Talk:Aromanians/Archive 1

message: It's absurd to remove "Greece" from the infobox. There are Aromanians living in Greece, period. bogdan 21:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He he, I think we are going right at the heart of Greek nationalism here. Didn't you guys know? "There are no minorities in Greece"(lol). Ask most Greeks and they will tell you. Greece is for Greeks only. What? Aromanians. No, they have nothing in common with Romanians. They are Greeks too. -- I am sorry to all the Greek nationalists but on Wikipedia we try to present matters in a NPOV. At best we should have a section explaining the pro-Romanian point of view and the Greek point of view, but certainly not just the Greek one. Constantzeanu 14:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aromanians in Greece 

message: Nothing new. This has been brought up before. It is by no means a simple matter. Yet the infobox is aimed at linguistic/ethnographical considerations. See the infobox in Albanians, Kurds, Azeri, etc. etc. The place for you to go first is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic Groups/Template. Bringing out your violin in edit summaries won't help much in this case. Alexander 007 18:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent anon

message: I have reverted the edits of User:Apostolos Margaritis, which presented an obviously biased and selective interpretation of events. Equating mainstream Greek opinion with the actions of a small neo-Nazi group is clearly unhelpful, as is his failure to mention the recent conviction of the right-wing politicians involved in the Bletsas libel case. Unfortunately, the tone of the text was more suited to the rhetoric of the Roman Legion than to a Wikipedia article.--Theathenae 11:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Latinus 12:02, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Sockpuppetry is not allowed and all your sockpuppets will be blocked and reverted. Please co-operate so that a mutually acceptable solution can be found. I have been thinking of writing about Blestsas, but it's hard to find neutral sources - only the law reports seem to have something approximating NPOV: . Latinus 13:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Ethnic slurs are not allowed and curiously enough, your IP addresses are not school or college IP addresses. I am seeking a NPOV solution here - I'm not happy with either version. Please co-operate. I appreciate that you're new here and it may take some time for you to learn the ropes, but edit warring over obvious bias will get us nowhere. Latinus 13:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really am not happy with the vast majority of User:Apostolos Margaritis's additions. That bit about Romanian being reluctant to get involved because of Greece's veto power is pure guesswork; the Romanian government would never admit anything like that. With regards to the anti Greek point of view from which the rest of his additions are written, seems IMO to contravene WP:NPOV. I'd be happy to keep his additional information if it were written in an more encyclopaedic style and even implied that it were written from an objective point of view. Latinus 12:39, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that a lot of the edits' tone is not NPOV. However, a lot of the information is valuable, particularly the part on education in Aromanian in Albania, and should therefore be kept. The part on Romania's involvement is a bit of guesswork and also quite implausible. Romania is joining the EU in less than a year, and Greece was one of the first countries to ratify the accession treaty (and on the whole Greek-Romanian relations are very good). So, the prospect of Greece vetoing Romania's accession is actually impossible. All it could do is vote against accession in 2007, so that the safeguard clause can be triggered and accession can be delayed to 2008. But Greece does not have veto power in the Council of the EU - a majority of states have to vote "no" to 2007. Anyway, this type of thing, due to a fairly minor issue, is remote and unlikely to occur, to say the least.  Ronline ✉ 06:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apostolos Margaritis 

message: Hi. I've noticed that there seems to be factual dispute here between whether or not Aromanian is a protected language in Greece. Are there any sources for this? From what I know - and this may not be 100% correct - Greece does not recognise any ethnic minorities or any minority languages (in the same way, that, say Romania or Hungary do). There may be a structure for protected languages at national level, however, similar to the way that Sweden has Romany and Yiddish as "historical minority languages" at national level (but in reality there is no administrative recognition). Is this the case in Greece? Thanks,  Ronline ✉ 22:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is Turkish in Thrace. It is taught in the minority's schools, there is mass media in Turkish, there are Turkish interpreters at government agencies (police stations, courts etc) - you know, the whole nine yards. I'm afraid though; that there are no other languages in Greece with such facilities and promotion. As far as I know, Aromanian is not officially recognised as a protected language (as the article claims) or as anything else. This is what the Bletsas case was about. Bletsas was claiming that there are people in northern Greece who speak Aromanian (he also mentioned Slavic (Macedonian), Pomak (Bulgarian) and Arvanitika), and a right-wing MP sued him for publishing false information. Bletsas was acquitted in the end though. Presumably, this means that the Greek authorities are aware of the presence of Aromanian, but, as far as I know, it has received no recognition. Latinus 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - I think this should be reflected in the article. I don't mean this in a bad way, but the whole Bletsas case, from what I hear about it, is quite worrying. Is minority rights not really an issue in Greece (I mean, it's an issue nearly everywhere else in Europe, and nearly all EU countries do have quite solid minority rights legislation).  Ronline ✉ 06:06, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected language

message: I inserted a rare engraving (or a portrait if you wish) depicting Apostol Margarit, the first inspector of the Romanian schools in Macedonia and Epirus and a member of the Romanian Academy. Theathenae is not happy with it and keeps DELETING it. All right then, let's play this silly cat and mouse game. I one think that the Avdela born Margarit is a representative enough personality, a symbol of the pro-Romanian Vlachdom if you wish. Some Greeks may be still in denial about Margarit but fortunately we are around here too and have, now and then, time on our hands. See who will prevail eventually. Apostolos Margaritis 17:00, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The picture of Apostol Margarit

message: The parts about a poll that never took place 100 years ago and the (insulting) comments about president Papoulias are original research, at best. talk to +MATIA 20:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:NOR]] 

message: : The Greco-Aromanian cultural, self-descriptive name Arnanji derives from "Romanus cives", which possibly originates from the Edictum Antoninianum.
This paragraph is not very clear: What is this "Arnanji"? And why Greco-Aromanian? Also, originating anything to the Edictum Antoninianum is more like a wild speculation, rather than a fact. bogdan 21:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Greco-Aromanian cultural name" 

message: I suggest that we replace Gigi Becali from the image with Gheorghe Hagi. He's better known outside Romania and not as controversial. bogdan 18:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Gigi Becali]] 

message: I see that someone deleted the number of Aromanians I`ve put. So how would we count how many Aromanians are there? According the the speakers of Aromanian language, or based on what? Let me know... greier 13:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The numbers

message: A lot of the caption Identity crisis was plagiarized from vlachophiles.net. Much as I agree with the content of the caption I do not agree with such practices. As far as I can see that page does not protect itself by invoking the copyrigt. Nevertheles I don't think it's fair to simply copy and paste texts from here to there. I suggest that caption should be edited by the one who inserted it in the first place. In the meanwhile I try to trim some of the excessive stuff Apostolos Margaritis 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apostole, not only that the page is not copywrited, but the edits clearly didn`t contained mot a mot copying... However, I do understand what you mean: you think it`s kind of "rude" to plagiarise from there. But I did not take credit or received any benefits from the edit, and my goal was to add info, and for other users to "polish" it further. But not like what has just happened: your removal of parts of the article triggered a "hacking" frenzy by users like Hectorian. It was like a drop of blood in the ocea: small, but enough to excite the berserk sharks... I honestly think you rushed... How do you think Apostole that Wikipedia works? Do you think there are Phd profferors, scientists and poets colaborating to write articles? The articles based on other internet sites. The author of the Vlachophiles page is the Vlach-British society, and I can see why I can`t use it for a reference. And the removal of quotes (like that of Sir Arthur Evans regarding the Macedonian Question) are unneeded. But still, please bare in mind that despite that it was not copied word by word from there, I still understant what you are trying to say, and I agree that I could be held responsable of accidental plagiarisation due to poor citationing and referencesing, so I`ll remove the paragraphs which are more succeptible of disputes, and I ask you to contineue to tone down and copy-edit the whole article (besided the removal of the parts in question, you did made some good chages to the readabillity: i`ve kept what I could spot, but there ma may be parts that I missed). greier 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too urge you to further edit the captions from the Vlachophiles page, so not to give any reason and opportunity to users like Hectorian and Khoikhoi to hack the article. greier 12:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: This link also says: 
The Greek response to this issue was a defiant one. Greek Vlach associations were formed. They too held congresses. I have attended such a congress, and, although treated with great courtesy, could not help noticing the phalanx of bishops and generals sitting in the front row and the way in which speaker after speaker used dubious arguments from history, folklore and philology to forge links between Greeks and Vlachs. Historical and linguistic scholarship in Greek universities follows the same lines. All Greek Vlachs and some non Greek Vlachs use a great many Greek words, the former because they are using Greek and Vlach interchangeably, the latter because Greek has been the language of education for three hundred years or more. Thus there are no philological grounds for linking Greeks with Vlachs from the earliest times any more than in parallel cases with Greek in Southern Italy and Cypriot in London, where a mixed language merely reflects a long period of contact10.
Towards their Greekless brethren in other Balkan countries Greek Vlachs have adopted a missionary attitude of trying to convert them to the idea that Vlachs are Greeks. In the case of some Albanians they seem to have succeeded, but this is hardly surprising as it is not only Albanian Vlachs who want to find work in Greece. etc.... 
So it`s clear that the claim that "however by 1905 the majority of vlachs in Greece had thrown in their lot with the greek state in their quest to throw off Ottoman rule" is taken out of context. The article already says that Aromanians fought against Ottomans, having identifing as fellow Orthodox people with the greeks, albanians, bulgarians... But still, as proven, they still had separate identity and goals greier 15:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But saying that "however by 1905 the majority of vlachs in Greece had thrown in their lot with the greek state in their quest to throw off Ottoman rule" is redundant and irrelevant. Also, by 1905, Greece was for 70 years an independent state. greier 16:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You`ve also made some changes which I accepted, did`n you? So I would of had nothign against toning down that paragraph... And my point exaclty was that the Greek/Vlach history and interaction is much more complicated than simply saying that Vlachs are Greeks and that Vlachs had always considered themselves Greeks and that they fought for the idea of Greece and Greekness, and other such statements... greier 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine by me greier 16:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Winnifrith

message: Can somebody please refactor (i.e. weed out) this talk page so that an outsider has some slight chance of understanding what you guys have been fighting about? There's an awful lot of unconstructive POV trolling around here - on both sides, I dare say. Can I urge everybody involved here to use some restraint and refrain from wholesale POV attacks and childish rhetorics. Also please refrain from original research. IMHO, it makes rather little sense for you or me to try to present our own interpretation of the meanig of some source by Kekaumenos or whatnot. Just get a grip on the literature and write decent summaries of what modern historians say. 
And before you do that, please, everybody, take a deep breath. Cheers, Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And please stop those blind reverts, guys! The versions you revert between differ in so many different details that it is entirely impossible for the outsider to judge what this is all about. Could someone please explain which bits are contentious for what reasons? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Telex reverts from habit, isn`t that so Telex? :) greier 16:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's blatant edits like this that I don't like. --Tēlex 16:09, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But of course it is most and not some... greier 16:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can`t you read from just two lines below? 16:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, your edits are POV-pushing... making some 'minor' changes to alter the meaning... --Hectorian 16:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Talkpage chaos

message: The dispute tag can't be here forever—if there are any more problems they should be fixed. Unless someone brings up any more issues, I will remove the tag. —Khoikhoi 03:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dispute the affirmation that in Dobruja "Today, the (sic!) 25% of the population of the region are descendants of Greek Aromanian immigrants". However i'm not sure this is enough reason to keep the tag. Anonimu 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: i think it is not enough reason to keep the tag. I did some search, and i've found sources placing the number of the Aromanian-speaking population in Dobruja currently at 15% . if u think that it would be better, feel free to change it. Hectorian 18:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: from what i could see, the pages that mention this are outdated version of this article on some wikipedia mirrors. And anyway, the 50,000 mentioned there doesn't represent 15% of the population of Romanian Dobrudja (970,000), but only about 5-6%. Maybe i missed a source, so, if they are others, please be more explicit. And i think we could remove the tag Anonimu 19:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anonimu: perhaps a  tag will do? —Khoikhoi 23:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anything else disputed? 

message: ...if a section on famous/prominent Aromanians (Tsintsars) is created? For instance, Branislav Nušić and Nikola Pašić, two very famous Serbian individuals, were ethnic Cincars. --PaxEquilibrium 19:20, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother explaining the "a"... In Greek, a- is a prefix (alpha privativum) meaning "not" or "devoid of," used in many borrowed words in English, German and Romance languages (for example, amoral, asexual, arhythmic).... Conclusions are yours... Hectorian 16:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wouldn't it be nice... 

message: Sorry for the really long post. I'm certainly aware this is a disputed topic which can get pretty heated at times, but I have noticed some passages in the article which seem to offer uncited opinion more than facts backed up by legitimate sources. With all due respect to all the users, there does seem to be the occasional instance of nationalism seeping into some of the text, which should be as objective as possible, given that this is an encyclopedia and not a forum for each side to post their own version of what they want to believe. As someone of both Romanian and Aromanian (and Greek) descent, I don't want to take sides on anything, but want to the article to present a balanced and coherent, consistent overall display of what is known.
For example, this part seems less than objective:
"In reality, in none of the three theories regarding the origin of Aromanians, can the term "Proto Romanian" be taken to encompass either the Aromanian nor the Meglenian language, because this term only applies to the language spoken by the ancestors of the modern Romanians (Dacians and Gets). However even here, the term "Proto Romanian" would be misleading, because Dacians and Gets represented only a part of the Thracian people in the Balkans, (Aromanians and Meglens being descendants of Epirots and Macedonians). So, the correct term to include all Latin languages spoken in Balkans at that time is the term, Balkan Vulgar Latin or Eastern Romance Language . "
There seem to be many assumptions made here, with broad generalizations or oversimplifications like Dacians and "Gets" (Getes/Getae) being necessarily the main or only ancestors of modern Romanians, or stating that they were necessarily Thracian (and it's unclear what is meant regarding the Epirots and Macedonians, if they were supposed to be counted as part of a larger "Thracian" sphere). While this is the position of many historians within Romania, it's not 100% established as fact, though I know some people are going to get angry at me for saying this. The same goes for Aromanians being descendants of Epirotes and Macedonians, which isn't easily demonstratable either (nor is this what all of them believe themselves). Both sides have their own nationalism; I admit many Romanians either like to believe the Aromanians or their language came from them or their area or that they were simply another people who happened to speak a related language in the Balkans, but many won't even listen to theories suggesting that at least part of them [Romanians] (or their language) may have come from south of the Danube (something I used to be against myself, but am beginning to consider it in part), and, like many nations opt for a completely autochthonous origin on their land. On the other hand, I realize many Aromanians in Greece mostly see themselves as an integral part of the Greek nation and mostly not as minorities. This may be partly due to Greek policy on minorities historically, as well as integration practices over time; a similar or parallel development can be seen in some Arvanites, who don't with to be seen as minorities despite the language difference. But this is a sensitive and complex issue, I understand. So I can understand why Aromanian posters here may want to present themselves as having always been on the same land they were and as a continuation of (Latinized) Epritoes, Thessalians, Macedonians, etc. who to them were essentially like Greeks, but it's clear there are political considerations in this as well.
It's also important to remember that not all Aromanians are in Greece, and the ones outside of it tend to have different theories of their own origins, in many cases still as natives of the land they live on (in many cases Thracians are one people who are mentioned) or partly descended from Roman legionaries and colonists as well. Many in other countries, like Serbia or Macedonia, also are proud of being minorities. There is a tendency in many cases to take the most parsimonious route to a people's origins, thus making them simply the descendants of whoever lived on that land earlier before Latinization, so it's unfair to pigeonhole all the various scattered Aromanian and Meglenite communities as fitting under the ones in Greece's preferred ancestry. It's also important to keep in mind that language doesn't always equate with genetic origin perfectly. Dealing with the origin of a people in Wikipedia can be tricky because many equate language and nation/ethnicity, even though the real picture may be more complex than that, and people are generally a mix of many groups that have come together over time, realistically.
Also, I don't see how some people choose to believe that Aromanians and Romanians were the result of two completely different Latinization events at very different times in the Roman empire's history, and whose only connection is that they both happen to speak some derivative of Latin. This kind of thinking is rather simplistic and ignores a multitude of historical and most importantly, linguistic, factors that show this not to be true, and reeks of nationalism or ethnicism (on both sides, admittedly). I think most who argue for this must not have seen comparisons of the two languages, or feel uncomfortable having links to those outside their own lands. It's clear to any linguist that both languages emerged from a common tongue at some point- roughly 1000-1200 years ago according to many. When one compares the core vocabulary, hundreds of words are very similar or even essentially pronounced the same and mean the same thing. They even share unique semantic and phonetic evolutions not found in any other Romance languages (even Dalmatian), including for abstract terms, underwent many similar sound shifts, and generally preserved much of the same overlaping lexicon of Latin inherited terms, a set of around roughly two thousand. Additionally, and quite notably, even words of non-Latin origin, such as many early Slavic borrowings or certain Greek derived-terms, are still very close in form, meaning, conjugation, indicating that these were probably borrowed when the languages were still together or at least in close contact. The grammar also has a high degree of overlap, despite some notable differences that arose over the last millennium, and both use similar constructions not found elsewhere, such as the -ez/-edz infix for some first conjugation verbs and the -esc/-escu suffix for fourth conjugation verbs. Of course, the languages obviously went their separate ways and received their own influences, Aromanian more from Greek and some Albanian and Romanian more from Slavic, Hungarian, and others, and much of the difference exists in vocabulary of external origin that was borrowed/incorporated over time. I think it's interesting how they managed to still have as much overlap given the amount of time they've been split- English would be essentially unintelligible even less than 1000 years ago to modern speakers. 
It seems improbable that Aromanians would simply be the result of Latinized local Greeks/Epirotes, etc. who were conquered in the 2nd century B.C. and remained under Roman rule for over six hundred years (longer under Byzantines), and happen to preserve mostly the same set of words that Romanians (according to this Dacians far to the north conquered A.D. 107, and split off from the Roman world 165 years later), did within proto-East Romance. One would think they would be more different and acquired different vocab terms over time, but with a few exceptions in some words that happened to be lost in either language over time, this isn't the case. They both are also part of the Balkan sprachbund and share close grammatical features in it, possibly indicating some substratum layer of native paleo-Balkan influence. Both Romanian and Aromanian share many of the same terms deemed either to be of "substratum" origin or early loans from proto-Albanian, like mânz, mazăre, mal, moș, abur, brad, etc., further deepening the link between the two languages. Additionally they both preserved many terms from the same domains, occupations or lifestyles, such as cattle breeding and shepherding, from Latin, and both lack terms dealing with city life (both Ro. 'cetate' and Ar. 'tsitati' mean fortress/citadel rather than their origin, civitatem, meaning city). Another strike against direct ethno-cultural continuity from local Latinized Greeks is that the Greek language continued to be popularly spoken south of the Jireček line, rather than Latin.
Personally, from the various opinions and books on the issue I've read- and I'm by no means saying this is necessarily right or true- I believe the proto-Romanian/east Romance people may have formed on both sides of the Danube, but especially focused in an intermediate region between where Romanians and Aromanians are today, around the area of what is now eastern Serbia, spilling over into western Bulgaria, southwestern Romania up to the mountains, and perhaps the northern Macedonia region, as part of a continuum of Latin speakers; they may have been either split apart by the Slavic and other invasions, or at some point later went in separate directions, Romanian-speakers going northward further into what was Dacia and the Aromanians further south into northern Greece, Albania, etc, and each group may have mixed more with the existing people there. This map comes closest to what I'm suggesting http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/5143/valaquesvlachs.jpg. Coupled with the many cognates both Romanian and Aromanian have with Albanian, as well as several terms derived from Medieval Latin and inherited Christian vocabulary, indicates Romanians were not isolated and cut off from the rest of the Latin world after the retreat of the legions in 275 but at least remained in contact with it for several more centuries. I'm also partly in favor of the "admigration" theory which attempts to compromise the two main opposing theories. It may well be that some of the Latin speakers living south of the Danube were those who once dwelled in Dacia to the north but were moved back over, only to have some of their descendants return. The case I'm trying to argue is mainly linguistic, and I'm fully aware actual genetic origin as well as folk culture, dress, etc., is going to be rather different, especially as both people probably absorbed others after they lost contact with each other, but that's not the main scope of this article I suppose. It reality it's highly likely that many modern Aromanians in do probably have some blood continued from Epirotes, Macedonians, etc., having lived in these areas over over a thousand years, and of course from Greeks in general, but that's different from a strict line of uninterrupted descent in the same lands from antiquity. In same vein, Vlachs may be the most important type in making up many modern Romanians, especially in the south, but they're not the only one, and of course probably include other peoples like Slavs, Germanic tribes, Celts, Scythians, Cumans, and various others who migrated and left some mark on the land they live on today.
Another issue with that passage is that Proto-Romanian is, for better or for worse, the name many linguists and etymologists give the hypothetical language (or stage of the language) that was spoken by these people in the past. I understand whoever wrote that naturally took issue with simply the word Romanian being used. It's simply a word choice used based on the native endonym for all four Vlach groups descended from "romanus"- "român", "armãn", etc., and while it might not be the best one, it's still a legimate word, I think (a similar situation may be seen in the use of "Germanic" for that entire language family") But there is also the mostly synonymous "Eastern Romance", or proto-Eastern Romance perhaps. I can also agree to using "Balkan Vulgar Latin" in some cases too. It's also clear that this "East Romance" category includes a distinct "proto-Romanian"--for lack of a better word--subgroup, as distinct from the other (now extinct) Romance language that we know of in the Balkans, Dalmatian. Dalmatian does not seem to have come out of a close common ancestor with the Vlach tongues, who are all obviously much closer to each other in every aspect than they are to it. It seems to have many more affinities with Italian and some western Romance; however it also retains a few interesting aspects more characteristic of Balkan Romance, though this may have been later influence added, or conversely it may have taken much influence from Venetian, which is known.
All in all, I understand that some users may feel irritated by the other side overstepping their bounds and trying to claim the origins of their own people. I admit the early Romanian approach toward Aromanians wasn't the best and was overly simplistic, focused on their own people too much, and this caused animosity among some Aromanians, especially those who had built a strong Greek identity, though there were many who drew more toward Romanians in their self-perception, and many who moved and relocated there. Also, I'm sure some Romanians are going to call me a "Hungarian conspirator" or something, but there are others who think what I do as well, and I have no particular political agenda.
I plan on finding some sources to take care of some of the slight non-NPOV aspects of the article at some point, but just wanted to mention some ideas and was interested if others agreed or had any thoughts on it before any changes were made. Maybe some could shed some more light on these issues.
Word dewd544 (talk) 20:44, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Read about Dacia Ripensis and Dacia Mediterranea. Also read about the theory of Romanic islands of population promoted by N. Iorga. These islands were identified from Nistru river to
Jiricek line and beyond it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.124.177.223 (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins issue 

message: 1.Aromanians have never been called Macedo-Aromanians. The very easily traceable exonym Macedo-Roumains, Macedo-Romanians was the universal outsider term describing Aromanians in French or English 
- until the Iron Curtain effectivly cut the cultural link between Aromanians in Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece and scholars researching them in the Western world.
2.Aromanian is a functional language in Aromanian communities, so for them a language in its own right (See Aromanian scholar Matilda Caragiu Marioteanu dodecalog http://www.scribd.com/doc/39767355/Matilda-Caragiu-Mario%C5%A3eanu-Un-dodecalog-al-aromanilor). 
At the same time the science of linguistics dictates it's an indigenous/vernacular language very close to standard Daco-Romanian, closer to certain local rural idioms, with which it shares :
- the closest identity to vulgar Latin - a somewhat strange trait of Romanian 
- almost all of the basic/day to day vocabulary, including non-Latin words;
- all of the terms describing life specific to the past rural existence like:  words of environment (all mountaineous landforms) profession (sheep hearding, weaving, spinning, looming fabnrics, rural infrastructure construction etc);
- most of the leftover words prior to latinisation, also shared by Albanian -believed to be of Thracian/Ilyrian a.o. origin;
- the grammar has barely a few differences (mainly the more complex tense of past perfect) though other Vlach/Romanian regional idioms often keep kin older variants;
- there are even common sayings not to mention common curses; person names besides saint names, shortening the names pattern and nicknames
- recorded expression of spirituality like old ballad themes (Romanian Miorita).
Thus considering Aromanian a dialect of Romanian languages, parallel to Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and (the most widespread of them all) Daco-Romanian is objective. And it was also universally accepted, is as such by the Academy of Romania, and putting aside a few past Greek Academy claims(Aromanian is an old dialect of Greek), things don't seem to have changed at the scholar level.
3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania.
4. Beeing Vlach I should correct all of the Vlach terminology , correcting sounds and not using Serbian Latin alphabet (Armanji?!, Râmânji?! to Armâni, Rrămăni, Remeni, Rumăni, Români,Vlahi) but it is of little use since the Romanian language version of the page has seen such savage subjectivism from editors using wikipedia to forge linguistics for pollitical games.
(One certain Romanian MP persuing to acquire minority funding)
Vlach facts (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  this topic is getting less accurate by the day 

message: 1.Aromanians have never been called Macedo-Aromanians. The very easily traceable exonym Macedo-Roumains, Macedo-Romanians was the universal outsider term describing Aromanians in French or English 
- until the Iron Curtain effectivly cut the cultural link between Aromanians in Romania, Bulgaria, Macedonia and Greece and scholars researching them in the Western world.
2.Aromanian is a functional language in Aromanian communities, so for them a language in its own right (See Aromanian scholar Matilda Caragiu Marioteanu dodecalog http://www.scribd.com/doc/39767355/Matilda-Caragiu-Mario%C5%A3eanu-Un-dodecalog-al-aromanilor). 
At the same time the science of linguistics dictates it's an indigenous/vernacular language very close to standard Daco-Romanian, closer to certain local rural idioms, with which it shares :
- the closest identity to vulgar Latin - a somewhat strange trait of Romanian 
- almost all of the basic/day to day vocabulary, including non-Latin words;
- all of the terms describing life specific to the past rural existence like:  words of environment (all mountaineous landforms) profession (sheep hearding, weaving, spinning, looming fabnrics, rural infrastructure construction etc);
- most of the leftover words prior to latinisation, also shared by Albanian -believed to be of Thracian/Ilyrian a.o. origin;
- the grammar has barely a few differences (mainly the more complex tense of past perfect) though other Vlach/Romanian regional idioms often keep kin older variants;
- there are even common sayings not to mention common curses; person names besides saint names, shortening the names pattern and nicknames
- recorded expression of spirituality like old ballad themes (Romanian Miorita).
Thus considering Aromanian a dialect of Romanian languages, parallel to Istro-Romanian, Megleno-Romanian and (the most widespread of them all) Daco-Romanian is objective. And it was also universally accepted, is as such by the Academy of Romania, and putting aside a few past Greek Academy claims(Aromanian is an old dialect of Greek), things don't seem to have changed at the scholar level.
3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania.
4. Beeing Vlach I should correct all of the Vlach terminology , correcting sounds and not using Serbian Latin alphabet (Armanji?!, Râmânji?! to Armâni, Rrămăni, Remeni, Rumăni, Români,Vlahi) but it is of little use since the Romanian language version of the page has seen such savage subjectivism from editors using wikipedia to forge linguistics for pollitical games.
(One certain Romanian MP persuing to acquire minority funding)
Vlach facts (talk) 10:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  this topic is getting less accurate by the day 

message: Wondering about cultural legacy/presence.  I remember in Dictionary of the Khazars, I think it's called by Milorad Pavić there's a character who's a Tzintzar merchant.  I think it was the male edition I read (there's a "female" edition, not sure what the word is that distinguishes the two editions - ?? ).  My Serbian friends in Canada was amazed I know about Milorad Pavić or about Tzintzars.Skookum1 (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tzintzars in literature? 

message: Hello. I tried to explain my changes but nobody read the explanations. We live in 2014 in a multi-cultural Europe. How is possible to accept in the english language the term "Aromanian"? Many scientists described this term as an EXONYM. More than this, is a miss-translate of the name of our first contemporary grammar book (Roman or Macedono-Vlah Grammar). In Greece, the Academy consider us Ancient Greeks latinised. In Greece!!! Hundreds of scientists. In these conditions what is the problem with the term Macedonians (Greeks Latins)? You asked us to talk before making changes. Let's talk. Is somebody ready to accept a dialogue? I apologise but if there are some macedo-bulgarians or romanians admins, they will never accept the truth. And how to accept it if their national history has a lot of mistakes? We have here a conflict between Greece (Macedonia), Romania and FYROM. But for us, the term Macedonians (Greeks Latins) has no historical errors. Please, those professionals who can explain this term is false, to come here and talk. (Makedonovlah (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Greece is one of the few countries that in this 2014 "multi-cultural Europe", doesn't have the concept of national minorities. That is outrageous, especially in the Balkans and this part of Europe where every single country has a multitude of cultures and ethnic identities. How is that possible and allowed by EU? So with attitude, is there any surprise that the "hundreds of Greek scientists" consider the Aromanians as Latinized "Ancient Greeks"? How can you have a dialogue, when the "discussion" starts from this stuck up nationalistic and brain-washing position? What kind of "science" can identify the percentages of Thracians, Illyrians, Paeonians, Ancient Macedonians, Epirotes, Ancient Greeks but also Roman colonists, Roman slaves from all provinces, Roman military from Palmyra and Germania (for example) that form the base for the Aromanian identity, as 100% "Latinized Ancient Greeks"? It is ridiculous in 2014 to think like that. As for the term itself, do a Google (even better Google Scholar) for "Macedonians (Greeks Latins)" vs "Aromanians", to see the coverage in the English-speaking academia . I don't think that negating and destroying other ethnic identities is the path to bring prosperity to present-day Greece. Actually is the opposite path. --Codrin.B (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Macedonians (Greeks Latins)

message: As i see you are romanian. Is true what you said about the greek attitude. But why don't you say something about the romanian attitude for the Aromanian Minority? How the romanian history can state we are the same people?? What has to do the romanian history with the Ancient Historical Macedonia (Epirus, Thessaly, Central Macedonia and Thrace)? What has to do the Romanian Ethnicity with the Ancient Greeks and Romans? Nobody says we aren't autochtonous in these lands since immemorial times. If you are romanian is correct to try to solve the Aromanian problem in Romania and then to accuse the Greek State for his abuses. You don't think so? (Makedonovlah (talk) 11:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: What has to do the Romanian Ethnicity with the Aromanians / Macedonians (Greeks Latins)?

message: ,,3. Aromanians have never called themselves "Makidonji" and as my forruner says there is actually little proof to a direct Macedonian origin. "Machedon" it is just an exonym used in Dobrudja- Romania pointing to the relative origin from where theese people were brought to collonise Southern Dobrudja (beeing broght as the constitution permitted as Romanian) to the Kingdom of Romania."
* How you can say this my friend? How you can claim Elino-Valch (Macedonian) origin? In Romania emigrated about 5000 families as MACEDONIANS. "Machedon" exonym??? LOL! (Makedonovlah (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: For user Vachfacts

message: Hello. Can we change the "Aromanians"term with "macedonians (greeks latins)"? In Greece the Academy consider us ancient greeks latinised autochtonous in Macedonia, Thessaly and Epirus since immemorial times. So if we are latinised greeks in the scientifical history of greece, the term macedonian cant be contested. It doaesnt matter how if we call ourselves macedonians in our language. The latinised greeks theory is enough to accept the term macedonian because we were latinised in the roman province of macedonia. There isnt another population with greek latin origin. The term 'Aromanians' is a political mistake. Some romanian scholars translated our first contemporary grammar book (1813) in a false term. The proper term oh that grammar book was and is MACEDONO_ROMAN. They translated MACEDONO_ROMANIAN as if Romanians are the ANCIENT ROMANS and the ROMANIAN language is the latin language. And in Romania there are also academy members as Matilda Caragiu who stated this translate is FALSE. So the term 'Aromanians' doesnt belong to us. 
More than this we dont live "especially in Romania" because our "especially" homeland is GREECE (Macedonia) and after Greece is ITALY. In Romania we came as MACEDONIAN COLONISTS from 1925. We can make these changes? Thank you! (Makedonovlah (talk) 10:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NAME

message: Hello. A wiki friend asked us to find consensus before changing OUR NAME. As i said the term "AROMANIANS" is a political one. At wikipedia we must accept the scientifical one. And the Science of Greece cant be driven by the science of Romania because the vast majority of the Macedonians (Greeks Latins) live in Northern Greece and some of them still live in Italy. We as  Macedonians (Greeks Latins) ethnically part of Hellenism and Latinity along with the Greeks and Italians, consider this name as the proper one. And the Academy states the same theory. To whom we must ask admission for the term mentioned above and from whom we must ask the removal of the false term "Aromanians"? Thank you! (Makedonovlah (talk) 08:29, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: To whom belongs this article?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Aromanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050905015809/http://www.lumeam.ro:80/nr10_2002/diaspora.html to http://www.lumeam.ro/nr10_2002/diaspora.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Aromanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071007143801/http://www.rgnpress.ro/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=707&pop=1&page=0 to http://www.rgnpress.ro/index2.php?option=content&task=view&id=707&pop=1&page=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aromanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050519194533/http://www.eurominority.org:80/version/eng/minority-detail.asp?id_alpha=1&id_minorites=gr-arom to http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/minority-detail.asp?id_alpha=1&id_minorites=gr-arom
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218045546/http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_3.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150218045546/http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_3.pdf to http://www.ecmi.de/download/working_paper_3.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101027131218/http://www.farsarotul.org:80/nl20_1.htm to http://www.farsarotul.org/nl20_1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081020091613/http://www.ziua.net:80/display.php?id=154530&data=2004-08-10&kword=Divjaka%2C+unde+invata+aromana+peste+60+copii to http://www.ziua.net/display.php?id=154530&data=2004-08-10&kword=Divjaka%2C+unde+invata+aromana+peste+60+copii
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041207013128/http://farsarotul.org:80/ to http://www.farsarotul.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Aromanians. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060703040707/http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/index.asp to http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/index.asp
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://assembly.coe.int/Documents/AdoptedText/ta97/EREC1333.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://vlahos.xan.duth.gr/draseis/psifismata/280201.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://vlahos.xan.duth.gr/draseis/psifismata/141102.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://vlahos.xan.duth.gr/draseis/psifismata/180803.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://farsarotul.org/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:22, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified