Talk:Vlachs in the history of Croatia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Mužić book

The book Mužić Vlasi u starijoj hrvatskoj historiografiji ISBN 978-953-6803-25-5 is used to corroborate the most extreme claims of Serbianization, but it can't be found in neither the NSK nor FFZG online catalogues. Do we have an actually verifiable source? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Historians rarely write about Vlachs in Croatia. If we speak about serbianization, we have verifiable sources. --Wustenfuchs 16:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Mužić should also be taken with care. He is a Croatian nationalist, and is known to have taken the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja at face value.--Zoupan 19:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

historical ethnonyms vs. modern-day ethnic minority

The article seems confused on whether it wants to describe the 12 people who declare as Vlachs, or the larger historical populations - which don't seem to be very obviously linked. The conflation with Morlachs is also apparent. This needs to be resolved in some way... --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

@Joy: Please follow Wikipedia:Merging. Right now it is not clear what article you want to merge.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, it's not clear to me either. It's obvious that there's a content overlap problem, but it's not clear what the final state is. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• The 12 modern Vlachs compose about one short paragraph in the article. I don't think it is worth giving them their own article since the history of how they went from a huge population to such a small number should be the emphasis. Also, I don't think you can find much published information about the remaining 12.Editfromwithout (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

This article is about historical Vlachs. It would be good to include Morlachs into this article, not contrary, since Morlachs are Vlachs, i. e. species of a genus. --Wustenfuchs 16:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Morlachs vs Vlachs ambiguity

The Morlachs article states:

Because of the etymology, they are believed to have been Vlachs.[citation needed] Another version of their name comes from the Slavic terms of morski Vlasi meaning "Sea Vlachs". They were a blend of previously Romanized indigenous peoples and new settled Roman army veterans and Roman colonists.

The only connection between the Vlachs and the Morlachs seems to be the etymology "black Vlachs", and as seen above, it isn't cited.

The Vlach article, on the other hand, states:

There were two groups of Vlachs in Croatia. One group was the regular Vlachs who lived in Like, while the others were the Morlachs ... on 10 April 1412 Vlachs, respectively Morlachs...

So there is a definite ambiguity here. The Morlach article states that it is possible that the Vlachs were Morlachs, while the Vlachs of Croatia effectively states that the Morlachs are Vlachs. Before there is any type of merging, this needs to be cleared up for both articles.Editfromwithout (talk) 19:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Morlachs are "Black Vlachs". Any literature can confirme that. --Wustenfuchs 12:58, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

"Serbianisation"

Most of this article is based on Mužić, Ivan (2010). Vlasi u starijoj hrvatskoj historiografiji ("Vlachs in older Croatian historiography", [1]). This book is a collection of works by various older Croatian authors. The creator of this article, User:Wüstenfuchs, based the section "Serbianisation" mostly on a work by Vatroslav Murvar (ref "Mužić 2010, p. 153-156"). Hardly could Murvar be regarded as a reliable source, as he was literally an Ustasha, see The Racial Idea in the Independent State of Croatia): "In the Ustasha Annual for 1942 Vatroslav Murvar referred to the nomadic Vlachs who had arrived in Croatia as the 'most criminal and most barbaric element' in the history of Europe..." The text referenced with Murvar should be deleted. A glaring nonsense in that section is also the claim that the "majority of the Vlach population of Croatia was Greek Orthodox". There was never any Greek Orthodox eparchy in the territory of present-day Croatia. Anzulovic's book is not a reliable source too; it is a "haphazardly researched and biased piece of work" [2]. And those 29 Vlachs of the 2011 census, who probably came to Croatia from eastern Serbia (study, work, marriage) - what they have to do with the medieval groups referred to as Vlachs? Vladimir (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I share your concern that this is a WP:COATRACK violation. The content about the historical Vlach population has to be split to a separate article, one that could be linked from the relevant generic history articles, from the Statuta Valachorum article, etc. Not immediately sure about the name for that article, though. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I see there is no issue if the article was based upon the historical works collected by Mužić in 2010, the only issue is date of publication, which points that some or some parts of them didn't aged well, and quantitative number of works, which points to the fact, as far I can see, some or some parts of them, are not qualitatively and academically good enough to be used as source. Fortunately, the only issue is the source for Serbianisation; Murvar's book, and the information on threats and deaths in Eparchy of Marča, which was sourced from the right-wing Catholic newspaper Hrvatska Straža in 1939. Somehow, this events could be mentioned in the article of Serbs in Croatia, but they doesn't have any connection with Vlachs, and the mass migration in 1689 to Vojvodina and Srijem was undoubtedly Serbian. For the Vlachs in the 2011 census there is no proof they came from Serbia, it's a individual choice to declare themself as a Vlach, or Istro-Romanian (49 Romanians and 6 Vlachs in Istria), while the second question is so complex and comprehensive it can't be simply answered.

There is no point splitting the article, the article should primary describe the course of historical events and mentions of Vlachs in Croatia, while other like Statuta Valachorum, more comprehensive their privileges etc.--Crovata (talk) 15:57, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it would be correct to designate in references the real authors and dates of the sources used, rather than "Mužić 2010". Beside the problematic Murvar, the "Mužić" references also include historians Vjekoslav Klaić and Radoslav Lopašić, which I suppose are mostly acceptable as sources, though somewhat dated. Murvar (as well as Hrvatska Straža) are definitely not WP:RS, so there remains the problem of fixing those issues you mentioned in the edit summery.

There are, on one hand, the medieval-to-early-modern groups referred to as Vlachs, mostly inhabiting what used to be the Military Frontier, and on the other hand, the people who have declare themselves as Vlachs in Croatia in recent censuses (according to the table in the article, since 1948). The latter seem to be for the most part the Istro-Romanians. (I supposed that some of them might be the Vlachs of Serbia - for example, there are 33 Croats recorded in Majdanpek in 2011, so I found it plausible that people might have moved in the opposite direction too.) I don't see any intersection between the history of the Istro-Romanians (or Vlachs of eastern Serbia) and the history of the Vlachs of the Military Frontier. So I think that the idea of a split might be appropriate. In that case, this article (after some smaller changes) might be renamed as "Vlachs of the Military Frontier", while "Vlachs of Croatia" might be redirected to Istro-Romanians. But that's just a suggestion... Vladimir (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working on this article (rewriting, update will be in few days), and as was previously on Morlachs, the real authors are referred, for example "Mužić (Vjekoslav Klaić)" - Mužić for the book, and Klaić as original author. When speaking of Klaić, his work is important mostly for citing original Latin documents which mention Vlachs or Morlachs. They give the perspective on date, territorial extent, status and events (they appertain to the nobles or queen, causing problems with unauthorized pasture in city lands, military activity etc.) before the 1500s and Ottoman invasion and mass migration.

Indeed, but the case is still more complex than that. I would like the rewriting be finished and after we read it, even the sources, to see what conclusion we can make, and put it perhaps as you suggested into another perspective. The problem is, the term Vlach in Croatia had many meanings, and roughly to say, there existed two groups of Vlachs and they can be separated or put in perspective by date, pre-1520 and after-1520. The pre-1520 group were mostly progeny of indigenous Illyrians, Tracians, Greeks or Roman colonists, or Slavs who were shepherds, and are first mentioned not later than 1320s. The after-1520 are connected with the Ottoman invasion, Vlach migration and Military Frontier. The thing is, there is no need to separate this groups and make individual articles, as there is enough space for them both, and most importantly, they were assimilated in each other (some older in Croats) ie into the socio-profesional or confesional meaning of the term "Vlachs". For example, in Croatia exist many surnames of original Romance speaking Vlachs, but only one group known as Istro-Romanians preserved the language. Problem is, there is no evidence to know in what way this community of Istro-Romanians (who are called Ćiribirci, Ćići, Rumeri by themselves, or Vlachs and Istro-Romanians by others) was connected with original Vlachs, and we don't know in what parts they previously lived, or dates of mention.

The Vlachs of Military Frontier were mainly Orthodox, because of various reasons. In centuries later would be identified with Serbs, although there is lack of evidence to show they were indeed Serbs, but according the surname studies, typical Orthodox patronymic surnames didn't made the vast majority of them, and surprisingly a good portion of them (20%) were of original Romance or Old-Balkan origin. For example, Omar Pasha Latas was born in Serbian Orthodox family in 1806, but his surname indicates another origin. The statistic data on people who declared themselves as Vlachs in the 20th century or recently in 2011 census, for the whole historical meaning and discussion on Vlachs in Croatia, is quite irrelevant.--Crovata (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There may have been among them a significant proportion of populations of pre-Slavic Balkan origin, but such populations participated more or less in the development of all Slavic-language populations in the Balkans. They were called Serbs and Rascians since they began arriving in the Military Frontier in the first half of the 16th century, so claiming that they were some ethnic group completely different than the Serbs may raise doubts about the neutrality of those who claim that. Good luck with the rewrite. Vladimir (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The mentioned percent only proves the existence of pre-Slavic or non-Slavic population in Croatia and among the Vlachs. Of course the people called Serbs or Rasians participated in the "Vlach" population since first half of the 16th century, but in your statement you said that they were called Serbs or Rascians because they were Serbs, and not because of, for example, their religious confession. Isn't your statement likewise doubtful? Nationalistic historiography in Croatia or Serbia, or negated Vlachs were Serbs, or regarded they were only and true Serbs. Both politically inspired extremes according the neutral historiography, archeology, linguistics etc., are not proven. What is the evidence, and sources, that makes you think, and substantiate your statement, they were Serbs? Thanks, and wish all the best we find the truth.--Crovata (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nationalistic historiography in Croatia or Serbia, or negated Vlachs were Serbs, or regarded they were only and true Serbs. To put it more precisely, according to the nationalistic historiography in Croatia, the Vlachs were a separate ethnicity completely different from the Serbs, and according to the nationalistic historiography in Serbia, all people referred to as Vlachs were Serbs. Of course, neither of these claims is correct. You agree that those groups of Vlachs had been called Serbs and Rascians in sources since the first half of the 16th century, but you suggest that it is only because of their religion, and that they were not really Serbs. What sources substantiate your suggestion, especially regarding the exonym "Rascians", which, as far as I know, never had any religious connotations? That seems to be a way to support the claim that the Vlachs were a "separate ethnicity completely different from the Serbs". Vladimir (talk) 15:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Article scope

Quoting Name-section: "The meaning of the term "Vlach" within the territory of present-day Croatia differed over time and had multiple meanings", so my question is, why merge several historical, unrelated, communities into one article? Is this article about a (1) ethnic group of Croatia?--Zoupan 05:50, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan, for further information and discussion on Vlachs of Croatia see previous discussion "Serbianisation". This article is about Vlachs and the term Vlach in Croatia, there only two historical communities, Romanian and Slavic speaking, but so much connected by the term they are historically more than related, and also to be simply avoided any further political and nationalistic manipulation well known in the Balkan(!). As well, there is no point to split this article for just 29 people (0.00 % of population), for whom, although recognized as a national minority in Croatia, even the Office for National Minority Rights of Croatia doesn't have any article and information, because simply, what it means at all? Why this 29 people declared themselves as Vlachs? What makes them unique, what is their culture, language...? What makes them an ethnic group at all?

Quoting "The meaning of the term "Vlach" within the territory of present-day Croatia differed over time and had multiple meanings", is explained: "In the Middle Ages, initially it was an exonym that referred to distinctive Vlachian pastoralist communities in the mountains, or other Romance speaking people like Italians. It also meant shepherds, or transporters and merchants from hinterland. From the 16th century, with Ottoman conquest and mass migrations of Slavic-speaking people, to primarily a socio-cultural and professional segment of population, rather than to an ethnicity.

In Croatia the history of Vlachs and the term Vlach is far more important than some 29 people who decided to declare as Vlachs. Besides also meaning newcomer from hinterland and etc., there articles on other specific Vlachian groups of Croatia, Morlachs, Istro-Romanians, and Ćići, but note that most of the people for which this terms related for centuries declared as Slavs, Croats or Serbs.

The real question is whether it should be made an article for 29 people titled "Vlach minority in Croatia"?--Crovata (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It is clear that "manipulation" is present in this article. Vlachs in the historiography of Croatia, Romance peoples in the history of Croatia, and Morlachs, etc, cannot be treated as one and the same. This article is a mishmash.--Zoupan 06:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Zoupan, if you knew anything about Vlachs, and especially Vlachs in Croatia, you wouldn't ask such questions and made such remarks, you obviously don't know about the subject, actually, didn't even bother to read. The article explains very well (though not finished) the history of Vlachs and the term Vlach in Croatia. Initially, Vlachs, or Morlachs in Venice documents, were Romance speaking people...--Crovata (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Last warning, do not remove tags until problems are discussed. "Vlachs of Croatia" is ambiguous. Is it about a term? The population infobox and demographic history (Yugoslav censuses) table should not stay.--Zoupan 08:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Vlachs in general are ambiguous, and this "ambiguousness" is something it goes along those communities as mostly they didn't manage to make a national identity since they were a minority from Middle Ages. They were mostly assimilated by South Slavs and other nations. Some groups managed to preserve their language, some only names (surnames among South Slavs), or customs, but are so much incorporated into modern Croatian and other South Slavic national identity is hard to tell where it actually begins and where it ends. There is no simple answer on Vlachs, and splitting this article into multiple minor articles wouldn't do any good. In historiography of Croatia the term "Vlachs" is a continuum which extends from real Vlach shepherds who were Romance speaking people, the synonymous Morlachs, Ćići (Ćiribirci or Istro-Romanians), to the Vlachs as social-professional category (semi-nomadic shepherds), as term for "stranger" or "newcomer", to the meaning of Orthodox population. It can't be separated as it's all historically connected.

(Just to add, there is no official "Romance" and "Slavic" Vlachs, or this "14th century" and that "16-17th century" Vlachs, this linguistically group terms are only used in order to simplify the distinction between the time periods and to understand the historical circumstances).

Forgive me, but seeing how You mostly edit articles related to Serbian history, and how nationalistically edited (see User talk:Zoupan#Morlachs), used outdated sources, and isisted to connect from Middle Ages Morlachs to only Serbs, reverting my edits (present version of Morlachs article), I can hardly take you serious on this subject.--Crovata (talk) 11:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Forgery

In November, Ferdinand wrote to Keglević about "captains and dukes of the Rasians, or the Serbs, or the Vlachs, who are commonly called the Serbs" (capitanei et wayuode Rasciani sive Serviani atque Valachi, quos vulgo zrbschy vocant). This quote has no confirmation in the original document and for that reason I suggest deleting this part of the article. Otherwise on the page 20 or another page there is no such information so for that reason I will delete it, the proof is in the book. For now, we have the only source exposing the original document I quote: King Ferdinand in November 6, 1538. writes a letter to Petar Keglević "te in hoc, quod capitanei et woyvode Rasciani sive Servian! atque Valachi, quos vulgo Zytschy (Cici) vocant, cum eorum subditis et adherentibus fidem devotionemque" in which he mentions "Rascians or the Serbs!" "And Vlachs!" who are commonly called the Ćići

It seems that "...who are commonly called the Serbs" is a fabrication (?) from D. Gavrilović, Elements of Ethnic Identification of the Serbs (2003), pg. 720.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

For now we have original record in the book of Vjekoslav Klajić. I was looking for original record(source) but I can't find it anywhere. Maybe Vjekoslav Klajić doing some forgery but he only cites the text of that document so we must assume that this is true. Only cure is find original document from archive. Mikola22 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Serbian Orthodox

@TU-nor: Croatian historian Šarić Marko mentions term "Serbian Orthodox" Vlachs in his book and this has been repeatedly stated in the article(Anthroponymy) however earlier an Austrian historian Karl Kaser write book "Popis Like i Krbave 1712. godine, 2003 i.e. book and census on which is based book of Croatian historian Šarić Marko "Predmoderne etnije u Lici i Krbavi prema popisu iz 1712./14. godine, 2009" from this article. In the book of Austrian historian on page 21, writes this I quote: "Naziv "Vlasi" upotrebljava se u popisu iz 1712. u dva značenja. Većinom se koristio za označavanje pripadnosti grčko-pravoslavnoj vjerskoj zajednici i ponekad za označavanje Vlaha kao etničke skupine " The name "Vlachs" is used in the 1712. census with two meanings. Mostly is used for marking of belonging to the Greek-Orthodox religious community and sometimes to mark Vlachs as an ethnic group ( it is data from the original census). This term "Serbian Orthodox" Vlachs is a claim of Croatian historian although this term is not used in various books of Croatian historians and Šarić Marko in the book says that original census (1712./14.) mentione Orthodox peoples (Schismatische Wallachen, Walachi, Wolochi and Vlachs name (Walachi, Wolochi, Wallachen, Vlasi, Stari Vlasi, u jednom slučaju i Murlaken) page 360. and he calls them "Serbian Orthodox" Vlachs. What should we do now, to put data of an Austrian historian i.e. Greek-Orthodox (from original census Like i Krbave 1712) or to add quotes from an Austrian historian behind citations of Croatian historian.Mikola22 (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it says "...to affiliation with the Greek-Orthodox ", well all Eastern orthodox churches are affiliated with each other.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"za označavanje pripadnosti grčko-pravoslavnoj vjerskoj zajednici" name Vlach was used in this census to mark affiliation to the Greek-Orthodox religious community, the less common name is "schismatics"or "schismatic religion".Mikola22 (talk) 12:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Problem is that can mean many things, what do you want to use it for? By the way, the word religious does not appear in that quote.Slatersteven (talk) 15:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

It does. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 15:59, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

"za označavanje pripadnosti grčko-pravoslavnoj vjerskoj zajednici" which of those words translate as religious?Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: I edit article. vjerskoj-religious (religious community is a community (group of people) who practice the same religion Mikola22 (talk) 17:14, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

OK, vjerskoj=religious but affiliation does not mean the same. HMS Diamond is affiliated with Aberdeen, but she is not part of Aberdeen, and Aberdeen is not part of the Royal Navy.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Serbian Church is part of "Greek Orthodoxy" ("Historically, the term "Greek Orthodox" has also been used to describe all Eastern Orthodox Churches in general, since "Greek" in "Greek Orthodox" can refer to the heritage of the Byzantine Empire") so there is no contradiction here. But "Serbian Orthodox" is a more accurate term, because these lands belonged to the Eparchy of Gornji Karlovac of Serbian Patriarchate of Peć. The article needs to use a more precise term, because now the term "Greek Orthodoxy" is usually used only for churches that use Koine Greek in Liturgy.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:01, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Greek-Orthodox are cited in the book and that RS we must respect.Mikola22 (talk) 14:41, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Try to read the text above and see the articles on wiki-refs.--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My edit is about census from 1712./14. and the source(book) where Greek-Orthodox and "schismatics" or "schismatic religion" are mentioned. It is a census and we cannot change data from census or RS(book of Austrian historian). Mikola22 (talk) 08:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:NOTLISTENING--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

No they are affiliated, not part of. As such you cannot take the source to say "Serbian Orthodox" when it does not "see wp:v" any more than I could say that I am my sister (even though wee are related).Slatersteven (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Slatersteven, in historical sense, “Greek” was used as a synonym for “Eastern” Orthodoxy. And Serbian Orthodoxy - yes, it is part of this Eastern (Greek) Orthodoxy (see the List. Obviously, Karl Kaser does not claim that the “Vlachs” are actually the Greeks, or they served the Liturgy in Greek language or something else. In 1712, the place where the census was conducted was in the diocese of the Serbian Orthodox Church ("The Serbian Orthodox Ličko-Krbavska and Zrinopoljska Eparchy was established in 1695 by metropolitan Atanasije Ljubojević and certified by Emperor Joseph I in 1707"). In the article of Šarić Marko there are much more details, but it is not contradict to Karl Kaser's book.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:08, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That list does not say the Greek Orthodox Church is the primary church, not does it say that the Serbian church is part of the Greek church (in fact it lists three "Greek" churches).Slatersteven (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, I'm a little afraid that I’ll sit here in my wheelhouse here. But, in fact the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople ranks as primus inter pares (first among equals). Also, this is the "primary church" because the Serbian, Bulgarian, Russian etc. churches were formed by receiving autocephaly from it. Therefore, indeed, all Eastern Orthodox churches were often called "Greek Orthodox" (as opposed to "Latin Catholics"). This is mentioned in the Leed of the article "Greek Orthodoxy".--Nicoljaus (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes first among equals, in other words not a pope. Whilst it may be true that (at one time) all Eastern Orthodox churches were often called "Greek Orthodox" (but as the lead also says "Thus, today it is generally only those churches that are most closely tied to Greek or Byzantine culture that are called "Greek Orthodox"."), the source was published after the 10thC AD it is doubtful he is using the tem in an outdated way.Slatersteven (talk) 12:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, here is the the book of 2003 , where both terms mentioned: "When one refers to “Eastern” or “Greek” Orthodoxy...". But now the term "Greek Orthodoxy" has become narrower and its use will disorientate the reader. So I reverted the edit, that claims "Greek" Orthodoxy of this "Vlachs".--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

If the source does not say that the Vlachs were Greek orthodox we should not say it. If the source does not say Greek Orthodox and Serbian orthodox are the same we should not say it does.Slatersteven (talk) 13:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

In fact, there is no rule on Wikipedia that forces you to insert deliberate nonsense into articles. Ok, suppose you and Mikola22 are both voluntarily mistaken and don’t understand that in this case "Greek" Orthodoxy is used in the meaning of "Eastern". But this statement seems WP:EXTRAORDINARY. Therefore - do you have additional sources that the Orthodoxy of the "Vlachs" was precisely "Greek"? That the majority of the Orthodox population on the territory of the the Ličko-Krbavska and Zrinopoljska Eparchy of Serbian Patriarchate of Peć were actually parishioners of another church? This is a very serious statement. Therefore: "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources." Be so kind to provide them, please. Please note that another source unequivocally calls these Vlahs "Serbian Orthodox".--Nicoljaus (talk) 14:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Nicoljaus has a good point (in accordance with Wiki policy), I agree 100%. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 14:02, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Austrian census register "Greek Orthodox" and "schismatics" and this is what Austrian historian says in his book(RS). Vlachs "Serbian Orthodox" do not exist in that census. They exist in a scientific paper of Marko Šarić and this is his claim from his view of that same census. Marko Šarić himself states I quote "original census (1712./14.) mentione Orthodox peoples (Schismatische Wallachen, Walachi, Wolochi and Vlachs" "Ethnic attributions in the census are rare and are not commonly used in terms of ethnic identification. Most often appears Vlach name but primarily as ethno-confessional mark (Walachi, Wolochi, Wallachen, Vlasi, Stari Vlasi, in one case also Murlaken). This is a synonym for schismatics, i.e. Orthodox Christian." Wikipedia information I quote: "In 1695 Orthodox Eparchy of Lika-Krbava and Zrinopolje was established by metropolitan Atanasije Ljubojević and certified by Emperor Josef I in 1707. In 1735 the Serbian Orthodox protested in the Marča Monastery and became part of the Serbian Orthodox Church until 1753 when the Pope restored the Roman Catholic clergy." Mile Bogović in review of Marko Jačov(Serbian Historian) book says I quote: "In his notes, he often uses the word Serbian in front of the text of the document, while none of it is mentioned in the document itself. It can be easily noticed that the adjective "Serbian" was put in the place where it was written: Vlach, Morlak, schismatic, Greek, Orthodox, or simply added, inserted." So the Greek etc term is also mentioned in our area. Mikola22 (talk) 15:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am neither arguing for inclusion or exclusion, I am pointing out that policy is clear, we can only attribute a claim to a source if the source EXPLICITLY makes that claim. We cannot infer it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I apologize, but I do not see the source explicitly makes that claim. That is, I do not see in this phrase any opposition of the mentioned "Greek" Orthodoxy to the Serbian Orthodox Church, which owned this lands (Lika-Krbava) at that time. "Greek Orthodox" are opposed only to Catholics: "It was mostly used to indicate affiliation with the Greek Orthodox community. Thus, the opposing Catholic-Vlach couple or the name of the 'faith of the Vlachs' was often used."--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, here is more recent book of Kaser (2012). It says about Vlachs of Lika: "In this corner of Southeastern Europe, to be Catholic meant generally to be Croat, and to be Orthodox meant to be Serb." [3]. As far as I see, this is exactly the same idea that Šarić Marko has in his article. And no any special "Greek, not Serbian" Orthodoxy for Vlachs.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Until there is consensus stop adding it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

What you need for consensus? You have a census and a book by an Austrian historian in which they are "Greek Orthodox" and "schismatics". Marko Šarić himself states I quote "original census (1712./14.) mentione Orthodox peoples (Schismatische Wallachen, Walachi, Wolochi and Vlachs" "Ethnic attributions in the census are rare and are not commonly used in terms of ethnic identification. Most often appears Vlach name but primarily as ethno-confessional mark (Walachi, Wolochi, Wallachen, Vlasi, Stari Vlasi, in one case also Murlaken). This is a synonym for schismatics, i.e. Orthodox Christian." What else do we need to bring it into the article? Does anyone read this? For the first time in my life I heard about Vlachs "Serbian Orthodox"(on English Wikipedia). Mikola22 (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

That is not what wp:consensus means, you might mean wp:v. And no it does not say "they were Greek orthodox" it seems to say" affiliated with the Greek orthodox", its not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

1719. When it comes to ethnic origin of the local population, among which Count Joseph Rabatta lives and which he writes about in his reports, he distinguishes Croats and Vlachs. that is, by religious(PRIPADNOSTI) belonging, it divides them into Catholics (Catholics) and Orthodox (Schismatiker, schismatici, Wallachen griechischer Religion). Sources, and especially the census of Lika and Krbava from 1712, mentioned and other groups. Austrian historian: "Naziv "Vlasi" upotrebljava se u popisu iz 1712. u dva značenja. Većinom se koristio za označavanje pripadnosti grčko-pravoslavnoj vjerskoj zajednici." translation "Mostly is used for marking of belonging to the Greek-Orthodox religious community and sometimes to mark Vlachs as an ethnic group. PRIPADATI-BELONG these sources do not use word affiliated.Mikola22 (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Stop this now, we are discussing one source, Karl Kaser's book, not any other source. It does not matter what others say, what matters is what he says (see wp:synth).Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Still getting affiliated as the translation.Slatersteven (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Extra source is from the same closer area and the same time period. The historian relates his (Rabbata) claims whit census of Lika because that area is geographically connected. He (Rabbata) talks about Vlachs and writes them(in reports) as Vlachs of Greek religion. Bunjevci in census are "Valachi Catolici", Vlach are "Schismatische Wallachen" they are named this in history sources and the historian states that they belong. History sources do not state belong they just record this "Valachi Catolici", "Schismatische Wallachen", "Wallachen griechischer Religion" etc.Mikola22 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

• Someone was looking for information about "Greek, not Serbian Orthodoxy among Vlachs" I have information for the Croats and with them probably were and the Orthodox Vlachs.

Sokollu Mehmed Pasha 1566 issued an order in which he says that Roman friars of Buda, Timișoara and Dubrovnik and of all Croatian nation do not ask for charity if these people(Croats) belongs to the Greek Patriarch.

Johann Christoph von Bartenstein (1689-1767) states in the book printed after his death "Kurzer Bericht von der Beschaffenheit der zerstreuten zahlreichen illyrischen Nation in den Kais" that Croats are Catholic and "Greek(Orthodox)" religion (nichtunirten griechischen Religion).

There are records in the literature of the late 18th and early 19th centurie that point to the existence of Orthodox Croats. D. Teleki von Szék claims in 1795 that Croats were mostly Catholics and the smaller part i.e. Grenzers of Military Frontier belong to the Greek Orthodox Church. An 18th-century source after describing the fighting in which Croatian units participated, says that "there were three Greek priests with the Croats and two with the Hungarians..

Johann Severin Vater in the book "Mithridates" from 1809 mentions "Croats of the Greek religion" and "Greek Croats".

Village Dalmatia... In the 18th century, when the village split in two, the name changed to Islam Grčki. While Islam stayed from the original name, the adjective Grčki (meaning "Greek") stands for the religion of the villagers - Orthodoxy.

• Is it so hard to read Wikipedia article? "From ancient times through the first millennium, Greek was the most prevalent shared language in the demographic regions where the Byzantine Empire flourished, and Greek, being the language in which the New Testament was written, was the primary liturgical language of the church. For this reason, the eastern churches were sometimes identified as "Greek" (in contrast to the "Roman" or "Latin" church, which used a Latin translation of the Bible), even before the Great Schism of 1054. After 1054, "Greek Orthodox" or "Greek Catholic" marked a church as being in communion with Constantinople, much as "Catholic" did for communion with Rome."--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Read wp:synth, its does not matter if 15 sources say Blue is green. If the source you are using says Green is pink that does not mean it is saying Blue is green because other sources do.Slatersteven (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure that this phrase is addressed to me, but I would like to comment. If 15 sources claim that the Earth is round, and one that the Earth is flat, there are two possibilities. 1) This is a fringe opinion and is not worth mentioning (WP:FALSEBALANCE) 2) We do not correctly understand what is written in this source. Perhaps it simply says that the Earth can be considered as a geoid with a flat surface, not taking into account the terrain.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

You first source does not look like a book, it looks like a paper. Nor does Marko Šarić appear to be a respected historian. So whilst Karl Kaser is an RS, Marko Šarić is less clear, no more RS than any other student paper ever published. Slatersteven (talk) 12:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)And what to do, to enter information from an Austrian historian.Mikola22 (talk) 12:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC) Its an RS, so is usable, with attribution.Slatersteven (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I thought the Austrian historian's quote was more acceptable. Now you are saying that Marko Sarić must remain. Then you should said it then. The only option is next to quote of Marko Sarić enter quote of Karl Kaser or Marko Sarić. I edit article. Mikola22 (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

No I said it was an RS, some student paper may not be, wp:v is a different issue. Marko Sarić is a student paper by (who is he?) and thus I would rather it was not used. That does not mean that the "Austrian historian" can be used to say something it does not say.Slatersteven (talk) 10:23, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

who is he?

SHORT BIOGRAPHY [4]

• Born on September 15, 1971, in Zagreb (Croatia).
• From 1992 until 1998, he studied History and Polish language at the Faculty of Philosophy (University of Zagreb). Graduated in 1998 with the topic "Social Relations and Conflicts in the Lika-Krka sanjak in the 16th Century and the Beginning of the 17th Century.”
• From 1998 attended post-graduate studies in history at the Faculty of Philosophy in Zagreb.
• In October 2005 he achieved MA degree with the thesis ‘Dinaric Vlachs between the Ottoman Empire and Venice: History of Legal Institutions in the Military Border Society (15th-17th Centuries)’.
• From May 2001, works as a Younger Assistant at the Institute of Croatian History (History Department, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Zagreb)
• From 2001 he is a secretary of the International Research Project "Triplex Confinium".
• From 2004 he is also a co-ordinator of the Triplex Confinium Sub-project "Titius"
• His research focuses to the early modern history of the South-east Europe ("Western Balkans") and particularly to the history of Vlach societies and history of the Military Border on the triple border between the Habsburg Monarchy, the Venetian Republic and the Ottoman Empire.

The mentioned article Predmoderne etnije u Lici i Krbavi prema popisu iz 1712./14 was published in 2009 and there was some kind of local review (Domaća recenzija) [5]. At first glance, I do not see anything criminal. A good enough source to expose the Croatian view.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This does not read to me like the resume of a world renowned expert whose doctrinal thesis would be not wp:undue. As such inclusion of this is a violation of Undue.Slatersteven (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't know who is he, I noticed that he uses term "Serbian Orthodox Vlachs" although census nor the book of Austrian historian say that. Is this a new view at history I do not know. I did not notice that Croatian historians use that term Serbian Orthodox Vlachs. This is what surprised me most about this source.Mikola22 (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

[6] I do not agree with this edit. It suggests that Serbs only came to Vojvodina after the Great Migrations of the Serbs which is not true, at all. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

This does not read to me like the resume of a world renowned expert -- It seems to me that you overestimate the number of professional historians in the world )) For such a narrow topic, it is strange to wait for a specialist of a higher level. He is is undoubtedly an academic historian and specialist in the topic of "Vlachs". Karl Kaser, on the contrary, is specialized on the topic of "family, kinship and gender relations" - a much wider area. Thus, his current research is "“Visual Representations of Femininities and Masculinities: The Balkans and South Caucasia in the Digital Age"--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Please explain why you deleted one information with a reference to this article [7] and left another, and Mikola22 continues to supplement it with a ref to the same article ([8]?--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I deleted it because it was wp:undue, there are not that many professional physicists in the world that does not mean we use student papers. As to Mikola22 additions, since Mirko Markovic 1974 he has been the director of the Institute of Ethnology, that makes his views noteworthy.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Why do you name this article "student paper"? "In October 2005 Marko Sarić achieved MA degree" and the paper was published in 2009. As to Mikola22 additions, since Mirko Markovic 1974 he has been the director of the Institute of Ethnology -- I'm glad for Mirko Markovic, but Mikola's ref is the same paper of Šarić, pages 333 - 334, see the diff above, please.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Because it was a paper written by a student to get a degree, hence a student paper. As to Mikola's ref, I assumed he was referencing Karl Kaser, not the student paper by Marko Sarić. @Mikola22:, which source does the edit refer to?Slatersteven (talk) 10:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Once again, why do you think so? 2005 and 2009, see above. As to Mikola's ref, I assumed he was referencing Karl Kaser -- There is no need to assume, you need to look at the ref an the end of the sentence (sfn|Šarić|2009|pp=343-344), and you will see the same pages there as in the edit summary. Since I have this article, I confirm that these Šarić claims are on these pages.--Nicoljaus (talk) 10:18, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Most of the article has this Marko Šarić source, I don't know who put it in and why so much. While that source exist in individual sentences in the article I have to correct them according to the source itself. We also have article of Mirko Valentić "the ethnic roots of the Croatian and Bosnian Serbs(1992)" which talk about migration of Vlachs, Croats etc. but information from that paper are not here so maybe I need more infomation from that source put in the article.Mikola22 (talk) 11:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Paper of Marko Šarić is from 2007 not 2009 as stated in the source in the article. (Predmoderne etnije u Lici i Krbavi prema popisu iz 1712./14. // Identitet Like: korijeni i razvitak Gospić, Hrvatska, 2007 Mikola22 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

It's strange. Here [9] I see: Predmoderne etnije u Lici i Krbavi prema popisu iz 1712./14. // Identitet Like: korijeni i razvitak Knjiga I. / Holjevac, Željko (ur.). Zagreb-Gospić: Institut društvenih znanosti Ivo Pilar, 2009 . Also, in the article itself [10] there is a reference to the work of 2008. It seems to me, someone made an error with the 2007.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:08, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

From your source. "Gospić, Hrvatska, 26-29.09.2007"Mikola22 (talk) 13:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Why we should not be using such papers. For all we know its been altered since publication (in 2007).Slatersteven (talk) 13:21, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

This is another unfounded accusation. The book in which the article was published, released in 2009, there are dozens of links on the Google search Identitet Like: korijeni i razvitak that confirm this. See for example: [11], [12] [13] Perhaps the early version of the article appeared in 2007, but it was obviously refined later. In any case, your allegations of "student paper" are unfounded.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have now raised this issue at fringe as this article overly relies on one persons views.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have replied you there.--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Vlachs from Slavonia

Croatian academic in his book "Slavonia, settlement history and origin of population" clame that "population of Vlachs from Slavonia (16th and 17th century) needs well distinguished from ethnic Serbs who come to Srijem, Banat, Bačka and eastern Slavonia in the late 17th and early 18th century as fugitives from southern Serbia". First it is a book and RS. Second he talks about Vlachs not Rascians(Serbs) which may have been and in Slavonia next to Vlachs. Austrian historian Karl Kaser in his book Slobodan seljak i vojnik(Free peasant and soldier), speaks that historical records for the Varaždin Generalate and that part of Slavonia records Vlach name which he considers to be once Romanized groups who are gradually Slavicized with parallel integration into the Greek Orthodox Church (page 92).Mikola22 (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The link you added [14] is not relevant. There are no pages 559-560.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

The real point of vew of Karl Kaser: "The term 'Vlach' became the equivalent of 'pastoralist' [...] At the times of the Ottoman conquest the Albanian population was consolidated but the Vlach population was to a large extent already assimilated by the Serbs. [...] "After the Roman conquest of the Illyrian lands this feature was preserved by Albanian and Vlach nomads. They were late joined by Slav groups, who followed them into the uplads."[15]--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have this Mikola22 (talk) 08:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Is there an available version of this source? The paper book in Croatian language does not suit wp:v enough.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:42, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Book "Household and Family in the Balkans: Two Decades of Historical Family". I have no book in front of me but this is probably about area of Albania and Serbia, while my quote is for Slavonia(Croatia). Otherwise the Vlachs are assimilated and with Albanians, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Bosnians, Croats, Bulgarians, Romanians, Greeks. Mikola22 (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I have no book in front of me -- It's not true. You can glance on it in Google Books.--Nicoljaus (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Book review "five with general themes of the Balkan region specifically; altogether seven with the Albanian population in Albania and elsewhere; two each with the Serbian, Croatian, and Bulgarian regions; and one each with the peoples of Macedonia and Herzegovina. The seeming overrepresentation of Albania in the ‘‘national’’ mix"Mikola22 (talk) 13:12, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

What is this text and why is it needed?--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Karl Kaser in that book talks about the Balkan area and each area in the Balkan has its own history, assimilation etc. Relations of Vlachs, Albanians and Serbs in the territory of these countries says nothing about Slavonian Vlachs. That relations exist and in Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia, Croatia, Montenegro etc.Mikola22 (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

In the Plakans' review and in the Kaser's book itself there is nothing that would confirm this statement. The chapter in the Kaser's book ihas a title: "The Balkan Joint Family Household: Seeking its Origin" and obviously it is one of the "eight essays deal with the general history of family research" which for some reason you decided not to mention.--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

My edit in rv

It’s you and Slatersteven who rejected this article of Marko Šarić as fringe theory.Slatersteven rejected this source of Marko Šarić as fringe theory and I have said my opinion on that, he did not delete all his quotes. These quotes of Marko Šarić which Slatersteven left in the article I edited according to the source. And you have no right rv my edit for the reason that you said. You cannot claim that the source is unreliable and at the same time pick out information that suits you While quotes from Marko Šarić are in the article I must to edit them according to the source (was he unreliable or not). Therefore you cannot rv my edit because that rv it is inconsistent with the source(at least as far as my edit is concerned). You return my edit or I'll have to return it myself, which edit war? I return my edit (08:16, 16 January 2020‎ Mikola22 ‎Early modern usage: according to the source, page 343,344.)[16] for which there is no reason to be a part of your rv. Mikola22 (talk) 05:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I have a different view of this case. You and Slatersteven agreed to clear out one piece of information from the article, but you add another from the same source. If we decide that the paper of Šarić is a reliable source, I see no problems with this edit: [17]. Otherwise, this information is absent in the consensus version of the article. I don’t know why, for example, because Marko Šarić is not a linguist and his competence in language issues was doubtful for earlier editors. I suggest waiting until the issue Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Vlachs_in_the_history_of_Croatia is resolved.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You and Slatersteven agreed to clear out one piece of information from the article Tell me where I said it "agreed". but you add another from the same source. If part of his(Marko Šarić) quotations remained in the article and they are not according to the source this must be corrected. There are plenty of quotes from Marko Šarić paper who remained in the article and I must corect them according to the source. What I should done, left incorrect? I am not expert for "Fringe_theories" so I'm just saying my opinion on the source. And whether it is "Fringe_theorie" it will be decided by someone else. Slatersteven has more experience with this and there is no reason to question his actions, we must all work to keep articles accurate as much as possible. Mikola22 (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Tell me where I said it "agreed -- You have written dozen of comments in support of Slatersteven, that this article is just a "student paper" from a school person. I must corect them according to the source. -- You are wrong. It would be correct: "It seems to me that I can offer some corrections." The current version has been around for a long time, do not consider yourself the smartest. In addition, you do not "correct quotes", but add new information.--Nicoljaus (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

References

Vlachs from Slavonia

Historian Mirko Marković in his book about Slavonia draws a conclusion that Vlachs from Slavonia needs well distinguished from ethnic Serbs who come to Srijem, Banat, Bačka and eastern Slavonia in the late 17th and early 18th century as fugitives from southern Serbia. Earlier information was deleted for a reason I quote: grammar and style + some context and a proper quote would be great. I think that citation is now better and as a valuable information I suggest that this clame be included in the article.Mikola22 (talk) 18:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Serbian Orthodox Vlachs

Serbian Orthodox Vlachs in this article are from source of Marko Šarić However, I do not know how accurate this promotion of Serbian Orthodox Vlachs actually is. Since this source is for local use we should see what high quality source(s) say about the Vlachs from Lika or Croatia and religious affiliation which exists during this period of Vlach migration to Croatia. In this case we are talking about arrival of Orthodox Vlachs in Lika during the 17th and early 18th century and census of lika from 1712 which mentions Vlachs Schismatics. I personally never heard in Croatian historiography that term "Serbian Orthodox" is used for Vlachs. I know about information of Jovan Cvijić, Serbian geographer and ethnologist where he in his scientific paper from 1918 talks about Serbian population. "The Zones Of Civilization Of The Balkan Peninsula by Jovan Cvijić Professor of Geography, University of Belgrade" I quote: "Mention should also be made of the islands of Catholic population to the west of the Bosna River in the midst of Greek-Orthodox and Moslemized Serb populations.", "The ethnic foundation of the patriarchal populations is the same among the Catholic Yugo-Slavs and the Greek-Orthodox Serbs", "The migrations which took place in the Turkish period have brought numerous Greek-Orthodox Serbs into Croatia and Slavonia".(page 481,482). Austrian Historian in his work from 2012, Popis Like i Krbave 1712. godine which deals with census of Lika says on page 21, I quote: The name "Vlach" is used in the 1712 census with two meaning. Mostly is used to indicate belonging to Greek-Orthodox community. Zlatko Kudelić Croatian Historian in his work from 2008, Serbian Orthodox Church In Bosnia And Herzegovina During The Austro-Hungarian Government, As It Is Seen In Contemporary Historiography on page 44, I quote: "Vukšić stated that until 1887(Bosnia and Herzegovina) the authorities used the name Greek-Orthodox or Eastern-Orthodox when addressing church institutions, allowing them to be called either Serbian or Orthodox, but not Serbian-Orthodox. Milorad Nikčević Croatian Historian 2013, I quote: Official church and state terminology used the name "Greek-Eastern" or "Orthodox" for all members of the Eastern Christian Church, while in the Slavic language became known as "Orthodox", which also received the official name after the unification of all Orthodox churches in the Slavic area of the former The Habsburg or Austro-Hungarian monarchies. I suggest that we discuss which term would be most neutral in the article. My opinion that the most neutral term would be Orthodox Vlachs, we occasionally can cite and what original document say, Schismatics, Greek-Orthodox, Serbian-Orthodox etc.Mikola22 (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Merge with Morlachs?

The topic of this article are Morlachs, so I think it should be merged with article about Morlachs. Any objections?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand exactly what would you merged? Whole article "Vlachs in the history of Croatia" with Morlachs article? There are to many historical sources and data about Morlachs. Also there are many RS which talk about Morlachs, the same thing is and with the Vlachs (continental area, Hungary etc). So it is better to keep it separate. Morlachs are mentioned in sources and as a nation, Bunjevci are mentioned as Vlachs does this mean that we should and Bunjevci article merge with Morlachs too? Morlachs are also part of Bosnia and Herzegovina and Montenegro history, does it mean that and article "Vlachs in medieval Bosnia and Herzegovina" need to be merged with Morlachs article? There is also and article about Vlachs ie "Ćići" and "Istro-Romanians" article. Whether those articles should merge too? Therefore I am not for this proposal because by doing so we are causing tectonic disturbances in Wikipedia. Mikola22 (talk) 07:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Objection. This article is the main article of all Vlachs in the history of Croatia, but each group/term deserves a separate article. It shouldn't be merged because these subjects are not exactly the same because in the case of Morlachs its a term of legal-political origin (Slavic but primarily used in Venetian sources), location (Dalmatia and other territories of Venetian rule), and has a cultural-artistical association since the 17th century. The term has information associated with it which mostly is not related to other terms and groups. Instead, the article Morlachs should be expanded making it more specific. The Croatian Encyclopedia also has a separate article for the Vlachs and Morlachs.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Context

@Griboski: I as a editor reading that source page don't know which context is for this information. In source we have the period of the WWII, the Yugoslav era, independent Croatia(present time). I as editor can remove OR issue, but I do not support this information because of this information ("in order to diminish the Serbian territorial and historical claims to Croatia"). Which Croatian historians clam this and in which historical period? Therefore, I do not support this information from the source and the current edit which I will do now is only to remove the OR. Mikola22 (talk) 17:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The context is nationalism but more specifically during the war in Croatia in the 1990s. The Miller passage Trbovich cites is the following: "In a Croatia in which Serbs were separatists in the 1990s, and among Croats who certainly honor the principle of nationality, a descendant of Vlachs is not the same thing as a Serb— and the term Vlach becomes a weapon in the war to devalue Serbian claims to territory and history in Croatia". Link Trbovich's quote "Croat historians have claimed that Krayina's settlers were not Serbs but "Vlachs"" is then footnoted to this passage. She's clearly saying that the purpose of making such claims is to diminish the Serbian territorial and historical claims to Croatia. For context it can be added that this was during the Croatian War of Independence (even though it might still be presently prevalent in some circles). --Griboski (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I know that these are information from two sources and I respect that, but who specifically promotes this (and the term Vlach becomes a weapon in the war to devalue Serbian claims to territory and history in Croatia) because first time I hear that the "term Vlach becomes a weapon", "to devalue Serbian claims to territory". I in recent Croatian history(political, scientific, radical etc), I've never heard that. I may have heard it from the Serbian side where there is talk of a continuation of Nazi Croatian ideology, but as I say I really don't know about this fact. This fact is here in the context of Croatian historians, so I wonder which historians from 90s promoted or advocated this. I really haven't heard of that fact, so I thought it was some other context(WWII). Mikola22 (talk) 18:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

What you have personally heard or are aware of is irrelevant. What matters is what reliable secondary sources say. History has been weaponized by both Serbian and Croatian nationalists alike to support their POV, something which is well covered in bibliography. Regarding specific historians, the source doesn't say but it is sufficient to add it as such in the context of the war. The Serbian historiography article for instance, which is reliably sourced, details generalizations about Serbian historians but in most cases doesn't specify which historians made which claims. --Griboski (talk) 19:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Information from Nicholas J. Miller source: "In a Croatia in which Serbs were separatists in the 1990s, and among Croats who certainly honor the principle of nationality, a descendant of Vlachs is not the same thing as a Serband the term Vlach becomes a weapon in the war to devalue Serbian claims to territory and history in Croatia". According to this source Trbovich claim ie "Croatian historians have claimed..etc" is fringe information becouse Nicholas J. Miller mentioned "and among Croats" fact. There is no additional confirmation of this ("Croatian historians have claimed..etc") information anywhere. Mikola22 (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Just becuse it has a source doesn’t mean that lone source has a place in an article. The source used was Ana S. Trbovich (2008). A Legal Geography of Yugoslavia's Disintegration. Oxford University Press, USA. p. 190. ISBN 978-0-19-533343-5. “The Croats have always resented the rights granted to Serbs in Croatia, and most especially Krayina's historic separate existence. Croat historians have claimed that Krayina's settlers were not Serbs but “Vlachs,”” This extremely pov and with an axe to grind. OyMosby (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The passage more broadly references historians, as it continues: "At this point, the insistence of any historian on calling the Orthodox Christians of Croatia Vlachs is tendentious and purposefully provocative. At best, it constitutes an attempt to refute the equally tendentious attempts of Serbian historians.." The paragraph is comparing and contrasting. There's nothing fringe. In any case, Trbovich is specifying Croatian historians. Both books are published by high-quality academic presses. --Griboski (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

She says “Croats” and flippantly claims they are just resentful while claiming “Krayinas’s historical separate existence” is this really a reliable source? It seems written from an extreme point of view. Out of malice almost. The military frontier was not a “Serbian Territory” another strange claim. History yes, but they did not have a territory as it was intermixed with non-Serbs. Specifically Croats. I am not saying vlach was not used a a derogatory claim. Let’s be clear. OyMosby (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

OyMosby, "extremely pov and with an axe to grind" is just your POV and opinion. Trbovich is published by the largest University Press in the United States. There are other sources which refer to Croatian resentment over the privileges granted to Krajina Serbs as well. --Griboski (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Uh no things like “Krayinas’s historical separate existence” and describing the military frontier as “Serbian Territory” are indeed pov. It may be your PoV that these are okay claims. Me saying so isn’t it’s problematic is not just my “POV”. And you ignored what I specifically talked about completely. I never spoke against that SOME Croats held resentment.OyMosby (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Also please, as you told Mikola22(who also should not just delete content), don’t just delete sourced content but rewrite it to fit the rules. I made changes so it isn’t directly quoting the book so no “copyio” claims. Though I don’t think small snippets are copyrighted. Else Wikipedia would function. Also we need to denote who makes what claims not meld them together.OyMosby (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Krajina has been a unique territory for centuries. I don't see where she specifically says that the military frontier is Serbian territory. In any case, there are plenty of reliably published sources which are considered biased and they are used on the project. Examples are Branimir Anzulovic and Philip J. Cohen. I suggest you revert yourself, because your last edit is not an improvement and is basically a copyright violation as it's copied word for word from the source. It is better to paraphrase than to just quote too. Also why are both Trbovich and Miller attributed? Are you saying Miller is also biased now? There's nothing controversial about nationalists' weaponization of history. --Griboski (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Trbovich attributed the quote to Miller. So relax with the accusations. That doesn’t make the person saying it biased. Unless you think she is calling him biased by attribution to him. You gave no context that it was for war. Also why would I revert myself when I reworded it now? I’d like an outside admin to confirm why that is then. Unless the new content included is the issue? You aren’t making sense here. And deleted sourced content. As you were cross with the other editor doing. Attribution also give credit to who says it. There is no way my edit still violates copyright rules. Also biased sources like Cohen often require a sexondary Rs source to support them. This is not done here. As for your conversation with Mikola22, I’ll leave you two to it.OyMosby (talk) 23:29, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The current revision (Trbovich portion) as you added it:

"..Croatian historians have claimed that Krayina's settlers were not Serbs but “Vlachs”. While all Orthodox settlers were indeed called Vlachs by the Habsburg authorities, and some were Vlachs and separate from the Serbs, the majority were Serbian and even the Vlachs assimilated into Serbs by the nineteenth century."

What Trbovich p. 190 says:

"Croat historians have claimed that Krayina's settlers were not Serbs but “Vlachs”... While all Orthodox settlers were indeed called Vlachs by the Habsburg authorities, and some truly were Vlachs and different from the Serbs, the majority were Serbian and even the Vlachs assimilated into Serbs by the nineteenth century."

I highlighted in bold the only differences. It's still 90% copied word-for-word. You altered only a couple of words from this particular passage from the version I reverted. I'm not sure that the additional historical information about the Vlachs is needed either. This is different from Mikola's complete removal of information which was not copied as such.

For the Miller passage, we can cite to his book directly then instead of Trbovich. --Griboski (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I also added the authors and attributions to give credit to who researched it. Or said it. Also this is such as short passage I don’t see this being a copyvio issue. As we don’t want to stray away from context. For example Croatians using Vlachs in derogatory ways against Serbs during the war as Miller wrote it. Again I am not calling Miller biased or bad. I don’t deem Tribovich bad or invalid. Just that we need to handle this situations with care when dealing with Her or Cohen or other controversial sources. Cohen especially as he isn’t a Historian but cites historical sources. He is especially a sensitive case. The piece Mikola removed was very much selective in its inclusion of factoids from the source. That was the issue there. I improved it by stating with tweaks what the sources is trying to say. I don’t know what percentage threshold is needed. This seems like splitting hairs and making a bigger deal than necessary. I didn’t remove the rotten behavior of Croat nationalists, I added onto it. Please assume good faith on my part. I’ll wait for outside admins or other editors to overview if my addition is too close for comfort as it seems okay. My concern is tryin to stay true to the source meaning. OyMosby (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

• Fringe. "At this point, the insistence of any historian on calling the Orthodox Christians of Croatia Vlachs is tendentious and purposefully provocative. At best, it constitutes an attempt to refute the equally tendentious attempts of Serbian historians..". It is not claim which mean that "Croatian historians have claimed that the Vlach Orthodox settlers in the Military Frontier were not ethnic Serbs in order to diminish the Serbian territorial and historical claims to Croatia". This is a completely different fact and fringe fact. Miller, Nicholas John use claim "and among Croats" fact when he speaks about "term Vlach becomes a weapon in the war to devalue Serbian claims to territory and history in Croatia". For the first time in my life I hear information that "Croatian historians have claimed...(something)..in order to diminish the Serbian territorial and historical claims to Croatia". It is probably propaganda and in this case fringe information. This is probably Trbovich claim in the context of WWII until today, and promotion of Croatian continuity with fascist NDH. Mikola22 (talk) 06:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: I could be wrong but it looks to me like the various sources aren't all talking about the same thing. It seems that Djilas & Šarić talk about Ustashe propaganda which uses the term Vlachs to Serbs in a derogatory manner, while Trbovich and Miller talk about how in some Croatian nationalist circles, not Ustashe, Serbs aren't seen as Vlachs in order to diminish Serbian historical/territorial claims. --Griboski (talk) 16:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, and in Trbovich source is information about "Croatian nationalist circles" in time of communistic Yugoslavia. Context is from WWII, through the Yugoslav era until the disintegration of Yugoslavia and the newer Croatian state. And some Croatian historians got involved in that because allegedly they claim and advocate something? Mikola22 (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)No. It obviously isn't following the structure of the paragraph. First, we have a introduction generally speaking about the national historiographies. Secondly, we have a sub-section part dealing with Croatian and then Serbian historiographies. These sub-sections deal with different viewpoints. The information from Miller and Trbovich belongs as a reference to the sentence "Extreme Croatian historiography (including Ustashe propaganda[178]) tries to completely neglect Serb component, contribution, or origin of Vlachs". Ustashe propaganda is also included, but it's not referring only to the Ustashe period. There's anything new to add to the topic, except the part "While all Orthodox settlers were indeed called Vlachs by the Habsburg authorities, and some truly were Vlachs and different from the Serbs, the majority were Serbian and even the Vlachs assimilated into Serbs by the nineteenth century" which is already explained by other scholars in upper paragraphs of the section.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, Trbovich should not be even cited at all because is not a historian. Not even remotely related to the topic as studied something related to art, literature, economics, and law.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Trbovich wrote for example: “The Croats have always resented the rights granted to Serbs in Croatia, and most especially Krayina's historic separate existence.” When was it a separate entity or state? “Croat historians have claimed that Krayina's settlers were not Serbs but “Vlachs,” also “ As Nicholas Miller explains, “the term Vlach became a weapon in the war to devalue Serbian claims to territory and history in Croatia.” It was used to devalue Serbian identity but Serbs she implies had legitimate claims to Krajina as its own state. Which isn’t correct. They had and have the right to live there. But it was a multi ethnic region. There was another author B. Fowkes passively saying the Serbs of Krajina were “Driven out recently” which is a point of view I assume that all Serbs were ethnicity cleansed and kicked out in Operation Storm but not a mainstream view of refugees leaving out of fear fostered by multiple governments and potential reprisal and revenge killings and attacks by the Croatian army moving in (in due to 250,000 non Serbs expelled years prior) which is vald as instances of war crimes by the Croatian army such as destruction, looting and killing for a fact did take place during the operation. I haven’t read the rest of his work but I question some of it. But as I said before about Trbovich. This extremely pov and with an axe to grind. Almost as if to imply Serbian Krajina had a historical right despite the large non-Serb population there. Krajina is and was a region in Croatia or the various version of Croatia being a territory, kingdom, state, or a SR in Yugoslavia or Banat in kingdom of Yugoslavia. This make the author questionable. Same with Cohen who is a lawyer who wrote a book. However with him we include his work as long as other RS is cited with him. OyMosby (talk) 17:31, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Here we actually have a really bad source with some fringe information's. It is also possible that it is some kind of propaganda. I as a editor, this source and information cannot support. Mikola22 (talk) 17:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Miki Filigranski, fair enough about the first point, I can agree there's some overlap. However, I disagree about not citing Trbovich at all. It's a drastic step as she is still an academic and her work is published by Oxford University. One doesn't have to be a historian to be cited in a history article. Philip J. Cohen is a medical doctor and his book, because it is academically published, is widely used in Yugoslavia WWII articles. As her statement about Croatian historians is contentious, I agree on leaving it out. I am fine with your current revision. --Griboski (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Disagree with Mikola 22 and Miki Filigranski agree with Griborski and also Oymosby has a point when he says that we can includ Trbovich with RS like Miller since we also have Miller as source and he is historian, therefore that is not strong enough argumentation also one sentence about Ustasa propaganda does not give enough info, specially if we have overempehased informations from i.e Malcolm which are proved fringe, therefore I am restoring it and in this one I support User Griborski I am also with User Oymosby if he wants to to post who says it, but I dont support you 2 who want to completely remove it. I am restoring it back and this is my opinion on this one. Also I will respect reached consensus so no need to pinging me Theonewithreason (talk) 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Trbovich cannot be directly cited. That source can be used to cite Miller, but not Trbovich as is not a historian. You're mistaking two different things.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 17:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not mistaken it. I am aware of your point, why dont you reformulate the source then with Miller? Theonewithreason (talk) 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that the information from Miller regarding the weaponization of Vlachs during the War is valid. It provides context and I don't see why we have to censor that. The rest can be left as it was with Miki Filigranski's revision. --Griboski (talk) 17:58, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

User Griborski do you agree with current edit like it is now or would you like to add something from previous edit. Nevermind I saw it now and I support it. So that is all from me. Also if anyone was affected with todays situation please receive my respect and support Theonewithreason (talk) 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Miki in that some of the information is redundant. Extreme Croatian historiography includes Ustashe but it's not only Ustashe so it can encompass others. In this case "neglect Serb origin of Vlachs" is supported by both Šarić and Trbovich. And since her statement alone regarding Croatian historians (she doesn't specify which exactly either) is contested, I'm fine with this compromise. I'd only add the additional info from Miller, as I said above. --Griboski (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Trbovich previously was also cited without quotation marks which makes it a copyright violation. As Trbovich is paraphrasing Miller we should remove Trbovich's source because is useless at this point. Miller can be used for citation of both sentences (but for first doesn't mention that the Serbs were in majority, only that many Vlachs were "quite different from the Orthodox speakers of Serbian who also came north") as well as providing more context to the 90s as it was "an attempt to refute the equally tendentious attempts of Serbian historians to claim certain rights in Croatia...".--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mikola22: Stop edit-warring and misusing WP:OR. Miller on page 5 writes: "In a Croatia in which Serbs were separatists in the 1990s.. and the term Vlach becomes a weapon in the war to devalue Serbian claims.." He is clearly referencing the war in Croatia in the 1990s. If there's an issue with a source, take it to WP:RSN. I've added additional context as well, as Miki suggested. --Griboski (talk) 19:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, something is weapon in the war, in this case some claims. What this has to do with Croatian War of Independence? Mikola22 (talk) 19:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

“Territorial and Historical claims to Croatia”. Historical makes sense, but is territorial meaning that Krajina belongs to Serbs as it’s own Serbian land despite it being multiethnic? I’m not sure I understand the quote. Is there context to the authors quote in the source? The territorial claims but could mean a number of things like individual land and houses and properties or at government level Srpska Krajina. Not sure what is the authors intent. OyMosby (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Mikola, not just any war but the war in Croatia. @Miki Filigranski: unless I'm missing some context here, Miller is clearly referencing the Croatian War of Independence. --Griboski (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Griboski: Serbs from Croatia do not call that war "Croatian War of Independence" also for that war the term "Civil War" and "Yugoslav War" is also used. In any case, the author uses the term "War" and in completely different context. This is WP:OR issue. Mikola22 (talk) 20:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No, Miller's source is clearly referring to the 90s events. @Griboski, you should move the part about the Serbian historians in the part of the paragraph that's dealing with Serbian historiography after the sentence "...and also downplayed Croat and overemphasized the importance of the Serbs in the history of the Military Frontier.[181]". Please remove Trbovich's source which is cited twice. As well, the sentence "Many Serbian scholars, including foreign, claim that the settlers in the Military Frontier were Serbs or mainly Serbs.[179][183]" is irrelevant to this paragraph and should be removed.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Mikola22 isn’t denying it is about the 90s wars but their question might be what title. As war was going in in Bosnia as well so I get the question. As you said “90s events” so we need to clarify again what the author means. The author just says “war”. Not Croatian war for independence as Croats were involved in Bosnia as well where Vlachs are also a topic. It all kinda overlaps.OyMosby (talk) 20:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The source is talking about Croatia and as such it's obviously referring to the Croatian War of Independence. No point in questioning that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually there is a good point questioning it. I agree with you on that part. However It may include Croatia’s war in Bosnia as well. Hence my question. Perhaps Yugoslav Wars would be better or should be ignore the war in Bosnia and assume the author only Means the Croatian War for Independence? OyMosby (talk) 20:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Miki, if you're referring to the part about Serbian historians claiming certain rights for Serbs in Croatia, I can move that part lower that deals with historiography. I'm not sure about the rest though. "Many Serbian scholars, including foreign, claim that the settlers in the Military Frontier were Serbs or mainly Serbs." This would seem valid information to include, perhaps moved up to the first paragraph of the legacy section since it talks about what other scholars have said. --Griboski (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

No, we are not the authors of that book to interpret the book instead of the author. Source says War not Croatian War of Independence. Many sources use the term Yugoslav wars. In any case, the source does not say Croatian War of Independence and neither must we. Mikola22 (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I have seen sources use the title Croatian War for Independence. It’s not uncommon Mikola22. I don’t have access to this source in particular so I can’t get context to how the author titles it as the definitely specify in the book. Again my point is due to another war also Going on between Croatia and Bosnia, I would assume Yugoslav Wars would be a good general fit. Yest it is about Croatia but Croatia in the war. OyMosby (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Griboski, the second source (not by Trbovich which should be removed) perhaps should be moved as a reference to the first sentence of the section. @Mikola22, we can say the 1990s instead of war as well, but wouldn't change anything.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I also seen many sources which use the title Croatian War for Independence but I also seen many sources which use Yugoslav Wars. In any case this source use term War. Mikola22 (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I think Miki’s idea of 1990s wars seems fine. Yugoslav Wars works too. Either seems fine.OyMosby (talk)

The passage begins with Serb "separatists" in Croatia in the 1990s. It's obvious which war he's referring to. Wikipedia refers to that war as the Croatian War of Independence, therefore that is what we link to. If you want to change it so the piped link appears under a different term, go ahead but arguing this is just being needlessly difficult. --Griboski (talk) 21:06, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The author didn’t write the passage in Wikipedia. Hence I think Miki stated a good idea. Seems simple and done. The link would go to the Yugoslav Wars. I agree these are minor details. All of this is really. OyMosby (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The topic is about the history of the Vlachs in Croatia. There was only one war in Croatia in the 1990s. The war and conflict between Serbs and Croats in Croatia happened in Croatia. That is what he's referencing. He's not referencing the war in Bosnia or the war in Kosovo, so having Yugoslav wars as the link instead of the war in Croatia makes less sense. I find this issue a relatively minor one and so attempts at what seem to be to hiding or obfuscating the fact that this was in regards to the war in Croatia, is just bizarre. --Griboski (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Griboski, it’s about accuracy, which I admit I am OCD about at times. Even the smallest things (which you deem major). We are trying to assume what a source says just because it is cited in the article. What’s bizarre are the accusations that we are “hiding” or “obfuscating” things. Again with bad faith claims. @Miki Filigranski: mentioned just 90s as an option, I was more specific than that. It doesn’t “hide” the weaponizing of the term Vlach so I don’t get this attitude. The author didn’t specify if this included Croatia’s war in Bosnia as well. The author didn’t write this article, his book was brought here. How are you interpeting his book by the article’s lense???? Also Croatia was warring with Serbs in Bosnia as well so yeah, it’s within scope of the article. You are free to report Me, Miki and Mikola22 by all means as we are part of some conspiracy apparently. Cheers. OyMosby (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

How is Croatia's involvement in the Bosnian War relevant to Serbian claims to the territory of Croatia? As I've explained several times and cited, Miller is talking about how the term Vlachs was weaponized during the war in Croatia to diminish Serbian historical and territorial claims to Croatia. And Miki Filigranski agreed above, "The source is talking about Croatia and as such it's obviously referring to the Croatian War of Independence. No point in questioning that." --Griboski (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Miki also later said “ we can say the 1990s instead of war as well, but wouldn't change anything.” Due to multiple wars Croatia partook in. So CWoI doesn’t seem so specifically important. Croatia had conflicting claims with Serbs in Bosnia and used Vlachs to delegitimize Serbs living there as well. That was what spawned my reasoning. If I had access to the book we could find out what the other says instantly but I cannot find a book preview or pdf anywhere. OyMosby (talk) 22:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski: what do you say. Go with Croatian War of independence as you said and leave out Croatian war with Serbs in Bosnia, or as you latter said just say 90s wars. You are the split. Griboski let's leave it to him. I’m fine with whatever he thinks is best. I don’t want to fight about small wording. (Again I get OCD and sweat the small stuff simetimes) Don’t get me started on infoboxes hehe. Sorry if I’m being a pest to you I don’t mean it.OyMosby (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Here's the link to the relevant page. Shows for me when I click on it, so it should for you too. If it doesn't show, try searching for terms in the book's search bar or googling specific passages mentioned above to get access to the page. --Griboski (talk) 22:21, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I’ll take a look. OyMosby (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the changes to the section that were suggested to me, I'll leave it up to you Miki since you seem to be more neutral and a more prolific editor in these topics. I don't usually edit in these areas. Although I can't say I favor the complete dismissal of Trbovich just because she's not an expert on the matter. --Griboski (talk) 22:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Miki is very neutral and best out of any of us in terms of neutrality and knowledge in the areas. So I agree with leaving it with him. Good call. Cheers all and Happy New Year everyone! OyMosby (talk) 23:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. However, there were several issues to be tackled as well. Most importantly the whole structure of the section strangely lacked contextual and historical flow. Now it has four paragraphs, first is dealing with general and mostly international viewpoint as an introduction, the second is dealing with contradicting viewpoints and mythologization in South Slavic historiographies starting with the 19th and early 20th century, third is following up with modern national historiographies roughly since the 90s, and fourth is following up with the actual political-military-social events from the 1990s. As for others, Miller's source is clearly referring to the Croatian War for Independence, Trbovich's source was removed because is only paraphrasing Miller's source we have access to and as such is useless, a quote by a centuries-old physician or chemist Belsazar Hacquet isn't relevant, non-existent and unsourced B. Fowles is actually historian Ben Fowkes whose already cited, moved Béla & Gunther source as a reference for the first sentence of the section, Kudelic's source lacked reference style and that's probably it. --Miki Filigranski (talk) 10:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Miki Filigranski:, great work on the edits. Flows much better. I am confused by one quote though. Which has nothing to do with you it was already in the article. “Territorial and Historical claims to Croatia”. Historical makes sense, but is territorial meaning that Krajina belongs to Serbs as it’s own Serbian land despite it being multiethnic? I’m not sure I understand the quote. Is there context to the authors quote in the source? The territorial claims but could mean a number of things like individual land and houses and properties or at government level Srpska Krajina. Not sure what is the authors intent. Is he agreeing that Krajina should have been a separate state? I moved Millers info to the appropriate section of Serb claims in the 1990s as the current placement makes it seem associated with the Ustashe in the 1940s. OyMosby (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

No, there was no need to do that.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock: Crovata. -- WEBDuB (talk) 22:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

The move I mentioned later? Also to @Griboski: I meant Vlachs not Slavs in my diff. Autocorrect mistake. However, most Serbs were not descendants of Vlachs and would delegitimize their heritage so why add that? It would play jnto the hands of Croatian nationalists says Serbs are mostly Vlachs. Its not in the source eitherOyMosby (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Groboski fixed placement of Miller quote, Miki. I think the section looks good now. Excellent team work. As it should be on Wikipedia. :). OyMosby (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I see your point. I'm not sure, as the source in the previous sentence says "among Croats.. a descendant of Vlachs is not the same thing as a Serb". So it's implying that the weaponization is being done by completely distinguishing Vlachs and Serbs, denying any connection. --Griboski (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

He is saying that those Croats see a difference between Vlachs and Serbs. Not all Vlachs are or became Serbs in Croatia. And he says in his sentence in his book specifically that nationalists would label Serbs as Vlachs to disenfranchise them. Done to erase or weaken their Serb identity and heritage. (a shameful tactic common in the Yugoslav wars even though Croat or Serb etc are constructs. They are made of tons of different tribes) Stating there is a difference between Serbs and Vlachs would be against the idea of weaponizing or erasing Serbianhood. Even though I don’t think Vlachs exist anymore as they intermixed and assimilated with Serbs, Croats and so on. I may be wrong though, there maybe be self claimed Vlachs as a identity. Not sure. Probably a small group. Times like this make me further confirm→ Tito was right to creat the Yugoslavia he did. Like Poland did. Simplicity! Haha. Though a Democratic Republic would have been the better step. But I’m getting off topic getting philosophical... Have to tend to some real life events so won’t be on for a bit. If I don’t see you all, have a Happy and Healthy New Year! OyMosby (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)