Talk:Vlachs of Serbia

message: To define as minority, this cannot be free choice of an induvidiual to belong to any minority nor the state whose citizens these individuals are
The CoE of OBLIGATORY clarification to the FCNM, clearly says that it is the right of an individual to FREELY choose whether to be treated as minority or not, not to freely choose to belong to any minority without OBJECTIVE CRITERIA 
https://rm.coe.int/16800c10cf
Further more, UN opinion report to the CCPR on the defintion of minority clearly states following
"The existence of an ethnic, religious or linguistic minority in a given State party does not depend upon a decision by that State party but requires to be established by objective criteria"
https://www.legal-tools.org/doc/0e1a35/pdf/
This means that the state cannot decide on its existence or not.
As such, I think that there are not a single author who before 2010, when issue was politized claimed that there is separate Vlach minority. Even self declaration in this case says that this the Romanian minority as members, before 2010 and forced promotion of vlahism, in Romanian declared as Romanian. The problem is it translation from Romanian to Serbian and than to English
Knowing that this population in all census before 1948 was considered Romania, as well as Serbian ethnologist, like T. Dordevic, a founder together with Cvijic of Serbian ethnography, as well in all official documents, this is the clear ethnic engineering
 
Also Cvijic mention Romanians in this are in 1923.
"It has remained unexplained until now why some families in Homolj and Mlava, both Serbian and Romanian, are called Jelins."
https://archive.org/details/KrozNaseRumune
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B3ma9plMXxAEUjk1S2tNTTV2Qlk/edit?usp=drive_web
For following reason
1. There is no objective scientific criteria in Serbian ethnography before 2010, who considered this population nothhing else but Romanians
2. In census before 1948, Romanianans was used to designate
3. Archivial records like the annual Ministy of education report, used always Romanian
4. The right to self declaration doesnt mean to choose randomly any minority, but a right to be treated or not 
5. The population in Romanian declare as Romanian
6. Vlach also refer to Aromanian population. Creation a new group with the same name is seen by Aromanians as the attack on their identity
7. There is not even single member of the community, which can be accepted as relevant, and not doing folk linguistics, as WIKIPEDIA is exactly doing now, has no position as such
I would like to cite less known source in French from 1990s:
Dimitrijević-Rufu, Dejan (1998): Identités contextuelles. Le cas d’une communauté „roumaine” de Serbie, Cahiers Balkaniques 25 – „Les Oublié des Balkans”, 91–117.
On fold lingustic/anthropology practised on wikipedia here more
Manovich, Diane (2014): Folk Linguistics and Politicized Language: the Introduction of Minority Language Education for the Vlachs in Serbia (submitted to CEU Nationalism Studies Program in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts), Budapest (http://www.etd.ceu.hu/2014/manovich_diane.pdf).
Also one of best linguistic on Romance languges Weigand,in the begining if 20th considered these nothinhg but Romanians
Weigand, Gustav (1900): Die rumänischen Dialekte der kleinen Walachei, Serbiens und Bulgariens. Siebenter Jahresbericht des Instituts für Rumänische Sprache 7 (1900), 1-92.
There is also twenty moore other reasons why this article should be considered to have biased, one sided view
As for objective criteria this letter sent to Serbian Academy clearly point this: 
https://acad.ro/mediaAR/pctVedereAR/2020/d0220-ScrisoareAcademiaSarba.pdf 109.93.173.29 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already tried to argue this point before to no avail. I would recommend to you to rather add all this information to the article. If the article is already written in a certain, objective and truthful way, it will be hard to argue against something being a certain something. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objective critetia  

message: Knowing that before 1948, Vlachs didn't exist as such in Serbia, but in censuses, government documents,church records Romanian was used, even as such were included in accompanying documents to Versaille Treaties, known by the name Romanian in Serbia and foreign press, etc I proposed the definition as such
The Vlachs (Romanian: rumâń; Serbian: власи / vlasi), considered officially as Romanians until 1948, are a Romanian-speaking population group living in eastern Serbia, mainly within the Timok Valley
OR
The Vlachs (Romanian: rumâń; Serbian: власи / vlasi), known as Romanians before 1948, are a Romanian-speaking population group living in eastern Serbia, mainly within the Timok Valley 188.120.99.194 (talk) 02:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for redefinition 

message: The whole part that talks about 1859, as a year when name change happened is completely untrue. I don't how did you come to this data, but the year should be moved to 1948. Sources among thousands that exist are for example Serbian censuses from
1884
http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1889/Pdf/G188911002.pdf
Page 42 to 48 and 306 to 318
1890
http://pod2.stat.gov.rs/ObjavljenePublikacije/G1893/pdf/G189311002.pdf
1900
1900
https://www.zajednicavlahasrbije.com/Statisticki%20godisnjak%20Kraljevine%20Srbije.pdf
1921
https://publikacije.stat.gov.rs/G1921/Pdf/G19214001.pdf
1931 178.223.206.56 (talk) 03:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  1859