Talk:Vlachs of Serbia/Archive 3

Vlachs call themselves Vlachs not Romanians
Census and many other official documents including ones from National council of Vlachs in Serbia show that Vlachs call themselves a Vlachs. So using in article many not sourced material or material that could be classified as propaganda or discriminatory purporting that they call themselves Romanians is not ethical and it is discriminatory towards Vlachs. Loesorion (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a shame to see how even today, there are Romanians under this or similar situations. The "Vlachs" of Serbia are Romanians, and this is a completely irrefutable fact. What they feel is not synonymous with what they are, especially when they have suffered a denationalization policy. Otherwise, we could say that the Moldovans are not Romanians because they do not identify themselves as such. Same with the Austrians and Germans, right? No, of course not. Also, the only academics I have seen who have attempted to promote the false "Vlach" ethnic group are Serbs, everyone else I have seen agrees that they are Romanians. I have also seen several Romanians on the Internet that agree that the "Vlach" language is nothing more than an archaic Romanian dialect, similar to that of villages of Banat (and Oltenia to a lesser extent).


 * Finally, I would like to ask you several questions. In the past, many ethnic groups were called Vlachs, including ALL Romanians. Does it mean that Romanians were like the Vlachs of Serbia, but suddenly, that changed? Of all the peoples called Vlachs over history, those from Serbia are the "true Vlachs"? Why? Why is the "Vlach" language so similar to Romanian, but distinct? Why are "Vlachs" like Predrag Balašević actively searching for help from Romania? Why do all old ethnic maps show Timok Vlachs as Romanians? Oh, and I reverted all your edits because you removed a lot of information, obviously at your convenience. Also, the sources you have added are mostly Serbian, and why can't we quote Romanian sources instead of Serbian ones? Super   Ψ   Dro  08:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You can not put people that declare themselves in census where you want or wish because your personal feelings. If so then go to other Wikipedia articles and start proclaiming same on many other ethnic groups like you do here that have declared themselves on census differently. And you have probably answered your question when you say
 * ""many ethnic groups were called Vlachs, including ALL Romanians""
 * Not all ethnic groups of Vlach are Romanians or consider themselves Romanians. And if we go even further in past where is ethnic group called Romanians before 18. century. So if Romanians where in some point of time and history Romanian ethnic group that was created from Vlach and not otherwise it is quite illogical to start now making Romanians from Vlachs who precedes Romanians - and that is my personal opinion as answer to you that has nothing to do with edits I have done. Anyway all my edits are supported with sources so you should no make up something that has nothing with Vlachs in Serbia and discriminate them. You removed their history, culture and many other parts of article supported with sources.  There is article about Romanians of Serbia so your edits are welcome there if you can remove obvious hearsay in your edits that has no place on any encyclopedia. Before you start talking about others bias first start looking at yours. Loesorion (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Let me chime in...
 * What they feel is not synonymous with what they are, – what the fuck? Are you saying that people do not have the right to declare their ethnic affiliation, but that it is instead determined by ... what? DNA? Blood cells? Crane shape? Skin color? Such theories have been discredited a century ago.
 * Don't assume what I haven't said. I wanted to say that they cannot be a different ethnicity simply because they say so, and this applies to many other ones. What if from the very moment I send this message I begin to identify myself as, for example, Thai? Does it mean that I am a Thai? What if I rose my child as a Thai? Is he one? Super   Ψ   Dro  13:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, we could say that the Moldovans are not Romanians because they do not identify themselves as such. – And we do say so, as witnessed by the article Moldovans. Welcome to the modern theory of ethnogenesis. Most Vlachs of Serbia stopped identifying with Romanians, therefore they are not Romanians anymore.
 * Yes, we also have an article for Austrians or Liechtensteiners, but that doesn't mean they are not Germans. The article about Moldovans says that it was agreed everywhere that they were Romanians until the 1920s. And fun fact, you can't make up an ethnic group! Especially in 100 years. The section about Moldovans of the article that you linked is called "Creation of Moldovan identity", it says that it was a Soviet product and that only the former countries of the USSR differentiate the Moldovans from the Romanians. Also, what are the differences between the two? Both Romanians and Moldovans speak the same language, have the same culture, etc. There are no major geographical features that contribute to an isolation between the two and not enough time has passed either. And in fact, there are more and more young Moldovans who identify themselves as Romanians or at least admit the relationship there is between both. The same goes for Vlachs. They do not stop being Romanians because they say they are not, it is not that easy. Super   Ψ   Dro  13:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of all the peoples called Vlachs over history, those from Serbia are the "true Vlachs"? – No, not at all. "Vlach" just happens to be the name they prefer to go ba.
 * Why is the "Vlach" language so similar to Romanian, but distinct? – It's an archaic Romanian dialect indeed, who said otherwise? No such user (talk) 11:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So they speak a Romanian dialect but are not Romanians? Super   Ψ   Dro  13:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)


 * No, Super Dromaeosaurus, Austrians are not Germans. Ask any Austrian whether they are German, and you will get a resounding "no". I wouldn't know exactly the Moldovan attitudes so I cannot comment, but a vast majority of Serbian Vlachs would also categorically deny they are Romanians. If you begin to identify yourself as a Thai, yes, you would be a Thai as well, although you'd be expected to have some cultural ties, e.g. live in Thailand, speak Thai, or marry a Thai. An ethnic group is formed by shared identity.
 * As a matter of fact, you can make an Ethnic group in less than a hundred years, as that article explains. Here are the selected quotes from it, emphasis mine:
 * Membership of an ethnic group tends to be defined by a shared cultural heritage, ancestry, origin myth, history, homeland, language or dialect, symbolic systems such as religion, [...] the social construct that ethnic groups share a similar gene pool has been contradicted within the scientific community as evidenced by data finding more genetic variation within ethnic groups compared to between ethnic groups
 * Ethnic groups may be subdivided into subgroups or tribes, which over time may become separate ethnic groups themselves due to endogamy or physical isolation from the parent group. – and that's what we arguably have in the Vlach case...
 * Max Weber maintained that ethnic groups were künstlich (artificial, i.e. a social construct) because they were based on a subjective belief in shared Gemeinschaft (community). Secondly, this belief in shared Gemeinschaft did not create the group; the group created the belief.
 * To Barth, ethnicity was perpetually negotiated and renegotiated by both external ascription and internal self-identification.
 * ...and so on. The point is, ethnicity is a social, cultural construct. Common language is just one of cohesional factors, the other major ones being religion and culture (remember that peoples of former Yugoslavia identify as at least four distinct ethnic groups despite the common lanuage?). Vlachs of Serbia in general had little contact with culture of Romania during the last three or so centuries since their arrival in these areas, and came more to identify with Serbia as the homeland. Yes, you can say that they were subjected to Serbianization, some voluntary and some forced (e.g. surnames). But, in year 2020, you just cannot come and say to those people "you are Romanians". The best one can do to gauge their collective opinion is to ask an unbiased question in the census, to which some 35,000 in Central Serbia (SRBIJA - JUG) voluntarily chose "Vlach" as opposed to some 2,600 that selected "Romanian" . No such user (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's make one thing clear, Austrian national identity developed and came only existence after 1945, so in fact it is true such may be developed over time, but Super has right on that it does not change the fact that they are Germans, as they have ever been. Same goes to the Moldovan identity. We cannot pretend they are alien, and we should not confuse these facts with self-declarations (however, now the graceful description on the linking will be written like "Germanic", though Dutch people are also fell on that category, but still having a bit altered language, while regarding Germans and Austrians it is as well identical, similarly to Romania/Moldova relations, etc.).(KIENGIR (talk) 14:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC))
 * That just doesn't make sense. No matter how hard I try, I will never be a Thai, the closest thing I can do is marry a Thai. Regarding your points, I have not said that an ethnic group is based on DNA or genes. The Vlachs are not separated by a physical feature large enough to separate them from the rest of the Romanians (the Danube is not enough, proof of this is the Dobrujan Romanians). I doubt endogamy is that common among Vlachs. And if ethnicity is a social construct, then maybe the word I wanted to use was nation. Regarding Austrians, I agree with KIENGIR. In fact, I doubt that the Vlachs have always declared themselves as such, specially when "Vlach" was originally an external name. Super   Ψ   Dro  20:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * it does not change the fact that they are Germans, as they have ever been. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, however, it lags for about a century from the scientific consensus on ethnogenesis and modern principles of self-determination. No matter how hard I try, I will never be a Thai, – well, that just proves that you don't feel like a Thai, i.e. you do not have a reason to be one nor identify as one. Now, just imagine a Serbian Vlach declaring that No matter how hard I try, I will never be a Romanian. No such user (talk) 10:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The Austrians were one of the most powerful German countries in their time and were one of the countries that attempted to unify all German states. And now they are not Germans? It is like ignoring centuries of history. Also, I don't speak Thai, I don't practice Thai culture and I have practically no connection to Thailand. This is not the case with the Vlachs and Romanians. Super   Ψ   Dro  11:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There is a law in Romania that stipulates "Romanians everywhere" policies meaning Romanian linguistic and cultural stock consist of: Aromanians, Bessarabians, Bukovinians, Cutzo-Vlachs, Daco-Romanians, Farsherots, Hertzans, Istro-Romanians, Danube Latins, Macedo-Romanians, Maramures natives, Meglenites, Megleno-Romanians, Moldovans, Moldo-Vlachs, Rramanians, Rumanians, Wallachians, Vlachs, Volons, Macedo-Armans(all of them forming single Romanians nation). So it is clear that Romania as state pretends to declare all mentioned national groups as single Romanian nation. While that is untrue regarding language(they do not speak all same language so they do not understand each other), culture, DNK analysis(that show people called Romanians nowadays consist of at least 3 different nations) and of top of that people from mentioned groups do not declare themselves Romanians at legal binding census. So we have here people who are promoting such policies of Romania state here in this article and disregards people who not declare themselves as Romanians as non existent outside Romania law. Romania law does not implies on encyclopedic matters. You want sources on all mentioned not a problem - even if you can find all mentioned by yourself if you wanted and had guts to recognize obvious things it is not problem for me to provide sources(for ones that promote single Romanian nations denying others same right's), but in meantime stop discriminating Vlachs of Serbia and promoting hearsay on this article, stop deleting sourced materials and pretend to know more about Vlachs of Serbia then Vlachs themselves. Loesorion (talk) 07:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the false assumption. I do not support this law because Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians are not Romanians. They speak a different language, have been many kilometers away from Romania for centuries, and have mixed with indigenous cultures. But the rest are Romanians and none of these factors have occurred on a scale large enough to separate certain communities (like the Vlachs from Serbia) from them. And your sources are not perfect in any way. The sixth reference is about Aromanians, not Serbian Vlachs. The seventh reference does not mention either the Vlachs, Serbia or Romania. In the eighth reference, in the introduction to the article, it is specified that the discussed Vlachs were mainly from the Principality of Hum and Travunija, not the Timok Valley. The ninth reference is the same. I can't access the tenth reference. That is the whole history section. I could go on like this, but I think you understand what I mean. Why need "guts" to search sources when I can discredit yours? And you have no right to replace sources that were already there and then say we are removing "sourced content". Super   Ψ   Dro  11:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What false assumption? Cited law exists in Romania, so you like one part other you don't like - what have that with deleting all sourced edits you are doing. And please cite references headlines you are talking about - 7 reference? You are obviously talking about some references not added by me - Rumen., Daskalov; Tchavdar., Marinov (2013-01-01). National ideologies and language policies. Brill. ISBN 9789004250765. OCLC 948626914. not added by me. 6 reference - https://www.britannica.com/topic/Vlach - is obvious from headline that is talking about Vlach and I quote from it "Vlach is the English-language term used to describe such an individual." so article is not talking about martians but Vlachs. 10 reference not added by me. And so on. This only show you are editing or better to say deleting all my work without even reading it in first place. And guts are needed to read and understand prior edit, to discredit in a way you are doing it could be done by anybody, and you are btw discrediting mostly someone else sources not mine and in same time discrediting yourself as editor. So you draw your conclusion who are Vlach by discrediting sources, nice, how about for start stopping with your definition who is who for people declared in LEGAL BINDING CENSUS who they are before you continue further edits because that is all you are doing now. And you delete section about Vlach cuisine, you don't like dish so do not eat it, nobody is forcing you, I don't mind what you like to eat so please stop such childish ridiculous editing of this article just by deleting all sourced materials for fun or personal stubbornness and total disregards toward others editors hard work as it seems to me now. Loesorion (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * "So we have here people who are promoting such policies of Romania state" this false assumption. I don't support it. But whatever. I admit that my behavior during this discussion has been quite aggressive and childish, and I want to apologize. This does not mean that now I agree with the points discussed and I reserve the right to come later and change the article, this time with sources. But right now it's better to step out. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Copyediting
Reading through, there were numerous sentences with improper grammar and phrasing to the point of incomprehensibility. Someone who has expertise on the Vlachs and good English needs to go through and figure out what those confusing sentences mean and rewrite them. --Hussierhussier1 (talk) 02:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC
Are Vlachs ethnic Romanians? Super  Ψ   Dro  17:10, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

So first of all, I am a Romanian. Bear in mind I have a bias regarding this topic. Still, I will try to present my arguments in a neutral manner. I also want to clarify that my aims here are to achieve consensus on Vlachs being Romanians and to merge this article.

I am opening this RfC to clarify the situation of the Timok Vlachs in Wikipedia. I opened a RfC earlier to discuss the status of the article Vlach language in Serbia before. It was successful and the article got merged with another into the new Romanian language in Serbia. Note that this RfC is probably going to be similar to that one and I will refer to it and to arguments and sources that I used there quite often. Here is a link to that RfC:.

Introduction

Eastern Europe is a mostly ethnically Slavic area, but there are several exceptions, such as the Hungarians or several Romance-speaking groups. For the latter we can identify several separate ethnic groups, such as Istrian Italians, though those originate from the former Republic of Venice. Other Romance Balkan groups form a linguistic and ethnic grouping, formed by the Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians. They're all geographically separate from the other, which has caused them to drift apart over the centuries. See a map here.

Romanians are the only of these peoples with a state of their own. Still, several Romanian-speaking communities live outside its borders, into Serbia, Ukraine, Hungary and Bulgaria. These Romanian communities are geographically contigious with those at Romania, unlike the rest of Balkan Romance-speaking peoples widely considered as their own ethnic groups. For Serbia's case, Romanian-speaking peoples are divided into two regions. One is Banat (northeastern Serbia), here these Romanian-speakers are universally known as ethnic Romanians. Currently, they're, in theory, the only focus of the article Romanians of Serbia. Then there is the Timok Valley (southeastern Serbia). Its Romanian-speakers are the focus of this article, and there's an ongoing controversy regarding their ethnic affiliation, with some saying they are Romanians (mostly Romanians themselves) while others saying they're different (Serbs and most Vlachs). By "controversy", I mean everything, from real life day-to-day interactions between Timok Vlachs themselves (which I will note are a mostly rural community, with all the implications of this in education and other topics), to mass media (newspapers, Internet videos...), to the opinions of populations outside of the area where they life, and also academically (which is what we ought to focus on in Wikipedia). Currently, this article, by virtue of existing but also by its contents, implies an ethnic differentiation between the Timok Vlachs and the Romanians. But I find the arguments used on the article to be weak, and to not reflect what academia actually says.

An example from the article: "Some Romanians, as well as international linguists and anthropologists, consider Serbia's Vlachs to be a subgroup of Romanians. However, the results of the last census showed that most Vlachs of Eastern Serbia opted for the Serbian and Vlach exonym vlasi (= Vlachs) rather than rumuni (= Romanians)". The assertion that these census results disprove the claim that Timok Vlachs are considered ethnic Romanians by researchers is WP:Original research. The source is only the census itself. Also note that this can be easily explained because Timok Vlachs tend to call themselves Vlasi in the Serbian language (the language of the census) but as rumân or something similar in their own, Romanian language, which is close to the român that Romanians in Romania use. The use of this ethnonym by Timok Vlachs does not necessarily imply a conscious self-differentiation from Romanians.

What is the academic consensus?

Most English-language sources seem to avoid the debate of whether the Timok Vlachs are Romanians or not. This includes Serbian scholars. See this article (Ivkov-Džigurski et al.), the name of the authors seem Serbian to me, perhaps there's even a Timok Vlach author among them. The article says at page 63 "The first one [group of peoples referred to as Vlachs] is ethnically, linguistically and spatially close or identical to today's Romanians. Broadly speaking, this group lives in the territories of South-Eastern Serbia and Bulgaria." They continue on page 65 saying "It can be argued that after World War I, the traditional Serbian name "Vlasi" started being used for the entire Romanian population that lived within the territories between the rivers Morava, Danube and Timok." and on page 66 that "The name "the Vlachs" started being imposed together with the systematic repression of the fact that these Vlachs have any connection with the Romanians and especially Romania (Dragić 2002: 11)". The latter is a quote of an article written by Serbian authors referencing the work of another Serbian author. Some Vlachs authors seem to consider that the Timok Vlachs are Romanians. I am quoting this at page 50, Vlach ethnologist Paun Es Durlić believes that "Thus, according to the ethnic instinct and ethnic consciousness, the Vlachs belong to the Romanian people, but according to the national consciousness, they are Serbs". This is included in a paper by Annemarie Sorescu-Marinković, who is another Vlach researcher. She refers to the Timok Vlachs as "Vlach Romanians" throughout this paper of her. Una Vasiljević, another Vlach professor, repeatedly refers to the Timok Vlachs as Romanians in her paper (see pages 268 and 269). She is a professor of Romanian in the Timok Valley and identifies herself as Romanian, but note that the paper was published by the University of Belgrade itself.

And what do they themselves think?

Census results show few Romanians recorded in the Timok Valley. Most of the people there chose "Vlach" over "Romanian" in these censuses. This doesn't necessarily imply the Timok Vlachs here are explicitly and directly differentiating themselves from the Romanians but rather using their mostly commonly used ethnonym, and in Serbian. We also have the example of the Bunjevci, a group of people that while they preferred to refer to themselves as "Bunjevci" in Serbian censuses, are still considered an ethnic subgroup rather than one of their own in Wikipedia. Furthermore, there's evidence that there's a movement for adopting a Romanian ethnic identity among the Timok Vlachs. Coming back to Ivkov-Džigurski et al., on page 68 there are the following statements:, "After the regime change in 2000, the new Serbian government passed a National Minority Law, which enabled the Vlachs to formulate their own political programmes. After much internal strife and conflict they finally produced a Joint Declaration of the Vlachs/Romanians of Eastern Serbia in May, 2002. The Declaration's core elements are that the Vlachs should be regarded as a national minority whose native country is Romania (this means that they are not only an 'ethnic group'), that their standard language is Romanian, and that their church services are to be held in the Romanian language." I am not knowledgeable on this topic, but I believe that in Serbia, minorities are legally allowed to form some kind of central organization for themselves. The Romanians in Vojvodina have their own, see National Council of the Romanian National Minority. I think such May 2002 declaration came from something similar. Therefore, it's a pretty authoritative organization in this topic. By the way, that quote mentions that Vlachs were allowed to make their own political formations. One such example is the Vlach People's Party. In their website, they use the name Partia Neamului Rumânesc, "Romanian People's Party". The party is led by Predrag Balašević (Vlach from Podgorac), who in an interview by a Romanian newspaper made statements such as "The situation faced by Romanians from Timoc is, unfortunately, similar to that of Romanians from Bulgaria, from Bessarabia, and so on." or "For so long, we didn't have Romanian schools, we didn't learn the Romanian language, we didn't have newspapers, Church, administration, nothing of ours - and yet, the Romanians from Timoc preserved their language identity, traditions and customs.". There are some other figures, such as Dușan Pârvulovici, another Vlach (I don't know from which locality) from the Timok Valley, who said in 2021 "Long live our Romanian nation!" , or Bojan Aleksandrović, another Vlach (native of Malajnica, in the Timok Valley) and also a priest who strove for the establishment of a church in his hometown aligned with the Romanian Orthodox Church and who has organized Romanian-language events along with Pârvulovici. Note that with this, I am not attempting to cherrypick sources as if to show that actually all Vlachs identify as Romanians or something and that I've come here to show a hidden truth, but that there's also a Romanian movement among the Vlachs. The notion that only authors and nationalists from Romania think that the Timok Vlachs are Romanians would be an erroneous one. In this thesis, there is info showing the existence of several Timok Vlach organizations in favor of adopting a Romanian ethnic and linguistic identity and others against it.

Timok Vlachs in history

The designation of the Timok Vlachs may be controversial today, but it clearly wasn't in the past. Here are some more quotes from Ivkov-Džigurski et al., page 67: In official documents and serious studies that have been conducted in the last or at the beginning of this century, the Vlachs were labelled as Romanians – their self-sufficient name was respected within their own populations. Later, it went hand in hand with the process of "teaching" them how to declare themselves, accompanied by direct or indirect repression. This was particularly the characteristics of the last couple of censuses [held in Yugoslavia and Serbia].". It appears that the Timok Vlachs originate from modern Romania, more precisely from Oltenia and Banat (linguistically speaking, the Timok Vlachs speak one of the two dialects, their speech is not a single compact dialect), from where they migrated in the 18th century as a result of wars in the region. There's little support for the Timok Vlachs being an autochtonous group originating from the Timok Valley. I'm quoting this paper at page 2. Also, looking at ethnic maps from the past centuries by several non-Romanian and non-Serb researchers, the Timok Vlachs are widely considered as Romanians. See maps from, , , , , , , , (one of the authors is a Serb), . In the past, as early as 100 years ago, it seems that the academic consensus was that the Timok Vlachs belonged to the Romanian ethnicity. Still, it is worth noting that a Romanian researcher George Vâlsan noted in 1913 that the Romanian national counciousness of the Timok Vlachs was weak, although they had a strong ethnic instinct. We also have a declaration by the Council of Europe itself, which argues that while their modern ethnic classification is disputed, "The predominant view is that the majority of the population which identifies itself as Vlach is descended from groups originating from Banat, parts of Transylvania and Oltenia in the 18th and 19th centuries." (, pages 22-23). These are regions today in Romania, except part of Banat, though Romance-speakers there are also considered Romanians anyway.

There's thus four ideas to carry on mind here:
 * 1. Vlachs speak Romanian (see last RfC).
 * 2. Vlachs were historically considered Romanians, as recently as 100 years ago.
 * 3. The notion of Vlachs as Romanians is not external, but present among Vlachs as well, specially intellectual groups (researchers and politicians).
 * 4. There is no academic consensus for Vlachs being an independent ethnic group.

Now, I think we have several options:
 * Option 1: Vlachs are not Romanians. They are distinct ethnic groups. This page is kept and not really changed.
 * Option 2: Vlachs are related to the Romanians and their clear links need to be highlighted. However, the subgroup is notable enough for its own article. This page is kept but rewritten. Maybe the article can be renamed (see below).
 * Option 3: Vlachs are Romanians and this article shouldn't be kept.
 * Option 3.1: Merge this article into Romanians of Serbia. This is the one I support.
 * Option 3.2: Make an article called Controversy over ethnic identity in the Timok Valley (in the style of Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Moldova and Controversy over ethnic and linguistic identity in Montenegro)

Also bear in mind that the Timok Vlachs are not restricted only to Serbia, but also to Bulgaria. As we mentioned above, the two groups composing the Romanian community in actual Serbia are identifiable by regions. [...] These two regions are Banat [...] and the Valley of Timoc (which includes territories which are part of actual Serbia and Bulgaria). p. 40. See these maps  ; the Vlachs at southeastern Serbia and the ones at northwestern Bulgaria form a contiguous, Romanian-speaking population artificially divided by political borders. But those at Bulgaria are considered Romanians. This is also the stance we take at Wikipedia, as Romanians in Bulgaria indeed includes the Romanian-speakers at this northwestern corner of Bulgaria bordering Serbia's Timok Valley. This shows that the division between the Timok Vlachs and the Romanians is purely a political issue, as this Romanian-speaking group in Bulgaria is undisputedly considered as belonging to the Romanian ethnicity in academia (for examples, see Talk:Romanians in Bulgaria; I also invite users here to provide references proving otherwise). In my opinion, we shouldn't divide a defined ethnic subgroup purely over politics. We would require other arguments, like linguistics or ethnography or maybe even history, but I see a lack of arguments for the differentiation of Vlachs and Romanians in all of these fields of study.

So, academia proves a strong link between the Romanians and the Timok Vlachs. Furthermore, this article is short and problematic (see tags on the article), and much of its information does not actually cover the Timok Vlachs, but the presence of a population called "Vlach" in the history of Serbia (see explanation why this can be out of scope of this article below). Romanians of Serbia is also a short article, and even though it is supposed to only cover those Romanians at Banat (see its infobox), it includes lots of information on the Timok Vlachs, much of which is repeated in this article. I believe that if both belong to the same ethnicity, and if their respective articles are short and overlap, it will not be difficult to effect a merge of both articles, which will end this artificial differentiation not backed by academic sources. Therefore, I support Option 3.1.; still, I considered that some users could consider information on this controversy notable enough for its own article, so Option 3.2. remains reasonable for me.

By the way, I think that the article should be renamed even if none of these options are chosen. "Vlach" has been a name in the past commonly used for Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians; that is, all Romance-speaking peoples in the Balkans. There are more Romance-speaking peoples in Serbia, see Romanians of Serbia for info on the Romanians that live in Vojvodina (nobody disputes that they are Romanians), Aromanians in Serbia for the Aromanians living scattered throughout Serbian cities and Megleno-Romanians for info on the Megleno-Romanian settlers in Vojvodina. There's already the article Vlachs in medieval Serbia, which is not exclusive to the Timok Valley. Thus, I think the article should get a more precise title that would leave it clear that the scope of the article is the present, living in the 21st century Romance-speaking group living in the Timok Valley. This could be "Timok Vlachs" or "Vlachs of the Timok Valley", or perhaps "Vlach Romanians of the Timok Valley". All this being only if the article is to be kept. Super  Ψ   Dro  17:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I reverted your bold merge to the long-standing consensus of having separate articles. As can be evident from the census results alone, modern Vlachs do not consider themselves ethnic Romanians; they have a distinct cultural traditions and lores than Romanians of Banat; speak markedly different dialect, some going as far as considering it a different language. I'm sorry that your RfC was stale, but for the start it failed to present the issue in a neutral manner, and was simply too much of a WP:TLDR that anyone apparently considered responding in a month. But that does not make a consensus. Your point of view of the Vlach issue is clear, and it goes against the reality As for your argument that the title "Vlachs of Serbia" is somehow ambiguous, no, I don't think so. The modern ethnic group of Eastern Serbia is the primary topic for the title "Vlachs of Serbia", and any historic usage can be explained out in Vlachs. No such user (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest reading the ultimate reference book about Vlachs and Aromanians in Serbia: :
 * Even those Aromanians and Vlachs who did accept a level of cultural connection with Romanians, refused being classified as part of the Romanian ethnos.
 * In the case of Timok Valley Vlachs,... part of Vlachs in Eastern Serbia strongly advocate the idea of belonging to Romania and therefore, treating the Vlachs as part of Romanian identity in Serbia. The Serbian state does recognize the Romanian minority (mostly in Vojvodina) but is not too keen on accepting such an interpretation on Vlachs. No such user (talk) 12:26, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As can be evident from the census results alone, modern Vlachs do not consider themselves ethnic Romanians not necessarily, the Timok Vlachs simply used the name they normally use in Serbian (the language of the census) to call themselves, which is "vlasi". For this to be enough to prove that the Timok Vlachs consciously rejected their relationship with the Romanians through this would need sourcing. By the way, census results prior to World War I registered all Timok Vlachs as Romanian. Do you propose that we treat them as Romanian until then and afterwards as a different ethnic group?
 * Anyway, there is a movement among the Timok Vlachs to identify with the Romanian ethnicity, especially among the educated class. I talk about this in the section "And what do they themselves think?". There are Timok Vlach politicians, researchers and ethnologists considering their community as Romanian. It is so relevant that there is even boycotting of elections and desertion to the Romanian National Council inside the Vlach National Council, or even accusations that the Vlach National Council is "pro-Romanian" and that it wants "the Timok Vlachs to join the Romanians" . And the Vlach National Council is regarded as the maximum representative of the Timok Vlachs.
 * Obviously the ethnic identity that the Timok Vlachs have is highly relevant for this issue. But if it's the only thing that justifies their separation from the Romanians, in my opinion it's a pretty weak narrative. Especially when it is not a universally accepted opinion among the Timok Vlachs, nor the traditional one, nor the one used by third-party entities such as the Council of Europe.
 * they have a distinct cultural traditions and lores than Romanians of Banat could you elaborate on which are these?
 * speak markedly different dialect, some going as far as considering it a different language. no not really. Timok Vlachs don't even have a compact dialect of their own. Some speak archaic Banat Romanian while some speak archaic Oltenian Romanian. This statement suggests you haven't even taken a quick look at the RfC, because I state at its start that there was a RfC prior to this one that determined Timok Vlachs speak Romanian . That one had the support of four users.
 * but for the start it failed to present the issue in a neutral manner I will appreciate any feedback regarding this so that I can rewrite any non-neutral parts of this RfC. What did you mean exactly? I am not sure you will be able to tell as you haven't read what I've written above.
 * and was simply too much of a WP:TLDR that anyone apparently considered responding in a month. the past RfC had a similar length and yet it was successful. If this one did not attract much discussion it was not because of the RfC length. A contentious issue requires argumentation and discussion. If I had only written the initial question it would have been a ridiculous RfC.
 * Your point of view of the Vlach issue is clear, and it goes against the reality yes, I had disclosed my point of view at the start of the RfC. But I don't understand how can it go against reality when it is shared by other members of the Timok Vlach community.
 * Yes, I am aware of that book. Its main author is Annemarie Sorescu-Marinković, a Timok Vlach researcher who considers the Timok Vlachs as Romanians . The two quotes you've cited from the book are pretty convenient for me. The second supports my claim of there existing a movement within the Timok Vlachs for identifying with the Romanians. While the first proves why precisely a move here is necessary. "Vlach" is a medieval name that was used for all Romance-speaking ethnic groups in the Balkans: Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians and Istro-Romanians. The first quote talks not about the Timok Vlachs but about the Aromanians, who indeed are widely considered as an ethnic group of their own. The Aromanians and the Timok Vlachs are unrelated groups with distinct origins. You can also realise the first quote does not talk about the Timok Vlachs because in the second, the authors decide it is necessary to add a label to the Timok Vlachs to clarify they're referring to them ("Timok Valley Vlachs" and "Vlachs in Eastern Serbia"). I think you fell to the same confusion you said was not necessary to avoid.
 * I will further argue that in the case a reader wanted to search for example for the article Vlachs in medieval Serbia, they might come across this article and think it is what they are looking for even though the medieval Serbian Vlachs (who were scattered not only all over Serbia but all over the Balkans) are not related to the modern Timok Vlachs (who emigrated during the early modern period from modern Romania to the Timok Valley, after many of those Vlachs had assimilated). Another scenario is the following. "Vlachs" is the name by which the Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians in North Macedonia (and other countries) are often known. A user from this country might find this article and think that it talks about the Aromanians in Serbia, when it is not the case. This is exactly what happened right below this RfC, in the section started by user TRIBALIA212. Also, the Megleno-Romanians, some of which live in Serbia (in Banat), call themselves exclusively as "vlasi". "Vlachs of Serbia" is too ambiguous for bibliography works, and also for some readers here. So I believe a move is necessary. Super   Ψ   Dro  15:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Super Dromaeosaurus, you wrote 25 kB of text in this section alone. I hardly have as much energy to refute every slant, overgeneralization and misinterpretation in there; and we have been already through all of that above, at . The quote from the major reference book that Even those Aromanians and Vlachs who did accept a level of cultural connection with Romanians, refused being classified as part of the Romanian ethnos can hardly be any clearer, so please do not gaslight me that the first quote does not talk about the Timok Vlachs since it obviously does, if you care to read the whole page. Aromanians and Vlachs are indeed two distinct groups, and the source does not conflate them in any point. Nobody denies that the Vlachs are of Romanian origin and that their dialect(s) are archaic Romanian. But once more, we are dealing with an ethnic group which consider themselves separate from Romanian ethnos, and have common identity, traditions, lores, and mostly language, and live in a compact area. That alone makes them an ethnic group by definition. Your own peculiar definition of ethnic group (what they feel is not synonymous with what they are) is noted, but does not align with the modern understanding of ethnogenesis and the principle of self-determination. Yes, there is a certain group within Vlachs that advocates for their Romanian identity, but I've already demonstrated by 2011 census results alone (35000 Vlachs vs. 2600 Romanians in Central Serbia) that they are just that, a minority.
 * If you want fresh information, here's the 2022 election results for the Vlach Minority Council, showing that 13.116 voters out of 23.341 registered voters cast their ballot, while for Romanian Minority Council there were 10.457 ballots cast out of 20.784 registered voters. That shows clear and unambiguous identity divide, and it goes along geographic boundaries (Romanians in Vojvodina, Vlachs in Eastern Serbia).

.
 * Timok Vlachs are arguably world-famous for preserving their witchcraft rituals and cult of the dead (here's a scholarly ref: ); their dance and costume, see photo. Some of that heritage is probably shared with southwest Romania, but definitively not with Romanians of Banat.
 * So, there's about zero encyclopedic reasons to lump the two quite distinct groups, treated distinctly by most international sources, most of them insisting on their distinct identity, into one article. No such user (talk) 09:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The quote follows a sentence about the Aromanians in Serbia, and the rest of the paragraph refers to them too. Authors talk about an interview to a man in Minićevo in Knjaževac which is an area of Aromanian influence ( p. 76), not Timok Vlach. And most sources do not treat the Timok Vlachs as an ethnic group. Most of them avoid or shortly comment the dispute, though specifying a connection with Romanians. Super   Ψ   Dro  10:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Demographic evolution in censuses
Is it possible to add demographic evolution. I can provide that, but don't want to waste my time if this is censored Phillipe de Roy (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by censored? Super   Ψ   Dro  19:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Super Dromaeosaurus not censored, as forbidden but censured as process of conducting census
 * i meant that if these was already done in this article in the past. I didnt find any systematixe data, but scattered throught the article Phillipe de Roy (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, there have been censuses (I guess the word you meant was censused) but they're very irregular and different from each other. I think they don't hold much strength in academic discourse on the Timok Vlachs. Estimates would be a better option. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Same name is used for population of North Macedonia
Vlachs are considered to be one of constitutive people enumerated in Constitution in North Macedonia. There should be a reference to this, as this creates a confusion in Wikipedia. There cannot be two different population using same name, especially as this is recognized in the Constitution of a sovereign state

Takins as...as well as the historical fact that Macedonia is established as a national state of the Macedonian people, in which full equality as citizens and permanent co-existence with the Macedonian people is provided for Albanians, Turks, Vlachs, Romanies and other nationalities living in the Republic of Macedonia, and intent on:

https://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/docs/ELECTRONIC/36714/70972/F511737559/MKD36714%2520Eng.pdf TRIBALIA212 (talk) 03:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The issue has been solved. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:05, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Super Dromaeosaurus sorry but I don't see any reference in the article about this Phillipe de Roy (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * By solved I meant that I merged the article. That isn't the case anymore. Super   Ψ   Dro  19:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Super Dromaeosaurus you get me wrong here. i meant that the should have a clarification that real Vlachs are those from Macedonia. in this case it should be referenced that this name was a product of 1948 census.. Phillipe de Roy (talk) 21:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are not "real Vlachs". We have Romanians, Aromanians, Megleno-Romanians or Istro-Romanians. The situation of the name "Vlach" is already explained at Vlachs. Super   Ψ   Dro  21:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Super Dromaeosaurus ok. i agree with the position that the Vlach is an external name for Romanian speaking population of four different  dialects of the language. I wanted this to be made clear not to confuse with Aromanians from Macedonia. I thought about adding a disclaimer at the top of the article on this Phillipe de Roy (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't believe these peoples speak Romanian dialects. I'm certain most Romanians would struggle understanding Istro-Romanian. Also, only Romanian linguists hold this stance.
 * I don't see why would readers accidentally end up in the article "Vlachs of Serbia" while looking for Aromanians in North Macedonia. It's an unlikely error and it'd be in the reader's fault, there's so much we can do. Furthermore, why precisely distinguish them from the North Macedonian ones? Or was "Macedonia" meant as the geographical region? Aromanians extend beyond this region, so it would also be arbitrary. In my opinion there's no need for a change. Super   Ψ   Dro  22:10, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Super Dromaeosaurus traditional lingustic considers Romanian as a macro language (please see article on Romanian language)
 * with four dialects
 * 1. Daco Romanian
 * 2. Aromanian or Macedo Romanian
 * 3. Megleno Romanian
 * 4. Istro Romanian
 * in this sense dialects.
 * for the other part. yes, I thought about exactly North Macedonia
 * 1. there is a risk as both Macedonian and Serbian name of the two different minoroties is Власи Vlasi. These are only two Slavic languages which were part of the same state, and there is a common misunderstanding that the Romanian speaking population in Serbia is in fact Aromanian (beside this there is also Aromanian population in Serbia, with origins in Macedionia)
 * 2. Yugoslav census from 1948 to 1991 didn't distinguish between the two as both were censused as Vlach in English or Vlasi in Serbo Croatian. (in 1921 and 1931 they were censused as Romanians)
 * 3. As this was a rare case were in one state where Romanians and Aromanians lived traditionally Phillipe de Roy (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Very well, I've been convinced to a point by your rationale. Still I'd prefer the Aromanians in North Macedonia not to be mentioned implicitly, if we get nitpicky "Vlach" may also refer to either North Macedonian Megleno-Romanians or Serbian Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians. Thus, what I rather did is state clearly what this article is about (and therefore what is it not about). Super   Ψ   Dro  22:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Change in the name after 1859
Цвијетић, Лепосава., Попис становништва и имовине у Србији 1834. године, Мешовита грађа (Miscellanea) XIII (1984), Историјски Институт, Београд, стр. 9–118. http://archive.org/download/Miscellanea13/Miscellanea13251984.pdf

Гавриловић, Јован., Прилог за географију и статистику Србије. Главни извод пописа Србије у години 1846, Гласник ДСС III (1851), стр. 186–190. http://books.google.rs/books?id=eRUWAQAAMAAJ

Гавриловић, Јован., Прилог за географију и статистику Србије. Главни извод пописа Србије у години 1850, Гласник ДСС IV (1852), стр. 227–248. http://books.google.rs/books?id=ufwjpKZsXVMC

Гавриловић, Јован., Главни извод пописа у Србији године 1854/55, Гласник ДСС IX (1857), стр. 224–226. http://books.google.rs/books?id=UxcWAQAAMAAJ Државопис Србије, 1863. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1863/Pdf/G186311001.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1865. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1865/Pdf/G186511001.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1869. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1869/Pdf/G186911001.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1874.. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1874/Pdf/G187411001.pdf

Кретање људства у Србији од 1874.-1879. године http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1879/Pdf/G187911002.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1879. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1879/Pdf/G187911001.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1882. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1882/Pdf/G188211001.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1883. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1883/Pdf/G188311001.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1884. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1884/Pdf/G188411001.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1889. Свеска XVI http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911002.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1889. Свеска XIV http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911001.pdf

Статистика краљевине Србије, 1892. I део http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1892/Pdf/G189211002.pdf

Статистика Краљевине Србије, 1892. II део http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1892/Pdf/G189211001.pdf

Државопис Србије, 1893. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1893/Pdf/G189311001.pdf

Попис становништва и домаће стоке у Краљевини Србији 31 децембра 1910. године, 1911. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1911/Pdf/G191111001.pdf

Присутно становништво (грађанско и војничко, трајно и пролазно присутно) по матерњем језику и вероисповести, попис 1921. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1921/Pdf/G19214001.pdf

Присутно становништво по вероисповести и матерњем језику, попис 1931. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1931/Pdf/G19314001.pdf

Стално становништво по народности, попис 1948. http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1948/Pdf/G19484001.pdf

Before the unification of Moldavia and Wallachia in 1859, the Vlachs in eastern Serbia were officially known as "Romanians". On the other hand, the country of Wallachia (the name of which was derived from "Vlach"), was known in Serbian as Влашка / Vlaška. Furthermore, in ethnographic studies of the 19th or early 20th century, the Vlachs of eastern Serbia were regarded as Romanians in an undisputed way. However, after 1859 and the formation of the first modern Romanian state, this practice was reversed, with the name of "Vlach" being imposed over on the community of eastern Serbia to break similarities with the Romanians; this was intensified after the creation of Yugoslavia.

The above text is plainly factually wrong. Romanians were considered as such until 1948 census in Yugoslavia. I copy official census books from Principality of Setbia, Kingdom of Servia, Kingdom of SCS and Yugoslavia. The name Vlach was used before 1866 as the internationally was known Wallachia, not the other way around. I am frustrated with so many factual errors in this article

109.93.126.254 (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)