Talk:Aromanians

Their Flags

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

Religion

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

Please discuss here

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

Valereee, so you block both of them (for two weeks!) for an argument that already ended and later tell them to talk here? Very well done. Super Ψ Dro 14:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Super Dromaeosaurus, they were edit warring literally yesterday. The only thing they're blocked from is directly editing this article. They can edit here on the talk and everywhere else. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. —valereee (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

ETA perhaps you hadn't seen this: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Aromanian_Website.? —valereee (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I read it as you blocked them entirely from Wikipedia for 2 weeks, which seemed excessive for me. I have nothing to complain about from the actual decision. And yes, I did see that. Super Ψ Dro 15:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

No worries! :) —valereee (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Aromanians#Notable_Aromanians

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

Disputed Content

To all users of the current page.

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

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

Specifically,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

==

Please find reliable sources to support your changes first. Wikipedia ONLY reports on what reliable sources say about a topic. Theroadislong (talk) 10:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(whereas his are constructive…) didn't say so. My viewpoint is that the current content is not just wrong but harms the Aromanain identity, by presenting them as Romanian migrants in the Balkans, which is nothing else but false. that's your viewpoint. I respect Aromanian identity and they can believe whatever they want but it shouldn't be ruled out as a theory. After all, a similar people, the Istro-Romanians, are largely believed to come from Transylvania. There are several theories and we must not focus on one. Terms like ‘’Macedo-Romanians’’ or ‘’Megleno-Romanians’’ and anything else Romanian related have nothing to do with Aromanians and must not be accepted to describe the Aromanian identity. you fail to understand some Aromanians use this term and it is also still used by non-Aromanian scholars. We had an Aromanian user from Albania who openly expressed their opposition to Romania (and Greece), and yet their name was MacedoRoman (they didn't have an userpage, but I can leave a link to their contributions). I have also heard Aromanians saying "Aromanian" is a Romanian (or whatever) invention and that their only real name was "Vlach". The Aromanians are a very divided people with lots of opinions and view points, and yours just happens to be one more.

The origins of the Aromanians are unclear. Nobody can say for sure they were natives that were Latinized Thracians (although the region they inhabit today wasn't really populated by Thracians and they for sure aren't Latinized Greeks) or if they migrated from Dacia or if they lived between modern Romania and their modern homeland (that's also a theory I've heard) or whatever. However, I removed that statement just to not discuss anymore.

No Aromanians live in Bosnia, Montenegro or Croatia. If they ever did, they are long extinct. But it is for sure that Aromanians live in Romania. Their migration promoted by the Romanian Government to Southern Dobruja is a proved undeniable fact, and that they had to go to modern Romania after Bulgaria recovered the region is another (there's a page of this, Population exchange between Bulgaria and Romania). Please also take a look at this article. [1]. Many Romanian notable figures, specially Gheorghe Hagi and Simona Halep, claim Aromanian ancestry, and this is mentioned in their pages. Super Ψ Dro 11:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

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

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

How do you expect to settle this if every source you are brought is biased for you? Super Ψ Dro 12:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Keep your Romanian sources and use them on pages that are Romanian related. The respective term is used only in Romania and nowhere else.Legione-Romana (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong

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

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

Wikipedia:Neutrality of sources says…

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

answer

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

Irrelevant source

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

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

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

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

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

Content Dispute April 2021

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

The article is clearly NOT only about "modern national identity" it includes history as well. Theroadislong (talk) 12:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree but Romanian scholars cannot and will not determine the national identity of Aromanians! I am obliged to repeat the already mentioned information. Romanians have nothing to do with Aromanians and their biased studies do not represent a neutral viewpoint on the matter. The page is not about Romanians and how Romanians perceive the national identity of Aromanians. The page is about Aromanians so Romanian theories can not and will not have a important role in this page but just a peripherical one.Legione-Romana (talk) 14:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

So that's why you were deleting sourced information until now, right? Super Ψ Dro 15:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Stop reverting information just because it does not suit you.Legione-Romana (talk) 16:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

You're so ironic. Super Ψ Dro 17:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Legione-Romana, just so you know, the recommended lead length a Wikipedia article should have is 4 paragraphs. You made it of 7. You should move text to the rest of the article. Super Ψ Dro 19:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Legione-Romana: Look I'm not familiar with this topic area, but you can't just go about replacing sourced content with unsourced content. If you think the current sources have issues discuss their use here or a WP:RSN, if you think important material is missing then please direct the attention of other editors on this talk page to sources that support it's inclusion. But mostly just try to discuss things rather than edit-warring, remember all of eastern europe is under DS. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 20:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Theroadislong What kind of answer is this?! Which sourced content did I replace with unsourced content? Name it! Why did you penalise me? I am waiting for your answer!Legione-Romana (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Legione-Romana: that comment is from me not the Theroadislong. This is an example of removing sourced content without an edit summary and this is an example of adding unsourced content, again without an edit summary. These sort of changes without edit summaries are to put it bluntly disruptive. Please try to explain your changes in the future. Thanks, 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

As I told you on my talk page this edit [2] added content with no source. Theroadislong (talk) 20:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 July 2021

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

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

Origin - Ethnogenesis of the Aromanias

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

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

Aromanians in Serbia

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

Vlasi are usually Vlachs of Serbia, who are Romanian rather than Aromanian. While very predominant in some Balkan countries, the term Vlach in Serbia does not primarily refer to the Aromanians. This is more or less the same in Bulgaria. Super Ψ Dro 13:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The number of Aromanians in Serbia given in article is ridicouls. There were just below 300 Aromanians (Cincari or English speaking which must be used Tzintzars) in Serbia according 2011 census:popis2011.stat.gov.rs

In 2022, there is still no disregrated data for Aromabians, but there is just above 300, enough to organize its own Minority Council. Popis2022.stat.gov.rs

What you is maybe known by someone in Serbia. As this is Wikipedia in English there should be explanation given that there is a confusion and only number of Tzintzars should be given 77.243.23.232 (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Completly agree as Yugoslav and Serbian census created confusion. In 1921 and 1931 Tzintzars were counted as Romanians in Yugoslav censuses. From 1948 census make division between Romanians in Banat and Romanians south of Danube and Aromanians. This was the case for 1948, 1953, 1961, 1971, 1981 and 1991 censuses, where for both a term Vlach is invented (or at least for Romanians) and used, making appearance that this is the same population. Next census in Serbia, after break up of Yugoslavia, in 2022 introduce Tzintzars as category to emancipate from Romanians which are called by Serbs Vlachs from 1948. Macedonian census, as almost exclusively Aromanians as Vlachs who were registere in Yugoslavia were from N.Macedonia, Continue using term vlachs.

In case of Yugoslavia you have always bear on mind that it was the only country which included as native both Romanians and Aromanians and that after 1948 this mixing in census continued 77.243.23.232 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

south Serbia

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

Comprehensive demographic study

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

Tzintzari in Hercegovina

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

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

A small suggestion

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2024

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

Власи (Vlachs) refers to the Romanians in the Timok Valley (Bor, Braničevo and Zaječar districts). In Serbia, Aromanians are known as Цинцари (Cincari), of which 327 were registered. This is despite them being known as Vlachs in Greece, Albania and North Macedonia. Super Ψ Dro 13:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I am vlach from Homolje and we do not consider ourselfs Romanians. We would be called otherwise just Romanians. I met as well Vlach people from Albania and yes, we are definitely not Romanians but vlach in the same way as they are.

That is comparable to native Swiss german speaking to consider themself Germans. They just don’t. 2A02:2454:9864:C000:C5BC:C5C7:43DD:939 (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Vlachs from Timok in Serbia and Vlachs (Aromanians) from Albania, Greece or North Macedonia have little to do with each other. They have different languages, histories, origins and even names and surnames. Super Ψ Dro 17:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Estimates

Botushali, most estimates give figures of this number. Thede Kahl (2001) gives at least 100,000 (p. 156), Matilda Caragiu Marioțeanu cited 70,000–100,000 (1984, that one is quite old I know), Nicolae Saramandu gave 60,000–100,000 (1988; for both see p. 220). The lowest estimate I've seen was by Max Demeter Peyfuss at 20,000 (too lazy to look up the source). Aromanian cultural organizations usually give 200,000–250,000 but that's for sure exaggerated. There are many more by the way. It's not up to editors to decide this, but what amount seems reasonable to you? I had been looking for an estimate that I had seen some time ago citing 60,000, which had been done by a state Albanian geographic institute or something like that, but I cannot find it anymore. That would look like an ideal outcome if the source is found. It's noteworthy that Kahl mentions this estimate, cited to "official Albanian sources" without mentioning that survey by the geographical society or whatever it was, I don't remember. I found many other sources mentioning this figure and citing it vaguely to "official Albanian sources". Is that good? Or given Kahl's authoritative status we could use his personal 100,000 and the 60,000. In any case a figure of 139,000/3.6% does not seem that unreasonable to me. Apparently 92% of Albanians have declared their ethnicity as Albanian, and many estimates of Greeks tend to include Aromanians. Here is an Aromanian teen explaining he lives just like a normal Albanian [3]. They are the big minority with the highest degree of integration, specially outside the areas with Greek population. Super Ψ Dro 14:01, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Not only those estimates are 15-25 years old, but they do not tell how they came to those numbers. Did they make fieldwork research? What methods did they use? In the census people were free to declare their ethnicity, and only some 2k opted for an Aromanian ethnicity. 140k did not declare any ethnicity. Even if we add all of them to the Aromanians, they do not become 200k as some of those estimates claim. To reach a 60k figure, you need to claim that half of those who did not declare their ethnicity are Aromanians, which is quite a stretch. That would make the Aromanians the biggest minority in Albania, but the Aromanians certainly are not the biggest one. Yeah, maybe they were 60k in the past, but many have left the country, as have done many other people: Albania has a population of 2.4 million nowadays. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

All the estimates have their logic. I believe the 200,000 figures come from Tom Winnifrith who counted as Aromanians everyone with full or partial (this one is quite controversial) Aromanian ancestry or with knowledge on the Aromanian language. Each author must have elaborated more in their respective studies, some of which are not of open access. I see nothing wrong with estimates from 15-25 years. We do not have more recent estimates as far as I know, and in any case people seeing the year of the estimates can take their own conclusions. Many Aromanians have also declared Albanian ethnicity in a case of double identity, which is common for them everywhere they live. For sure 39,855 Aromanians were not living in Greece at the time of the 1951 census.

I see you are not suggesting any estimate but rather that we stick to this census. That is a no-go. It gives a number ten times smaller than the smallest academic estimate. Some Aromanians must have migrated but this suggested reality is nothing short of a mass exodus which I doubt can be verified with sources. Albania includes parts of the original Aromanian homeland that ran along the Pindus and upwards until the highly-populated Moscopole [4], whose inhabitants after its destruction spread all over modern Albania and North Macedonia giving rise to the community in Myzeqe and in almost all of North Macedonia [5]. By the way, according to the census there are some 8,714 Aromanians in North Macedonia. 0 scholars will provide higher figures for Aromanians in North Macedonia than in Albania. I see 60,000 as a good compromise. Super Ψ Dro 14:36, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

For the last time: if you have a recent study which provides details on how it reached its conclusions (field work etc), then yes we can add it as an estimate. Otherwise it is just you making your own arguments and old, obviously outdated sources. FYI, the census did not prohibit people from declaring multiply ethnicities. And given the fact that you declared yourself on your userpage to be a nationalist from Romania, such original research does not reflect well, and continuous POV-pushing with misuse of sources might warrant an AE report. Cheers, Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Umm. I think I will let you alone with your battleground mentality and wait for Botushali's apportations. I bet they're more valuable than anything you have to say. Super Ψ Dro 14:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Umm, you just ran out of arguments. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm just not interested in what someone acussing me of POV-pushing and of misusing sources, attempting to use my own beliefs against me, threatening me with a report, deleting all other changes unrelated to disputes I do, has to say. You probably wouldn't either. Super Ψ Dro 00:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I found a recent source that comments on the Aromanian population statistics provided by different Countries in the Balkans: Petrariu&Nisioi 2024 "A Multilingual Parallel Corpus for Aromanian":

2. Population Statistics
Local populations identify their language by the following terms: Armâneaști, Armânească, Armâneșce, Rrămăneaști, Machiduneaști, Aromână, Vlașki, Vlach and their ethnicity by Armân, Aromân, Rămăn, Arumanian, Vlach, Arumun, Aromunian, Macedo-Romanian, Macedo-Rumanian, Țiți, Român, Grec, Macedonean. The main regions in the Balkans where populations of Aromaninans reside are Thessaly, Epirus, Central Albania, North Macedonia, Greek Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Romania (Dobruja) (Lozovanu, 2008; Lewis, 2009). The only recent official censuses that record Aromanians are from Albania3 and North Macedonia4 where the language has an official status in local communities, but the total number does not exceed 18,000 members in total in both countries. The largest communities are in Greece, according to Kahl (2006), and the numbers are estimated at the order of hundreds of thousands. However, the last census of 1951, which numbered Aromanians, found only 40,000 people self-declaring as such5. The second largest community is likely to be in Romania, where Aromanians have been given land through colonization and Romanization of the Dobruja region, since the end of XIXth century to the beginning of the XXth century (Gica et al., 2009; Clark, 2015). The last Romanian census that included Aromanians was held in 2002 (Lozovanu, 2008) and numbered approximately 25,000 people. Except for the notable exceptions of Albania and North Macedonia where specific localities have Aromanian designated as official language, the language is rarely spoken outside private homes and family contexts (Lewis, 2009), access to public schools is severely limited, and therefore many Aromanians lose language skills and become assimilated by the dominant linguistic group. Given this situation, here we reiterate the urgency to develop linguistic resources that can contribute to the preservation of the Aromanian cultural heritage.

The statistics above 100,000 are mainly based on Tom Winnifrith's research in the 20th century. But we should take into account many factors for the decreasing of the total number in the 21st century: migration, lower birth, intermarriages with ethnic Albanians, change in identity, etc. I think a number around 50k as suggested by Super Dromaeosaurus would be accurate for the Albanian citizens who have Aromanian background (at least some ancestor), but today such number for ethnic Aromanians that have both parents Aromanians and/or fully identify as ethnic Aromanians is very unlikely. New sources with a deep analysis of the Aromanian population, their self-identity, and their ancestry are needed to include such numbers.

In the new 2023 INSTAT census Albanian citizens were free to declare their ethnicity, without limitations. There were also the choises "Mixed ethnic identity" (770 citizens) and "None" (1,142 citizens). One part of the "Prefer not to answer" (13,507) or "Not available" (134,451 citizens) perhaps are ethnic Aromanians, but we need new sources for exact numbers. – Βατο (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Indeed it would be ideal to have more recent studies counting for undeniable demographic factors. Winnifrith's research was 40-30 years ago, and he was not the only to go around Albania and other countries with Aromanian populations, which is I assume what he did for his studies, he is not the only base for this information. 50,000 for Albanians with Aromanian ancestry is way too low, it would imply an original population of something like 20,000-10,000 even at its peak.

I don't want to rely much strongly in this argument as it implies the census has been carried out in bad faith but I've read about allegations of irregularities in previous censuses. It is also clear that in a moderately multiethnic country not only 770 people have overlapping ethnic identities and trying to put myself on the place of the respondants I think I'd only give that if I couldn't chose between two identities.

Ultimately we have to work with what we have and if academic information not that long ago features figures vastly different from official data, I believe it is necessary to potray both, and if we give the year for the unofficial data to allow readers to take their own conclusions that the number they're seeing might have decreased since then due to migration or other factors, then I really don't see an issue with using these estimates (and, 60,000 is in the lower end of what we have, and more than half of what an Albanian researcher found). Super Ψ Dro 16:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way, Kahl's 100,000 refers to "people of Aromanian origin presently living in Albania". Nicely vague as it might be full or partial origin. We can briefly mention this wording in the infobox. Super Ψ Dro 17:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: 20k of citizens with an exclusive ethnic Aromanian identity today would be a reasonable number, and it would put it in the same level of the number of Aromanians in Romania, which according to the new source I provided should be the second largest group of Aromanians in the Balkans after that of Greece. The statistics above 100k that those older studies provide most likely count as Aromanian all the Albanian citizens who spoke Aromanian, also including citizens with both Albanian and Aromanian ancestry, who actually declared themselves as Albanian in the 2023 census. Sources like Kahl's (2001) that explicitly clarify that their estimates include also citizens with Aromanian origin would be the ideal, but they need to be recently published, portraying the actual situation of the present-days. – Βατο (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The story of Andon is the story of Aromanians in Albania. They are mostly assimilated. You can't say Andon is an ethnic Aromanian when he is 3/4 Albanian. He is an Albanian with partial Aromanian origin. Also, many Aromanians have declared themselves Greek in order to obtain an EU passport. Once they get it, they leave. This is another reason for their decrease in numbers.HokutoKen (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Apologies for that, I misread the article. And yes, what you say regarding Greek passports is true. Super Ψ Dro 17:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Most areas where Aromanians would have lived before 1990 have very high migration rates as such it's reasonable that modern figures will be much lower compared than 1990s estimates. In the context of Albania and the historical relationship between Albanian and Balkan Romance, Aromanian identity for many Albanian Aromanians was a cultural and supplementary identity to being Albanian. The notable exceptions come from areas where Aromanians identified with another group instead of Albanians. Writing that someone is of Aromanian origin in an Albanian context rarely meant an identity which was "non-Albanian". This is a more important reason which leads today to the existence of a small Aromanian community. Most people whose ancestors mostly spoke Aromanian, today mostly speak Albanian and have recent Albanian ancestry. Identities are not permanent and when there is no strong sociocultural barrier which prohibits integration of one group into another, this is the expected outcome.--Maleschreiber (talk) 22:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• I think I was able to find the source I was talking about, but apparently it did not cite 60,000 but 139,000. Gica (2009), p. 8: "A more precise estimate of 139,065 Aromanians living in Albania was provided by the Geographical Studies Centre of the Albanian Science Academy, which performed its research[35] with a German institute between 2000-2002". It is cited to this book, which cannot be verified without buying it. A study by the Academy of Sciences of Albania sounds pretty authoritative. Since Βατο has expressed that he finds a 20,000 figure reasonable for today I suggest we use Kressing and Kaser (2002)'s figure of 30,000–50,000. This is the second lowest estimate I know of, Peyfuss' 20,000 figure which I think is from the late 1990s is too low in my view. I sustain that a figure from 2002 is within appropriate recency, specially considering the fact that we lack newer estimates as well as sources indicating that such a brutal decrease of the Aromanian population of Albania has happened in only two decades (even if taking the 30,000 figure, it would be a decrease of 92%). I am willing to take this figure to Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources and/or to WP:RSN. Do editors think this proposed figure is inappropriate? Super Ψ Dro 23:46, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

4 people have told you that claims from 2 decades ago are outdated and unreliable for today's situation. Not to mention that another source, published this year, provided by Bato above, puts the number at less than 25k. Take your concern to RSN if you wish so. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

The 25,000 figure is for Aromanians in Romania. You haven't even read it properly. I would like to hear the opinions of other users in this discussion. Super Ψ Dro 00:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the 25k figure is for Romania. The author says that after Greece, Romania has the largest Aromanian population. So in Albania it is less than 25k. How hard is it to understand? Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super Dro. Thanks for coordinating this discussion.

My main issue with the estimates is that, aside from many of them being exaggerated in the first place, they are from decades ago. In 1989, Albania's population peaked at 3.1 million, and it is now at around 2.4 million. That's a drop of over half a million in as little as three decades, and it would be quite safe to assume that the number of Aromanians in Albania also dropped as a result, which already impedes the usage of figures which rely on statistics from the 20th century (implying that they're even valid in the first place). The peak in terms of the number of Aromanians in Albania IMO would have been during Voskopoja's heyday, but of course, that's only my personal opinion.

In terms of the figure we should use on the article, I am in favour of whatever recent sources suggest is an appropriate number. Obviously, the census data is a must that can be complimented by other recent sources. However, what I mean by recent is preferably something in the past few years or so, as WP:AGEMATTERS is a lot more important and relevant for demographic data and statistics. Looking at the discussion here, it would seem that Bato has managed to find a source from 2024. According to that source, the largest Aromanian community is that of Greece, where the Aromanians are estimated at the order of hundreds of thousands. However, the last census of 1951, which numbered Aromanians, found only 40,000 people self-declaring as such. The second largest community is likely to be in Romania... The last Romanian census that included Aromanians was held in 2002 (Lozovanu, 2008) and numbered approximately 25,000 people. So if the order of highest Aromanian population is at first Greece, followed by Romania at 25,000 people back in 2002, then I presume Albania would therefore be third. As such, the number needs to be something below 25,000. Unless someone is able to find other recent sources that discuss the number of Aromanians in Albania in 2024-ish, then I find it difficult to agree to a number that goes beyond a few thousand. Even if we decide on ~20,000, it seems a little generous as a figure for citizens with an exclusive ethnic Aromanian identity in Albania. A lot of the Aromanians have already left or assimilated in previous generations, and so even though the number of Albanians with at least partial recent Aromanian ancestry may go into the tens of thousands, I do not think the number of "full-blooded" Aromanians or self-identifying Aromanians nears that.

Ultimately, my stance on the matter is dependent on what the recent sources say. To include people of partial Aromanian descent from recent or past generations is near impossible to quantify and not the best route for inclusion as part of the figure; imagine trying to do that for all of the Greeks who have partial Albanian/Vlach/Slavic descent from recent or past generations. Unless there are new sources that can be brought to the table to highlight how many Aromanians may live in Albania today, I would support a figure based on Petrariu & Nisioi (2024), which would sit somewhere below 25,000, and as I said previously, even that seems a little exaggerated for the number of Aromanians in Albania. Thanks. Botushali (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would have peaked at around that period, and many Aromanians remained in modern Albania after Moscopole's destruction. Regarding Petrariu & Nisioi (2024), I am not disputing the claim that there are more Aromanians in Romania than in Albania, but I am taking this with a pinch of salt, because I have never seen such claim from big names in the field like Kahl when it is something that I think would have been noted (by the way I couldn't find anything about this from these authors after a quick search). It might be the case who knows, specially now in 2024, but in my view it shouldn't be given absolute weight just yet, and as long as the numbers we use remain similar (of course, if we have an author saying there are more Aromanians in Romania, it could be illogical to use a figure 5 times higher for Albania than the figure used for Romania). By the way, for your rationale you've employed the 2002 Romanian census, while at the same time Kressing and Kaser (2002) is being regarded as outdated. Romania also has had a demographic crisis.

I have found a 2023 source [6], by an Albanian author, who while he didn't make an estimate of his own, he does say some interesting things on previous estimates and on the counting of Aromanians in censuses: During my fieldwork, I had the possibility to observe the registrations closely and very intensively, and I could evaluate the process of how data were collected in the field. Very few respondents claimed that they had met with Census field operators, others affirmed that the section on ethnicity and religion had been ignored during the registration. Hence, Official Statistics as they appear online on the official site were not reliable. Some figures in the Census also tend to increase the percentage of the Greek community and reduce the number of Aromanian/Vlachs who live in the area. This, to some extent, is a result of Greek policies that have assimilated a large number of Vlach communities in south Albania.; Due to partial work in the field, Census 2011 conducted by INSTAT Albania lacked major data from villages with Aromanian communities and in many areas in Korça as well. The priest of the Aromanian church in Korça told me in an interview (2011), “Nobody knocked at our doors. We didn‘t even see how the form was made”. Some community members affirmed that “when it came to responding to religion and ethnicity section, INSTAT field employers neglected our replies‘. Therefore, the first Albanian census which had to include questions on the citizens’ identity (religion and ethnicity), was not representative, at least the section on identity and origins resulted in a failing process. After 80 years in which they have had not been able to openly express their ethnic and religious identity, not only minority communities but also Albanians did not find space to use this right.. Seems to be in line with previous allegations of irregularities in censuses in Albania.

It is impossible that there are 2,000 Aromanians in Albania today. We also have no evidence of a mass exodus or assimilation of over 90% of Aromanians in two decades. As shown in the maps I shared above, (linking it again, its a 1769 map by Asterios I. Koukoudis, an expert in Aromanians from Greece), Albania and Greece are the original homelands of the Aromanians (and also three dots in North Macedonia). The greatest settlement ever with a substantial if not straight-up majoritary Aromanian population was in Albania. I sustain that we use Kressing and Kaser (2002)'s 30,000–50,000, much lower than the figure provided by a scholar working for the Academy of Sciences of Albania, the second lowest academic estimate I was able to find. I am open anyway of using newer estimates if we find them. It is a shame that Shkreli (2023) did not provide an estimate as I thought for a moment he was going to while reading his article. If there is no newer estimates, we will have to take this to RSN. But I think I've provided a case here as for why 30-50k is not a crazy number. This number implies 2%; Shkreli notes on page 57 a 1928 census survey in Albania found 55,000 Aromanians, 6.6% of the population. As the Albanian population was only 1,003,097 in 1930 and as many Aromanian communities were only sedentarized at all during the communist period it is fair to think this number increased for a while rather than decrease as it might be happening under the current circumstances. Super Ψ Dro 12:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Shkreli is talking about the 2011 census, not the 2023 one. And "Universiteti Mesdhetar i Tiranes" does not have any kind of peer-review process. Anyone can publish a paper in exchange for money there. Actually, anyone there can buy a diploma [7]. Nice source you did find. Ktrimi991 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus: a number around 50k-60k of exclusive ethnic Aromanians could be accurate only for the early 2000s. See what Tanner (The Forgotten Minorities of Eastern Europe) stated in 2004:

The numbers and estimates of the Vlach populations are thus not clear in the pluralistic societies of Southeastern Europe. If members of the younger generation do not speak Vlach anymore, even at home, and hardly understand it, can they still be classified as "ethnic" Vlachs? The censuses are based on self- declaration, on what people declare themselves to be. In a still rather traditional — even patriarchal — society such as the Republic Of Macedonia, self-declaration often hides cultural diversity. Families where the father is Macedonian declare themselves as Macedonian even though the mother might be a member of the Vlach minority (but a reverse situation is also possible). People have often declared a Macedonian idendty because of political patriotism, even if they speak Vlach. During Yugoslav times many members of potentially vulnerable minorities identified themselves as "Yugoslavs".547 The Vlach population has often easily adjusted its identity to the surrounding national thinking (as we will see later on). [...] In Albania, the numbers are not clear either. Winnifrith's respected study, Vlachs, published in 1987, clearly contains errors, particularly conceming the number of Vlachs in Albania, and the author has himself corrected his underestimations in his more recent book from 1995, where he claims that the Vlach population in Albania may even number 200,000. During communist times, the Vlachs were not considered to be a separate ethnic minority. Because of the closed society and difficult economic situation, the Vlach villages nevertheless managed to preserve their language and culture, the younger generation much better than in the neighboring countries559. In Albania, the collapse of the communist regime led to a resurgence of Aromanian nationalism and later to recognition in the new Albanian constitution of the Aromanian community as a national minority. Estimates of the numbers of the Vlachs in Albania vary from 100,000 up to 200,000, but they also include people who do not use the Aromanian language anymore. All the same, Albania is the only country where the Vlachs constitute a relatively significant percentage of the total population (around 2 percent). Usually the Vlachs have been included in the numbers of the "Greek Orthodox minority", as they also live in the same areas as the Greek- speakers in the south of the country. This raises the question of which characteristic is understood as the most significant in classifying populations: language or religion. In the census of 2001 both ethnicity and religon as separate categories were omitted, which led to a boycott by Greek and Macedonian minorities.

So for Tanner, in the early 2000s, 2% of 3M Albanian citizens ≈ 60k ethnic Aromanians. This is the reason why we need new sources that clarify the criteria they use to define an Albanian citizen as Aromanian in their statistics of the present-days. I am looking for some, hoping they have been published. – Βατο (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Super Dro. By the way, for your rationale you've employed the 2002 Romanian census, while at the same time Kressing and Kaser (2002) is being regarded as outdated. Kressing and Kaser are not a census, they’re estimates. How exactly they got these estimates I am not sure.

In regards to the source you found, the concerns I would have had with it have already been stated above by Ktrimi by the looks of it. Doesn’t seem to be WP:RS.

At the end of the day, we can sit here and hypothesize about how many Vlachs there used to be in Albania, when they peaked, and how many there are now, but our personal ideas and opinions don’t make it onto Wikipedia pages. What does is WP:RS and in-date bibliography. Ultimately, the current bibliography from my understanding states that in 2024, the population of Aromanians in Albania is somewhere below 25,000, and where exactly that is, who knows. The only confirmed data we now have is the census, although I’m sure there are some who did it declare. Just not as many as you might think. Botushali (talk) 13:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not dispute that Aromanians right now might be below 25,000. Indeed we cannot know. I am arguing that a 2002 source is appropriate, of course for the year 2002. It seems consistent per Tanner as cited by Βατο. Super Ψ Dro 13:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

World Directory of Minorities (1997), p. 204: "More recent estimates put their number at variously between 35,000 and 50,000." Historical Dictionary of Albania (2010), p. 472: "In Albania, there are estimated to be about 40,000 to 50,000 Vlachs, most of whom live in southeastern Albania." Super Ψ Dro 14:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

The first source is a 1997 one, the second was first published in 2003. And both are vocabularies, i.e. they do not make any in-depth research on their own. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• All of this is nonsense. Every source I propose is rejected, each time I cede even more (now I had added a note to not even show a number in the infobox) I see no reciprocity from the other side. I have been given zero proposals or solutions to my worry of the census data being exceptionally low. And now I was reverted by a user who has never edited this page before [8]. What is all of this about? I am open to discussion to find a middle ground. This looks nothing like it. Super Ψ Dro 14:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Read the discussion carefully. The "proposal" has been made, you just can't find a recent, in-depth, reliable source. And no, we are not here to "find a middle ground" with your POV, we are here to improve the article in line with Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not get why half of your comment is you quoting my words as if I said anything strange. This is also the second acussation from you that I am POV-pushing. I do not get your hostility. There seem not to be recent estimates. This does not disqualify past ones. 20 years is not a long time for entire ethnic groups. There is no evidence that Aromanians have decreased by over 90% in two decades. I am willing to discuss the contents of the note. I am just not going to leave this number without any complementing information. No researcher has ever claimed 2,000 Aromanians live in Albania regardless of time period. Super Ψ Dro 14:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of POV-pushing, I said that we do not have to agree with your POV, i.e. how you see things. There seem not to be recent estimates. There is, it is the 2023 census. Plus the 2024 source above by Bato, which does not provide an estimate, but says Romania has a larger community numbering approximately 25 k, i.e. in Albania are less than those old estimates. There is no evidence that Aromanians have decreased by over 90% in two decades There is no evidence that Aromanians did not decrease by 90% either. Hence we stick to the in-date sources. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what finding a middle ground is if not finding a common solution satisfying the POV of both sides ("And no, we are not here to "find a middle ground" with your POV"). There is no evidence that Aromanians did not decrease by 90% either. this needs no verification as the other is clearly an WP:EXCEPTIONAL claim. I am not asking for this however, I am uniquely asking that sources that contradict this extremely low number are left next to it. Romania might or might not have a bigger Aromanian community today but the sources I am attempting to include does not contradict this. Also the words of researchers who do not seem to be subject experts on the Aromanians are being given in my opinion too much absolute value. Petrariu & Nisioi (2024), who only say the community in Romania is "likely" the second biggest, give figures and in such an order quite similar to those on the infobox here actually. They don't seem to be based on deep research on their part and the use of this part of their article to refute estimates by subject experts from two decades ago is illogical. Super Ψ Dro 15:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

You might be right about Petrariu & Nisioi, but that does not change the fact that your outdated sources do not provide any explanation on how they reached their conclusions either. The only thing of value we seem to have now is the census data where those who feel Aromanians had the chance to opt for an Aromanian ethnicity. This is the very first credible census in the history of Albania. With time academics will make their own evaluations of the census results, and if they provide alternate estimates, they can be easily added next to the census data in the infobox. Time will tell. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

But as the academics make their future evaluations, the infobox presents a reality for which there is no current evidence in academia. I am only advocating that we take it with a pinch of salt. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The academia never made any fieldwork research on the number of the Aromanians. Now they have the census data to start with. The census is not necessarily 100% correct, as 6% of the population did not declare any ethnicity. Hence in the infobox we have added (2023 census) in brackets, i.e. that number represents those who wanted to declare themselves Aromanians. Ktrimi991 (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#2000s sources. Super Ψ Dro 15:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)