Talk:Atlas of Serbia

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

10th century[edit]

Serbia in the 10th century. For the history is importen the exacley name of a contry. We dont´t iuse to say Rom for Italy, way we shull say for Serbia in this way. Pleas use the real name of the states. Other ways you are maken propaganda and this hase nothing to do with your mision.

Serb lands in the 9th century - is not correct. You most move thate map. The correty name must be somthing like "Provosllavien lands" - ortodox sllave lands. Dont mix here the name serb with sllav´s (shkije). This is meastek. A same meastek like with macedonial sllaw witch was present to the west for more thane 100 years as serbs. This land was greece traditonal peopels, an the aristrocraty of this lands was members of the Sllavish Church after the Church in Kontatinopole has lost controll over this part of Ballkan.

Countries with disputed borders[edit]

If Kosovo is in category: Countries with disputed status then you mast open a category :Countries with disputed borders. Beacose 36 states are disputen the borers of Repbulic Serbia. This has no sense. This is a jocke.

USA is not AMERICA[edit]

America is a continet, USA - is a Union of American States. Serbia ortodx lands (the feeld in witch they have patronat over the ortosox peopel) is not a same with Serbia als State. Vojvodina, Kosovo and Pashalluk of Bellgrad, Rashka (Sandjak of Novi Pazar), Sandjak of Nish hase maked the Socialis Republi of Serbia.

lol and ROFEL!!!


Well, Olahus, would you like to provide some proofs that Vlachs declared themselves as Romanians before World War I or in 1920? The first census in Serbia that recorded ethnicity of people was conducted in 1948 and in all censuses from 1948 to 2002 Vlachs declared themselves as Vlachs, not as Romanians. So, if you claim that they were Romanians in 1920 (without any proof from any census to support your claims) then you obviously conducting an personal original research and you including your own personal point of view into article. Please do not do that since it will damage accuracy of this atlas. Thank you. 22:03, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

See here and here. Read the references and the external weblinks. --Olahus (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
See what? I do not see there any reliable reference that claim that Vlachs declared themselves as Romanians in any census. If there is such reference, please present that reference on this talk page. But, if such reference does not exist then articles in English Wikipedia are examples of POV pushing and original research and should be examined by Wikipedia Community. Anyway, we now discuss the issue on this talk page and thus any references that you have you should present here. Otherwise, your continuation of article reverts would be example of violation of Wikimedia rules. 11:36, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Until the 1921-census, they have been counted as Romanians, up to 1931 as Vlachs. However, they always call "Romanians" in they own language. And stop to revert the article now. And log on, please!--Olahus (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
1. According to Wikimedia rules, I am not obligated to log on. 2. How Vlachs could be counted as anything in 1921 and 1931 when these censuses did not recorded ethnicity of people, but only language and religion? can you understand that first ethnicity-based population census was in 1948? 3. It is you who should stop reverting article since you trying to push your POV and original research (the only way to stop me from reverting this article is to present on this page an reliable source with pre-1948 census data, which will show that Vlachs declared their ethnicity in any census before 1948. unfortunately for your "great national cause", such sources do not exist). 4. word "roumani" that some vlachs use in their language does not mean "romanians" - it rather mean "romans" or "romance people", which is equivalent to the slavic term "vlach" (terms "roumani" and "romanian" are different as much as terms "slavs", "slovaks" and "slovenians"). 21:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Up to the 19th century, in Serbia the people are questioned about their ethnicity. See here: 1866 zählte man 1.058.189 Serben, 127.545 Rumänen, 24.607 Zigeuner, 2589 Deutsche und 3256 andere or here: Fast die ganze Bevölkerung, über 2 Mill, besteht aus Serben, außerdem gab es, nach der Zählung von 1895, 159.000 Rumänen und 46.000 Zigeuner. And stop wrinting here things like "your great national cause", such outbreaks just make our conversation unfriendly. Not to say that the term "Vlach" is just an old denomination for the Romanians, so if you say "Vlach" you mean "Romanian". In Central Serbia, from historical reasons, this term is still in use. But look at this German map from 1891 (see the inscription "Walachen" over Bessarabia!) or this British map from 1896 - In the map you can read only "Walachians", in the legend you can read "Romanians (Wallachians)"; even the Aromanians (Zinzars) are listened separately or this Hungarian map from 1897 ("oláh" is the hungarian term for "vlach") or this German map from 1914. You can read "RUMÄNEN"(WALACHEN) or this German map from 1932. You can read "RUMÄNEN"(WALACHEN), or see here: Romänen (Vlachen), or here: [1]. And do you know where the name "Wallachia" ("Влашка") is coming from? And did you know that the inhabitants NEVER called their country "Влашка" in their own language, but "Цѣра Румѫнѣскъ" - "Romanian land". In the same way the Vlachs of Serbia NEVER call themselves "Vlachs" in their own language, but "Romanians". See this reportage and this Vlach song called "Romanian heart" and this Vlach song called "At us, the Romanians in Serbia". They call themselves "Romanians". I would ask you politely not to revert this article again until the discussion is closed. I also want to ask you to bring some sources in the discussion. --Olahus (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Let see your sources: first this one and this one – so what we have there? We have word „Rumanen“, right? – this is obviously just an German-language interpretation of population data and it does not prove anything. We should see original data in Serbian and only then we can see what was original term that was translated as „Rumanen“ into German. As for „friendly discussion“, how can we discuss friendly when you just started an propaganda agression against my country and its citizens? Claim that Vlachs are Romanians is nothing else but example of an agressive Greater Romanian nationalism, the goal is simple: first convince Vlachs and everybody else that they are Romanians and then attach terrirories where they live to Greater Romania. So, if you want to make friends then you should not propagate an agressive nationalism. Also, regarding the term „Vlach“, that term originating from Slavic languages and was a designation for all Celtic and Romance peoples and today is still designation for all Romance peoples of the Balkans. Romanians are just part of Balkanic Vlach populations. In Serbia, Serbian statistical bureau clearly defined Vlachs as an separate ethnicity and therefore claim that it is just „historical name“ used for Romanians who live in that region can't be correct. Also this source and this source (and few more that you presented) are only showing different ways in which term „Vlachs“ was used during history and such sources are certainly not a proof that Vlachs of Serbia considered themselves Romanians. There is nothing disputed that term „Vlachs“ was also used for Romanians, Aromanians, Istroromanians, etc, but there is still no any proof that term „Romanians“ was used by the Vlachs of Serbia as their ethnic designation (as I already pointed, term „roumani“ used by some Vlachs does not mean „Romanian“, but „Roman“ or „Romance“ – do you understand a difference between Rome and Romania?). And about youtube movies: anybody can use windows movie maker to create and upload whatever movie he/she want to that website, so youtube is completelly unreliable as a source for anything. As for sources, population censuses conducted in Serbia from 1948 to 2002 are best and most reliable sources about this issue, everything else is nationalist propaganda. 21:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
First of all, your allegation that I would "start a propaganda against Serbia" is just paranoic. I just say what everybody already knows for a long time. I really have the impression that you simply don't know the meaning of the term "Vlach". Yes, the first 2 sources are German - so where is the problem? You can clearly read the term "Rumänen" which clearly means "Romanians". If you say that they have been registered officially as "vlasi" instead of "rumuni", show me please the source that broght you to this conclusion. What do you expect? To say that you are right? Why should I do this? Just give me a reason to believe that the Vlachs of Serbia aren't Romanians, but something different. Give me a proove, a source, something ... You say that I propagate "aggresive nationalism"? I think, accourding to you the whole world is making aggresive pro-Romanian and anti-Serbian nationalism. But seriously now, aren't those thoughts paranoic? And, excuse me, but this map is just a map that shows where Romanians live (as a majority or a minority), it is not a map of territorial claimings of Romania toward neighbouring countries. Romania never claimed Eastern Serbia. Never! And it will never claim any territories of Serbia. Romania is the best neighbour that Serbia ever had. Not even during WW2 when it was invited by Nazi-Germany to participate at Serbia's partition. What you sustain is just pure paranoia. The Serbian statistical buread doesn't define weather the persons counted as "vlasi" are "rumuni" or not. It just records the people by the designation used in the Serbian language - the language used in the census questionings. The Vlachs of Serbia do call themselves "roumani", but "rumâni". You say that the maps with the Vlachs are showing different meanings of the term "Vlachs"? What do you exactly mean by saying this? They clearly say that the Romanians are Vlachs and the Vlachs of Serbia are Romanians and viceversa. You semm to be very incomprehensibly reticient to my sources, but, very interesting, you are showing NOTHING, no sources for your claims, but NOTHING. And concerning the youtube movies, they are just showing a reportage at the Vlachs and some old Vlachs songs from the Negotin-area singed by Stanisa Paunovic, a well-known Vlach singer of Negotin. But, if you want, I can show you many other sources that proove the Romanian self-designation of the "vlasi": See here a reportage of a Vlach festival: [2] the denomination "vlasi" is used in Serbian and "rumâni" in the own language. See also the homepage of the Vlachs in Serbia: in Serbian they call themselves "vlasi", while in Romanian the call themselves "rumâni". Besides the term "vlach" is not of Slavic, but of Germanic origin and was just borrowed by the Slavs. --Olahus (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You may say that your behaviour is not nationalistic, but how else we can describe behaviour in which you trying to impose Romanian name to another ethnic group? Facts about this ethnic group are simple: 1. State of Serbia recognize Vlachs as an separate ethnicity, 2. Vlachs themselves are claiming that they belong to an separate ethnicity. Maybe language barier is preventing you to read all sources about this question, but simple google search with term „mi nismo Rumuni“ („WE ARE NOT ROMANIANS“) can show several web pages where members of Vlach ethnicity claiming exactly that: [3] Here is also an official publication of Serbian statistical office where Romanians and Vlachs are clasified as separate ethnicities: And here are some ethnic maps that are also showing that Romanians and Vlachs are two separate ethnicities: and and Here is also source which confirm that first ethnicity-based census in Serbia was in 1948: So, let conclude: in all ethnicity-based censuses in Serbia from 1948 to 2002 Vlachs declared themselves as Vlachs, most members of Vlachs community think that Vlachs are not Romanians, and Serbian state recognize them as separate ethnicity as well. Also, both ethnic groups, Vlachs and Romanians, are having separate national concils in Serbia, see: [4] Speaking about 100 years (or so) old ethnic map and resources, such sources are not stricly based on population censuses, but are to large extent based on opinions of their authors – what I want to say is that claims in some of these old ethnic maps that Vlachs are Romanians are not examples of scientific truth or presentation of official census data, but are only examples of opinions of people who created such maps. So, it is not me who should prove that Vlachs declared themselves as Vlachs in pre-1948 population censuses, but it is you who should prove that people were asked for their ethnicity in pre-1948 censuses (I do not see such proof in sources that you showed). As for Serbian statistical office, it is simply not truth that it „just records the people by the designation used in the Serbian language“. I know statistical methodology very well and lists of ethnicities in census results are definitions of ethnic groups, not just lists of „self-designations“ (for example, in pre-1991 censuses, official stance of statistical service was that Bunjevci and Šokci are Croats so people who declared themselves as Bunjevci and Šokci were listed as Croats in census results. Second example are Roma people since some of them declare they they are „Romi“ and other declare that they are „Cigani“, but all of them arew listed as „Romi“ in census results. Before 2002 census there was also debate whether Bosniaks should be listed as separate ethnicity or as „Muslims by nationality“. It is quite clear that listing of Romanians and Vlachs as separate ethnicities is an official stance of statistical service, not just record about self-designation of people. About Romanian consciousness among Vlachs: it is not disputed that one small number of Vlachs think that Vlachs are Romanians (for example, in 2002 census, there was 659 declared Romanisns in Borski okrug and 309 declared Romanians in Zaječarski okrug), but is just opinion of one very small number of Vlachs who were influenced by Greater Romanian propaganda. But that does not mean that somebody should impose Romanian ethnic identity to all Vlachs since it is obvious that majority of Vlachs does not have such identity. So, if you want to show me sources about „Romanian self-designation of the Vlachs“, please make sure that such sources are not youtube-type and that such sources will cover majority of Vlachs, not just some of thewm who were influenced by Greater Romanian nationalistic ideology (that also apply to which is just website of one political organization and which does not represent most of Vlachs, but even in english version of this site name used for Vlachs is „Roumanian“, not „Romanian“: and this map from same web site that show Vlach locatilies clearly separates such locatilies from Romanian-inhabited villages in Banat: - all in all, this web site does not clearly claiming Romanian identity of Vlachs, but rather consider Vlachs separate from Romanians in Banat). In the end, Wikimedia Commons is here only to keep files and is not a place where question of Vlach identity should be determined or explained. Having this in mind, the best and most neutral solution is to keep only term „Vlachs“ in this atlas, while the question whether they are separate ethnicity or Romanians should be elaborated in Wikipedia articles, not here. 20:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
You still don't show any reliable source for your claimings. You just show me by google simply some forum discussions, where some anonymous user who pretend to be Vlachs (but, are they really?) are shouting „mi nismo Rumuni“. Those sources are NOT RELIABLE. You don't have to prove me that in the last decades, the persons who declared "vlasi" on the census have been counted as "vlasi". I know that and I didn't deny that. On each census, the listing of ethnicities is quite different, in 2001 they are some ethnicities listened who where not listened in 1991, in 1991 they are some ethnicities listened who where not listened in 1981 and so on. And this is the official homepage of the Vlachs of Serbia (which was recognized in 2007). And, as you can see in their homepage, they call themselves "Romanians" (Roumanians = Romanians = Rumanians). The Vlachs/Romanians of Central Serbia use the denomination "Власи" while talking in the official language of Serbia and "Rumâni" while talking in their own language. I think the neutral solution is to use the designation "Romanians (Vlachs)" for maps about the 1921-census or earlier and "Vlachs (Romanians)" for maps about the 1931-census or later. Iniltially I intended to use only the designation "Romanians" for maps about the 1921-census or earlier and only "Vlachs" for maps about the 1931-census or later. But since we are talking about the same population, the latter solution was better in order to make the reader clear that the persons registered in Central Serbia as "rumuni" until 1921 are the same with those registered as "vlasi" after 1931. And, for the end, I would like to show you also some lingistic maps, published by the German researcher Gustav Weigand: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Additionally, also made by him, the ethnic map of the Romanian linguistic areal (Völkerkarte des rumänischen Sprachgebietes [5]). As you can see, they are no differences betwenn the language spoken on both sides of the Danube. In Serbian statistic, the language spoken is registered as "Влашки", but Влашки=Румунски). And if you thinik it could help, I would also like to show you you a publication: M. V. Fifor. Assimilation or Acculturalisation: Creating Identities in the New Europe. The case of Vlachs in Serbia. Published in Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in Central Europe, Jagellonian University, Cracow 2000(1, 2, 3, 4). And for the end: Thede Kahl, Ethnizität und räumliche Verteilung der Aromunen in Südeuropa. Münster, 1999. Page 24: "Die Siedlungen der auch als Vlachen oder Timok-Vlachen bezeichneten rumänischsprachigen Bevölkerung Ostserbiens und Nordbulgariens (serb./bulg. Власи, rumänisch: Români Timoceni) sind genauso wenig berücksichtigt worden, da sowohl Sprache, Selbstverständnis, Lebensweise und materielle Kultur als auch ihre Ethnogenese diese Vlachen als (Dako-) Rumänen ausweisen. If you don't understand German, tell me please and I will translate this text for you. --Olahus (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Seems that your behavior became more nationalistic with your every post – it is not only that you pushing an extreme nationalistic POV, but you also lying about census results. Do you understand this: THERE WAS NO ETHNICITY-BASED CENSUS IN SERBIA BEFORE 1948, so everything what you say about data from censuses in 1921 or 1931 is an BIG NONSENSE. The only thing that was recorded by these censuses were language and religion, but no ethnicity and this is very reliable source that confirm that: - Also, I did posted reliable source about Vlachs separate identity: (there cant be more reliable source then this official publication by serbian statistical office). And if you think that Vlachs from my sources who claimed that Vlachs are not Romanians are not real Vlachs (where is your proof that they are not?), here is an undisputed proof, i.e. opinion of somebody who is very relevant person to say who are Vlachs: (in this link you can read: „Na skupu koji je, u organizaciji Helsinškog odbora, održan u Novom Sadu (decembar 2001) i na kome su učestvovali predstavnici kulturnih i političkih organizacija Vlaha mogla su se čuti posve suprotstavljena mišljenja o tome da li su Vlasi Rumuni ili su poseban identitet. I dok su jedni smatrali da su Vlasi (kako ih nazivaju drugi) Rumuni (kako nazivaju sami sebe), te da je, bez obzira na etnonime, u antropološkom i kulturnom smislu reč o istom etničkom entitetu, drugi su to poricali, ističući da Vlasi nisu ni Rumuni, ali ni Srbi. Zoran Lilić, predsednik Socijaldemokratske partije, u intervjuu na lokalnoj televiziji u Kladovu proglasio je da su Vlasi najstariji Srbi na području Timočke krajine. „) I will also use google translate page to translate this text for you: - „At the meeting, organized by the Helsinki Committee, held in Novi Sad (December 2001) and which was attended by representatives of cultural and political organizations Vlachs could be heard completely opposing views on whether the Vlachs or Romanians have a special identity. And while one felt that the Vlachs (as they called other) Romania (to call themselves), and that, regardless of etnonime, in the anthropological and cultural meaning of the word of the same ethnic entity, others have denied it, saying the Vlachs Romanians were not, but neither the Serbs. Zoran Lilic, the president of the Social Democratic Party, in an interview on local television in Kladovo declared that the Vlachs Serbs on the territory of the oldest Timok“ – google translation is not best one, but what Zoran Lilić has say is that „Vlachs are oldest Serbs in Timočka Krajina“. Zoran Lilić is Vlach himself and he was a president of Yugoslavia so he is very relevant to speak about identity of his ethnic group. It is obvious that there are 3 different opinions among Vlachs about this question: 1. Opinion that Vlachs are separate ethnicity, 2. Opinion that Vlachs are ethnographic subgroup of Serbs, and 3. Opinion that Vlachs are Romanians. – source that mention these 3 opiniins that I showed is a text that was published in nespaper „Danas“ in 9. novembar 2001, so it is an reliable source and fact that these 3 different opinions about Vlachs are existing cant be disputed. The problem with your behaviour is that you trying to push only one opinion and to ignore other two and the opinion that you trying to push is obviously the one that, according to your „patriotic“ mind, can assure future greatness of your country. To say it like this: your explicit claim that Vlachs are Romanians is clear example of POV-pushing and it is POV as much as it would be POV that I use explicit claims like „Vlachs (Serbs)“ or „Vlach nation“ to illustrate other two opinions about Vlachs. I used completelly neutral description „Vlachs“, which does not imply any of the 3 opoinions about them and I do not see what problem you have with that explanation. Also to say something about – that IS NOT „the official homepage of the Vlachs of Serbia“ – that is only web site of one political organization that doies not represent all Vlachs. There are many Vlachs who think that they are Serbs, who declare themselves as Serbs and who are voting for country-wide Serbian political parties including Serbian Radical Party: (you can clearly see that Serbian Radical Party won elections in Bor municipality where large part of population are Vlachs and that show how much Vlachs care about these pro-Romanian political organizations). So, it is completelly irrelevant what opinion these political organizations are having about Vlachs since there is no proof that majority of Vlachs support these organizations or that majority of Vlachs agree with opinion of these organizations (you clearly see what Zoran Lilić, the Vlach who had highest political position in Yugoslavia, say about that). As for old ethno-linguistic maps: I already told you that such maps are only opinions of their authors and that they are not based on census data or official and reliable sources (or you want to say that Greeks really were majority in all these areas: – so much about old maps...). 21:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Even if the 1921-census registered only the language, the Romanian-speaking persons have been counted as Romanians, not as Vlachs. The term "Vlchs" is inexistent on the 1921-census. And what about the censuses before 1921? The weblink with Zoran Lilic just shows that what is ususal on the case of most national minorities. They are also Gipsies in Serbia who heve a Serbian national indentitiy. So what? Does it mean now that the Gipsies are ethnic Serbs? The identity problem of some (or many?) Vlachs of Serbia is the result of ethnic assmiliation and acculturalisation from the last two centuries. Read here more about the identity of the Vlachs here:1, 2, 3, 4 (Source: M. V. Fifor. Assimilation or Acculturalisation: Creating Identities in the New Europe. The case of Vlachs in Serbia. Published in Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in Central Europe, Jagellonian University, Cracow 2000). Thede Kahl describes very well the Vlachs from Central Serbia, when he said: the language, the self-indentification, the way of life and the material culture and their ethnogenesis indentify of those Vlachs as (Daco-) Romanians (see here on the page 24, the bottom of the left row and the top of the right row. This is an excerpt from Thede Kahl, Ethnizität und räumliche Verteilung der Aromunen in Südeuropa. Münster, 1999. Page 24. See also this declaration from the Council of Europe. And if you really want to see what the Helsinki-commitee for human rights in Serbia is thinking about the Vlachs (Romanians) of Eastern Serbia, then I invite you to read this. Concerning the old maps, I showed you only reliable sources - maps where the census datas about Eastern Serbia are considered. And the maps of Gustav Weigand are the results of researches made by him directly in the area. An old map isn't bad as long as is was created on a reliable base. Even Jovan Cvijić described the Vlachs as Romanians (see this ethnic map from 1918 where he represented Eastern Serbia as a region populated by Serbs and Romanians. Not Serbs and "Vlachs". Also not Serbs, "Vlachs and Romanians". Simply: Serbs and Romanians).--Olahus (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Do you listen yourself: „Even if the 1921-census registered only the language, the Romanian-speaking persons have been counted as Romanians, not as Vlachs“ - ??? do you understand how big nonsense this is? Who counted vlachs as romanians? You? Please stop insulting intelligence of other people here – if census recorded only language then we can speak only about language, not about ethnicity, especially when such controversial subject is in question. Census in 1921 did not recorded ethnicity and it is end of our story. As for pre-1921 censuses I do not have info about what they recorded, but you do not have such info as well (second-hand German sources or old ethnic map are not mentioning results from Serbian censuses, only some personal opinions). As for „Vlach acculturalisation issue“, I read a source which claim that Vlachs are Serbs by origin and they migrated to Wallachia after Turks conquered medieval Serbia and they lost their Serbian language there but returned later to their old lands. I am not saying that this theory is correct but I am saying that such theory exists. There is also issue of term „Vlach“ since Serbs themselves were called „Vlachs“ by Croats and Bosniaks, not to mention that, according to genetics, Serbs have more „Vlach“ (or rather Illyrian, since Vlachs are nothing else but romanized Illyrians and Thracians) than Slavic genes. All in all, historical relations between Serbs and Vlachs are very complicated and you cannot simplify them in the way that you want to impose view that everything should be seen in accordance with your modern nationalistic ideology. Therefore, I do not see why I should read ultra-nationalist story about Vlachs from source that you presented? We already know what is a stance of Greater Romanian nationalists about this question, so you really did not presented anything new with that text. I am not denying that such view exists, but it is only a view or Romanian nationalists, not a majority view among Vlachs themselves and it is most importang thing. In such light, I do not understand why you posting links to sources that are claiming that Vlachs are Romanians when I am not denying existence of such sources? My point was that there are 3 opinions about Vlachs and that we cannot force only one and ignore other 2. There are 2 solution for this: either we should use only neutral term „Vlachs“ either we should describe all 3 theories about Vlachs near each map where Vlachs are mentioned. You choose which of the two NPOV solutions is better... 22:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear unpolite anonymous user, the 1921-census registered the people according to their mother tongue. Therefore, the persons with a German mother tongue have been registered as Germans, the persons with a Serbian mother tongue have been registered a Serbians, the persons with a Romanian mother tongue have been registered as Romanians, the persons with a Polish mother tongue as Poles etc. In Austria-Hungary, the same concept has bee used. See here the data for the census in Serbia (which was composed on that time by Central Serbia, Kosovo and Vardar Macedonia), Backa, Baranya and (Western) Banat: Serbia 1, Serbia 2, Serbia 3, Serbia 4, Serbia 5, Banat, Batschka, Baranja 1, Banat, Batschka, Baranja 2. For the rest of nonsense wrote by you there I invite you to read again this report published by the Helsinki commitee of Human rights in Serbia. Probably you missed the text yesterday. The so-called "Vlachs" of Bosnia are nothing but slavized Morlachs (Mauro-Vlachs). Sorry, but if some poeple still believe that the Earth is flat, we still don't have to write in Wikipedia that it is indeed flat. --Olahus (talk) 09:29, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Ok, at least you agree that 1921 census registered the people according to their mother tongue and it is a start. But, it is completelly wrong to say that „the persons with a German mother tongue have been registered as Germans, the persons with a Serbian mother tongue have been registered a Serbians, the persons with a Romanian mother tongue have been registered as Romanians“. It is wrong because some languages are spoken by members of several ethnic groups and if we know that we cant say that language and ethnicity are equal things. Examples are numerous: 1. In 2002 census in Serbia there was 6.212.838 Serbs, but as much as 6.620.699 speakers of Serbian language, 2. In 2003 census in Montenegro, most of ethnic Montenegrins spoke Serbian language, not Montenegrin, 3. In Belarus and Ukraine many Belarusians and Ukrainians are speaking Russian as their native tongue, etc, etc. In many censuses where there is question about both, language and ethnicity, there are also different results regarding the people who declared themselves as speakers of certain languages or members of certain ethnicities. These are basic subjects in demography and it is really annoying that I have to explain basic things to somebody. If you do not understand how demographics works perhaps you should deal with some other subjects, maybe sports, fashion or whatever...? Also, this German-language data from 1921 Yugoslav census that you presented is obviously not an original data from that census, but an interpretation of census results and in such interpretation original census data about language was replaced with supposed data about ethnicity. As was my point, this replacement is not accurate since there was clear difference between speakers of languages and members of ethnic groups. I will give few examples about that: 1. In this one we do not see Jews. Why? Because Jews spoke several languages (Hungarian, German, Serbian) and in we suppose that language data is same as data about ethnicity our results will show that 0 Jews lived in that regioin, which is completelly wrong since we know that almost 20,000 lived in that region. Another wrong interpretation in same image is data for Subotica, according to which about 60.000 Serbs and Croats lived in this city in 1921, but it is not correct description of ethnicity of inhabitants of this city. Most of Subotica citizens in that time spoke Serbian or Croatian, but when ethnicity is in question they rather considered that they are ethnic Bunjevci instead Serbs or Croats. 2. Same problem is with this data where inhabitans of Novi Pazar are presented as Serbs and Croats while they were in fact muslim Bosniaks, or where (in same image) inhabitants of Ohrid are presented as Serbs and Croats too, but they were in fact ethnic Macedonians. I hope that you now understand why there cant be equality between language and ethnicity. As for Helsinki commitee publication, that is an political organization that has right to have opinion about subject, but situation on the ground among Vlachs is very different from that text. I read in newspapers few days ago that in the last elections for Vlach national council members of Vlach community supported candidates from contry-wide Serbian political parties (Democratic Party, Serbian Progressive Party and Serbian Radical Party), not candidates from pro-Romanian political organizations. So, yes, there are some people among Vlachs who are pro-Romanian and who spreading some nationalistic propaganda aiming to forcibly romanize all Vlachs and transform them into „good Romanians“, but if claims that there are about 100,000 Vlachs in Serbia today are correct then it is obvious that most of Vlachs think that they are Serbs, they declare themselves as Serbs in census and they vote for Serbian political parties in elections. So, in such light, the most correct definition of Vlachs in Serbia in 2010 would be that Vlachs are subgroup of Serbs. Also, I did not spoke about „Vlachs of Bosnia“ – term Vlach was used as designation for all Serbs, in Bosnia, Central serbia, Vojvodina, Croatia, Hungary, etc, in all lands where Serbs lived during Ottoman rule (please read some book about this before trying to discuss the subject and I suggest some book not published in Romania). As for flat Earth, I suppose that you want to say that you are that person that believe in flat Earth, right? 22:11, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The persons who have been registered in the past as "Romanians" are registered now as "Vlachs". From this reason, the best solution is to write Romanians (Vlachs) for the period prior to 1931 and Vlachs (Romanian) after 1931 because those denominations reffer to the same population. The rest you wrote is, excuse me, pure bullshit. I brought masses of reliable sources, but you seem to be restrained to each argument no matter how good it is. You are only interested to impose your personal point of view and you disregard all the sources that don't coincide with your POV. You disregard the reliability of those sources. This report of the Serbian Helsinki Committee of Human Rights gives a clear image of the situation. It is the most accurate and professional description ever made about the Vlachs. --Olahus (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
What I say is bullshit? So, you want to say that Jews never lived in Vojvodina or that Bosniaks never lived in Novi Pazar or that Macedonians never lived in Ohrid? Sorry, but that is real example of bullshit and it is exactly what your „sources“ are claiming. In my previous post, I proved my point that census results about language cant be used with that interpretation and that Vlachs were not registered as Romanians in pre-1948 censuses. When POV is in question, it is clear that POV pushing is your own aim and that you come here only to spread Greater Romanian nationalism and to convince the World that Vlachs are Romanians. Unfortunately for you, majority of Vlachs do not agree with this and they reject your idea, so usage of your explicit claim that they are Romanians in this page would be nothing else but ethnic insult for most Vlachs. Please stop with such ethnic insults against Vlachs. 10:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, bullshit is what you write here. I am not a Romanian nationalist. I would rather say that you are a Serbian nationalist and I believe that you are a sockpuppet of an experienced Serbian user. I already have shouwn you in the sources above what the world believes. I also proposed you to read the report of the Serbian Helsinki Committee of Human Rights, as well as this: M. V. Fifor. Assimilation or Acculturalisation: Creating Identities in the New Europe. The case of Vlachs in Serbia. Published in Cultural Identity and Ethnicity in Central Europe, Jagellonian University, Cracow 2000(1, 2, 3, 4). I also mentioned: Thede Kahl, Ethnizität und räumliche Verteilung der Aromunen in Südeuropa. Münster, 1999. Page 24: ""Die Siedlungen der auch als Vlachen oder Timok-Vlachen bezeichneten rumänischsprachigen Bevölkerung Ostserbiens und Nordbulgariens (serb./bulg. Власи, rumänisch: Români Timoceni) sind genauso wenig berücksichtigt worden, da sowohl Sprache, Selbstverständnis, Lebensweise und materielle Kultur als auch ihre Ethnogenese diese Vlachen als (Dako-) Rumänen ausweisen." (see here on the page 24, the bottom of the left row and the top of the right row). However, see also this declaration from the Council of Europe. And if you really want to see what the Helsinki-commitee for human rights in Serbia is thinking about the Vlachs (Romanians) of Eastern Serbia, then I invite you to read this. And this declaration from the Council of Europe. Also Jovan Cvijić who described the Vlachs as Romanians (see this ethnic map from 1918 where he represented Eastern Serbia as a region populated by Serbs and Romanians. Also the lingistic maps published by the German researcher Gustav Weigand: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. See also this article from Deutsche Welle. This is what the world believes. However, I will anounce an admin now, because you are vandalizing the article and you are probably a sockpuppet too (and I do also have a suspicion about who you really are). --Olahus (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Olahus, it is obvious that you will deny that you are Romanian nationalist so that you avoid discrediting yourself here, but your behaviour and POV that you want to push is nationalistic and that is an undisputed thing. And please, the question whether you are German or Romanian is irrelevant (obviously you are both, or at least German with Romanian descent or whatever). Also, if you say that I am nationalist, please explain which of my own claims is nationalistic? And please explain since when editing with an IP adress is sockpuppetry? When sources presented by you are in question, they are certainly not an example of „what the world believes“, but are only examples of opinions of few authors. Also, „BROSURA.pdf“ document IS NOT an „report of the Serbian Helsinki Committee of Human Rights“, but an personal text writen by author Dragomir Dragić and only published by the Serbian Helsinki Committee of Human Rights, but it is not an „report“ of this organization. I read this whole document and there are numerous errors in it, while in his pan-Romanianism this author even claim that Aromanians and Istroromanians are Romanians too. I do not see that this author managed to prove that term „ruman“ means „Romanian“ instead „Roman“ because it is obvious that state of Romania did not existed in the time when Balkanic Romance populations used this name for themselves, so there is no way that they could identify themselves with state that was not yet created. Also, Mihai Viorel Fifor is clear example of Romanian nationalistic author and thus not reliable or acceptable source for anything (except for illustration of destructive pan-Romanian nationalism). Regarding declaration from the Council of Europe, such declaration was only proposed, but never adopted since it was clear example of nationalistic crap. Also, Jovan Cvijić do not describe Vlachs as Romanians in his map: description in his map say „Romanians and Aromanians“, meaning that he describe Romance Balkanic populations in general, not just Romanians. Here is map which Jovan Cvijić published in 1922 where Vlachs are described as Vlachs: And I already told you that linguistic data is not same as data about ethnicity, so I do not see what linguistic maps can prove here? You also did not explained how can be that one of your sources claim that Jews did not lived in Vojvodina or that Bosniaks did not lived in Novi Pazar, I would realy like to hear your explanation for that. It is clear that you do not show „what the world believes“ but only that what YOU want World to believe. Regarding anouning an admin, please do it, since I am not vandalizing article and I am not violating any Wikimedia rule. I hope that some admin can force you to accept some comnpromise because you are clearly not willing to accept any, for you only pure agression is answer to everything. 11:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
The map wasn't made by Civijc. --Olahus (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
yes, it was. I have one history book where that map is published and under map is description "made by Jovan Cvijic in 1922". Of course, I cant prove that to you since this scaned map version on the Internet lack that description, but it is same map. Anyway, I can propose this compromise for you: near each map where Vlachs are mentioned we can have this note: "There are conflicting views about the issue whether Vlachs are separate ethnicity or part of Romanian ethnicity". Accept this or not? 20:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
I doubt it, but if you want to, we can open a discussion about it in my talk page. We must remain at the subject. I don't have nothing against the mentioning of that conflicting views. But, since the issue is more complicated I think the best solution is to add a link to the Identity section of the article from en:wiki where it says: within the Vlach community there are divergences on whether they belong or not to the Romanian nation and whether their minority should be amalgamated with the Romanian minority in Vojvodina.. And we cannot add this comment everytime when the word "Vlach" or "Romanian" occurs, because it is obsolete. However, I don't have anything against Serbia and I am the one who uploaded this image two years ago. --Olahus (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, you have nothing against Serbia in those parts of the territory of Serbia that are not seen as „Romanian“ by Greater Romanian nationalists and Kosovo is certainly not part of those. Contrary to anything what you say, here is a proof how reliable or neutral editor you are: - while trying to push your POV that Vlachs in Serbia are Romanians, you in the same time deny that Szekelys in Romania are Hungarians. In this edit you changed sentence "Szekels are Hungarian people" into "Szekels are a Hungarian-speaking people". POV aims are clear: whatever support Romanian nationalism, it is allowed - in the case of Vlachs, Vlachs should be Romanians because it can help that Greater Romania is created from Serbian territories, but in the case of Szekelys, Szekelys should not be Hungarians, so that Greater Hungary should not be created from Romanian territories. An undisputed Romanian ethno-centrism is present in your entire behaviour in Wikipedia. When my proposal is in question, compromise idea was that wherever Vlachs are mentioned in this page there should be elaboration of both opinions about their identity and I will change article to reflect that. Also, I do not see relevance of maps of Romania that you included into article, this is Serbia-related article and such maps are redundant in this page. I also do not agree that we include link to English Wikipedia article about Vlachs because in its current form such article is extremely POV and pro-Romanian and it is not useful for anybody until serious examination and correction of its content took place. 21:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
You hate Romanians. That's your problem. Now I know.
We don't discuss here about the article Szekely. But, hoewever, I didn't want to remove from that article the assertion that the Szekelys are Hungarians, it was just that it was mentioned twice in the same paragraph. However, Squash Racket made the proper changes and the article is fine now. And do you know what source was used by Squash Racket to say that the Szekelys are Hungarians? He used Encyclopaedia Britannica who says "It is, however, now generally accepted that they are true Hungarians, or Magyars (or at least the descendants of a Magyarized Turki people)". And do you know what the same Encyclopaedia Britannica says on the article Vlachs? It says that the Romanians are Vlachs. See here: "European ethnic group constituting a major element in the populations of Romania and Moldova and a smaller proportion of the population in the southern part of the Balkan Peninsula and south and west of the Danube River. The name Vlach derives from a German or Slav term for Latin speakers." --Olahus (talk) 08:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Olahus, it is realy time for you to stop with this revert warring – I do not know how large (or small) your IQ is, but do you really believe that propaganda that you imposing here will change anything in the way how majority of Vlachs feel when their ethnic identity is in question or for whom they vote in elections. We both know the truth: majority of Vlachs are rejecting your propaganda and clearly that hurts you since it destroy picture of Great Romanian nation that exists in your mind. And where is your proof that I hate Romanians or any other ethinicity? I have no reason to hate anybody. Here, I only fight against nationalism and nationalists are dangerous even for their own nation and in such light, fight against Greater Romanian nationalism is something that can help to Romania to look in better light in front of the World. Just imagine how bad would be if people would judge one country only by local nationalists who bark like dogs at everything around them. When Szekelys are in question, it is crystal clear what you changed in your diff there (and why you done it), so your explanation that you changed that sentence because „ it was mentioned twice in the same paragraph“ is not acceptable since we all see that it was not mentioned twice: As was my point already, sources are never problem – the problem is your aim to use only selected data from selected sources, or in another words: you use only these sources that would support your POV and you ignore sources that support opposite views. From all sources presented on this page it is clear that there are opposite views about Vlach identity but you simply ignore that attempting to „assert the divine truth“ that Vlachs are Romanians, no matter that such idea is rejected by the majority of Vlachs themselves. I also do not understand why you do not accept my compromise proposal because I mentioned your point of view near each map. Can you elaborate what might be wrong with that? And may I suggest that you start doing something constructive instead, because spread of destructive nationalistic propaganda is very bad and evil thing that one can do in his life. 13:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
You're using lots of words to say nothing. The sources of the maps use the denomination "Romanians". Every disregard of the source by you is POV-pushing. --Olahus (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
Do not worry, Olahus, your POV maps will have their moment too. I examined them and they are mostly unsourced while term „Romanians“ in their titles or in their descriptions in most cases comes from you. There is no doubt that these files are examples of your original research and POV pushing and I will propose these maps for deletion or renaming, depending of which problem is related to which map. 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You're cureless.--Olahus (talk) 20:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Latest edits[edit]

I am disputing relevance of these images for this atlas: this atlas is focused on Serbia while these maps are focused on Romania and are already included into Atlas of Romania, so I do not see how they could be relevant for the atlas of Serbia? Same could apply to detailed maps from 1 to 8, since all of them are focused on western Romania, not on Serbia and proper place where such maps belong is atlas of Romania, not this one. What is a point with this inclusion of unrelated maps into atlas of Serbia? This atlas is created to contain images that are focused on Serbia or that are important for Serbia or Serbian history and these maps that user:Olahus included are neither of the two. 21:45, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

It isn't focused on Romania, it is focused on the Romanian language and this langauge isn't spoken only in Romania.--Olahus (talk) 22:03, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
And how exactly is Romanian language related to Serbia? There are many minority languages spoken in Serbia and this atlas is simply not place where maps focused on all these languages should be presented. Maps of Romanian language are related to atlas of Romania. Seems that you want to make this atlas of Serbia pro-Romanian and to include in it more maps related to Romanians than those related to Serbs and that is very POV an unacceptable. Why you did not included all maps of historical Hungary (with transylvania included) into atlas of Romania? I know why, of course, but it would be nice that you answer that question. 22:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Huh?! Did you suddenly establish new rules on Wikimedia Commons? Of course, there is no problem to include maps of historical Hungary if those maps are related also to Romania. Actually, they are maps of Hungary too in the Atlas of Romania. Also maps of the Ottoman Empire, of Austria-Hungary, of the Roman Empire etc. No problems, as long as they represent an information that is related to Romania. --Olahus (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
That was not my point. My question was why YOU did not included ALL maps of historical hungary into atlas of romania? Few of such maps that are already there are informative, but all of them included into atlas of Romania would be POV pushing and I think that you are very well aware of that. That is why we have separate atlases about Serbia, Hungary, Romania, etc, so that maps related to each country could be included into proper atlas. In relation to Serbia, Romanian language is very minor and unimportant subject to be included into atlas of Serbia and your attempt to give large significance to this subject cant be described as anything else but as POV pushing. 23:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
Fine, I will remove this map. Maybe I gonna make a crop with the Banatian dialect, since this dialect is spoken only in Serbia(Vojvodina, Central Serbia) and Romania (Western Romania).--Olahus (talk) 10:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
There is same problem with all these maps, not only with one of them. I alredy explained nature of that problem. 19:39, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
You didn't explain anything.--Olahus (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)