlasi refers exclusively to the Vlachs of eastern Serbia. Aromanians are called Cincari, and Romanians are called Rumuni. About the first link you descibed, we can`t really jundge if something is low-cost... I indeed wouldn't use that as a reliable source, but if you think otherwise - whatever. This article contains political issues, and there is a bias toward one political view, which should be balanced. Vladimir (talk) 14:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I don`t intend to remove the word Vlach. I have a feeling that we should remove the word Romanian as an preemptive action? I did`t introduced this formulation, it was well established on this article before I even registered on Wikipedia. The Secui also have a separate article, an separate name, identity, but when used in articles it uses the Szekely(Hungarian) formulation, the same as here. Removing it without a solid evidence I can`t support. I see 4 points here:

• (1)We have the ethnological,linguistic maps from different (non-Serbian, non-Romanian), respectable historians stating that they are simply Romanians.
• (2)In the English documents we see the usage Vlachs(Romanians) of Serbia or Romanians(Vlachs) of Serbia.
• (3)The Vlach(Romanian) community from Serbia identify themselves as Rumâni din Sârbie which means Romanians from Serbia.
• (4)Only the Serbian community calls them Vlasi - Vlachs, which is all together an exonym for the Daco-Romanian population, in this case people from the Romanian principality of Wallachia (Serbian: Vlaska). That fact is accepted in all Serbian circles.

There is a very similar situation in the Hungarian community. Same formulation we have with the Secui, who also have an obscure origin and controversies but here on Wikipedia we call them Szekely(Hungarian) or simply Hungarians. Ex: ([23];[24]; [25]; [26], and many other articles in Transylvania). According to other examples on Wikipedia, and analyzing these 4 point I really don`t see a solid reason to remove or change this established formulation(in any way) for now.Adrian (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

3. February 2012

I returned the NPOV tag, as the article again slided into one-side, namely viewed through Romanian eyes only or mostly. Parenthetic (Romanians) is downright POV-pushing. Let me take just one example, and there are many in this article:

There is the sentence "the Yugoslav authorities agreed to recognize the Romanian identity of the Vlach population in Central Serbia", which sounds seriously skewed. I would like to see the original text of the supposed 2002 agreement between Yugoslavia and Romania, reported by Adevărul. The point is, Serbian government is traditionally neutral in affairs of ethnic and regional self-determination of its citizens, so They cannot recognize identity that does not exist. For example, B92 for the same event says that [27] Ilijesku je istakao značaj koji za međusobne odnose dve države imaju "srpska manjina u Rumuniji i rumunska u Banatu i vlaška u Timočkoj krajini"., Iliescu stressed the importance of [...] Serbian minority in Romania, Romanian in Banat and Vlachs in Timok region.

Anyway, I found the original text, in Serbian: Sporazum između Savezne vlade Savezne Republike Jugoslavije i Vlade Rumunije o saradnji u oblasti zaštite nacionalnih manjina. It is very general, not even mentioning "Serbs", "Romanians" or "Vlachs" by name. The only relevant articles in definition are 1 and 2, of which I'll translate relevant parts:

Article 1

According to this agreement, Romanian national minority in Serbia, as well as Serbian in Romania, consists of persons who, under respective jurisdictions, have common ethnic background, language, and traditions as the majority group of the other signatory [state].

Article 2

Membership in a national minority is based on free personal choice. Personal choice, as well as exercising the rights associated with that choice, shall not cause any negative consequences. Members of an ethnic minority will enjoy equal treatment [...]. Any discrimination on the basis of membership to national minority is banned.

Finally, here [28] is a neutral, thorough commentary of the agreement (unfortunately, some pages are missing), which do not support the reading of Adevărul, and this article. In sum, The agreement is purposefully left ambiguous on the Vlach/Romanian identity issue, because it is everyone's personal choice and human right.

I could go on and on with the analysis, sentence by sentence. I thought we concluded that the initiative of 15 European Council members is worthless? No such user (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Your conclusion that this is POV pushing is based sorely on politics. And that is tricky, because politics goes both ways.. What about demographics data? Language? Religion? Also since you removed that formulation, what is the purpose of the NPOV tag now?Adrian (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Politics goes both ways, but in this article politics go chiefly one way, which is not WP:NPOV. Again, nobody denies that Vlachs are related to Romanians, and that their language is a dialect of Romanian. The catch is, they identify primarily as Vlachs, secondly as Serbians, and only remotely third with Romanians from Romania. As I demonstrated above, as well as Vladimir, this article cherry-picks the quotes from Romanian press and pro-Romanian factions within Serbia to delve into conclusion that they are actually Romanians whose identity and language is oppressed. And you keep on reverting attempts to neutralize the language. Without going into deeper analysis, the following sentences are not neutral, do not represent the whole truth, and overall, demonstrate a skewed view towards the issue. If you do not see the problem in their formulation, then I'm afraid that your biases are significant:

• The name they identify with Rumâni din Sârbie in fact means Romanians from Serbia.
• Yugoslav authorities agreed to recognize the Romanian identity of the Vlach population in Central Serbia,[7][dubious – discuss] but the agreement wasn't applied
• In April 2005, 23 deputies from the Council of Europe protested against Serbia's treatment of this population. [We've been there already.]
• The Senate of Romania postponed the ratification of the Serbia`s membership candidate to the European Union until the legal status and minority right of the Romanian(Vlach) population in Serbia is solved [might be true, but it wasn't reported in Serbian media at all, so I suspect half-truth again]
• Predrag Balašević, the president of the Vlach party of Serbia accused the government of assimilation by using the national Vlach organization [likely true, but taken out of context. Who are VPS anyway?]
• The origins of the Vlachs, who live in northeastern Central Serbia, are not well known to most Vlachs, principally because the subject is forbidden to be taught in Serbian schools
• As Daco-Romanian-speakers, the Vlachs have a connection to the Roman heritage in Serbia.
• Dushan’s prohibition[25] of a land-bound serf (i.e., Serb man) from marrying a then Vlach (today Romanian) woman testifies to the desire of the agriculturalists to ease their oppression by returning to the relatively freer life led by the Vlachs (Romanian).
• By some Romanian and Western European organizations, in eastern Serbia live around 250,000 - 400,000[32][33] people of Romanian(vlach) origin
• Despite their recognition as a separate ethnic group by the Serbian government, Vlachs are cognate to Romanians in the cultural and linguistic sense. [True enough. But why the word "despite"?! How is that recognition in contradition with cognate?)
• In some notes of the government of Serbia, officials recognise that "certainly members of this population have similar characteristics with Romanians, and the language and folklore ride to their Romanian origin". The representatives of the Vlach minority sustain their Romanian origin.[39]
• the Romanian priest who in 2004 successfully defied the authorities to build the first Romanian Orthodox Church in eastern Serbia [bold mine]

I'm not saying that the situation with Vlachs is rosy, it is true that they don't have education in Vlach lanugage, are generally poor, not recognized by the Serbian Orthodox Church etc. But the article reads, under the lines, that everything would suddenly become nice and happy if everybody would just recognize their lost Romanian conscience. There is very little or nothing in the article which demonstrates the prevailing view among Vlachs: that they are part of Serbian society, who fought for Serbia along with Serbs, with their own distinct roots and traditions, but which are not particularly connected with state of Romania. Much along the lines of Greek Arvanites (although not assimilated to the same amount). No such user (talk) 11:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I have a feeling that you are picking references, and no matter that are a 90% of them using the Vlach(Romanian) formulation, you chose to remove it, just to be more neutral? I don`t see it that way. Verifiability is the most important thing on wikipedia, and for all data that you changed exist valid sources, especially for the Vlach(Romanian) or Romanian(Vlach) formulation. As for your questions, I will try to answer them all and suggest a solution. I will answer as you ordered them.

• Rumâni din Sârbie - what is the problem here? I speak Romanian, (Vlach), or whatever you choose to call it, and the literal translation of this sentence is Romanians from Serbia. You are free to consult to any other user that talks Romanian to translate it for you if you wish.
• I don`t understand what is dubious here ? (Yugoslav authorities agreed to recognize the Romanian identity of the Vlach population in Central Serbia,[7][dubious – discuss] but the agreement wasn't applied) - can you please be more specific at this problem?
• About the Predrags statement, I don`t know if it is true or not, (nor do I care) but it is documented and there is a valid reference for this statement. Sources from newspapers and media are considered solid on wikipedia.
• The origins of the Vlachs, who live in northeastern Central Serbia, are not well known to most Vlachs, principally because the subject is forbidden to be taught in Serbian schools this sentance may be considered as a POV and if it raises problems, it should be removed of course.
• As Daco-Romanian-speakers, the Vlachs have a connection to the Roman heritage in Serbia. This sentence is dubious too, I agree with you on this points.
• Dushan’s prohibition - What is wrong with that?
• By some Romanian and Western European organizations, in eastern Serbia live around 250,000 - 400,000[32][33] people of Romanian(vlach) origin - The first source is dead now, but the second states clearlt by who [29]
• Simply remove the word despite.
• the Romanian priest who in 2004 successfully defied the authorities to build the first Romanian Orthodox Church in eastern Serbia [bold mine] - I don`t understand this problem, please be more specific what is the problem here.

Adrian (talk) 11:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Adrian, I assume your good faith, but if you don't see the problems, then I seriously question your neutrality. I've already dealt with the proclaimed position of Yugoslav government above, and disprove the sentence in question. Now, let us accept that the questionable statements were really made by Predrag, by the 23 PMs, by unnamed Romanian and Western organizations, etc. Now, the issue is: who the heck is Predrag and why is Vlach party in Serbia so important to be cited in this article? Why is opinion of 23 Romanian and Moldovan PMs important? (I've discussed that above, one year ago). What are those organizations that are unnamed? Please see WP:UNDUE, or WP:ITSSOURCED. Simply put: views which advocate "Romanian identity" and "suppression" of Vlachs are overrepresented, opposing views are underrepresented. And we shouldn't build the article on partisan souces anyway, but on neutral sources. And they, luckily, exist.

Let us use the COE report as the middle ground, even though it does contain a lot of personal impressions of the "raporteur", but then, let us not forget what is also written there, e.g. about the position of Romania:

The position of the Romanian authorities in this respect is very clear-cut, President Basescu having moreover described the division as an “error” and called upon the two associations to unite. He considers that Romania can offer its protection to the Romanian ethnic minority and thus to the Vlachs as well.

of Serbia:

81. The Serbian government for its part wishes to be as non-committal as possible on this issue. Some of the rapporteur’s contacts told him of their convictions that it is altogether in the interests of the Serbian authorities for the Romanian ethnic minority to remain divided so that it keeps smaller proportions,[...]

82. However, the rapporteur could not find any real interference by the authorities regarding this question. He does not consider abusive the conditions for registering an independent national council for the Vlach minority. At his explicit request during his meetings on the spot, the Serbian authorities assured the rapporteur that they would not object to the Vlachs’ joining with the Romanians under the umbrella of the national council for the Romanian minority if they decided to form a single large Romanian ethnic minority. The authorities do not encourage this amalgamation (that is not their role), neither do they prevent it.

83. It should also be observed that the 2002 census mentioned both the Romanian minority and the Vlach minority. The Advisory Committee saw this as a positive factor bearing witness to the authorities’ equal recognition of the identity of the two minorities within the meaning of Article 3 of the Framework Convention60.

on the division among Vlachs:

74. Some believe that the Vlachs are part and parcel of the Romanian minority, others that they are a separate minority. The fact that the Vlachs have organised themselves independently from the Romanian minority by founding their own Council for the Vlach national minority shows that some of the Vlachs do not regard themselves as belonging to the Romanian minority.

76. Language is a subject on which the different sensibilities of the ‘Romanian’ ethnic minority clash. Some consider that since the Vlach language has no written form, the only written language common to the Romanian ethnic minority is literary Romanian. They see this as evidence that the Vlachs are members of the Romanian minority. Others, however, are making attempts to codify the Vlach language in order to assert this minority’s independence and distinctiveness a little more strongly.

85. The rapporteur was struck by the divergences of viewpoint even among the members of the Vlach minority over the question whether or not they belong to the Romanian ethnic minority. This argument causes infighting coloured by contrasting political interests, so much so that some members of the minority known as ‘Vlach’, who are even among the founding member of the national council for the Romanian minority based in Vojvodina, are almost considered traitors by their peers who advocate a separate Vlach minority.

And I cannot but share his view on the church issues:

So, while the rapporteur could observe the apparent cordiality of relations between the clergy of Serbian Orthodox Church and the Romanian Orthodox Church of Serbia, he is surprised that so much latitude of decision is left to Serbian Orthodox Church, whose influence in the recognition of other churches or religious communities seems exaggerated. He is also surprised at the importance of the status evidently granted to canon law in a secular state.

...and education:

100. It has been reported that the use of the Vlach language in local administrations is not even entrenched in localities where the members of this minority represent over 15% of the population. This 15% proportion is prescribed by the national legislation [...]
101. The problem of education in the minority language is twofold: on the one hand it is hardly possible to teach in Vlach as this is an essentially oral language, and besides there is a shortage of qualified teachers to teach in Romanian.

Now, that is neutral language stating the actual situation, problems and challenges, not a pamphlet based on picking sources just from one side.No such user (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I only act based on references, nothing else. We should`t "balance" this article just because 90% of references states one thing and the other 10% another - so we need to overemphasize the other 10% or to remove 80% of others so that there are equal. To create this artificial neutrality like this (just so that the other side appears - when in reality the other side doesn`t really exist that much, except in politics) is not all right. Please don`t say that Predrag`s statement is questionable, it has a valid reference and by that there is nothing strange there. How can it not be important when Predrag`s party is the only political representative of this minority in Serbia? Representatives from Council of Europe were not only from Romania and Moldova - but also from Hungary,Georgia,Lithuania,Romania,Moldova,Estonia,Armenia,Azerbaidjan,Denmark and Bulgaria - not only Romanian representatives as you say. As for the statement for the 400 000 number, the representatives for that are named also. There is no mystery or question there. I still don`t agree with the (against references and data) removal of the word Romanian as other examples exist on wikipedia also (Secui), but in the spirit of compromise, I`l let it go for now. Adrian (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Forbidden subject"

I have read the source [30], and didn't find the basis for the following sentence:

The origins of the Vlachs, who live in northeastern Central Serbia, are not well known to most Vlachs, principally because the subject is forbidden to be taught in Serbian schools. As Daco-Romanian-speakers, the Vlachs have a connection to the Roman heritage in Serbia.

No such user (talk) 11:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Answered regarding this matter too on my answer in the section above. Shortly, it should be removed. Adrian (talk) 11:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Vlachs(Romanians) of Serbia

I believe that this designation (that was present for a long time, until recently) at this article should be reintroduced. Foreign media, Romanian media calls them Romanians(Vlachs) ([31]; [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]) and I notice that the Serbian media started to use that formulation also 1. Also Romanians(Vlachs) from Serbia call themselves as Romanians from Serbia. Since this formulation was removed on a very fast and bold notice, ignoring the references I believe with this new ref in the Serbian language can reintroduce this formulation. Also I believe that this article should be renamed as Vlachs(Romanians) of Serbia because the foreign documents, Romanian, Vlachs(Romanians) themselves and now the Serbians use this formulation as well. This article carries this name solely based on the Serbian POV while ignoring the Romanian, Vlach(Romanian) and foreign POV.Adrian (talk) 12:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Serbian media used that formulation once, when quoting a Romanian diplomat, so please do not cherry-pick the references... again. No English source that I can locate uses the dual terminology throughout [38]. No Wikipedia article that I know of uses the formulation X (Y) throughout the whole text. We pick one common name, mentioning the alternative names and nuances in the lead, then use that common name throughout. It is not just Wikipedia, it is common, sensible approach in any kind of prose: there is no need to repeat all the possible names for the subject.

Sorry, but I have the feeling that you are here only to promote the Romanian POV on the issue. You have just reverted as "vandalism" a good-faith attempt to 1) put the NPOV tag on the article 2) add a fact sourced from the website of National council of Vlachs in Serbia. I will readily agree that the edit was POV, but so is your revert.

So, what would you say (hypothetically) that we include some of the following source: http://birn.eu.com/en/1/190/9870/?tpl=30? It is from Balkan Insight, by correspondent of Beta news agency, published with the support of the British embassy in Belgrade, therefore should justify WP:RS. Let me suggest the juicy parts:

Attempts by the Romanian Orthodox Church to expand into Eastern Serbia are causing an unholy row in the region. [...] One of the few regions of Serbia devoid of ethnic divisions, its harmony is now in jeopardy [...]The cause of the discord is the Romanian Orthodox Church [...]This feeling has been growing in strength since 2002, when a Serbian monk named Justin issued a public complaint about the Romanian Church’s actions in eastern Serbia. He complained that Vlachs in eastern Serbia were facing pressure to declare themselves as ethnic Romanians in the upcoming census. “We are Serbian and not Romanian Vlachs, so I see no reason why we shouldn’t have mass in Serbian,” Vojislav Aleksandrovic, 73, said.

Do you realize know what I mean by cherry-picking references? No such user (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I am confused with your comment. Did you even checked the refs I presented? Or you just skipped them and went to directly accusing me of promoting the Romanian POV? Wikipedia uses this formulation when talking about Secui as I tried to explain to you in our previous conversation. If you wish to discuss it, please read it. Copying the part I listed the ex:

There is a very similar situation in the Hungarian community. Same formulation we have with the Secui, who also have an obscure origin and controversies but here on Wikipedia we call them Szekely(Hungarian) or simply Hungarians. Ex: ([39];[40]; [41]; [42], and many other articles in Transylvania). According to other examples on Wikipedia, and analyzing these 4 point I really don`t see a solid reason to remove or change this established formulation(in any way) for now.Adrian (talk) 11:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC) - Don`t forget that in the Secui community are also problems because some of them believe that they are not Hungarians.

Hungarians can have this formulation x(y) and Romanians can`t? Why? Also should I accuse every Hungarian editor who uses this formulation (Hungarian(Szekely) or simply Hungarian that promotes the Hungarian POV? It has no sense.

http://birn.eu.com/en/1/190/9870/?tpl=30? - this is supposed to be a reliable ref (By Sasa Trifunovic in Bor)?

If you are talking about [43] revert, it was hardly a good faith editm it is pure vandalism. This is not his first attempt to "correct" this page [44]; [45]; [46]. This user has already "neutralized" this page at the Serbian wiki[47] and removed everything that has to do with the concept of neutrality, and now he tried the English one too. He even contacted me what we can mildly say "non-friendly" way.

1) This user is a partisan editor, which can be notices from his unreferenced , problematic contributions (he removes everything he doesn`t like simply - won`t go further into this analysis because I don`t want to give importance to what this user is advocating and trying to do) and this latest of course. NPOV tag for what? After you removed the Romanian(vlach) designation in spite of the majority of references?

2) The "website of National council of Vlachs in Serbia" - which is currently run against the support of the Romanian(Vlach) community, but by various political parties, doesn`t support this info.

Another accusation that I am cherry-picking references is false. I have provided with refs and the latest in Serbian language. I believe that there are more of course, but with the lacking of counter-refs I did`t added them here.Adrian (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Also by a simple search I have found another ref in the Serbian lang that uses this formulation [48].Adrian (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is that ONLY the Serbian media, and not 100% of the time as we can notice (this ref was not quoted by the Romanian diplomat [49]), call this group Vlasi and everybody else at the majority of time uses the formulation Romanians (Vlachs) or Vlachs(Romanians). Like this, we are ignoring everything and concentrating only on the Serbian POV. Adrian (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The formulations such as Vlachs (Romanians) or Szekelys (Hungarians) are normal if we need to establish the context for a layman reader, for instance if we say that "Eastern Serbia has significant Vlach (Romanian) minority" in an article about Eastern Serbia. It is absolutely unnecessary to use such formulation in the very article about Vlachs themselves. The article Székelys does not use the formulation Szekelys (Hungarians) on even one place, let alone throughout. It says in the intro "The Székelys ... are a subgroup of the Hungarian people[1]", just as our article says that The Vlachs.. are culturally and linguistically related to Romanians."

Yes, I checked your references, and many of them use the term just as I explained. Have you checked the Google search I provided above? Besides, the general term Vlach indicates Roman-speakers of the Balkans, of which Romanians are the most significant part. However, the two concepts are not 100% synonymous, and it is irrelevant for the article about Vlachs of Serbia anyway.

Re that diff -- where is WP:AGF? That information was sourced from [50]: U međuvremenu, do zаvršetkа stаndаrdizаcije, službeni jezik Vlаhа je sаmo srpski jezik koji je inаče službeni jezik nа celoj teritoriji Republike Srbije.

"National council of Vlachs in Serbia - which is currently run against the support of the Romanian(Vlach) community" -- says you. How on Earth do you know who has the support of Romanian (Vlach) community, when you don't even live there? They are elected, for god's sake. Why does the article quote only Predrag Balašević, leader of one party of unknown provenance which suits your POV, and no leaders of another party, which, according to you "various political parties"

How is 'www.timoCpress.info "a Serbian lang source", for Christ's sake? It is Romanian/Vlach television, which also has a web page on Serbian. Of course they will use the term according to their agenda.

No, the main problem is that only you find necessary to stick into the reader's face that Vlachs are Romanians.

Yes, http://birn.eu.com/en/1/190/9870/?tpl=30? is supposed to be a reliable ref, as I explained above: published by prominent Balkan Insight, sponsored by British Embassy. The problem is that you WP:OWN this article, and you get to choose which references you like, and which ones you don't, and which users are vandals, and which are not. Actually, that article is far more balanced (had you bothered to read that), but I felt necessary to show you the same technique you keep on using: pick the paragraphs which support your POV, delete the rest, rinse, repeat. Same as your reading of COE report, above. I complained above, in the section #3. February 2012, point by point, and we got only by removing one or two most problematic formulations.

I think you fail to recognize your biases. Yes, I am saying you're abusing the references, hopefully just out of those biases. I think that you fail to critically take into account the vast body of evidence and material on the complexity of Vlach question, and just take the ones you like, then make them a majority. Unfortunately, I'm too short on time to deal with this article more metodically. No such user (talk) 16:20, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It is ok to use this formulation outside this article but not in it? I have seen this google search [51] - You searched for Vlachs Serbia -wikipedia -wiki. It would be strange to find anything with this parameters. I am not sure what should this google search prove? I have added the English sources that use this dual terminology as a proof.

I believe that you are mistaking about my attitude and good faith here. I could say the exact same things about you... but I don`t. Let`s comment on content, not on the contributor.

"National council of Vlachs in Serbia - which is currently run against the support of the Romanian(Vlach) community"' - I very rarely say something that isn`t backed by a couple of refs. I don`t care for personal opinions, not mine or other. This links show that the current national council is working against the very population they are trying to represent. Ref: [52], [53], [54], [55]. By the way, Predrag Balasevic is not a person I agree with, but the representative of the most important (and only) political organization of the Romanians(Vlachs) of Serbia. As you can notice, his party is complaining about the assimilation and the falsification of the Romanian language - not my opinion or as I say.

No, the main problem is that only you find necessary to stick into the reader's face that Vlachs are Romanians - ??? I want for the readers to stick in their face facts that are not only presented from the Serbian POV. As in every problem there are 3 sides. Forcing only one side is not right even by the wikipedia standards.

As I responded to the CEO "question", your claims are not correct. As corrected now in the article, representatives are not only from Romania and Moldova. I have a feeling that you are really cherry-picking references/data and ignore all the rest. Even when I provide a source from the respectable media Politika you dismiss it.

Saying that I "own" this article is ridiculous. No comment. As you can notice this article is edited by many editors, you included. By the same logic, you came and removed an established formulation... Do you maybe own this article? WP:NPA.

I will not respond to your potential personal attacks and false analysis what seems to be the basis for your implication here, and not the facts. Since talking to you is always a stalemate where you make bold removal of data under the pretext of neutrality ( maybe I should do the same) while I talk about it, and you choose to ignore some data. I think it is best to wait for further input from respectable editors on this matter. Adrian (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Very interesting. You call it a problem? Very POV. The fact is that the Vlachs do not go by the name "Vlachs (Romanians)", they do, however, say that their ethnonym "Romani, Rumani" means "Romans", and is identical to that of the Romanians, but they do not identify as Romanians, here is what the National Council of Vlachs says on the forced label as Romanians (in Serbian).--Zoupan (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please assume good faith WP:AGF. Very POV that I noticed the media circus? Purely political problem I call it. What is problematic about my previous comment that you needed to link it like I tried to hide it? Where is that fact? And here is what the other Vlach(Romanian) representatives say about them [56], [57], [58], [59], about that same "president" of the "nacional council". And that are only Serbian sources. As you can notice that statement is now present in the article and it is purely a political message and as such, it has the same value as Balasevic`s statements that are also included in the article, but did`t change anything. When we have a problem and 2 political sides "fight" and scientific data states something third, I call it purely political problem. It is his political duty to say this. This man did`t had a choice to say something else, who would be crazy to say something that will cost your job ? This man was not elected by the Vlach(Romanian) people to represent them but appointed by a political party. Balasevic was appointed by the Vlach political party, a political representative of this people.That is why the political component should be excluded from this problem, and if possible from this article. User:No such user talks about the freedom of expression, that is exactly the point, at this point the Vlach(Romanian) group doesn`t have this luxury but they are forced to be whatever need to preserve the political chair.

Also connected to the media circus, as you can notice Romania did`s asked for this group to be named as Romanians and nothing else (I must say that isn`t my POV either - to be precise, for this group to name Romanians and nothing else because they are not simply Romanians but a subgroup), but for the exclusion of the political component and "normal" guarantee for this minority [60] - . Before Dragojevic was the president of the council, the council had totally different data and position on this matter. Until the political party SPS inserted their representative, mister Dragojevic who isn`t a Vlach(Romanians) and who doesn`t have a clue what Vlach(Romanians) are. This person is positioned at this post as a party prey/reward after the elections and conducts the politic SPS wants. If you live in Serbia, you understand what am I talking about.

Ethnonym "Romani, Rumani" means Romanians, if it would be Romans then it would be written like that - Romans from Serbia and not Rumâni din Sârbie which by the letter u can`t be confused with Romans or Roma people. As someone who doesn`t know a word of Romanian(Vlach) language - like this president here(Radiša Dragojević), it is ridiculous to say that Romani, Rumani" means Romans. The intentional usage of letter u is to avoid confusion with other similar named groups (Rumani) like possible Romans here - and by the way all Romanians used this name "Rumanians". And let`s even say that this is the case, that means that almost any other nation isn`t what they are. Serbians are Slavs and they do not use the Serbian, but Slovenian language. If Vlachs(Romanians) from Serbia indeed think that they are some kind of Romans why aren`t they speaking the Latin language? Or Italian? Or whatever language Romans used. But their language is a variety of the Romanian language. Why aren't they Catholic but they asked for the Romanian orthodox Church? Why do they have the same cultural traditions as the Romanians from Oltenia? If for the Vlachs(Romanians) from Serbia this means some kind of Romans(Rome) then we call safely say that all Romanians are Romans because they use the same ethnonym "Romani, Rumani" to call themself. Also since this group first time appeared as something else than Romanians in 1953 [61] I doubt that they have a closer connection to any other ethnic group than to the one they used to declare them self.Adrian (talk) 07:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The Google search for [62] means the following: take the English term "Vlachs", reduce it only to Serbian ones (since it is generally much wider), and do not look at wikipedia mirrors. Now, examine these which seem reliable, and check how many use the formulation "Vlachs/Romanians" throughout. I would say that very few or none does.

Apparently, if you use biased search for "vlachs/romanians of serbia", as you did [63], you will certainly get only the results which use that term, no? How you can sincerely offer that as a formulation, without checking and counting sources that do NOT use it??? Similarly, by "cherry-picking", I mean that you take one text from Politika, and one from www.timocpress.info, and present it as the ultimate proof that even in Serbian language Vlachs have come to be equated to Romanians. Now, let's use an unbiased search at Politika, e.g. http://www.google.rs/search?q=Vlasi+-Azem+site%3Apolitika.rs, and see what we get:

• Dragojević: Vlasi nisu Rumuni [64]
• Predstavnici rumunske države ne bi trebalo da nameću Vlasima rumunski nacionalni identitet, smatraju u Ministarstvu za ljudska i manjinska prava [65]
• Tu je ama baš sve jednom zauvek odlučeno: Vlasima je domovinska matica Srbija. Što bi Rumuni kazali: Matca de Patrie! [66]
• Profesor istorije Vojislav Stojanović predstavio knjigu u Kladovu i odmah izazvao reagovanje okoline... Između Vlaha i Rumuna, [...] ne može se staviti znak jednakosti [67]

As for Timocpress.info, their own impressum says that "Timoc Press is supported by the Department for Romanians abroad."

IN A NUTSHELL: I am not proposing that we use "Serbian" sources uncritically (e.g. those from Politika, which favor the "Vlach are autochtonous" position). But I do have an issue that you seem to use "Romanian" sources uncritically (e.g. those from Romanian press, which favor the "Vlachs=Romanians" position). There is plenty of neutral sources to be used, and even critical reading of biased sources can produce a neutral article.

Yes, there is a political circus, I agree. But we should describe that circus, not take side in it: why do we quote Balašević, president of Vlach Party (of unknown electoral support), and not quote Dragojević, president of the Council, who is at least elected (in a dubious process, I agree)? No such user (talk) 09:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Please avoid your personal opinions. I dodn`t understand how can a google search be biased now? I guess everything about me is biased - according to you? Really, stop with this approach and assume some good faith.I am not here to hurt this page, nor do I think you are. How on earth should I search on google one thing to find another??? Ex: I am looking for gold, by your logic (and to be neutral of course), I should search for silver and get gold???? How on earth could that be possible. How to check sources that are not using this formulation because in Serbian, this is the formulation that is being used. How to distinguish the Serbian sources and other? Google search isn`t valid with the parametres "Vlachs of Serbia" or simply "Vlachs" because there are a dozen of Serbian documents(Serbians use this formulation only) and because Vlachs is a blanket term that isn`t being used only for Romanians or Vlach(Romanians) of Serbia. Vlachs are in Croatia also, in Macedonia. It is almost impossible to distinguish with the parameters "Vlachs" which results are about Vlach(Romanians), which of them are in Serbian language and which of them are talking about the blanket term Vlachs. Without any analysis of this problem, again you jumped to call me biased even for my google search.

I am not suggesting Romanian sources either, the sources I presented are from foreign, non-Romanian, non-Serbian authors. Authors like Jean W. Sedlar, Steven L. Danver and Hugh Poulton that use this formulation I suggested. You assume that I have some hidden agenda just because I found some neutral authors that use this formulation? Also you can notice that Dragojević`s statement is present in the article. Aslo when talking about Dragojevic statement please note this refs too: [68], [69] that state again that his president is working against the Vlach(Romanian) population and by this actions even provoked them. All organisations of this minority is against this nacional council and mister Dragojevic. I quote(In Serbian): S druge strane, list Danas je objavio pismo koje su potpisali Vlaška demokratska stranka Srbije, Ariadnae Filum - Društvo za kulturu Vlaha - Rumuna Srbije, Društvo Rumuna - Vlaha „Trajan“, Društvo za kulturu, jezik i religiju Vlaha - Rumuna Pomoravlja, Udruženje za tradiciju i kulturu Vlaha „Dunav“, Centar za ruralni razvoj - Vlaška kulturna inicijativa Srbija. - as you can notice all cultural organisation signed this statement. Adrian (talk) 09:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Talking about search parameters, let's see how relevant are search results of Iadrian's parameter "vlachs/romanians of serbia". The first source he linked in this section talks about the Vlachs in Macedonia. The second and the third links talk about the Romanians in general, using the term "Vlachs (Romanians)" to indicate that these two words are synonyms. The fourth link is about some fights of the Pechenegs and their allies against Byzantium in the 11th century. (I can't comment the Romanian links there.) Iadrian keeps claiming that the Székelys are called "Szekelys (Hungarians)" on wikipedia. This is extremely strange, as that term is not even once used in the article about them, and what is even more strange, that term is not at all used in any of those four wikipedia articles he linked. (Now, what to think about that?)

The Vlachs of Serbia are by no means an often subject of English-language sources, but still one can find a number of them. In most of them, they are simply referred to as Vlachs (or Vlachs in Serbia, or Vlachs of Serbia): [70] by Laurence Mitchell; [71] by Simon Broughton, Mark Ellingham, and Richard Trillo; [72] by Linda Welters; [73] by Geert-Hinrich Ahrens; [74] by David Levinson; [75] by Anne Kindersley; etc. To add to these a book in English written by the most prominent ethnographer of the Vlachs of Serbia, Paun Durlić, who himself is a Vlach: [76].

That all shows the absurdity of Iadrian's proposal that the designation for this ethnic group should be "Vlachs (Romanians) of Serbia", instead of the clear and simple name "Vlachs of Serbia". It is pointless to continue this discussion. Vladimir (talk) 17:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Acually there are several sources that use this formulation. Sources like: ([77]; [78], [79], [80], [81], [82], [83]). As I explained in my previous comment, google search is tricky for this problem because the term "Vlach" is a blanket term for all romanized people in the Balkans, including Romanians and Vlach(Romanians) from Serbian. Anyhow this discussion is closed for now.

Refs for the usage of Szekely Hungarian formulation: [84];[85];[86];[87];[88];[89]; [90]; [91]; [92];[93]. There are counteless examples of this formulation therefore this discussion isn`t anything strange nor absurd at all.Adrian (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I also found some data about the Serbinization of the Romanian Vlachs. I am surprised that this user did`t represent this data. [94]. Links to the data : [95]; [96]; [97]; [98]. Adrian (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

• Acually there are several sources that use this formulation. Sources like... Why are you posting these links again? I commented them in my post above, in the first paragraph, and I explained the context in which that formulation is used.
• As I explained in my previous comment, google search is tricky for this problem because the term "Vlach" is a blanket term for all romanized people in the Balkans, including Romanians and Vlach(Romanians) from Serbian. Those 7 links that I provided above in the second paragraph, talk exclusively about the Vlachs of Serbia, and not about all romanized people in the Balkans in general.
• Refs for the usage of Szekely Hungarian formulation... This is supposed to be a response to my comment above in the first paragraph, which I will repeat here: Iadrian keeps claiming that the Székelys are called "Szekelys (Hungarians)" on wikipedia. This is extremely strange, as that term is not even once used in the article about them, and what is even more strange, that term is not at all used in any of those four wikipedia articles he linked. Now, do you really not distinguish between "Szekely Hungarians" and "Szekelys (Hungarians)"?? Because your proposal "Vlachs (Romanians)" corresponds with a hypothetical formulation "Szekelys (Hungarians)", and does not correspond with the perfectly correct formulation "Szekely Hungarians". It looks like you can't discern these "nuances". As I said, it is pointless to continue this discussion. Vladimir (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to avoid you negative connotation... I repeated them because you ignored them totally and continued to talk(how do you intend to talk when you ignore my arguments? - but I acknowledged yours) and jump directly to what you choose to ignore. Dismissing my sources because you claim they are used in a special context is not valid. That are books, not some lost guy notes, and they are exactly to the point, they are using the Vlach(Romanian) formulation.

Refs for the usage of Szekely Hungarian formulation: [99];[100];[101];[102];[103];[104]; [105]; [106]; [107] - Please check this links. - Some of them uses the Szekely Hungarian or Hungarian Szekely formulation, but there are countless examples of the Szekely(Hungarian) formulation as well. But if you are so keen on this formulation, I have no objection using any of this formulations that we can see at the Szekely people. Vlach Romanian, Romanian Vlach, Vlach(Romanians) or Romanians(Vlachs) ,as you can see there are many examples of this usage and any of them would improve this article.

Anyhow as we can all notice, we don`t have a consensus on my proposal therefore this is closed for now. I additionally responded to your comments not in the interest to start all over but to sustain everything I said is valid and well documented. I suggest to WP:LETGO or WP:STICK for now. Also you could check this link also where it states about the Vlachs(Romanians) of Serbia.[108]

On a different subject, removing a source just because it is a Romanian media is very biased. You removed it just because it is a Romanian media. I guess Serbian media is allright? Per WP:RS, all respectable media are reliable sources and Adavarul is a respectable media, not some extremist newspaper or similar. One thing is when some media writes an article about a history of Vlachs(Romanians) of Serbia and by that citing someone, but in this case Adavarul is simply reporting on current events- that can`t be taken unreliable under any context.Adrian (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that doesn't count as guideline: "When given the choice on the 2002 Romanian census between ethnically identifying as Székely or as Hungarian, the overwhelming majority of Székely chose the latter. Only 532 persons declared themselves as ethnic Székely." - the situation between Vlachs and Romanians is completely opposite.--Zoupan 11:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Literal translation of the Rumâni din Sârbie name

About this, "letter by letter" translation of this name(Rumâni din Sârbie) is Romanians from Serbia. That is mentioned in the text that was removed by an IP user first. If you wish you can ask for an uninvolved editor who knows Romanian to translate it for you. Adrian (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)