Talk:Aromanians/Archive 1

untitled
The Identity Crisis section is almost as big a mess as this talk page. Besides the conflicting and sometimes contradictory information that has resulted from the numerous edit wars documented on this page, it is rife with poor grammar. I suspect it is not the product of a native speaker of the English language. Someone please do something!71.106.97.72 23:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This was added in a recent version to replace a previous section:

"In Greece, their number is estimated to be approximately 200,000 and they are highly respected by all members of the Greek society, being considered to be Latin-speaking Greeks, while their national pride and patriotism is exactly the same with their Greek-speaking counterparts, judging from their centuries old customs, music and culture. Aromanians are also regarded as ethniki evergete (national benefactors in Greek) by their fellow countrymen, an honorable title for just a small portion of the Greek nation. Wealthy Greeks of Aromanian descent, who had made mythical fortunes overseas, contributed decisively to the construction and further economic aid of public buildings in the new-found Greek state of the 19th century. These deeds include the construction of the Ethniko Metsovio Polytechnio (National Metsovo Technical University), Metsovo being a historical town in Epirus (northwestern Greece) with one of the most famous Aromanian communities nationwide. Other important buildings among many others that were either supported economically or constructed by capitals of Aromanians are the Zappion Palace (named after Evangelos Zappas, its main contributor), the Athens Academy, the Hellenic Military Academy etc.

Great Aromanians of Greece are Konstantinos Krystallis, the most famous bucolic poet of the nation, and also Ioannis Kolettis, first prime minister of Greece and father of the ideology of the Megali Idea (Great Idea in Greek), the Greek people's motive force to liberate their enslaved brothers from Ottoman rule in the late 19th and early 20th centuries."

I doubt its validity. Please explain what the source for this is. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 21:16, 2004 Sep 6 (UTC)


 * It's true. The only part I am unable to verify is the population estimate. Which part of the excerpt do you question? Etz Haim 5 July 2005 00:27 (UTC)


 * There have been no Aromanians ever in Serbia - excluding a small number of emigrants (or more precisely migrant workers) in the second half of the 19th century. In Bulgaria there were 2,000-3,000 of them in Pirin Macedonia and the majority of them eventually resettled in Romania during the 1920s and 30s. As regards the estimated number of them - 1.0 to 2.0 mln, that is clearly a joke. VMORO 15:27, September 2, 2005 (UTC)~

As to whether there are Vlachs in Greece or not, there certaintly are. My grandfather is from Greek Macedonia and calls himself a "Vlaxos," although also identifying himself as 100% Greek. He grew up speaking a language that was half greek half latin, although he hasn't used it for decades since moving to central Greece. As to whether this language is still in existence I do not know. 6.13.06

Linking to vlachs.gr
The common Wikipedia policy for books is to simply put in the ISBN code, not linking to commercial/presentation sites or online sellers. bogdan | Talk 19:48, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The website contains several useful articles on the Vlachs, including their languages. It is not a commercial site. The only reason you want it removed is because it is a Greek site.--Theathenae 19:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You can buy books from it. I don't care it's Greek: I left the ISBN code for the book in the article, although I may not agree with the POV in those books
 * (according to Amazon customer reviews:)
 * At the end of the day the feeling the book gives is one of proselytism.
 * This is a scholar who refuses to look beyond the officially sanctioned Greek sources on Vlachs.
 * bogdan | Talk 20:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A Rumanian reviewer, no doubt, one who like you refuses to look beyond the officially-sanctioned Rumanian sources on Vlachs.--Theathenae 20:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

There are book excerpts on the site http://www.vlachs.gr/uk/index-uk.htm and certainly this isn't an advertisment-link. MATIA 09:25, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
 * User:Bogdangiusca curiously chooses to quote from only one of the reviews on the page, the one closest to his anti-Greek bias. There are also a couple of glowing reviews, one from an ethnic Aromanian and even one from a non-Greek - shock! horror! - but we'll just ignore those, shall we? His almost racist disdain for Greek scholarship is summed up in this edit summary.--Theathenae 10:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Aromanians in Greece
It's absurd to remove "Greece" from the infobox. There are Aromanians living in Greece, period. bogdan 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is mandatory that the ethnic group Info Box stays: 1) Aromanians are not only "in Greece" 2) Wikipedia is not written solely from the perspective of Greece. Alexander 007 23:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * He he, I think we are going right at the heart of Greek nationalism here. Didn't you guys know? "There are no minorities in Greece"(lol). Ask most Greeks and they will tell you. Greece is for Greeks only. What? Aromanians. No, they have nothing in common with Romanians. They are Greeks too. -- I am sorry to all the Greek nationalists but on Wikipedia we try to present matters in a NPOV. At best we should have a section explaining the pro-Romanian point of view and the Greek point of view, but certainly not just the Greek one. Constantzeanu 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Is it true that Aromanian in Greece is a protected language? As far as I know, there are no protected languages in Greece except maybe Turkish.

Recent anon
Nothing new. This has been brought up before. It is by no means a simple matter. Yet the infobox is aimed at linguistic/ethnographical considerations. See the infobox in Albanians, Kurds, Azeri, etc. etc. The place for you to go first is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template. Bringing out your violin in edit summaries won't help much in this case. Alexander 007 18:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Apostolos Margaritis
I have reverted the edits of User:Apostolos Margaritis, which presented an obviously biased and selective interpretation of events. Equating mainstream Greek opinion with the actions of a small neo-Nazi group is clearly unhelpful, as is his failure to mention the recent conviction of the right-wing politicians involved in the Bletsas libel case. Unfortunately, the tone of the text was more suited to the rhetoric of the Roman Legion than to a Wikipedia article.--Theathenae 11:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Latinus 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, 100 Greek extremists rioting WITHOUT the Greek authorities lifting a finger or the Greek media bothering to report this, should be translated by 'Greek authorities are condoning the actions of the Hellenic patriots'. Revert what you wish: I'll insert this fragment yet again under my user name or a zillion other names availableApostolos Margaritis


 * Sockpuppetry is not allowed and all your sockpuppets will be blocked and reverted. Please co-operate so that a mutually acceptable solution can be found. I have been thinking of writing about Blestsas, but it's hard to find neutral sources - only the law reports seem to have something approximating NPOV: . Latinus 13:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ethnic slurs are not allowed and curiously enough, your IP addresses are not school or college IP addresses. I am seeking a NPOV solution here - I'm not happy with either version. Please co-operate. I appreciate that you're new here and it may take some time for you to learn the ropes, but edit warring over obvious bias will get us nowhere. Latinus 13:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I really am not happy with the vast majority of User:Apostolos Margaritis's additions. That bit about Romanian being reluctant to get involved because of Greece's veto power is pure guesswork; the Romanian government would never admit anything like that. With regards to the anti Greek point of view from which the rest of his additions are written, seems IMO to contravene WP:NPOV. I'd be happy to keep his additional information if it were written in an more encyclopaedic style and even implied that it were written from an objective point of view. Latinus 12:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that a lot of the edits' tone is not NPOV. However, a lot of the information is valuable, particularly the part on education in Aromanian in Albania, and should therefore be kept. The part on Romania's involvement is a bit of guesswork and also quite implausible. Romania is joining the EU in less than a year, and Greece was one of the first countries to ratify the accession treaty (and on the whole Greek-Romanian relations are very good). So, the prospect of Greece vetoing Romania's accession is actually impossible. All it could do is vote against accession in 2007, so that the safeguard clause can be triggered and accession can be delayed to 2008. But Greece does not have veto power in the Council of the EU - a majority of states have to vote "no" to 2007. Anyway, this type of thing, due to a fairly minor issue, is remote and unlikely to occur, to say the least. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

'''Guesswork? Not really!''' The Vlachs of Greece are a taboo issue right now as the article of the official Romanian Global News ( see http://www.rgnpress.ro/content/view/10349) clearly points out. RGN als o gives an indirect hint of the things about to come (in less that a year time). I say: you'd better get accustomed. The idea that the Romanians lost interest in the Vlachs of Greece is pure Greek wishful thinking. It's just a temporary stance and noone will and can prevent the Romanians to re-establish their educational work among the Vlachs of Greece that started way back in the 186o's. There's already talk about prominent pro-Romanian Vlachs of Greece to be elected in the European Parliament as MEP-s on the lists in Romania Apostolos Margaritis

"Reamintim ca in Grecia traiesc peste 800.000 de aromani care nu sunt recunoscuti ca minoritate nationala, subiectul fiind unul tabu pentru Romania cel putin pana la integrarea in Uniunea Europeana."

We recall that in Greece there live over 800,000 Aromanians which are not recognised as a national minority, the subject being a taboo for Romania until integration into the European Union

My Romanian is pretty crap, but over 800,000? I don't think we can take this source seriously... - FrancisTyers 14:52, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Protected language
Hi. I've noticed that there seems to be factual dispute here between whether or not Aromanian is a protected language in Greece. Are there any sources for this? From what I know - and this may not be 100% correct - Greece does not recognise any ethnic minorities or any minority languages (in the same way, that, say Romania or Hungary do). There may be a structure for protected languages at national level, however, similar to the way that Sweden has Romany and Yiddish as "historical minority languages" at national level (but in reality there is no administrative recognition). Is this the case in Greece? Thanks, Ronline ✉ 22:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is Turkish in Thrace. It is taught in the minority's schools, there is mass media in Turkish, there are Turkish interpreters at government agencies (police stations, courts etc) - you know, the whole nine yards. I'm afraid though; that there are no other languages in Greece with such facilities and promotion. As far as I know, Aromanian is not officially recognised as a protected language (as the article claims) or as anything else. This is what the Bletsas case was about. Bletsas was claiming that there are people in northern Greece who speak Aromanian (he also mentioned Slavic (Macedonian), Pomak (Bulgarian) and Arvanitika), and a right-wing MP sued him for publishing false information. Bletsas was acquitted in the end though. Presumably, this means that the Greek authorities are aware of the presence of Aromanian, but, as far as I know, it has received no recognition. Latinus 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * OK - I think this should be reflected in the article. I don't mean this in a bad way, but the whole Bletsas case, from what I hear about it, is quite worrying. Is minority rights not really an issue in Greece (I mean, it's an issue nearly everywhere else in Europe, and nearly all EU countries do have quite solid minority rights legislation). [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 06:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Come on Ronline! Let's not beat about the bush. The Greeks do not admit that there are other natives in Greece other than they themselves. They only recognise the religious Muslim minority but not the Turks or the Pomaks as such and under the respective names. There are only Greeks in Greece and some recently arrived immigrants: aliens with uncertain status. This attitude really is bordering the absurdity not to say the sheer idiocy but then..Afta ine Eladha mas. What can we do really? Apostolos Margaritis 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

some aromanian

AROMANIAN SONGS

AUSLU CARVANAR (de Belimace)

O lai murgu, frate bun, Pana tora fum deadun; De-aua s-ninte nu va s-him, C-amandoil'i ausim.

Auseaticlu, e greu O lai murgu, frate-a meu; Tute oasile mi dor Si-aduchescu ca va-s mor.

Aide, murgu, aide, frate, Aide s-voi, lilice toate, Ai s-nirdzem tu eta-alanta, Si n-aflam na bana alta.

does it looks anything like greek?

Aromanian proverbs:

How can you recognize a bird ? By the way it sings and How can you recognize a boor ? By the way he speaks; For He is as civil as a hedge and will skin your face A boor Never knows his place As How can a sheperd tell a good thing from a bad one? An uncouth man is like wood unplaned, You suddenly find He raps out something at you like a whack Saying: Don't think of what I was, better look at what I am. And Don't look at the coat, see what's under it, And don't scurb every pig you see or you won't long be clean yourself But Beware of a gipsy turned a Turk or of a boor turned a Greek Beware of God's wrath, of a king's ire and a boor's squeal.

The picture of Apostol Margarit
I inserted a rare engraving (or a portrait if you wish) depicting Apostol Margarit, the first inspector of the Romanian schools in Macedonia and Epirus and a member of the Romanian Academy. Theathenae is not happy with it and keeps DELETING it. All right then, let's play this silly cat and mouse game. I one think that the Avdela born Margarit is a representative enough personality, a symbol of the pro-Romanian Vlachdom if you wish. Some Greeks may be still in denial about Margarit but fortunately we are around here too and have, now and then, time on our hands. See who will prevail eventually. Apostolos Margaritis 17:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:NOR
The parts about a poll that never took place 100 years ago and the (insulting) comments about president Papoulias are original research, at best. talk to +MATIA 20:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, hopefully a day will come, in the not so distant future when the ethnico-linguistic minorities of Greece will have their say as to their wish or dislike of being a part of the so-called 'Eladha' 193.122.47.130 19:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually your predictions ARE correct. This thing IS happening right now. See http://cm.greekhelsinki.gr/index.php?sec=194&cid=1741 Apostolos Margaritis 10:28, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The representatives of ABTTF were in Strasbourg as the first meeeting of the Parlimentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) took place between the dates 23 – 28 January 2006. They conveyed the problems of Western Thrace Turkish minority in Greece to 46 representatives of European countries in the European Parliement and the political officers.

Meeting with Greek Delegation

Representatives of ABTTF visited Greek delegation during their visit to PACE. They met Elsa Papadimitriou, chairman of the Greek delegation and Charalambos Manessis, diplomat. They conveyed the problems of the Western Thrace Turkish minority in Greece to the Greek parliamentarians. They demanded for the reimbursement citizenship and acceptance the cultural – ethnic identity of the other minorities like Macedonian, Wallachian and Albanian together with Turkish minority.

"Greco-Aromanian cultural name"

 * The Greco-Aromanian cultural, self-descriptive name Arnanji derives from "Romanus cives", which possibly originates from the Edictum Antoninianum.

This paragraph is not very clear: What is this "Arnanji"? And why Greco-Aromanian? Also, originating anything to the Edictum Antoninianum is more like a wild speculation, rather than a fact. bogdan 21:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Greco-Aromanian refers to the hellenised Aromanians; it's simple english, not a self-descriptive name used by Aromanians. I got the information on Arnanji from an Aromanian website, which doesn't have have a reason to lie. After all it says possibly, it never states it as a fact. You can remove it if you want, I just don't see the reason. Miskin 13:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Origins
Theathenae, stop vandalazing the article. Greier 18:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Greier, I understand that have put a lot of work into your version, I think certain aspects of it are unacceptable. Besides the fact that it is dominated by POV pushing, you conveniently and skillfully "forget" to mention the fact that the Aromanians in Greece want to have nothing to do with Romania and the Romanians; is not even mentioned and the fact that they view themselves as an integral part of Greek society and calling them a "minority" is highly offensive, but you go well beyond that. You are telling them that they are an ethnic group and are not Greeks. I think you are aware of the reaction of the Vlach cultural leadership the last time someone (Bletsas) tried that. Aside from fixing these features of your version, I think a little restructuring would be in order, perhaps move all the parts of the "Identity Crisis" section on the topic of Aromanian history and move them to a "History" section. --Telex 19:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It cleary says: IDENTITY CRISIS! Those who consier themselves greeks, then they are greeks. Not Aromanians. It does not have anything to do with Romanian or identifing with Romania. It has to do with indetifing as Aromanians. And this the article is all about. About Aromanians. About Aromanian culture, history, language. Not about Greeks. For those Aromanians that think they are Greeks, I tell them that they are not Aromanians, but they are what they ARE FREE TO BE: that is GREEKS! NOT AROMANIANS!!!. Aromanians are those who protect the Aromanian identity and language. It has nothing to do with identifing with Romanians or not. That is what Panayote Elias Dimitras also sayd. It sayd that Aromanians can be free to consider themselves Greek citizens of Aromanian ethinicity. But Greece and Greeks, don`t agree, and as the article shows, never agreed with the fact that despite the fact that Aromanians are patriotic, they are something different from the Greeks. What`s with all these theories, about their origin, about how they are Greeks that happen to speak latin, etc.? And they want to turn them into Greeks. Well, it`s basic logic: if you consider yourself a Greek, than you are a Greek. May you have Aromanian, Mongol or Somalese blood. But if you do, then pardon me: what right do you have to call yourself Aromanian? This article is not for these so called "Aromanians". This is for the Aromanians who consider themselves: A - RO - MA - NI - ANS! not Greeks, not "Latin speaking Greeks", not nothing, just Aromanians, with their own history, language, identity, culture, etc, different than that of Greeks, Romanians, Albanians, Chinese, Mexicans, etc. greier 19:17, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * calling them a "minority" is highly offensive How come they feel offensed about being called a minority? arent they one? don`t they have a separate language, culture, history than that of the majority? isn`t that the definition of a minority? Was this always the same? Did Aromanians always consider themselves as an integral part of Greek society? That`s what the article refers. About how a people so different were brainwashed. Hence the title: IDENTITY CRISIS. It`s about their history in relation with what they nowdays thin they are, that is, it`s a history about the relation they had with the Greeks. How come these hellenist, who from the 9th century to the middle of the 20th century, not only had a separate identity, language, culture, history than that of the greeks, are now so brainwashed. But it`s not enough they are brainwashed. They continue to call themselves Aromanians, with an incredible disresprect for the Aromanians who died (yes, DIED), and who still fight for their identity. The real Aromanians. This article is for people like Bletsas. greier 19:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you are aware of the reaction of the Vlach cultural leadership the last time someone (Bletsas) tried that. - Please feel free to add this event to the article, about how Greeks (and possibly Romanians, but this is way harder to prove than is with Greeks) managed to divide the Aromanians into two.
 * Aside from fixing these features of your version, I think a little restructuring would be in order, perhaps move all the parts of the "Identity Crisis" section on the topic of Aromanian history and move them to a "History" section. - These parts make a small size from the total article, and in plus, if they were moved, the article would lose from it`s clarity: that is, the Aromanian history in relation to what has caused their identity crisis, divisions, problems, assimilations, etc. greier 20:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Greier, if this article is about the Aromanians according to your POVish definition of the word (id est: not Greeks) then the first thing u should do, is to reduce their numbers in a couple of dozens and to exclude all these prominents (Kolettis, Rigas, etc) who were (according to your definition of the word) nothing but Greeks. Secondly, about your definition on 'minority': do u have idea about the aromanian culture and history? is that different from the one of the Greeks? the only difference that we have from the rest of the Greeks is the 2nd mother tangue!(yes, both aromanian and greek are mother tangus for us, no matter if it is hard for u to understand it...). it was the pro-romanian propaganda of the late 19th century that tried to brainwash the aromanians (but as u probably know, it failed). honestly, as an aromanian, i never had nor saw any aromanian having a sort of identity crisis. maybe people like Bletsas and the nazi supporters of WWII (see Principality of Pindus) see such a crisis. --Hectorian 01:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems that this article is creating controversy once again, and to be honest I think the controversy arises from the fact that the Greek concept of ethnicity and nationality is quite different to that of the rest of Europe. In Romania, Italy, Spain, Germany and most of the other countries in Europe, there is this key idea of minority rights when discussing cultural identity. This doesn't mean that national identity is harmed in any way. For example, in Germany, many Sorbs consider themselves German alongside their Sorbian ethnicity, while in Romania, ethnic Roma often see themselves as Romanian too. This is because ethnicity and citizenship/nationality are different. However, ethnic identity is also important: Roma from Romania see themselves as ethnic Roma, even if they are Romanian nationals. In Spain, Basques see themselves as Basques, even if they may also see themselves as Spanish nationals. This concept is quite simple (even simplistic, in today's age of transculturation): each person is both a citizen of a state and a member of a given ethnicity.


 * In Greece, this concept seems to different, and it is this concept that a lot of us from the rest of Europe can't seem to understand. We often ask ourselves: why is it that in Greece these Aromanians, who are clearly another ethnic group under most definitions, why is it that they so actively oppose being classified as a separate grouping? In the rest of Europe, being classified as a separate ethnic group is in nearly all cases a source of pride, and governments encourage this through minority rights legislation. Now, I'm not trying to blame Greece in any way, but it would be great if we could get to know each other better, because I think the majority of non-Greeks are used to the mainstream European concept/notion of minority rights, and hence consider it quite natural that the Aromanians, even only as a linguistic minority, should be considered separate from other Greek nationals. Why is it that they do not wish to be perceived as such? My current explanation is that, unlike in other EU countries, Greece is still very much a nation-state, and it is frowned upon for people to see themselves as being non-Greek - there is still some discrimination in that way. This also explains, for example, Greece fails to recognise any ethnic minority, and why it still has an established church (the Greek Orthodox Church), something which for us in secular Europe is quite hard to understand.


 * One reason why the "Aromanians are Greeks" argument does not really make sense to me is because Aromanians live in countries other than Greece, and there they do not proclaim a Hellenic identity. If Aromanians considered themselves Greeks in Greece, then by extension their culture is virtually Greek, and thus they should also see themselves as mainly Greek in the Republic of Macedonia, or in Albania. In these countries, which have a view of minority rights more in line with the rest of Europe (and I don't mean that in a negative way), Aromanians are recognised as an ethnic minority, and they have language rights, seats in parliament, etc, and they do not actively oppose that. They do not plead to be considered either Greek or Macedonian, for example. So I ask again: why is it that the Greek case is different? Is it not because of Greek minority policy and overall concept/ideology regarding minorities? Why is minority even an insult in Greece at all? In Romania, for example, minority is used as a badge of pride by Hungarians, Roma, Ukrainians and even Greeks. The case is similar in the rest of Europe. [[Image:Flag of Europe.svg|20px]][[Image:Flag of Romania.svg|20px]] Ronline ✉ 05:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Gigi Becali
I suggest that we replace Gigi Becali from the image with Gheorghe Hagi. He's better known outside Romania and not as controversial. bogdan 18:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The numbers
I see that someone deleted the number of Aromanians I`ve put. So how would we count how many Aromanians are there? According the the speakers of Aromanian language, or based on what? Let me know... greier 13:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Disputed text

 * An example of this ultra-nationalistic stance of modern Greek society is represented by the episode of the burning of the Vlach books displayed at the May 2002 Salonica Book Fair, in 28th May 2002. Following the incitation of a known intolerant television program, an enraged Greek mob entered the premises of the Book Fair, burned and torn Vlach and other ""blasphemous books" written in Aromanian, Romanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian, while the authorities remained passive. (See the press release from the Greek Helsinki Monitor, regarding this incident.)

I think this text is POV as it gives a selective and biased interpretation of events and presents the attitude of the neo Nazi Hrisi Avgi as mainstream Greek public opinion. If you want to include this, please think of a more neutral way of saying it. --Telex 20:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed it may sound as POV but in fact it isn't. Why? I will tell you why, what about the anti-semitic actions in Germany or in France? They are reported aren't they? It's very true that is an horrible act what it happened in Greece but this can't be changed so quickly, it's a shift in mentality that is needed. --Vlachul 20:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

How can you relate an horrible anti-aromanian act in a more NPOV? It's kind of hard thing isn't it, or impossible as I would say. --Vlachul 20:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can say for a start, that it was extreme right wingers, and is not ultra-nationalistic stance of modern Greek society. I'd love to see a source for that. --Telex 20:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * How is this:
 * A notable incident was the burning of the Vlach books at the May 2002 Salonica Book Fair, on 28th May 2002. Following the incitation of a known intolerant television program, an enraged Greek mob of neo-Nazi Greek ultra-nationalists entered the premises of the Book Fair, burned and torn Vlach and other "blasphemous books" written in Aromanian, Romanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian, while according to the Greek Helsinki Monitor, the authorities remained passive press release.
 * --Telex 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not sufficient but it's a good work by the way Telex. Thanks. I propose this one:


 * An notable example of ultra-nationalistic stance of modern Greek society is represented by the episode of the burning of the Vlach books displayed at the May 2002 Salonica Book Fair, in 28th May 2002. Following the incitation of a known intolerant television program, an enraged Greek mob entered the premises of the Book Fair, burned and torn Vlach and other ""blasphemous books" written in Aromanian, Romanian, Macedonian and Bulgarian, while the authorities remained passive. (See the press release from the Greek Helsinki Monitor, regarding this incident.)

It's really hard not to say that are not ultra-nationalists, you know? since they really are, and this contradicts very much with you supposed not natiolistic views Telex, by the way. If you're not nationalist then you would accept denying them as nationalists, I don't see any problem in having this text as above. Do you accept it? --Vlachul 20:38, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You have to prove that the modern Greek society exhibits an ultra nationalist stance. The notorious Hrisi Avgi do not represent Greek society. If you include this here, then I'll be including Noua Dreaptă activities against the minorities of Romania and say that it represents an example of the ultra nationalist stance exhibited by Romanian society. --Telex 20:43, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Now you're playing like a nationalist with no color whatsoever. Do you see your shift?--Vlachul 20:45, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why exactly this is not good as it was proposed but others are good? Can you explain me? --Vlachul 20:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It said - it presents the views of neo Nazis as forming part of mainstream Greek public opinion. That incident represents Greek public opinion as much as Noua Dreaptă's views represent mainstream Romanian public opinion. --Telex 20:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What was wrong with my proposal? --Telex 20:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Hrisi Avgi has nothing to do with Aromanians. This myth that "neo-nazis" are terrorizing the minorities must stop. Mitsos 09:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I request that the reference to the Sarakatsani (here named Karakachani) should be removed from this text. They are both Greek in language, customs and national ideology, and constantly resent the fact that they are deliberately confused with Aromanians, stressing the fact that this is part of Romanian propaganda. So, although this article is locked, please do something and erase the other reference, since it referres to another people anyway.


 * What's up with this "Romanian propaganda" / "Greek propaganda" business? As far as I know Romanian ideals do not even meet, let alone colide with Greek ones. We live at different poles of the Balkans so I don't even see the point to argue. If some Aroumanians believe that they are Greek then they are Greek - end of story. Those who say that they are something else then Greek are not Greek. Let's not make a big deal out of this. Dapiks 18:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I do find it very odd  that this whole article as it stands is protected,  because  the overall tone is obviously partial, but more specifically because there   are some very clearly POV passages of the type that not generally permitted elsewhere on wikipedia, particularly the extremely POV and agenda-led definition of 'Hellenism' - in which any neutral account would  mention a "doctrine" of the   "pre-eminence" of Greek culture rather than its "superiority" - the current version, particularly with its pointed references to "superiority" and "inferiority", presents Greek nationalism as inherently different from any other nationalism in this respect  through the use of  that terminology, which is absurd, and is making a clear    political point. The emphasis  on "total  identity erasure" is also  obviously highly arguable and strongly    POV - the description  of an inexorable momentum towards assimilation is  absolutely correct, but if there was a continuing  process of complete identity erasure there would not have  been  the restricted  concessions of identity to pro-Greek vlachs that are mentioned. A couple of other clearly non-neutral passages  : the article appears to suggests that there was  no self-identifying greek population at all in  epirus    in the late 19th cenrury, which is an extraordinary assertion,    and not supported by any neutral sources anywhere ;  (and also a   hint of the rarer, more radical   agenda that is part of the background of   Greece's   paranoia and ineptitude in its dealings with minority rights issues in the north). "Greek theories about vlach origins have been advanced for political reasons" - this may or may not be true, but again,  it's incongruously an argument and aseertion rather than the basic factual narrative you usually see on wiki. Finally the passage about the word "vlach" in modern greek might perhaps also mention that the old word for idiot "vlakas", nevertheless understandably offensive for a vlach, has become totally separate from the modern word "vlahos", meaning vlach.

I get the feeling an "all or nothing" approach to protecting this article has developed, which is understandable because of a lot of  useful factual background information provided by one  faction of posters,and sometimes  incorrectly  amended by the Greek ones , but the result is definitely  not acceptable by the standards of wikipedia's NPOV policy and nearly all of its articles.

J.L.

Plagiarism
A lot of the caption Identity crisis was plagiarized from vlachophiles.net. Much as I agree with the content of the caption I do not agree with such practices. As far as I can see that page does not protect itself by invoking the copyrigt. Nevertheles I don't think it's fair to simply copy and paste texts from here to there. I suggest that caption should be edited by the one who inserted it in the first place. In the meanwhile I try to trim some of the excessive stuff Apostolos Margaritis 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Apostole, not only that the page is not copywrited, but the edits clearly didn`t contained mot a mot copying... However, I do understand what you mean: you think it`s kind of "rude" to plagiarise from there. But I did not take credit or received any benefits from the edit, and my goal was to add info, and for other users to "polish" it further. But not like what has just happened: your removal of parts of the article triggered a "hacking" frenzy by users like Hectorian. It was like a drop of blood in the ocea: small, but enough to excite the berserk sharks... I honestly think you rushed... How do you think Apostole that Wikipedia works? Do you think there are Phd profferors, scientists and poets colaborating to write articles? The articles based on other internet sites. The author of the Vlachophiles page is the Vlach-British society, and I can see why I can`t use it for a reference. And the removal of quotes (like that of Sir Arthur Evans regarding the Macedonian Question) are unneeded. But still, please bare in mind that despite that it was not copied word by word from there, I still understant what you are trying to say, and I agree that I could be held responsable of accidental plagiarisation due to poor citationing and referencesing, so I`ll remove the paragraphs which are more succeptible of disputes, and I ask you to contineue to tone down and copy-edit the whole article (besided the removal of the parts in question, you did made some good chages to the readabillity: i`ve kept what I could spot, but there ma may be parts that I missed). greier 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I too urge you to further edit the captions from the Vlachophiles page, so not to give any reason and opportunity to users like Hectorian and Khoikhoi to hack the article. greier 12:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Winnifrith
This link also says:

''The Greek response to this issue was a defiant one. Greek Vlach associations were formed. They too held congresses. I have attended such a congress, and, although treated with great courtesy, could not help noticing the phalanx of bishops and generals sitting in the front row and the way in which speaker after speaker used dubious arguments from history, folklore and philology to forge links between Greeks and Vlachs. Historical and linguistic scholarship in Greek universities follows the same lines. All Greek Vlachs and some non Greek Vlachs use a great many Greek words, the former because they are using Greek and Vlach interchangeably, the latter because Greek has been the language of education for three hundred years or more. Thus there are no philological grounds for linking Greeks with Vlachs from the earliest times any more than in parallel cases with Greek in Southern Italy and Cypriot in London, where a mixed language merely reflects a long period of contact10.''

''Towards their Greekless brethren in other Balkan countries Greek Vlachs have adopted a missionary attitude of trying to convert them to the idea that Vlachs are Greeks. In the case of some Albanians they seem to have succeeded, but this is hardly surprising as it is not only Albanian Vlachs who want to find work in Greece. etc.... ''

So it`s clear that the claim that "however by 1905 the majority of vlachs in Greece had thrown in their lot with the greek state in their quest to throw off Ottoman rule" is taken out of context. The article already says that Aromanians fought against Ottomans, having identifing as fellow Orthodox people with the greeks, albanians, bulgarians... But still, as proven, they still had separate identity and goals greier 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the article, with its references to the process of Hellenisation, also explains why the vlachs of Greece would already have identified more with the nation they found themselves in by 1905 than vlachs in several other nations. It also says : "there was a struggle in most Vlach villages between a pro-Romanian and pro-Greek party with the latter being almost universally and inevitably the larger and more powerful."
 * But saying that "however by 1905 the majority of vlachs in Greece had thrown in their lot with the greek state in their quest to throw off Ottoman rule" is redundant and irrelevant. Also, by 1905, Greece was for 70 years an independent state. greier 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I know it sounds a slanted and non-contextualised statement; however, I only put it in to counteract the equally non-contextualised statement, as it stood in the previous edit, that all vlach history in Greece was essentially a single, continual narrative of momentum towards autonomy " a long history of struggle for independence" - which is very simplistic and one-sided. The Greek/Vlach history and interaction is much more complicated than that, I would say, and Winnifrith supports that view.
 * You`ve also made some changes which I accepted, did`n you? So I would of had nothign against toning down that paragraph... And my point exaclty was that the Greek/Vlach history and interaction is much more complicated than simply saying that Vlachs are Greeks and that Vlachs had always considered themselves Greeks and that they fought for the idea of Greece and Greekness, and other such statements... greier 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, how about my additional sentence - this seems to balance things without the 1905 reference you view as out of context.
 * Fine by me greier 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes
Though i had said in my edit summary that i can give answer for EVERY SINGLE change i made, a specific user did not bother to ask... on the contrary, he did all he could to push his POV. so, i am giving the answers of my changes now, so as to have a little talk, if possible.
 * Interesting to note is that the Kara-katchani, according to one theory, are a tribe of Aromanians, completely Hellenicized sometimes in the 18th and 19th century.: the Sarakatsanoi are considered former aromanian-speakers, according to one theory. according to another one, they have always been a greek-speaking tribe, that was partially latinized (so that Aromanians came into existance).
 * Correct. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The early history of the Aromanians in Greece includes several struggles, usually for social reasons: their fights were against imperial rule, not against a nation. social conditions were their motivations. this is why de Tudela and Kekaumenos call them 'munglers' and 'bandits'.
 * Correct. However doesn`t justify the removal of other paragraphs --> kept edits + reinsterted paragraphs. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Look if the other paragraphs contradict each other. 'social unrest' is not 'national uprising'. not sure, thus leaving it as it is for the moment. --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn`t contradict with anything from the rest of the article. greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Arrived from somewhere to the north as descendants "of the Thracian tribe of Bessi" According to Kekaumenos: the point is that Kekaumenos calls them descendants of the Bessi, from Thrace, and doesn't mention dates, but anyway... perhaps someone would like to link them with the Romanians (as supposed descendants of the Dacians), but unfortunately for him, historical references do not support his POV. in addition, this is a theory only...
 * False. Correct is "Dacians and Bessi". Restored previous version. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Kekaumenos says 'Bessi' only. and even if it is not the case, he does not mention anything about the Danube... --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No, he says Dacians and Bessians. He even mentioned the war between Decebal and Trajan. And even Aromanians mention the Danube in theyr own ancient stories... greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting to note that Benjamin of Tudela did not describe them as a separate ethnic group, but as a group of rebels, who may had Jewish origins.: Benjamin of Tudela calls them descendants of the Jews (of the 10 Lost Tribes of Israel), cause they did not kill the Jews when they muggled them...! anyone can draw his/her own conclusions on weather he can be considered a reliable source. as for me, i am starting to get really suspicious in the way references have been used in this article... It seems to me that specific sentences have been taken from specific authors and historians in order to serve some POVish edits; likely, in some cases, as in the case of de Tudela, the traveller meant nothing of what he is supposed here to have meant... I'll check all of them soon.
 * False. He more than obvoiusly say that they are not greeks and that they "bear jewish names" and call the jews theyr "brothers' So no jewish origin, also no justify for the remark as a separate ethnie. Restored previous version. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * He called them 'brothers', meaning 'same blood', no? also he said they were 'mugglers' and 'bandits' right? were is the mentioned of them not been greek and not been of jewish origins? (in any case, he is not reliable). --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can`t you understand? He says that the Vlachs call the Jews they brothers. Simple as that. Please leave aside your interpretaion about "the same blood" and the "lost tribe of Israel"...

Kekeumenos: "The nation called Wallachians live in those mountains. They are as swift as hinds, and they swep down from the mountains to despoil and ravage the lands of Greece. No man can go and do battle with them, and no king can rule over them. They do not hold fast to the faith of Nazarens, but give themselves jewish names. Some people say that they are jews, and, in fact, they call the jews theyr brethren, and when they met them, tough they rob them, they refrain from killing them as they kill the Greeks(my my... and I though that Greeks are theyr brethren... ha ha haha haha) greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  For example Moscopole at that time was one of the largest cities of the Balkans, having a population of 60.000.: Moscopole was not the 2nd largest city in the Balkans. Thessaloniki had always been larger. look on historical maps and on ottoman censi. Thessaloniki was the 'vice-capital' of the Ottoman Empire.
 * Correct edit. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * They enjoyed some degree of religious and cultural autonomy within the Greek Orthodox millet: sorry, but this was the millet.
 * False. You are confusing modern meaning of Greek with the former, religious meaning of "Greek". So even if technically it was so, it causes confusion as long as the meaning of "Greek millet" is not known. Restored prev. version. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not confusing anything. i know the difference. but it was called greek millet (millet i Rum)... u can't just change its name.. --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you add in this form than you must add that "important to be mentioned that Greek meant Christian, and not an ethnie". greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting to note that Patriarch Athenagoras (born during the Ottoman rule in Epirus), was of Aromanian origins, and thus considered a Greek by descent.: Athenagoras must really be a 'pain in the a..' for those who are trying to say that the Aromanians are not Greek... i cannot explain somehow else the continuous removal of his name... well, better accept it: he was of Aromanian origins, thus considered a Greek, not only by the Greeks, but also by the Pope, and even the Turks...
 * Again, confusion. Blatantly POV pushing. Toned down. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I really can't get it... wasn't he Aromnanian? stop removing his name! u can't do anything to change it... he was aromanian and considered greek by all (and it is not my POV). show me someone who called him non-greek or even Romanian... then, u can tone it down. --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn`t remove it. greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A century later, almost 100 Romanian schools were opened, in the now Independent Greece and the Ottoman territories of Macedonia and Albania, starting as early as 1860.: u simply cannot say 'in response'... it happened one century later! For God's sake!
 * False. It was a respponse of the Vlachs from the diaspora. Early or late, it was a response. Restored prv. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * how does this seem: the Romanians annexed Northern Dobrugea. This was a response to the slavic invasions in the Balkans.? come on! be reasonable... it was not a 'response'. --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Doesn`t relate. The Aromanians, read again A-RO-MA-NI-ANS, proposed that those schools to be opened, as a response to Greecicisation. Can`t you read? "Even if the Vlachs would claim, say Hotenton origin, even in that case they ought to have the right and duty to cultivate themselves in their mother tongue, as the most appropriate way to fulfill their creed". (Mihail Boiagi, Aromanian born in Greece, the author of the first book for Aromanian pupils). greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The interest of the newly formed Romanian state towards the distant and scattered Vlachs, considered an "alter ego" of the fresh Romanian nation, was idealistic and nostalgic, not based on a hidden political agenda.: if it is not pro-romanian propaganda, i am The Highlander:). that's why i removed it.
 * Based on Brittanica. Restored. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * link? --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It was in an article from Brittanica, the eleventh edition. I`ll keep searching, as I can`t find it for the moment. There is more from Brittanica in the current version of the article, for e.g.: ''"In May 1901 a meeting took place at Abbazia, (Istria) under the auspices of the Austro-Hungarian government, between King George (of Greece) and King Charles of Rumania with a view to the conclusion of a Graeco-Rumanian understanding directed against the growth of Slavonic, and especially Bulgarian, influence in Macedonia" ........ "in the autumn of 1905, anti-Greek demonstrations in Rumania led to a rupture of relations with that country"

Other parts might also be usefull. e.g.:''Greece is inhabited by three races the Greeks, the Albanians and the Vlachs. The Greeks who are by far the most numerous, have to a large extent absorbed the other races; the ,EthnO- process of assimilation has been especially rapid since the foundation of the Greek kingdom.''

or

''The urban element among the Vlachs has been almost completely Hellenized; it has always displayed great aptitude for commerce, and Athens owes many of its handsomest buildings to the benefactions of wealthy Vlach merchants. The nomad population in the mountains has retained its distinctive nationality and customs together with its Latin language, though most of the men can speak Greek. Like the Albanians, the pastoral Vlachs seldom intermarry with the Greeks; they occasionally take Greek wives, but never give their daughters to Greeks; many of them are illiterate, and their children rarely attend the schools. Owing to their deficient intellectual culture they are regarded with disdain by the Greeks, who employ the term j3M~os to denote not only a shepherd but an ignorant rustic.''


 * Inside the newly born Greek state, they were not well received by Greek ultra-nationalists, who took coercive measures against them.: do we really need this sentence? a thinking mind knows how ultra-nationalist think (no matter in which nation they belong to)
 * You`re asking me if we need this sentence. Yes. Restored. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * cool. i may add similar sentences about the fascist regime in romania during the 20s-30s or about Ceauşescu... fine by me.


 *  for the reason that they sent their children to schools where they were taught that they are Romanians: in the Romanian schools students were taught in Romanian, not in Aromanian. falsibly, they were taught that they are Romanians, not a separate ethnic group (in this case, POVish edits contradict each other...).
 * They went to the schools which thought them that they are Romanians, because they felt Romanians... you know.. the name Rumân and all that "shit"... If not, they would of went to Greek schools. After all, they were also payd to send them to Greek scholls... Restored. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * i call this edit POVish. the explanation is not satisfying. if it was only the name, they would maybe be taught that they were 'Romans', or 'Romioi'. apropos, u do not know how they felt. --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Than what was the reason for them attending Aromanian-propoesed Romanian classes instead of the Greek ones (where you also were payd to send your children to learn Greek ;)...) And it`s not Romioi or Romans or anythign but Armân and Rumân (exactly like Romanian Rumân greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * so called "Megali Idea", despite the fact that the territories in it’s target, in the northern part of what in modern times is Greece, was at that time inhabited partly by non-Greeks.: hmmm, so called Megali Idea... so called Greater Romania... it would make sense. but till all such article been changed to 'so called' the references to 'Megali Idea' will remain without this addition. for the 'non-Greeks inhabited', i will again suggest a look (not even a close one!) in the ottoman censi...
 * This answer doesn`t justify the edit. Restored and toned down ("so called")greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The reader can redirect and see if he/she can call it 'so called'. POV again. --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * When I say "tone down", I mean that I removed the part of which you spoked about. I removed the part with "so called..." so basically there`s no need to continue arguing this... greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of the Aromanians became part of the Greek state only as recently as 1913 after the rest of Epirus and parts of Macedonia became part of Greece after the First Balkan War.: do not confuse Balkan war I with Balkan war II. in the first Greece took Crete, the Aegean Islands, Epirus, Western and Central Greek Macedonia. with the second she annexed Eastern Greek Macedonia.
 * A part of Aromanians become part after the 1BW, a part after the 2BW. Restored. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * which part of the aromanians became part of greece after 2BW? the 3,000 inhabitants of Prosotsani? i thought that we are trying to help, not to confuse readers. the bulk of aromanians became part of greece after 1BW. see yourself: thessaly, epirus, western and central macedonia... --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don`t know exaclty the numbers (how much in 1BW and how much in the 2BW). What I know that the Vlachs of Greece becomed "part of Greece" in two waves, and that at one moment, because they were separated, they demanded that they remain out of Greece and inside the Ottoman Empire. greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  In addition, the Romanian state had offered them land and privilleges, in order to populate its new province of Dobrogea, soon after annexing it from Bulgaria. The 25% of the region's population still traces its origins in Greece: that's an undisputable fact.
 * Doesn`t justify the removal of other paragraphs. Kept both. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Image: do i need to comment on the removal of 'gala vlahas'! Jesus!
 * Yes. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is a name given to this product case the vlachs were well known shepherds... thats all! do not make it a vehicle for propaganda. u know something? we also have a milk brand called 'The little Dutch girl'. what is it? a negative feeling towards the Dutch people? pffff... --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It would be if you would say, for obvious reasons, that "Dutch" is not the name of an ethnie, but the name of a occupation, and "little Dutch girl" actually means "little Greek sheepherdes girl"... greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  Greek President Costis Stephanopoulos while stressing the character of the so called "inseparable patriotic segment of the Hellenism" : i do not care about the feelings someone has about our ex President. i do not care about the feelings someone has about our current, Aromanian in origins, Karolos Papoulias... this is an encyclopedia, keep your hatred for nationalistic forums!
 * Please don`t insult. Kept your edit. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * don't feel insulted... i was not talking personally to u (i do not know it was u who made that edit). --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Whereas the Klephts had been their allies.: oh yes, do not mention only what supports your POV...
 * Aromanians were klephts too. "Klepth" is an adjective. Removed. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)'
 * Do u know greek? 'Armatoloi' iks also an adjective. keep or remove both. --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article specigies what kind of Armataloi: the greek Armataloi, either part of the Byzantine or the Ottoman Empire. greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The picture of the Vlachs as "traitors" and "collaborationists" still exits to this day in Greek conscience : simply not true... noone has called me like that, not i have ever heard something like that!
 * Because you are not a Vlach. Anyway, until I find the reference, the paragraph remains removed. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course I am a Vlach! do not insult me with such words just for 'fatsi mare'! anyway, find a source, and talk about it later (an advice: first be sure u are backed-up by sources before editting POV-forks like this one...) --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I`ll search for the source. greier 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * despite that the Pindus episode was actually a sincere attempt for autonomy, as proven by the fact that on March 1, 1942, Alcibiades Diamandi and other leading Vlach intellectuals issued an ample Manifesto which was published in the local press. : have u read Hitler's manifests? he was also sincere and noble:p
 * Restored paragraph + deleted word "sincere". greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * not good enough... imagine something similar in Hitler or Moussolini articles... --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But what`s wrong with the version: The Pindus episode was an attempt for autonomy... ?


 *  although at that time part of the Ottoman Empire, were took under the patronage of the Greek Church.: false! they remained under the patronage of the Ecumenical Patriarchate until 1928. today, they are de jure ynder the Ecumenical Patriarch, but de facto under the Church of Greece. search your sources before attempting to push POV...
 * Correct. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't be otherwise:)... we were in danger of a Schism for that issue last year... --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Lastly, i removed the last paragraph. it was too propagandistically dramatically written, that it could perfectly fit in a pro-romanian novel... but not in Wikipedia...
 * POV. Restored. greier 12:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Restored, but remains POV... from the other side this time... --Hectorian 13:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Use diffs to see my changes and reasons for them. i will do my best to work here in the talk first, so, i would like to see comments on what i changed. i promise to revert POV, if i won't get explanations. --Hectorian 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In order to clear up some things and to explain (once more) what exactly i mean by saying 'the selective usage of the sources' in this article, here is one example: the Farsarotul Society has been used a lot in this article, only in cases concerning Greece. Quite 'surprisingly', the homepage of the society, clearly states the Rumanians north of the Danube who, though their language is quite like our own, have a rather different culture from ours... some users are doing anything possible to extend the links between Aromanian and Romanians further to the linguistic similarities (like saying that Italians and Spanish are the same nation cause their languages derived from Latin!), although, we, the Aromanians, clearly oppose that: from the Panhellenic Aromanian Federation to the Farsarotul Society in the States... to the anonymous Aromanians in Greece... to the former Ecumenical Patriarch... to the current Aromanian President of Greece. Please stop it! or i will request protection of the article... or revert wars, if i will be challenged... --Hectorian 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Original script by Kekaumenos: Ουδέποτε εφύλαξε πίστιν [το γένος των Βλάχων] πρός τινα ουδέ προς τους αρχαιοτέρους βασιλείς των Ρωμαίων. Πολεμηθέντες παρά τoυ βασιλέως Tραΐανoύ και παντελώς εκτριβέντες, εάλωσαν ... ούτοι γαρ εισίν οι λεγόμενοι Δάκαι και Βέσοι ώκουν δε πρότερον πλησίον του Δανουβίου ποταμού και του Σάου, ... ένθα νυν Σέρβοι αρτίως οικουσιν, εν οχυροίς και δυσβάτoις τόποις. Τούτοις θαρρούντες υπεκρίνοντο αγάπην και δούλωσιν προς τους αρχαιοτέρους των Ρωμαίων βασιλείς και εξερχόμενοι των οχυρωμάτων ελεΐζοντο τας χώρας των Ρωμαίων όθεν αγανακτήσαντες κατ' αυτών, ως είρηται, διέφθεφαν αυτούς οι και εξελθόντες των εκείσε διεσπάρησαν εν πάση τη Ηπείρω και Μακεδονία, οι δε πλείονες αυτών ώκησαν την Ελλάδα ... ". u are right,he does mention 'Dacians' as well. however, he says 'from the region where the Serbs live now... so, he clearly says 'south of the Danube'... not surprised that u just editted 'along the Danube', in order to satisfy your POV and mislead the reader that 'maybe northern of the river... maybe from present day Romania...'. he also says 'οι λεγόμενοι Δάκαι και Βέσοι', passive syntax, i.e. supposed to be the descendants of. in addition, he says they fought against Trajan who scattered them to greece. see when he reigned please! miracullo! they fought against Trajan! were is the theory of their arrival in the 6th-7th century? it is only in some minds who want to connect them with the romanians... what a pity... i was right when i said that there have been used a selective usage of sources in this article. no need to answer in the other comments above about Patriarch Athenagoras, the millet i Rum, gala vlahas, and your POV about how the Aromanians view themselves more than a century ago, not about the 'nostalgic and not based on a hidden political agenda' attempt of Romania to brainwash them... (btw, u said that the source of that is Britannica, but the material u copy-pasted to convince me, doesn't say that!). Personally i would be shocked if an encyclopedia like Britannica takes sides in political actions. --Hectorian 00:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What`s wrong with you? Why this perverted interpretation of what is happening here? Why did you reverted this whole article, just because you are frustantred and you weren`t right. I knew that I was right, as I`ve read what Kekaumenos says about Vlachs a long time ago... I knew I was right, just like I was right with Bejamin of Tudela... I knew, because I know what I`m talking about, unlinke you... I knew he clearly mentions the Danube and the Sava, and even mentions Trajan`s war as a reason for Vlachs dissobeintment to the Romans (in Kekaumenos case: Greeks) So, I`ve shown you that I was rigth, but you choose to insult me for, my my, great Romanian propaganda, because I sayd "on the Danube" instead of "south of the Danube' (by the way, I`ll search for the exact transaltion, as I doubt it is as you say). And not only that, yesterday you were ready to quote Kekaumenos when he says Vlachs came only from the Bessi, but now, when it was proven I was right, you start all this shit about how Kekaumenos speaks BS, because how can be possible this, when refering to the second century AD. Leave aside your mailgnant interpretation!!!! greier 12:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem to admit it when i am wrong, so, i loudly say: yes, he also refered to the Dacians! but the problem is that i was not aware of the text as much as i thought i were. on the contary, u claim to know 'everything' on the matter, but falsified his words (i want to believe that it was the translation that tricked u, and not yourself who deliberately wrote these things). the reign of Trajan, who forced them to immigrate, is dated in the 1st-2nd cen AD..., yet u wrote that they came in Greece 'somewhere between the 5th and 7th centuries'... isn't that your POV (contradicting the reference u had just given, i.e. Kekaumenos? well, i gave u the chance to see the original extract from his work, written in the language he wrote. i am a greek (and aromanian, weather u believe it or not) speaker, so i know what he meant. search yourself and find a GOOD (not biased) translation. i have nothing to be afraid on this! btw, when Kekaumenos said 'Romans', he did not mean 'Greeks'... Trajan was not greek... the Byzantine Empire was not yet created (in the time he talks about), and he talks about the αρχαιοτέρους των Ρωμαίων βασιλείς (=the most ancient Roman kings), clearly not about the greeks-selective usage of sources again!!! lastly, sorry, but i cannot see where u were right about de Tudela... --Hectorian 00:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, let`s take it one by one... First, to clarify once and for all what Benjamin of Tudela says:"From there it is a day`s journey to Sinon Potamo, where there are about fifty jews, at their head being R. Solomon and R. Jacob. The city is situated at the foot of the hills of Wallachia. The nation called Wallachians live in those mountains. They are as swift as hinds, and they swep down from the mountains to despoil and ravage the lands of Greece. No man can go and do battle with them, and no king can rule over them. They do not hold fast to the faith of Nazarens, but give themselves jewish names. Some people say that they are jews, and, in fact, they call the jews theyr brethren, and when they met them, tough they rob them, they refrain from killing them as they kill the Greeks. They are alltogheter lawless" - Libro de Viages de Benjamin de Tudela" - Translation by Marcus Nathan Adler (1907). Includes map of route (pg.2) and commentary. .pdf. So leave aside this BS about how he sayd that they are not a "a separate ethnic group, but as a group of rebels", the "lost tribe of Israel", and all that caca...
 * Second: I did not falsified Kekaumenos words. "where serbs now live" doesn`t mean south of the Danube. The Sava and the Danube pass thorugh the land of the serbs, not south of it. Moreover, except for a desperate cling, I fail to see the importance of that it is north or south of the Danube... It`s just a river, not an ocean...
 * Third: about Romans, Greeks and Vlachs... You should of known that the Greeks did consider themselves to be Romans. And this is clearly seen from other texts of Kekaumenos. For example, here`s a paragraph from the Strategikon which uses the name Romans for Greeks, and at the same time also mentions Vlachs: "Let it be known to you, Vestes, that Peter, the legitimate nephew of the Germans' king, as come into the service of our majesty and has affirmed, so he claims, that he is and shall die a servant of my majesty. After accepting his loyalty, my majesty styled him a spatharios of the golden triclinium. But since he is a foreigner, my majesty did not allow him to be appointed general, lest we harm the Romans. Instead it promoted him domestic of the excubitoi under you. But because my imperial rule recognizes that you hold this position from my blessed father through a chrysobull, it shall give you the rule of the Vlachs of Hellas instead of the excubiti."

So Kekaumenos, aware (on good grounds/on basseless grounds) of the "Dacian and Bessi" origin of the Vlachs, mentioned Trajan as the reason for the dissobeintment of the Vlachs (Dacians) towards the Greeks (Romans).

And frases like "the Byzantine Empire was not yet created (in the time he talks about)" that prooves your blatant ignorance. You still live with the fantastic idea that the Byzantine Empire was a greek creation, made up only be greek elements... No wonder, as you greeks have totaly hijacked the articles about the Byzantine Empire... The history Byzantine Empire started in April 21, 753 BC in Rome. It was not a greek initiated state, but a Roman one (by name: Romania, and by origin Constantine, the Roman emperor). It only becomed greecised as time passed. But even so, the bulk of the armies were not Greek. An empire is multiethnic by definition, and the Byzantine Empire meant, for example Albanian and Armenian, as much as it meant Greek from the point of view of the armies and populations. An empire`s character, be it Latin or Greek, is given by the language used in administration... Now let`s laugh a little... the "Greek" army in the 13th century: "descendit in Italiam cum exercitu magno, ie Russorum, Guandalorum, Turcorum, Burgarorum, Vlachorum, Macedonum, aliarumque ut caperet Siciliam". Turkic tribes, Varangians, Vlachs, Bulgarians.... actually it makes sense: you, these dubios descendants of the ancient Hellenes, are rather the descendants of Slavs, Vlachs, Albanians and Turks...ha hahahah hhaha....anybody knows that.... hahahha hhaha greier 10:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if your comment deserves a reply, since u seem to be by definition "anti-hellenic"... so, u do not want to understand... Just one thing (cause u bolded a word for reasons that u know well): the Byzantine Empire was called 'Romania' (Ρωμανία), not 'Romania' (Ρουμανία), your country (interesting to note that this term was invented in the 19th century to make the Wallachians and Moldovans believe they belong to the same nation and that they have imperial (Roman) past... hahaha... this is undisputable! what u say about the greeks may well be disputed... LOL --Hectorian 23:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * oh poor poor greeks... everybody hate`s them... everybody is anti-hellenic... about Romania, dork, it was never my intention to suggest anything related to the modern state of Romania... and it was not invented in the 19th century... And you merely proved how dork you are: maybe it was invented, but before we called ourselves Rumân... just like the Aromanian Rumân... hahah haa hahah ....14:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I was talking about u, not about the Romanians (against whom i have nothing at all!:)...). oh yes, both names comes from the latin 'Romanus', as many many others around the globe... claim them all, Greier! hahahahaha. BTW, the aromanians call themselves Armâni... u've been selective in the usage of words this time... hahahahaha --Hectorian 16:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Talkpage chaos
Can somebody please refactor (i.e. weed out) this talk page so that an outsider has some slight chance of understanding what you guys have been fighting about? There's an awful lot of unconstructive POV trolling around here - on both sides, I dare say. Can I urge everybody involved here to use some restraint and refrain from wholesale POV attacks and childish rhetorics. Also please refrain from original research. IMHO, it makes rather little sense for you or me to try to present our own interpretation of the meanig of some source by Kekaumenos or whatnot. Just get a grip on the literature and write decent summaries of what modern historians say.

And before you do that, please, everybody, take a deep breath. Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And please stop those blind reverts, guys! The versions you revert between differ in so many different details that it is entirely impossible for the outsider to judge what this is all about. Could someone please explain which bits are contentious for what reasons? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Telex reverts from habit, isn`t that so Telex? :) greier 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's blatant edits like this that I don't like. --Tēlex 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But of course it is most and not some... greier 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can`t you read from just two lines below? 16:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So, your edits are POV-pushing... making some 'minor' changes to alter the meaning... --Hectorian 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Anything else disputed?
The dispute tag can't be here forever—if there are any more problems they should be fixed. Unless someone brings up any more issues, I will remove the tag. &mdash; Khoikhoi 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I dispute the affirmation that in Dobruja "Today, the (sic!) 25% of the population of the region are descendants of Greek Aromanian immigrants". However i'm not sure this is enough reason to keep the tag. Anonimu 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * i think it is not enough reason to keep the tag. I did some search, and i've found sources placing the number of the Aromanian-speaking population in Dobruja currently at 15% . if u think that it would be better, feel free to change it. Hectorian 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * from what i could see, the pages that mention this are outdated version of this article on some wikipedia mirrors. And anyway, the 50,000 mentioned there doesn't represent 15% of the population of Romanian Dobrudja (970,000), but only about 5-6%. Maybe i missed a source, so, if they are others, please be more explicit. And i think we could remove the tag Anonimu 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anonimu: perhaps a fact tag will do? &mdash; Khoikhoi 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be nice...
...if a section on famous/prominent Aromanians (Tsintsars) is created? For instance, Branislav Nušić and Nikola Pašić, two very famous Serbian individuals, were ethnic Cincars. --PaxEquilibrium 19:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

TO THE EDITORS OF THIS PAGE: What I want to say is that all greeks, romanians, macedonians, serbians, albanians, bulgarians, should shut up once and forever. How you can speak of Aromanians? what they are? what they speak? etc etc when you are not aromanians, let the aromanians speak. I am an aromanian and i can say that we are not what you say we are. we are just aromanians, who have not a country because of nacionalist people like you, we had a country in the roman empire, today we are discriminated by all of the above countries regarding language and identity, and also threaten if we show ambition of being aromanian. we speak different language and if you speak this language you know that it is like more similar to a latin-illyrian language.

i suggest to the editors of this encyclopedia when making it to go to find the vlach in america and ask them, who they are and what proof they have and where do they base their argument? dont listen to anybody of balkans, because you see how they try to robbe a nation of its identity.

base everything from what the vlach say? no greeks who just make propaganda and behave like uneducated people, and no other of the above nationalities, except the albanians and macedonians, aromanians were maybe you can find some reliable sources.

as an aromanian i was very surprise to see this people here takling bulshit, that only an aromanian knows that they are not true, because they are bias and in own interests how they siute to them.

aromanians have been one of the less nationalistic nation in the world, for us what we want was the roman empire a borderless balkans because we are spread in allover balkans and thats the only way we can be in one country peacefully with other nations, which now is the resamblance of EU. so far so good.

Aromanian is a term to call this gorup, but if you would refer to an individual you say just: he is an Aroman=A+Roman (A=may stand for Ancient, Antic, Ante, even maybe Ethnic Roman or Ancestor which may mean Ancestor Romans= romans are the anccestors of this group)

thanks, and dont warry for aromanians noone will steal our identity. we dont read books to learn who we are, our parents tell us who we are.


 * Don't bother explaining the "a"... In Greek, a- is a prefix (alpha privativum) meaning "not" or "devoid of," used in many borrowed words in English, German and Romance languages (for example, amoral, asexual, arhythmic).... Conclusions are yours... Hectorian 16:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

maybe in greek, but in aromanian language means something else, we call ourself aroman which is not greek word and not vlach in greek. argue about vlach which is greek but not aroman

The Latin ante is generally used in the sense of  before, in regard to position, order, or time, and the Gr. 'anti` in that of opposite, or in the place of.

and here are some aromanian proverbs which have a meaning, and they have teached us when we were children:

How can you recognize a bird ? By the way it sings

and

How can you recognize a boor ? By the way he speaks for;

He is as civil as a hedge and will skin your face

A boor Never knows his place

this is as: How can a sheperd tell a good thing from a bad one?

An uncouth man is like wood unplaned,

You suddenly find out

He raps out something at you like a whack

Saying: Don't think of what I was, better look at what I am.

And Don't look at the coat, see what's under it, And don't scurb every pig you see or you won't long be clean yourself

But allways: Beware of a gipsy turned a Turk or of a boor turned a Greek Beware of God's wrath, of a king's ire and a boor's squeal.

Vlahos 08:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Where and when we had a country ? "no greeks who just make propaganda and behave like uneducated people" A vlach can't feel vlach and greek simultaneously ? "i suggest to the editors of this encyclopedia when making it to go to find the vlach in america" America is the metropolis of vlachs ?

AMERICA IS A FREE COUNTRY. AND YOU KNOW IT WELL IMPERSONATOR OF AROMANIANS WHICH CALL YOURSELF "VLAHOS" IF YOU WERE AROMAN YOU WILL PUT YOUR USERNAME AROMAN AND NOT VLAHOS. AROMANIANS ARE NOT GREEKS, AND THEY CANT BE, BECAUSE THEN THEY WILL BE GREEKS AND NOT AROMANIAN.

I AM SORRY TO HEAR HERE PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT NATIONALITIES, HIDING BEHIND A SCREEN, IMPERSONATING AND SPEAKING IN NAME OF THE AROMANIANS.

PLEASE FIND TRUE AROMANIAN, WHO SAY WE ARE AROMANIAN AND ANYTHING ELSE, AND ASK THEM.

AND TO THIS NACIONALIST HERE: DONT CONFUSE NATIONALITY, WITH CITIZIENSHIP. AROMANIANS ARE ONLY AROMANIANS BECAUSE OF THE LANGUAGE, AND CITIZIENS OF THE COUNTRIES THEY LIVE. DONT BE AFRAID, THEY WILL ASK FOR PARTS OF YOUR COUNTRIES AND MAKE THEIR OWN. WE ARE BETTER WHERE WE LIVE BECAUSE WE ARE EDUCATED AND IN GOOD POSITIONS, BUT WHICH HAVE TO HIDE OUR IDENTITY IN ORDER TO BE THERE. AND YOU WILL NEVER KNOW WHO ARE WE, YOU JUST CAN, WE CAN FOOL YOU DAY AND NIGHT. ARE YOU ANGRY?? PLEASE DONT.

and the point is not what are aromanians, but preserve this unique language and culture which is not a threat to noones identity. and today, i dont know who and how they make history, but aromanians, albanians, and macedonians there is a very strong link they are one of the lost tribes of jewish people, and even today you can see that they perfer to put anccient names or jewish names. my name is a jewish name also and i am aroman. this is something inhereted to put this fashion and famous names. and albanians have that white hat in the head same like the jewish and have different names, and they are very ancient people and their main beleive is freedom. and are not religiose people, or neither belive in god.

Origins issue
Sorry for the really long post. I'm certainly aware this is a disputed topic which can get pretty heated at times, but I have noticed some passages in the article which seem to offer uncited opinion more than facts backed up by legitimate sources. With all due respect to all the users, there does seem to be the occasional instance of nationalism seeping into some of the text, which should be as objective as possible, given that this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for each side to post their own version of what they want to believe. As someone of both Romanian and Aromanian (and Greek) descent, I don't want to take sides on anything, but want to the article to present a balanced and coherent, consistent overall display of what is known.

For example, this part seems less than objective:

"In reality, in none of the three theories regarding the origin of Aromanians, can the term "Proto Romanian" be taken to encompass either the Aromanian nor the Meglenian language, because this term only applies to the language spoken by the ancestors of the modern Romanians (Dacians and Gets). However even here, the term "Proto Romanian" would be misleading, because Dacians and Gets represented only a part of the Thracian people in the Balkans, (Aromanians and Meglens being descendants of Epirots and Macedonians). So, the correct term to include all Latin languages spoken in Balkans at that time is the term, Balkan Vulgar Latin or Eastern Romance Language . "

There seem to be many assumptions made here, with broad generalizations or oversimplifications like Dacians and "Gets" (Getes/Getae) being necessarily the main or only ancestors of modern Romanians, or stating that they were necessarily Thracian (and it's unclear what is meant regarding the Epirots and Macedonians, if they were supposed to be counted as part of a larger "Thracian" sphere). While this is the position of many historians within Romania, it's not 100% established as fact, though I know some people are going to get angry at me for saying this. The same goes for Aromanians being descendants of Epirotes and Macedonians, which isn't easily demonstratable either (nor is this what all of them believe themselves). Both sides have their own nationalism; I admit many Romanians either like to believe the Aromanians or their language came from them or their area or that they were simply another people who happened to speak a related language in the Balkans, but many won't even listen to theories suggesting that at least part of them [Romanians] (or their language) may have come from south of the Danube (something I used to be against myself, but am beginning to consider it in part), and, like many nations opt for a completely autochthonous origin on their land. On the other hand, I realize many Aromanians in Greece mostly see themselves as an integral part of the Greek nation and mostly not as minorities. This may be partly due to Greek policy on minorities historically, as well as integration practices over time; a similar or parallel development can be seen in some Arvanites, who don't with to be seen as minorities despite the language difference. But this is a sensitive and complex issue, I understand. So I can understand why Aromanian posters here may want to present themselves as having always been on the same land they were and as a continuation of (Latinized) Epritoes, Thessalians, Macedonians, etc. who to them were essentially like Greeks, but it's clear there are political considerations in this as well.

It's also important to remember that not all Aromanians are in Greece, and the ones outside of it tend to have different theories of their own origins, in many cases still as natives of the land they live on (in many cases Thracians are one people who are mentioned) or partly descended from Roman legionaries and colonists as well. Many in other countries, like Serbia or Macedonia, also are proud of being minorities. There is a tendency in many cases to take the most parsimonious route to a people's origins, thus making them simply the descendants of whoever lived on that land earlier before Latinization, so it's unfair to pigeonhole all the various scattered Aromanian and Meglenite communities as fitting under the ones in Greece's preferred ancestry. It's also important to keep in mind that language doesn't always equate with genetic origin perfectly. Dealing with the origin of a people in Wikipedia can be tricky because many equate language and nation/ethnicity, even though the real picture may be more complex than that, and people are generally a mix of many groups that have come together over time, realistically.

Also, I don't see how some people choose to believe that Aromanians and Romanians were the result of two completely different Latinization events at very different times in the Roman empire's history, and whose only connection is that they both happen to speak some derivative of Latin. This kind of thinking is rather simplistic and ignores a multitude of historical and most importantly, linguistic, factors that show this not to be true, and reeks of nationalism or ethnicism (on both sides, admittedly). I think most who argue for this must not have seen comparisons of the two languages, or feel uncomfortable having links to those outside their own lands. It's clear to any linguist that both languages emerged from a common tongue at some point- roughly 1000-1200 years ago according to many. When one compares the core vocabulary, hundreds of words are very similar or even essentially pronounced the same and mean the same thing. They even share unique semantic and phonetic evolutions not found in any other Romance languages (even Dalmatian), including for abstract terms, underwent many similar sound shifts, and generally preserved much of the same overlaping lexicon of Latin inherited terms, a set of around roughly two thousand. Additionally, and quite notably, even words of non-Latin origin, such as many early Slavic borrowings or certain Greek derived-terms, are still very close in form, meaning, conjugation, indicating that these were probably borrowed when the languages were still together or at least in close contact. The grammar also has a high degree of overlap, despite some notable differences that arose over the last millennium, and both use similar constructions not found elsewhere, such as the -ez/-edz infix for some first conjugation verbs and the -esc/-escu suffix for fourth conjugation verbs. Of course, the languages obviously went their separate ways and received their own influences, Aromanian more from Greek and some Albanian and Romanian more from Slavic, Hungarian, and others, and much of the difference exists in vocabulary of external origin that was borrowed/incorporated over time. I think it's interesting how they managed to still have as much overlap given the amount of time they've been split- English would be essentially unintelligible even less than 1000 years ago to modern speakers.

It seems improbable that Aromanians would simply be the result of Latinized local Greeks/Epirotes, etc. who were conquered in the 2nd century B.C. and remained under Roman rule for over six hundred years (longer under Byzantines), and happen to preserve mostly the same set of words that Romanians (according to this Dacians far to the north conquered A.D. 107, and split off from the Roman world 165 years later), did within proto-East Romance. One would think they would be more different and acquired different vocab terms over time, but with a few exceptions in some words that happened to be lost in either language over time, this isn't the case. They both are also part of the Balkan sprachbund and share close grammatical features in it, possibly indicating some substratum layer of native paleo-Balkan influence. Both Romanian and Aromanian share many of the same terms deemed either to be of "substratum" origin or early loans from proto-Albanian, like mânz, mazăre, mal, moș, abur, brad, etc., further deepening the link between the two languages. Additionally they both preserved many terms from the same domains, occupations or lifestyles, such as cattle breeding and shepherding, from Latin, and both lack terms dealing with city life (both Ro. 'cetate' and Ar. 'tsitati' mean fortress/citadel rather than their origin, civitatem, meaning city). Another strike against direct ethno-cultural continuity from local Latinized Greeks is that the Greek language continued to be popularly spoken south of the Jireček line, rather than Latin.

Personally, from the various opinions and books on the issue I've read- and I'm by no means saying this is necessarily right or true- I believe the proto-Romanian/east Romance people may have formed on both sides of the Danube, but especially focused in an intermediate region between where Romanians and Aromanians are today, around the area of what is now eastern Serbia, spilling over into western Bulgaria, southwestern Romania up to the mountains, and perhaps the northern Macedonia region, as part of a continuum of Latin speakers; they may have been either split apart by the Slavic and other invasions, or at some point later went in separate directions, Romanian-speakers going northward further into what was Dacia and the Aromanians further south into northern Greece, Albania, etc, and each group may have mixed more with the existing people there. This map comes closest to what I'm suggesting http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/5143/valaquesvlachs.jpg. Coupled with the many cognates both Romanian and Aromanian have with Albanian, as well as several terms derived from Medieval Latin and inherited Christian vocabulary, indicates Romanians were not isolated and cut off from the rest of the Latin world after the retreat of the legions in 275 but at least remained in contact with it for several more centuries. I'm also partly in favor of the "admigration" theory which attempts to compromise the two main opposing theories. It may well be that some of the Latin speakers living south of the Danube were those who once dwelled in Dacia to the north but were moved back over, only to have some of their descendants return. The case I'm trying to argue is mainly linguistic, and I'm fully aware actual genetic origin as well as folk culture, dress, etc., is going to be rather different, especially as both people probably absorbed others after they lost contact with each other, but that's not the main scope of this article I suppose. It reality it's highly likely that many modern Aromanians in do probably have some blood continued from Epirotes, Macedonians, etc., having lived in these areas over over a thousand years, and of course from Greeks in general, but that's different from a strict line of uninterrupted descent in the same lands from antiquity. In same vein, Vlachs may be the most important type in making up many modern Romanians, especially in the south, but they're not the only one, and of course probably include other peoples like Slavs, Germanic tribes, Celts, Scythians, Cumans, and various others who migrated and left some mark on the land they live on today.

Another issue with that passage is that Proto-Romanian is, for better or for worse, the name many linguists and etymologists give the hypothetical language (or stage of the language) that was spoken by these people in the past. I understand whoever wrote that naturally took issue with simply the word Romanian being used. It's simply a word choice used based on the native endonym for all four Vlach groups descended from "romanus"- "român", "armãn", etc., and while it might not be the best one, it's still a legimate word, I think (a similar situation may be seen in the use of "Germanic" for that entire language family") But there is also the mostly synonymous "Eastern Romance", or proto-Eastern Romance perhaps. I can also agree to using "Balkan Vulgar Latin" in some cases too. It's also clear that this "East Romance" category includes a distinct "proto-Romanian"--for lack of a better word--subgroup, as distinct from the other (now extinct) Romance language that we know of in the Balkans, Dalmatian. Dalmatian does not seem to have come out of a close common ancestor with the Vlach tongues, who are all obviously much closer to each other in every aspect than they are to it. It seems to have many more affinities with Italian and some western Romance; however it also retains a few interesting aspects more characteristic of Balkan Romance, though this may have been later influence added, or conversely it may have taken much influence from Venetian, which is known.

All in all, I understand that some users may feel irritated by the other side overstepping their bounds and trying to claim the origins of their own people. I admit the early Romanian approach toward Aromanians wasn't the best and was overly simplistic, focused on their own people too much, and this caused animosity among some Aromanians, especially those who had built a strong Greek identity, though there were many who drew more toward Romanians in their self-perception, and many who moved and relocated there. Also, I'm sure some Romanians are going to call me a "Hungarian conspirator" or something, but there are others who think what I do as well, and I have no particular political agenda.

I plan on finding some sources to take care of some of the slight non-NPOV aspects of the article at some point, but just wanted to mention some ideas and was interested if others agreed or had any thoughts on it before any changes were made. Maybe some could shed some more light on these issues. Word dewd544 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Read about Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea. Also read about the theory of Romanic islands of population promoted by N. Iorga. These islands were identified from Nistru river to

Jiricek line and beyond it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.177.223 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

this topic is getting less accurate by the day
1.Aromanians have never been called Macedo-Aromanians. The very easily traceable exonym Macedo-Roumains, Macedo-Romanians was the universal outsider term describing Aromanians in French or English - until the Iron Curtain effectivly cut the cultural link between Aromanians in Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece and scholars researching them in the Western world.

2.Aromanian is a functional language in Aromanian communities, so for them a language in its own right (See Aromanian scholar Matilda Caragiu Marioteanu dodecalog http://www.scribd.com/doc/39767355/Matilda-Caragiu-Mario%C5%A3eanu-Un-dodecalog-al-aromanilor). At the same time the science of linguistics dictates it's an indigenous/vernacular language very close to standard Daco-Romanian, closer to certain local rural idioms, with which it shares :

- the closest identity to vulgar Latin - a somewhat strange trait of Romanian

- almost all of the basic/day to day vocabulary, including non-Latin words;

- all of the terms describing life specific to the past rural existence like: words of environment (all mountaineous landforms) profession (sheep hearding, weaving, spinning, looming fabnrics, rural infrastructure construction etc);

- most of the leftover words prior to latinisation, also shared by Albanian -believed to be of Thracian/Ilyrian a.o. origin;

- the grammar has barely a few differences (mainly the more complex tense of past perfect) though other Vlach/Romanian regional idioms often keep kin older variants;

- there are even common sayings not to mention common curses; person names besides saint names, shortening the names pattern and nicknames

- recorded expression of spirituality like old ballad themes (Romanian Miorita).

Thus considering Aromanian a dialect of Romanian languages, parallel to Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and (the most widespread of them all) Daco-Romanian is objective. And it was also universally accepted, is as such by the Academy of Romania, and putting aside a few past Greek Academy claims(Aromanian is an old dialect of Greek), things don't seem to have changed at the scholar level.

3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania.

4. Beeing Vlach I should correct all of the Vlach terminology, correcting sounds and not using Serbian Latin alphabet (Armanji?!, Râmânji?! to Armâni, Rrămăni, Remeni, Rumăni, Români,Vlahi) but it is of little use since the Romanian language version of the page has seen such savage subjectivism from editors using wikipedia to forge linguistics for pollitical games. (One certain Romanian MP persuing to acquire minority funding) Vlach facts (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

this topic is getting less accurate by the day
1.Aromanians have never been called Macedo-Aromanians. The very easily traceable exonym Macedo-Roumains, Macedo-Romanians was the universal outsider term describing Aromanians in French or English - until the Iron Curtain effectivly cut the cultural link between Aromanians in Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece and scholars researching them in the Western world.

2.Aromanian is a functional language in Aromanian communities, so for them a language in its own right (See Aromanian scholar Matilda Caragiu Marioteanu dodecalog http://www.scribd.com/doc/39767355/Matilda-Caragiu-Mario%C5%A3eanu-Un-dodecalog-al-aromanilor). At the same time the science of linguistics dictates it's an indigenous/vernacular language very close to standard Daco-Romanian, closer to certain local rural idioms, with which it shares :

- the closest identity to vulgar Latin - a somewhat strange trait of Romanian

- almost all of the basic/day to day vocabulary, including non-Latin words;

- all of the terms describing life specific to the past rural existence like: words of environment (all mountaineous landforms) profession (sheep hearding, weaving, spinning, looming fabnrics, rural infrastructure construction etc);

- most of the leftover words prior to latinisation, also shared by Albanian -believed to be of Thracian/Ilyrian a.o. origin;

- the grammar has barely a few differences (mainly the more complex tense of past perfect) though other Vlach/Romanian regional idioms often keep kin older variants;

- there are even common sayings not to mention common curses; person names besides saint names, shortening the names pattern and nicknames

- recorded expression of spirituality like old ballad themes (Romanian Miorita).

Thus considering Aromanian a dialect of Romanian languages, parallel to Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and (the most widespread of them all) Daco-Romanian is objective. And it was also universally accepted, is as such by the Academy of Romania, and putting aside a few past Greek Academy claims(Aromanian is an old dialect of Greek), things don't seem to have changed at the scholar level.

3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania.

4. Beeing Vlach I should correct all of the Vlach terminology, correcting sounds and not using Serbian Latin alphabet (Armanji?!, Râmânji?! to Armâni, Rrămăni, Remeni, Rumăni, Români,Vlahi) but it is of little use since the Romanian language version of the page has seen such savage subjectivism from editors using wikipedia to forge linguistics for pollitical games. (One certain Romanian MP persuing to acquire minority funding) Vlach facts (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Tzintzars in literature?
Wondering about cultural legacy/presence. I remember in Dictionary of the Khazars, I think it's called by Milorad Pavić there's a character who's a Tzintzar merchant. I think it was the male edition I read (there's a "female" edition, not sure what the word is that distinguishes the two editions - ?? ). My Serbian friends in Canada was amazed I know about Milorad Pavić or about Tzintzars.Skookum1 (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Macedonians (Greeks Latins)
Hello. I tried to explain my changes but nobody read the explanations. We live in 2014 in a multi-cultural Europe. How is possible to accept in the english language the term "Aromanian"? Many scientists described this term as an EXONYM. More than this, is a miss-translate of the name of our first contemporary grammar book (Roman or Macedono-Vlah Grammar). In Greece, the Academy consider us Ancient Greeks latinised. In Greece!!! Hundreds of scientists. In these conditions what is the problem with the term Macedonians (Greeks Latins)? You asked us to talk before making changes. Let's talk. Is somebody ready to accept a dialogue? I apologise but if there are some macedo-bulgarians or romanians admins, they will never accept the truth. And how to accept it if their national history has a lot of mistakes? We have here a conflict between Greece (Macedonia), Romania and FYROM. But for us, the term Macedonians (Greeks Latins) has no historical errors. Please, those professionals who can explain this term is false, to come here and talk. (Makedonovlah (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC))
 * Greece is one of the few countries that in this 2014 "multi-cultural Europe", doesn't have the concept of national minorities. That is outrageous, especially in the Balkans and this part of Europe where every single country has a multitude of cultures and ethnic identities. How is that possible and allowed by EU? So with attitude, is there any surprise that the "hundreds of Greek scientists" consider the Aromanians as Latinized "Ancient Greeks"? How can you have a dialogue, when the "discussion" starts from this stuck up nationalistic and brain-washing position? What kind of "science" can identify the percentages of Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians, Ancient Macedonians, Epirotes, Ancient Greeks but also Roman colonists, Roman slaves from all provinces, Roman military from Palmyra and Germania (for example) that form the base for the Aromanian identity, as 100% "Latinized Ancient Greeks"? It is ridiculous in 2014 to think like that. As for the term itself, do a Google (even better Google Scholar) for "Macedonians (Greeks Latins)" vs "Aromanians", to see the coverage in the English-speaking academia . I don't think that negating and destroying other ethnic identities is the path to bring prosperity to present-day Greece. Actually is the opposite path. --Codrin.B (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

What has to do the Romanian Ethnicity with the Aromanians / Macedonians (Greeks Latins)?
As i see you are romanian. Is true what you said about the greek attitude. But why don't you say something about the romanian attitude for the Aromanian Minority? How the romanian history can state we are the same people?? What has to do the romanian history with the Ancient Historical Macedonia (Epirus, Thessaly, Central Macedonia and Thrace)? What has to do the Romanian Ethnicity with the Ancient Greeks and Romans? Nobody says we aren't autochtonous in these lands since immemorial times. If you are romanian is correct to try to solve the Aromanian problem in Romania and then to accuse the Greek State for his abuses. You don't think so? (Makedonovlah (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

For user Vachfacts
,,3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania."


 * How you can say this my friend? How you can claim Elino-Valch (Macedonian) origin? In Romania emigrated about 5000 families as MACEDONIANS. "Machedon" exonym??? LOL! (Makedonovlah (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC))

NAME
Hello. Can we change the "Aromanians"term with "macedonians (greeks latins)"? In Greece the Academy consider us ancient greeks latinised autochtonous in Macedonia, Thessaly and Epirus since immemorial times. So if we are latinised greeks in the scientifical history of greece, the term macedonian cant be contested. It doaesnt matter how if we call ourselves macedonians in our language. The latinised greeks theory is enough to accept the term macedonian because we were latinised in the roman province of macedonia. There isnt another population with greek latin origin. The term 'Aromanians' is a political mistake. Some romanian scholars translated our first contemporary grammar book (1813) in a false term. The proper term oh that grammar book was and is MACEDONO_ROMAN. They translated MACEDONO_ROMANIAN as if Romanians are the ANCIENT ROMANS and the ROMANIAN language is the latin language. And in Romania there are also academy members as Matilda Caragiu who stated this translate is FALSE. So the term 'Aromanians' doesnt belong to us.

More than this we dont live "especially in Romania" because our "especially" homeland is GREECE (Macedonia) and after Greece is ITALY. In Romania we came as MACEDONIAN COLONISTS from 1925. We can make these changes? Thank you! (Makedonovlah (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC))

To whom belongs this article?
Hello. A wiki friend asked us to find consensus before changing OUR NAME. As i said the term "AROMANIANS" is a political one. At wikipedia we must accept the scientifical one. And the Science of Greece cant be driven by the science of Romania because the vast majority of the Macedonians (Greeks Latins) live in Northern Greece and some of them still live in Italy. We as Macedonians (Greeks Latins) ethnically part of Hellenism and Latinity along with the Greeks and Italians, consider this name as the proper one. And the Academy states the same theory. To whom we must ask admission for the term mentioned above and from whom we must ask the removal of the false term "Aromanians"? Thank you! (Makedonovlah (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC))

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Aromanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050905015809/http://www.lumeam.ro:80/nr10_2002/diaspora.html to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2002/diaspora.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Aromanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071007143801/http://www.rgnpress.ro/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=707&pop=1&page=0 to http://www.rgnpress.ro/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=707&pop=1&page=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at Sourcecheck).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 06:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Aromanians. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050519194533/http://www.eurominority.org:80/version/eng/minority-detail.asp?id_alpha=1&id_minorites=gr-arom to http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/minority-detail.asp?id_alpha=1&id_minorites=gr-arom
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218045546/http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_3.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218045546/http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_3.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_3.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027131218/http://www.farsarotul.org:80/nl20_1.htm to http://www.farsarotul.org/nl20_1.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020091613/http://www.ziua.net:80/display.php?id=154530&data=2004-08-10&kword=Divjaka%2C+unde+invata+aromana+peste+60+copii to http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=154530&data=2004-08-10&kword=Divjaka%2C+unde+invata+aromana+peste+60+copii
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041207013128/http://farsarotul.org:80/ to http://www.farsarotul.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Aromanians. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060703040707/http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/index.asp to http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/index.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta97/EREC1333.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vlahos.xan.duth.gr/draseis/psifismata/280201.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vlahos.xan.duth.gr/draseis/psifismata/141102.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vlahos.xan.duth.gr/draseis/psifismata/180803.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://farsarotul.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)