Talk:Aromanians

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Their Flags[edit]

Hello. I've just added a pic with their flags. The vast majority of scientists, Greece and Diaspora, consider them autochthonous in Northern Greece. (Makedonovlah (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)) Hey everybody.I've just removed the proposed flag as it has nothing to do with the vast majority of the Aromanians nor their historic background.It would be better for this flag to be presented as the banner of the organizations they used it and not for the whole. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierikos (talk • contribs) 10:26, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

The Aromanians are predominantly Orthodox Christians, and follow the Eastern Orthodox liturgical calendar. During medieval times (around the 10th and 11th century), many Aromanians passed to Paulicianism (Bogomilism), a Christian secte. Majority of Bogomil Aromanians emerged in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Later, all Bogomils were reconverted to Christianity but many Bogomil Aromanians of Herzegovina passed to Islam. In Bosnia and Herzegovina, all Aromanians were Serbianized, frequenting churches in Serbian language.79.112.100.38 (talk) 10:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss here[edit]

Bolt Escargot and MacedoRoman, all discussion of this article should take place here, not on each others' user talk pages. —valereee (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, so you block both of them (for two weeks!) for an argument that already ended and later tell them to talk here? Very well done. Super Ψ Dro 14:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Super Dromaeosaurus, they were edit warring literally yesterday. The only thing they're blocked from is directly editing this article. They can edit here on the talk and everywhere else. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ETA perhaps you hadn't seen this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Aromanian_Website.? —valereee (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I read it as you blocked them entirely from Wikipedia for 2 weeks, which seemed excessive for me. I have nothing to complain about from the actual decision. And yes, I did see that. Super Ψ Dro 15:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! :) —valereee (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aromanians#Notable_Aromanians[edit]

The section basically repeats the entire content of List_of_Aromanians, is completely without references, and is silly long. I suggest deleting all but the maybe three or four most important and merging the rest into the list article. —valereee (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Content[edit]

To all users of the current page.

Recently there has been a forced revert of the last version of the page imposed by ‘’ Theroadislong ‘’ due to the complaint of the user ‘’Super Dromaeosaurus’’ made directly to him by accusing my edits as disruptive, (whereas his are constructive…) and because he can not keep the pace of my edits, mainly for the three points mentioned below. 

                                                                                                                                                                  My viewpoint is that the current content is not just wrong but harms the Aromanain identity, by presenting them as Romanian migrants in the Balkans, which is nothing else but false.

Specifically,

1. Terms like ‘’Macedo-Romanians’’ or ‘’Megleno-Romanians’’ and anything else Romanian related have nothing to do with Aromanians and must not be accepted to describe the Aromanian identity.

a)The first term is a pure fiction, it does not represent any ethnical identity. There have never been such people in the Balkans. The term is an invention of Romanian scholars of the XVIII-th century, promoted in order to serve the national interest in the Balkans. It implies that Aromanians are Romanians from Macedonia. The absurdity in its zenith. Users who support those sources based on the XVIII-th century ideology and terminology should bring evidence of Romanians that have lived in Macedonia. There have never been Romanians in ancient or modern Macedonia. For the respective century it was normal and common to act in that way, because all Balkan states were doing the same, trying to impose their opinion on the Aromanian issue, namely each state was trying to ‘’convince’’ the Aromanians and the ‘’world’’ that Aromanians are Romanians, Greeks, Albanians, Serbs, Bulgarians and so on. The so-called ‘’recent sources’’, they are anything but recent. They just recycle the theory and terminology of the XVIII-th century, and it is done mainly by Romanian scholars. Today that is unacceptable and the most important, it is irrelevant and has no effect on the matter. Aromanians have been officially recognised both internationally by the European institutions and by Balkan states as a distinct nation. Wikipedia cannot disregard the above decisions and their social, political and juridical effects. Much more its users.

b)The second term relates to a distinct ethnical group which are very close (the closest among all other Latin people) to Aromanians, but not the same.

2. Use of the terminology ‘’Dacian’’ or similar to it with the purpose of describing the Aromanian identity. Aromanians are native, indigen, people of southern and western Balkans. Dacians have never been part of the respective region. Thus Aromanians are descendant of ancient Thracians and Illyrians and have nothing to do with Dacians and anything else Dacian related. Thus the respective terminology is irrelevant to the Aromanian identity and must not be accepted. Users who contest the reality, do it for other purposes. In any case, they have to prove their point of view with relevant and valid evidence on the matter.

3. Native/indigen to. Aromanians are native in the southern and western Ballkans. The vast majority of their settlements are found in central and northern Greece, southern and central Albania, south west North Macedonia, south west Bulgaria, Southern Serbia, and less in Montenegro, Bosnia, and Croatia. Whoever contest this must prove their point of view with relevant and valid evidence on the matter.

I am waiting your opinions on the matter, because I would like to resume my editing process. I am looking forward to having a constructive discussion on the matter and to reach into a fair and just conclusion.

Thank you Legione-Romana (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

==[edit]

Please find reliable sources to support your changes first. Wikipedia ONLY reports on what reliable sources say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(whereas his are constructive…) didn't say so. My viewpoint is that the current content is not just wrong but harms the Aromanain identity, by presenting them as Romanian migrants in the Balkans, which is nothing else but false. that's your viewpoint. I respect Aromanian identity and they can believe whatever they want but it shouldn't be ruled out as a theory. After all, a similar people, the Istro-Romanians, are largely believed to come from Transylvania. There are several theories and we must not focus on one. Terms like ‘’Macedo-Romanians’’ or ‘’Megleno-Romanians’’ and anything else Romanian related have nothing to do with Aromanians and must not be accepted to describe the Aromanian identity. you fail to understand some Aromanians use this term and it is also still used by non-Aromanian scholars. We had an Aromanian user from Albania who openly expressed their opposition to Romania (and Greece), and yet their name was MacedoRoman (they didn't have an userpage, but I can leave a link to their contributions). I have also heard Aromanians saying "Aromanian" is a Romanian (or whatever) invention and that their only real name was "Vlach". The Aromanians are a very divided people with lots of opinions and view points, and yours just happens to be one more.
The origins of the Aromanians are unclear. Nobody can say for sure they were natives that were Latinized Thracians (although the region they inhabit today wasn't really populated by Thracians and they for sure aren't Latinized Greeks) or if they migrated from Dacia or if they lived between modern Romania and their modern homeland (that's also a theory I've heard) or whatever. However, I removed that statement just to not discuss anymore.
No Aromanians live in Bosnia, Montenegro or Croatia. If they ever did, they are long extinct. But it is for sure that Aromanians live in Romania. Their migration promoted by the Romanian Government to Southern Dobruja is a proved undeniable fact, and that they had to go to modern Romania after Bulgaria recovered the region is another (there's a page of this, Population exchange between Bulgaria and Romania). Please also take a look at this article. [1]. Many Romanian notable figures, specially Gheorghe Hagi and Simona Halep, claim Aromanian ancestry, and this is mentioned in their pages. Super Ψ Dro 11:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your comments! Bring evidence that Aromanians are Romanians who migrated from modern Romania to their current settlements. Until then everything that states that will be deleted! Finito!Legione-Romana (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the sources provided to support the term Macedo Romanian are not neutral. They are biased, namely only from Romanian scholars. Furthermore, they are outdated. They recycle the Romanian terminology of the 18-century. Legione-Romana (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How do you expect to settle this if every source you are brought is biased for you? Super Ψ Dro 12:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep your Romanian sources and use them on pages that are Romanian related. The respective term is used only in Romania and nowhere else.Legione-Romana (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Theroadislong[edit]

Please read carefully what I have writen. I do not need to bring any evidence.The users who support the current content should do so. I contest the current content as unsourceable, meaning in some cases there are no sources at all but just abusive use of the terminology, in other cases the sources are outdated or irrelevant. Legione-Romana (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Legione-Romana you need to bring sources albeit the current version doesn't include any sources. Please keep in mind that verifiability always needed if you replace a content which is still not include sources. Ahmetlii (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources says…

“Wikipedians often need to deal with sources that are reliable but non-neutral. The best solution to this is to acknowledge that a controversy exists and to represent different reliable points of view according to the weight that reliable sources provide. Intelligent readers will weigh the opposing sides and reach their own conclusions.” I suggest you find sources for your content. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

answer[edit]

The current version has been imposed by a forced revert. I contest it! Since new unsourced content is not acceptable at all, I reserve the right to delete the current unsourced content, which contains misleading information! Legione-Romana (talk) 11:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant source[edit]

12>Benevedes, Eli; Lally, Owen; Li, Hung-En; Perlee, Abigail; Piombino, Eileen (2021). Investigating the Impacts of Earthquakes on Ethnic and Religious Groups: Bucharest, Romania (PDF) (Thesis). Worcester Polytechnic Institute. pp. 1–63.

Used to support the term Macedo Romanian. Since when sismological studies of politechnic institutes constitute scientific research in order to determine ethnic identities?!Legione-Romana (talk) 11:17, 3 April 2021

The source mentions the term "Macedo-Romanian" as a synonym of Aromanian, you like it or not (page 7). But if you disagree so much with it, I can give another source. I chose that one just because it was from this year. Super Ψ Dro 11:29, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Read above about the term "Macedo-Romanian"!Legione-Romana (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legione-Romana, stop removing sourced content. This is WP:DISRUPTIVE and can induce to a block if you continue further. Super Ψ Dro 11:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Content Dispute April 2021[edit]

Please stop recycling the so-called sources that use the Romanian terminology of the 18-th century. If you want to support the term you should bring neutral and modern studies on the discipline of ethnology. The page is about Aromanians and their modern national identity, not about earthquakes, wedding or fictional identities of the past.Legione-Romana (talk) 12:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article is clearly NOT only about "modern national identity" it includes history as well. Theroadislong (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree but Romanian scholars cannot and will not determine the national identity of Aromanians! I am obliged to repeat the already mentioned information. Romanians have nothing to do with Aromanians and their biased studies do not represent a neutral viewpoint on the matter. The page is not about Romanians and how Romanians perceive the national identity of Aromanians. The page is about Aromanians so Romanian theories can not and will not have a important role in this page but just a peripherical one.Legione-Romana (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So that's why you were deleting sourced information until now, right? Super Ψ Dro 15:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stop reverting information just because it does not suit you.Legione-Romana (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're so ironic. Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Legione-Romana, just so you know, the recommended lead length a Wikipedia article should have is 4 paragraphs. You made it of 7. You should move text to the rest of the article. Super Ψ Dro 19:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Legione-Romana: Look I'm not familiar with this topic area, but you can't just go about replacing sourced content with unsourced content. If you think the current sources have issues discuss their use here or a WP:RSN, if you think important material is missing then please direct the attention of other editors on this talk page to sources that support it's inclusion. But mostly just try to discuss things rather than edit-warring, remember all of eastern europe is under DS. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theroadislong What kind of answer is this?! Which sourced content did I replace with unsourced content? Name it! Why did you penalise me? I am waiting for your answer!Legione-Romana (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Legione-Romana: that comment is from me not the Theroadislong. This is an example of removing sourced content without an edit summary and this is an example of adding unsourced content, again without an edit summary. These sort of changes without edit summaries are to put it bluntly disruptive. Please try to explain your changes in the future. Thanks, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As I told you on my talk page this edit [2] added content with no source. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021[edit]

Add half aromanian field marshal of the greek army https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandros_Papagos to the notable list Katakai123 (talk) 15:48, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Super Ψ Dro 15:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Origin - Ethnogenesis of the Aromanias[edit]

It is illiterate to describe the Aromanians as Paleo-Balkan people who "spoke Vulgar Latin"! In the Origin section is barely mentioned that these Paleo-Balkan peoples intermarried with some Roman legionaries in the context of some nationalistic Balkan theories about the Aromanians!

The article lacks some basic analysis about the Latin colonisation (mainly from Italia, Hispania and Narbonensis) in the Balkans (civil and military) as a core of the Ethnogenesis processes of the new ethnic group and the relative wight of the peripheral Paleo-Balkan and later Slavic cultural and genetic admixtures!

Aromanians in Serbia[edit]

I think that the article should mention both the population which was counted as Cincari and the ones counted as Vlasi in the total number of Aromanians in Serbia.--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vlasi are usually Vlachs of Serbia, who are Romanian rather than Aromanian. While very predominant in some Balkan countries, the term Vlach in Serbia does not primarily refer to the Aromanians. This is more or less the same in Bulgaria. Super Ψ Dro 13:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The number of Aromanians in Serbia given in article is ridicouls. There were just below 300 Aromanians (Cincari or English speaking which must be used Tzintzars) in Serbia according 2011 census:popis2011.stat.gov.rs
In 2022, there is still no disregrated data for Aromabians, but there is just above 300, enough to organize its own Minority Council. Popis2022.stat.gov.rs
What you is maybe known by someone in Serbia. As this is Wikipedia in English there should be explanation given that there is a confusion and only number of Tzintzars should be given 77.243.23.232 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Completly agree as Yugoslav and Serbian census created confusion. In 1921 and 1931 Tzintzars were counted as Romanians in Yugoslav censuses. From 1948 census make division between Romanians in Banat and Romanians south of Danube and Aromanians. This was the case for 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 censuses, where for both a term Vlach is invented (or at least for Romanians) and used, making appearance that this is the same population. Next census in Serbia, after break up of Yugoslavia, in 2022 introduce Tzintzars as category to emancipate from Romanians which are called by Serbs Vlachs from 1948. Macedonian census, as almost exclusively Aromanians as Vlachs who were registere in Yugoslavia were from N.Macedonia, Continue using term vlachs.
In case of Yugoslavia you have always bear on mind that it was the only country which included as native both Romanians and Aromanians and that after 1948 this mixing in census continued 77.243.23.232 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

south Serbia[edit]

There are no Aromanians in south Serbia less 15.000. There are around 300 Aromanians (2011) who almost exclusively live in Belgrade popis2011.stat.gov.rs 77.243.23.232 (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comprehensive demographic study[edit]

Detailed etnographic study on Aromanians and their number in the Albania, Bulgaria, Greece and N.Macedonia https://ro.scribd.com/doc/28227905/Rezumat-Teza-Doctorat-Romanii-Din-Balcani-Dorin-Lozovanu Or same study if not registered at Scribd https://www.yumpu.com/ro/document/read/16099940/populatia-romaneasca-din-peninsula-balcanica-paun-es-durlic Data are based on the begining of 2000s census results There is an update of the study from 2018 but it is not available online 77.243.23.232 (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tzintzari in Hercegovina[edit]

Please make corrections regarding Aromanians in Serbia part. Herzegovina has never been part of Serbia therefore designed section regarding Radimlja and Bosnia tombstones called stecak are incorrectly placed under wrong header. Aromanians or Cincars were part of Bosnian cultural tapestry for centuries and there should have been a section devoted to them under header “Aromanians / Cincars in Bosnia-Herzegovina”. 100.1.65.36 (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the sentence and now it should be clear that Herzegovina is not part of Serbia. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A small suggestion[edit]

I think it would be a good idea to add Arameans to the 'Not be confused with' entry at the top of the article. As words Aromanians and Arameans are very close to and perhaps easily confused with each other. Both relate to groups which are much less well known than Armenians or Romanians in my view. I hope this is non-contentious. 217.155.59.206 (talk) 11:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great suggestion! In the future, feel free to edit it in yourself, as per WP:BOLD SuperTah (talk) 11:21, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024[edit]

Number of Aromenians in Serbia 2022 is 21013 (https://data.stat.gov.rs/Home/Result/3104020102) 2A02:3032:301:28D:E413:E18A:2880:6120 (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Власи (Vlachs) refers to the Romanians in the Timok Valley (Bor, Braničevo and Zaječar districts). In Serbia, Aromanians are known as Цинцари (Cincari), of which 327 were registered. This is despite them being known as Vlachs in Greece, Albania and North Macedonia. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am vlach from Homolje and we do not consider ourselfs Romanians. We would be called otherwise just Romanians. I met as well Vlach people from Albania and yes, we are definitely not Romanians but vlach in the same way as they are.
That is comparable to native Swiss german speaking to consider themself Germans. They just don’t. 2A02:2454:9864:C000:C5BC:C5C7:43DD:939 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vlachs from Timok in Serbia and Vlachs (Aromanians) from Albania, Greece or North Macedonia have little to do with each other. They have different languages, histories, origins and even names and surnames. Super Ψ Dro 17:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aromanians&oldid=1213014499"