Talk:Vlachs (social class)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposal for deleting and question for editors

In addition, with the beginning of Ottoman rule, within this social class also came to be included other Vlach-like (pastoral semi-nomad) populations,[8] such as cattle-breeding Orthodox Serbs;[9]. This information "In addition, with the beginning of Ottoman rule, within this social class also came to be included other Vlach-like (pastoral semi-nomad) populations" does not exist in the source, see source [1] page 134. While information "such as cattle-breeding Orthodox Serbs" is from the article, page 720 [2] where various historians are cited and various theses about Serbian-Vlach origin are presented. One of such historians is Tihomir Đorđević (1868-1944) and claim "Tihomir Đorđević points to the already mentioned fact that the name 'Vlach' didn't only refer to genuine Vlachs, but also to cattle breeders in general" I don't know if that's edit is correct and in accordance with Wikipedia rules because then wherever Vlachs are mentioned we could add next to this information "cattle-breeding Orthodox Serbs" or cattle-breeding Orthodox Greeks or cattle-breeding Albanians if someone has source with this informations. Mikola22 (talk) 07:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Origin section

This section has only three sources, 1) "Dominik Mandić. Hrvati i Srbi: dva stara, razlicita naroda" this source is not acceptable because of the writer's connection with the Ustashas. 2) Kursar, Vjeran (2013). "Being an Ottoman Vlach: On Vlach Identity(ies), information from the source: "in general it seems that the Vlachs were descendants of an indigenous Romanised pre-Slavic Balkan population living in the highlands of the central Balkans" where is this information in the article? And one source and one information from "(1959). HISTORIJA NARODA JUGOSLAVIJE.. history of Yugoslavian nation". If we do not count the first source we have one source (Kursar, Vjeran) without all the relevant information from that source.

• Ottoman Vlachs from other source: "A MILITARY HISTORY OF THE OTTOMANS" (page 64)[3] "The Eflak (Vlach) groups came from a totally different background. They were Romanian-speaking nomadic groups that once lived in the mountainous regions of Serbia, Macedonia, Herzegovina, and northern Greece."
• Noel Malcolm, Bosnia: A Short History, "Already in the first defters, groups of Christian shepherds appeared, declaring themselves as Vlachs", "Still, it is clear that the Vlachs, as a special ethnic and cultural group, played an important role there", Known as "Martolozi" or "Voynuks" became the most dangerous element in the Ottoman military machinery", "traditionally they were cattle breeders and shepherds", "The name "Vlach" itself comes from the word used by the ancient Slavs to call peoples(nation) who spoke Latin or Romance languages", "The Vlach language is Roman, very similar to Romanian", "The Vlachs in Bosnia and Herzegovina from the 16th century show that most Vlachs no longer lived nomadic life", "Some authors, especially Serbian, have argued that the word "Vlach" means only "shepherd" and does not include any particular ethnic or linguistic meaning - so that most of these people are in fact only Serbs who keep sheeps. This view is rejected by a leading contemporary expert on Vlachs at the beginning of Ottoman rule in the Balkans, arguing that Vlachs have always been considered a separate nation".

• These are two sources for now and they mention Vlachs as social class but in context, this article has no context. As if exist some special group of Vlachs which is just a social category, however as I say almost all sources(and there are a lot of them) speak about social class in context. Mikola22 (talk) 21:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• In the introductory part exist this source "Steven G. Ellis, Luďa Klusáková; (2007) Imagining Frontiers, Contesting Identities" In which the Vlachs are mentioned and as ethnicity along with Albanians, Serbs, etc. In addition, the source mentions Albanians with similar social status and together with the Vlachs as nomads, does this mean that there should be an article "Albanians (social class)"?[4] [5] Otherwise and other source in the introductory part from the Austrian historian Karl Kaser also mentions Albanians and Vlachs in a similar context.[6] Mikola22 (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose to merge Vlachs (social class) into Vlachs. I think that the content in the Vlachs (social class) article can easily be explained in the context of Vlachs article. Vlachs article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Vlachs (social class) article will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. Both articles talk about Vlachs which are and social class, ethnicity or linguistic group. Given that Vlachs appear in the wider Balkan area, an ordinary editor cannot determine which link to use in a specific case, whether linking Vlachs as a social class or as Vlachs(and most of the sources contain all three terms). Both articles contain similar information, so I think it would be best to combine these two articles into one. Finally, in the Eastern Balkans we have and Vlachs as an ethnic minority(in several countries) who probably do not consider themselves as descendants of social class herders, so maybe that article as a standalone article is not suitable in that sense. Thank you. Mikola22 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko, Peacemaker67, Sorabino, Jingiby, Ktrimi991, Miki Filigranski, WEBDuB, Griboski, Mhare, Santasa99, Antidiskriminator, Maleschreiber, OyMosby, Tezwoo, KIENGIR, and Super Dromaeosaurus: I ping editors which I know or who have been on these articles, you also invite someone. Mikola22 (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

• Absolutely not, those are 2 very different articles and subjects. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
• Mikola2, to be honest, I think that is a very bad idea. "Vlach" at the said time had two, if not more, very different meanings that came from different contexts. Hence we can not properly explain and elaborate on them on the same article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, but try to go from the source. Each source generally mention all terms. We(editors) separated these terms on Wikipedia but the source ie sources remained the same and mention only the Vlachs although they previously mentioned all three or two terms or fourth term (military class). We actually by creating this article created OR. That's how I look at this "problem". Mikola22 (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Mikola22: no worries about that. I see your point, and I think we can improve this article to better standards. There are several reliable sources that we can use. Any content that currently is on the article but counters with Wiki's policies, can be easily removed or modified accordingly. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

If we would start using sources according to the Wikipedia rule("making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered") and (NPOV, "without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"), I think we will have problems because Vlachs as a social class are always mentioned in the context of ethnicity, language group, as well as military class. And that these rules were followed we wouldn’t even have this article because it’s already covered or would be covered in Vlachs article. It would be like taking historian Zef Mirdita(who mentions Vlachs as a nation) or this historian from Noel Malcolm's book(who mentions Vlachs as a nation) and add ethnicity information from each RS and create a new article of Medieval Vlachs or Vlachs as nation. In any case, I support any improvement. Mikola22 (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

• No. This article branches from the general article on the Vlachs as well articles on the Vlachs on the territory of Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and so on. It has a well-defined scope of presenting in more details the social aspect of the Vlachs.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Link on Vlachs article is "Vlach (Ottoman social class)". Mikola22 (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mikola22, Ktrimi991, and Miki Filigranski: neutral but this testimony by Ingrid Hartl in Transformations of Romanness (p400) may be useful: In Southeast Europe, the name Vlach mainly connoted nomadic pastoralism, the predominant way of life for speakers of Romance languages in the Balkan Peninsula after Byzantine rule and urban infrastructure had faded out in the early seventh cen- tury. These Vlach herdsmen preserved their language and identity in largely Slavic and Greek environments, so that their name also remained available as an ethno- nym. 31 Nevertheless, Mihailo Popović shows in his contribution that pastoral trans- humance was not necessarily linked to the Vlach name. Slavic and Albanian herds- men on the one hand could be referred to as Vlachs, on the other hand could be distinguished from them. 32 In the Western Balkans the medieval name Vlach could also designate Romans or Romance-speaking residents of Dalmatian cities, for which Georg Holzer gives some examples in his article. 33 However, the greater part of the Romance-speaking Vlachs seem to have used self-designations derived from Romanus, as Johannes Kramer and Michael Metzeltin suggest in their articles. 34 --Calthinus (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, it’s one of the sources I’m talking about, there are no sources which mention Vlachs only as social class. They are always mentioned and in a linguistic or ethnic context. This is information and for Vlach article.

My bad --Calthinus (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Calthinus:, it is not your bad, all sources are such. That's why I suggested merging. Ktrimi991 said that he would find something new, there is no such thing (source etc). This article is torn out of context. Mikola22 (talk) 20:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)