User talk:Brickoceanmonth

Vlach language
Your point? Views evolve over time, and I admit I was wrong back in 2005. The problem is that as Romanians we are constantly told by our politicians and the media that all Eastern Romance-speaking peoples are Romanians. The reality is more complex than that. Ronline ✉ 07:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you speak Vlach language?--Brickoceanmonth 07:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I read over what I wrote in 2005 and I don't necessarily disagree with it now. I still agree that Vlach and Romanian are the same language, in the same way that Moldovan and Romanian are the same language from a linguistic perspective. This should definitely be stated in the article: that Vlach and Romanian are linguistically identical. However, it should also be stated that the Vlachs of Serbia call their language Vlach rather than Romanian. Simply providing a redirect to Romanian language is misleading. Ronline ✉ 07:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You see :) However, people from Serbia want to express their Romanian ancestry, thus calling them Romanians of Serbia and not Vlachs of Serbia. They succeded since 1st of August, just 12 days ago this! --Brickoceanmonth 08:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's POV to say that they aren't Romanians. Namely the Serbian Gov. POV, luckly they accepted to change it since 2002. Implementation of that agreement was done on 1st of August 2007! --Brickoceanmonth 08:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the same language, the same people. Period.--Brickoceanmonth 08:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My argument is that everyone has the right to choose their own ethnic identity; we cannot attribute or assign people to a certain ethnicity. If a Hungarian from Romania wants to declare himself or herself "Romanian", they are free to do so, and they would be counted as "Romanian" on the census. It is the same issue here. There are 50,000 or so people in Serbia who choose to declare themselves "Vlachs". There are also around 5,000 people in Central Serbia who choose to declare themselves Romanian. And, there are some Eastern-Romance ancestry people who choose to declare themselves "Serbian". I don't see what the problem is. How can you call someone Romanian when that person does not consider themselves Romanian or declare their belonging to the Romanian ethnicity? This doesn't mean that the Vlachs and Romanians aren't the same people from a linguistic and "scientific" point of view. The case is similar to Valencian. Ronline ✉ 08:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The agreement was signed in 4 Nov. 2002. And the implementation was done only after 5 years! http://www.romaniuitati.eu/content/view/34/45/ at 1st of August 2007, 12 days ago! --Brickoceanmonth 08:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Everyone is free to choose their own ethnic identity. The problem was that Serbia didn't want to recognize that if they say Vlachs that means that they are Romanians. This took about 5 years..--Brickoceanmonth 08:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But that argument doesn't make sense! If they think of themselves as Romanians, why didn't they declare "Romanian"? Why did they declare "Vlach"? Remember that some of them did declare Romanian. Ronline ✉ 08:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because saying Vlach means automatically Romanian. That's why. It's the same as a Moldovan/Ardelean/Oltean etc..And they are not saying Vlaski but Rumuni. Only the serbs are calling them Vlaski.--Brickoceanmonth 08:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That argument still doesn't make sense. You're arguing that these people "feel" Romanian, right? ("simt româneşte"). If so, then why didn't they declare that they were Romanians? The fact that they declared "Vlach" means that they were reticent to declare their Romanian ethnicity. In the census, you get just one choice of expressing which ethnicity (not "regional identity") fits you best. Evidently, those 40,054 people who declared "Vlach" thought that this was a better description of their ethnicity than "Romanian". Ronline ✉ 08:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yeas it makes a lot of sense. Just tell me, did they care to be named Romanians or not? did they made all the things possible to make this happen? if they were not Romanians and other ethnicity why would they bother to make it happen? Tell me please. With good arguments. And please, don't praise the Milosevici regime till 2001 because we know it very well, that no compromise from Serbs could be done in those days, and Serbia was not a democratic country. What could you expect from Serbia of that time? Especially not the recognition that Vlachs are Romanians. and that they speak the same language: Romanian language.--Brickoceanmonth 08:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just one thing about "Vlaski" - they actually did declare themselves "Vlaski". If they declared "Rumuni" they would've been counted as Romanians. My understanding of the problem is that there are some Vlachs who see themselves as Romanian, and maybe that number has increased since the census. But is this new council that has been created the official representative of the Vlachs of Serbia? Of all of them? Ronline ✉ 08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, for all of them. Have you not read carefully the whole article? And don't you understand that the agreement was made after the census?? --Brickoceanmonth 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know then. This is a complex case. I think we would need some official evidence. I'm not saying I don't trust what Romanian Global News is saying, but rather its choice of terminology. The council still calls itself "Vlach (Roumanian)". Why doesn't it call itself simply "Romanian" if they were the same identity? Ronline ✉ 08:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You see. I demonstrated you we're right. Tell me if it's not the same identity when you say you're Transylvanian/Ardelean/Oltean etc..--Brickoceanmonth 08:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

How can you call someone Romanian when that person does not consider themselves Romanian or declare their belonging to the Romanian ethnicity? This doesn't mean that the Vlachs and Romanians aren't the same people from a linguistic and "scientific" point of view. The case is similar to Valencian. '''
 * Reply: Who said that they don't view themselves as Romanians? They fight for their case in order to be recognized as Romanians. They were viewed by the others "namely Serbians" as different from Romanians.--Brickoceanmonth 08:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Serbs view them as being different from Romanians, but they also view themselves as being different. The fact that they declared "Vlach" shows this. If they viewed themselves primarily as Romanians, they would have declared "Romanian". It's a really simple issue. Ronline ✉ 08:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tell me when a Ardelean/Oltean/moldovan says he's a Ardelean/...etc does not view himself as a Romanian. And don't forget that the agreement was made after the census. Only then Serbia recognized that Vlachs of Serbia are Romanians.--Brickoceanmonth 08:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) The census asked for "ethnicity" not for "regional identity". An "ardelean" might indeed view himself as Romanian also, but we have no right to make that decision for him. In fact, I have met people who say they are "Transylvanian" but are not even ethnic Romanians (often, they are mixed Romanians and Hungarians). The point is that we cannot think for other people, we can only report what they themselves declare.
 * 2) I don't that recognising Vlachs as Romanians is up to the state of Serbia, but rather to the individual themselves. The individual has the choice to declare whatever they want in the census. Yes, the agreement was made after the census. But that doesn't mean that if 40,000 people declared themselves "Vlachs" today they should be assigned to a "Romanian" ethnicity even though they themselves declared something else than Romanian. Ronline ✉ 08:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it might be history. I want to make it clear that I'm not coming here with a particular POV and I am open minded. My only fear is that the Romanian media, like the Serbian media, like all media outlets, is distorted, and thus we can't only represent that single point of view. Ronline ✉ 08:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know that Ronline. I'm sure that at the next census in Serbia, more Romanians will appear. This Council has now all the conditions to develop everything that is good for the Romanian community to develop itself like all the rest of minorities from let's say Vojvodina in a democratic Serbia, which defends all the rights of the minorities and does not try to divide them artificially in different communities. Romanians of Serbia, if they are recognized will be the largest minority of new Serbia.--Brickoceanmonth 08:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My only issue is that the council has not identified itself as "Romanian". It continues calling itself Vlach ("Vlaski"). Finally, remember that Wikipedia does not have a political motive. This is not about Romanians becoming the "largest minority of new Serbia"; we shouldn't be guided by that aim. Ronline ✉ 08:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ronline, "Consiliul reprezinta comunitatea romaneasca din Timoc si are precizat in statutul sau utilizarea ca limba materna a limbii romane literare" What do you want more? It's say exactly that they speak Romanian and no Vlach language (which does not exist of course!). Look at the name in Romanian of the council: it's says Roumanian in the title! By doing this it's expressed the identity and wash any doubts that they view themselves as Romanians! (the title in Romanian is: Consiliului National al Rumanilor din Serbia  in English is: National Council of Vlach (Roumanian) national minority)--Brickoceanmonth 08:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but note that it says "Roumanian" rather than "Romanian". "Rumâni" rather than "Români". Obviously, it was not a spelling mistake. Was it not an attempt to differentiate themselves from Romanians, even while adopting standard Romanian as the council's official language? (This is similar to what Moldova did - the Moldovan language was based on standard Romanian, but their declared ethnicity was different). If they identify as Romanians, why didn't they just write "români"? Ronline ✉ 08:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh come on that's really nonsense. Roumanian/Romanian/Rumania it's the same. Maybe that had bad translators, modern English is Romania but you know that before 1940 in Old English was Rumania. Look in Encylopedia Britannica. Anyway Olahus, just replied to you with a competent reply about "rumani".--Brickoceanmonth 08:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Todor→Bozhinov 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK for notice --Brickoceanmonth 20:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser
I'm not sure why you would ask me as I'm pretty sure we've never had any sort of contact. Still, the short answer is no. What you can do is to ask the blocking admin to start a checkuser or add an unblock request to this talk page asking for this but in general, checkuser requests to prove your innocence are not accepted. Pascal.Tesson 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)