Talk:Statuta Valachorum

Stop negating

sources with wrong and twisted claims, especially use of obvious pro-nationalistic sources is not reliable, this topic was already discussed

Stop negating. You are doing exactly that. See Statuta Valachorum.--Zoupan 18:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Stop negating what? Stop writing nonsense, it was already discussed.--Crovata (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Serb ethnicity in Croatia. It has never been discussed.--Zoupan 20:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't? Are you having amnesia?--Crovata (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you prove that the refugees were mainly non-Serbs?--Zoupan 20:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I cannot prove anything, sources and scholars prove something. Well the same question which is rised since South Slavic nationalism emerged in the 19th century - can anyone prove that those Vlachs were mainly Serbs? No. You already read what Šarić and Roksandić work pointed out and which are cited at Vlachs of Croatia.--Crovata (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

As well, you're basically ignoring that most of the Vlachs were Slavicized, and connecting them exclusively with those who speak Romance language, or preserved Romance surname, is total ignorance of the topic issues. Typical of both Croatian and Serbian historiography. Also, instead you add that information to the "Vlachs of Croatia" section, which already discuss this topic, you put in on an article which talks about law, and even further under "Annotations". Such important information has no place under side-line notes.--Crovata (talk) 20:47, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You are missing important points in anthropology. These Vlachs were mainly Serbs, that is, Orthodox, Slavic-speaking, from Serbian lands and of Serbian (Eastern, Byzantine-Slavic) culture. These were not Vlachs from Moldavia. What you are doing is removing a component in an ethnogenesis, somehow generalizing the "Vlachs" as being that of an uniform ethnic group ("Vlachs of Croatia"?), putting Istro-Romanians, Bunjevci, Serbs, etc. in the same pot. You disregard both chronology and terminology; is there any reason why you insist on using Vlachs (Vlasi) instead of "Vlachs" (vlasi), when dealing with Early modern Croatia? You have no right to remove portions of information directly connected to the subject, and you should explain correctly from where you copy material.--Zoupan 21:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am not missing anything, you're - just what Moldavia has to do with ex-Yugoslavian territory? There is no concrete evidence they were mainly or exclusively Serbs, that's typical Serbian nationalistic scholarship and political viewpoint and made up. If they were Serbs then they would call themselves as Serbs, but there's almost none historical source they did beside only as Vlachs. No, they didn't came from Serbian lands (again propaganda), by linguistics we know they came from Herzegovina. Yes, Eastern Herzegovina was mainly under Serbian influence, but still Bosnian and Croatian, and still that doesn't prove that they were ethnically Serbs. The Vlachs, were they mainly Romance speaking, or with Romance features, or later Slavic speaking due to Slavicization, have the same lifestyle, profession and Dinaric traits - that's chronology. Exluding one part from another is not going to work. If have something against neutrality then go to Serbian or Croatian Wikipedia.--Crovata (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You have no right to remove information from Statuta Valachorum. That information is reliable sourced and in scope. that information has no right to be here as other article, and you intentionally put it using biased and nationalistic sources You have no right to decide what information has the right to stay or go. If you don't like it, start a RfC.--Zoupan 22:00, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That information is included in the related section "Legacy" at Vlachs of Croatia where is discussed properly, where the issue, of the information in question, is noted. Your obvious and intentional use of Serbian biased sources is against NPOV principles, which you have no right, and that information wasn't deleted anyhow - it is included in the proper article, if you don't like it then you start a RfC, and stop breaking WP:BOLD.--Crovata (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Legacy? Are you serious? The information is directly related to the Statuta Valachorum (from where you cut-pasted) and the terminology (Vlachs) used in the statute, not the Legacy of the "Vlachs of Croatia". Instead, add sources from that article, if related to the subject, to Statuta Valachorum. Learn how to improve articles.--Zoupan 22:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course that is directly related, yet the "Legacy" section is exactly about that topic and issues. Your intentional use of Serbian claims at "Statuta Valachorum", ignoring neutrality and "Legacy", is just ridiculous. Learn where to put and neutrally proper information.--Crovata (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC) —moved above by Crovata from user talk page (diff)

So if it is directly related, why are you moving information to another article??? According to whom is the "legacy"-section of another article the right place for the topic of this article? What gives you the right to unilaterally do this? You have not backed up any of your claims that the sources are "obvious pro-nationalistic", yet continue to claim that this is ignoring neutrality, even calling it "ridiculous"? That's some serious Ownership issues.--Zoupan 22:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You're the worst - your obvious pushing of biased Serbian claims is a red flag. "Legacy" section was from the beginning about the issue in question, and negating that fact is just incomprehensible. What gives you the right to intentionally spread nationalistic claims from outdated, and partially unreliable sources for such controversial topic (this is not your first time!)? Not backed up? Are you serious now becoming a total ignorant? Ownership is not my issue, my "issue" is neutrality and proper editing which for some pro-nationalistic editors is obviously foreign.--Crovata (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Let's analyze used sources: Aleksa Djilas is Serbian sociologist - not a historian. Ana S. Trbovich worked as international economist for Serbia - not a historian. How to expect neutrality and reliable information from them? Wayne S. Vucinich, of Serb origin, self-explanatory claim is just ridiculous "That Austrian authorities must have also equated the Serbs with the Vlachs can be seen from the fact that, in 1630, they issued the Statuta Vlachorum, a law which defined the rights and obligations of the Serbs who settled in Austria" - just how Statuta Vlachorum explains anyhow and is evidence that Austrians or anyone equated Vlachs with the Serbs? Of course that some part of the Vlachs were Serbs, but that Statuta Vlachorum was issued because of Serbs?--Crovata (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Djilas is a sociologist and historian, not a nationalist. Trbovich is an economist and professor, not a nationalist. Vucinich is an academic historian, not a nationalist; the Statuta Valachorum is reinforcing the fact that Austrians equated the Serbs with Vlachs is what he is saying, and is in no way ridiculous. You've obviously failed in your anti-nationalistic rant – none of these are nationalists.--Zoupan 23:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

For God's sake, I didn't say they are nationalists, yet their national origin just shows the typical viewpoint held of the Serbian side, which is very subjective on the issues. Both of them are not historians - the end. But how Statuta Valachorum is reinforcing that, on what points?--Crovata (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

their national origin just shows the typical viewpoint held of the Serbian side This pretty much speaks for itself, Crovata.--Zoupan 23:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, indeed: "Drago Roksandić and Marko Šarić noted that the modern South Slavic national revival and historiography since 19th century tried to see and interpret its own national history through present day situation, like an "ethnocentric mirror that shows the present". The picture they tried to give about the Vlachs was most commonly simplified, uncritical and acted constructed... The extreme Serbian historiography proclaimed all typical Vlach elements and those of Dinaric/Shtokavian culture as being Serb, tried to prove that the Croatian Frontier lost its own Croatian population and got an ethnically new and prevalent Serb population, and exaggerated the importance of Serbs in the history of the Military Frontier". As for your accusation of mine mixing Romance with Slavic Vlachs read Roksandić pg. 15-18 in the book "Serbs in Croatia". It is well explained, it is something inseparable, unless you still stand behind your blind and simplified nationalistic POV.--Crovata (talk) 00:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

For the same complexity see Noel Malcolm work The Vlachs in Bosnia (from Bosnia: A Short History, 1994).--Crovata (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

...But that's just your partial summary of Šarić; you chose not to include his view on Croatian nationalistic viewpoint (Teza o nesrpskim korijenima pravoslavnih Vlaha ... umanjiti ili sasvim zanijekati srpsku povijesnu ...) which again shows that it is you who has POV-issues. Šarić's study of the 1712/14 Lika-Krbava registers clearly shows the grouping of Vlachs as being "an ethnoconfessional category" of "Serb-Vlachs", a community of Serbian Orthodoxy and Eastern Herzegovinian dialect. The term "Vlachs" in the respect of the statute is meant to describe Orthodox, mainly Serbs, as per sources presented; you never refuted this. It is you who simplifies things. What gives you the right to remove information from the article, and only use Croatian sources? That isn't balance, nor neutrality. I don't understand what you mean by "something inseparable". --Zoupan 03:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's not my partial summary, the Croatian nationalist viewpoint has no concern here as your standpoint as well of those Serbian authors you specifically cited relates to the extreme Serbian POV. Indeed, "Serb-Vlachs", which is further discussed by other authors, and as Šarić points out, needs further modern research. Now, I am oversimplifying things, don't twist things over and over again. If you still don't understand it's simply explaining why you still don't get anything - "putting Istro-Romanians, Bunjevci, Serbs, etc. in the same pot. You disregard both chronology and terminology" - you are the one who still doesn't understand the complexity and uniformity of both terms Vlachs and "vlachs".--Crovata (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No concern here?? This nationalist viewpoint is the exact one you are using. I rest my case.--Zoupan 05:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I am using extremen Croatian and Ustashe POV? Great...--Crovata (talk) 05:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Third opinion

Diff of edit-war.--Zoupan 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC) I have requested page protection because the edit-warring has been going on too long. Rather than engaging in insults both on this talk page and in edit summaries, try to discuss reasonably. My own guess is that Third Opinion won't help, because both editors appear to be stubborn. I will see if a third opinion is offered. Regardless of whether there is a Third Opinion, I suggest either moderated dispute resolution], but only if both parties will work with a moderator, or a Request for Comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion & A Comment on NPOV

Thank you for requesting a third opinion. The central problem here revolves around the nature of Wikipedia's neutral point of view guideline. It is assumed by both parties that NPOV means presenting "neutral" sources that are in neither "extreme" opinion (often dismissed as nationalist), because the "neutral" sources present a better reflection of the truth based on personal reasoning of what is real. I also notice some concern about the sources revolves around the authors' credentials, with apparently non-historians seen as less reliable. I will address each of these points and then provide an opinion. Let me make it clear that my opinion is just that, an opinion, and I will not respond to any further inquiries or comments on it unless it is a request for clarification (which I will accept in my talk page, because I will not watchlist this page).

1. Who owns history? While it certainly is important to know the credentials of authors, in particular their relationship to the subject, it is incorrect to dismiss authors simply because they are not professional historians. All sources are biased. While it is safe to assume that a professional historian has a better grasp on the examination of history than other individuals, it is important to keep in mind that historians don't own history. This does not mean that all opinions should be equally reflected in an article, because proper weight should be given to those individuals whose voice and expertise on the matter is stronger (i.e., those part of the mainstream).
2. Evaluating what is mainstream (and what is fringe) is perhaps the most difficult part; there are also cases when there is, in fact, no academic consensus—a historiography by professional historians can usually help clarify this question (so, if that is part of the confusion, I encourage the participants to take the time to search for these or similar sources). What is unacceptable is for the Wikipedians themselves to assume or decide what is mainstream and what is not; that would be original research.
3. So, what exactly is NPOV? Simply put, it means presenting all viewpoints. The two listed points above should help refine this basic explanation. Considering that the information is contested, all viewpoints presented should also make clear who the author is (including their profession and nationality) and, if possible, their level of expertise on the subject. Perhaps now you think, "But, wait, this is boring and takes too much time!" Well, such is the nature of this type of writing. Wikipedia isn't a contest to prove who is "right" and who is "wrong," but rather a serious project that requires serious contributors that are willing to volunteer their valuable time.
4. Lastly, you should now ask yourselves: Is this the right article for an elaborate expansion on who is a "Vlach"? The answer is: no. This article is about a decree, and it should focus on that decree. I see that there are a couple of articles (Vlachs of Croatia and Vlachs) where such expanded information could be useful (if it is not already present). It would be like going into an elaborate history on the origin of apples in the article for apple sauce.

Based on these points, let's look at the diff in question ([1]). The link to the Croatian Parliament (and its history section) indicate that this body does have a connection to the one from the 17th century (so, it is correct to link it); the other article (Kingdom of Croatia (Habsburg)) doesn't have much to do with the parliament. It is also very WP:POINTY to continuously mention that Vlachs were "also used for Serbs" and "mostly Serbs" (the second one being most problematic as it is not referenced); once it is mentioned the first time, it should not be repeated again if it is not necessary to do so.
However, that said, it is not correct to delete a reference and dismissing it as "nationalist" simply because it reflects a different viewpoint to the one you hold. It is my humble opinion that the short-term solution here is to have a footnote that succinctly explains both viewpoints on the subject. In that sense, Zoupan's edit was correct. The problem with Zoupan's edit is that it relies too much on the opinion of Trbovich (see again the point on who owns history), when I assume that there must be other viewpoints. It is unclear to me what is the mainstream/fringe view here because more work is needed in the Vlachs of Croatia article on this matter; so the long-term solution would be to improve that article (at least to GA status). In the meantime, the safest assumption to be made is that both perspectives should be presented with equal weight.
I hope this helps. Otherwise, I suggest an RFC for more perspectives as suggested by Robert. Have a great day and thanks again for requesting a third opinion!--MarshalN20 ^Talk 18:15, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Zoupan I again reverted the information as on Wikipedia is not supported manipulation and propagation of one-sided, in this case Serbian, ideologies. In your edit you did not held by what MarshalN20 said above.--Crovata (talk) 21:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Crovata if you had cared to review the revisions you would see that an IP altered the text. Do not remove information directly related to the subject.--Zoupan 21:57, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

IP did nothing wrong, it just confirmed what you already done - proving with pro-Serbian sources that the "Vlachs" were mainly Serbs. That one-sided information belong to the "Legacy" section at the Vlachs of Croatia.--Crovata (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No. There are Croatian sources included as well in the body. Please stop with you POV. That one-sided information belong to the "Legacy" section at the Vlachs of Croatia is exactly the opposite of constructivity. This article is a subject in its own right, you can't force your POV by chucking it away into a Legacy section at another article. Duh.--Zoupan 22:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

You have serious personal issues with proving that the population named as "Vlachs" were mainly ethnic Serbs. By citing few one-sided pro-Serbian sources, and ignoring other international and even Croatian sources who don't support extreme POVs and note the complexity of the issue, is simply not constructive.--Crovata (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

? Please have a long look at the citations. Those are non-Serbian sources, not "one-sided pro-Serbian" as you claim (Király & Rothenberg, Lampe & Jackson, Fowkes). You have serious personal issues with terminology and Serb history. I don't see how your edit-warring will get your point(-of-view) through?--Zoupan 23:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

As first, you ignore the fact that each Balkan historiography has specific ideological point of view on specific matter, especially on the Vlachs. As second, you ignore the fact that international non-Balkan scholars are sometime influenced by those Balkan academics. As third, citing few international non-Balkan scholars who do or do not understand the complexity of the topic with specific pro-Serbian point of view, while ignoring other international non-Balkan scholars who understand the complexity of the topic and don't support such simplified ideological POVs, is not constructive anyhow. By calling it my own POV you're not only personally attacking me, but also insulting the academics, the neutrality and reality of the issue. You are attacking Wikipedia. You are the one who do not understand the terminology neither the history of the Serbs. Since those first discussions about the edits at the Morlachs article two years ago, showed that you simply don't want to understand and accept the complexity of the topic, beside citing one-sided sources which show nothing else but Serbian ideological POV.--Crovata (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Is edit warring really needed here? Confront sources and start discussing instead of sharing personal attacks. I'm ready to participate. If there is no consensus between us then a RfC would be a proper thing to do. 89.164.106.76 (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Sources can not be confronted as the topic is too complex for simple A vs B form. Currently, the "Legacy" section at the Vlachs of Croatia needs further expansion, for which have several sources but currently have more important editing to finish, including with the foreign sources cited in the disputed revision. Only then can be re-cited sources which will neutrally and shortly indicate the complexity of the term "Vlachs" in the law. There's no need for dispute resolution. --Crovata (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I was just looking at Vlachs of Croatia article and it seems like the right place for this dispute. Statuta Valachorum doesn't seem to need so detailed explanations, especially when the nature is so complex. 89.164.106.76 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes. The legacy section of Vlachs of Croatia is exactly what I had in mind. It lists sources and their confronting views. So what exactly is the problem here? Sorry, but I was not involved before so I'm still trying to grasp why so much personal attacks about a thing covered in Vlachs of Croatia article. 89.164.106.76 (talk) 00:07, 30 June 2016 (UTC)— 89.164.106.76 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

No. Legacy at Vlachs of Croatia is not the way we do this. This article is about a decree regarding a refugee community, not about legacy of a term in a country's history.--Zoupan 00:29, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

It is one of the ways, the ethnical and religious dispute of the refugee community is connected to the future nationalistic events. However, the section name "Legacy" is not the most suitable. What "way" you propose? Indeed, this article is about the decree, and not the terminology and ethnicity of the refugees name.--Crovata (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Last change of article and possible controversial edit

@Sadko: Specify which ar these concrete controversial changes. Therefore everything is made according to the sources. As far as this clame is concerned Vlachs is a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs this requires consensus because there exist and Croatian Vlachs, Balkan Vlachs, Albanian Vlachs, Bosnian Vlachs, Uskoks, Hajduks, Prebjezi, Croatian serfs, Bulgarians etc, etc. Otherwise my sources do not even mention Serbs in that area of Varaždin Generalate or mentions Serbs and Vlachs but I used it only to put Vlachs with the Serbs because there are also some Rascians (Serbs) mentione there(that I know of).Mikola22 (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

You are deleting other sources while putting new ones which go per your POV while watering down the issue (word Vlach had and has multiple meanings) and making a wast relativision. The idea is to delete any mention of Serbs, present it like they are some floating mass of Vlachs who were converted by the notorious Serbian Orthodox Church to become Serbs etc). I can see right you through it. You do not get to delete sourced content, as you tried. Explain on the talk page why this material should be included and what your point is, because the article is getting more and more messy with every new edit.. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 02:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Sources(boks, historians, historical documents) in Varaždin Generalate and Statuta Valachorum mentione Vlachs without Serbs and with Serbs(in any case mostly are mentioned Vlachs). And I placed Vlachs with the Serbs (I didn't delete anything here). What I needed to do? Otherwise there are mentioned and Hajduks, Uskoks, Croatian serfs etc but I did not place them with Vlachs and Serbs. The only thing I deleted was the term "Vlachs who are mostly Serbs" this requires consensus because this is an area of Varaždin Generalate for wich we have books and data that speak about Croatian serfs which cross over to the Vlach side and who become a part of Statuta Valachorum and Vlachs in that area. And also place where it should be spoken about term Vlach is article about Vlachs not here. In any case if you find a concrete mistake feel free to expose it here. I also wrote this on my talk page and here for explanation that everyone sees my claims.Mikola22 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

You need to get wp:consensus for your changes before making them.Slatersteven (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Which consensus? Data and books mention Vlachs and Serbs, some books do not mention Serbs or they are mentioned among others (Vlachs, Croatian serfs, Uskoks, Hajduks etc). How are Serbs mentioned in this article? Although they are least mention in that area? Where is consensus for that? Therefore you have my changes and start talking about this concrete edits and changes. I need consensus to put data about Vlachs in the article who talking about Vlach Statutes? Whether someone is joking with me here? "Vlachs in that area are mostly Serbs" half of the Vlach population was Croatian serfs(data from book) and for this we do not need consensus? Myx edit are common things and verified by sources and no consensus is needed. This article is about Statuta Valachorum and we need consensus to put data on Vlachs?? Mikola22 (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As wp:consensus says "...editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns.". You need to get users to agree to your edits.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: @Sadko: I put my edit on Dispute resolution noticeboard https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Statuta_Valachorum_discussion so we will all decide in peace together.Mikola22 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

@Slatersteven and Sadko: Maybe I don’t understand something and the issue was previously resolved in favor of Mikola22? Or did he just decide to resume the edit war? [2] [3] [4]--Nicoljaus (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

He resumed to edit war - on several pages... Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:19, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

You call one another for help? We must work together to keep articles accurate as possible. "Vlachs" (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs This claim has no evidence in sources and violates Wikipedia rule "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". The Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs. Croats are and Vlachs origin but it does not mean that they Serbian origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. In the sources are not mentioned "Vlachs" (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs Sima M. Ćirković Serbian academician: On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves. Serbs etc come to Croatia along with Vlachs but Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs. Vlachs are part of Croats, Bosniaks, Montenegrins, Macedonians, Albanians, Bulgarians, etc. but Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs nor the sources say that. In the area of Statuta Valachorum many Croatian villages are referred in the sources as Vlachs villages but Croats in that villages are not Serbian origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. Peoples(Croatian serfs, predavci etc) are referred as Vlachs in Statuta Valachorum but they are not Serbian origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. The whole Dalmatia is referred as Vlachian( before the Turks and especially during the Turkish times) but Croats of Dalmatia are not Serbian origin because Vlachs are not Serbs. We must not enter information in the article that has no evidence in the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

This claim has no evidence in sources -- Your problem is that you refuse to see in the sources what is there, but willingly find there what is not there, as for example with this your edit, which you also pushed through the war of edits [5]. And you do it all the time. Therefore, your talk about "work together" is nothing more than ordinary trolling.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:16, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Specify where in the sources writes "Vlachs" (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs it doesn't write anywhere and violates Wikipedia's rule "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" Thus this clame we must delete. "The Vlachs, whom we shall meet in this and other areas of Croatia and Dalmatia, were descendants of a pre-Slavic Romance-speaking people. Many were shepherds, and the term also acquired that particular occupational meaning, sometimes making it unclear what is meant by the term “Vlach. Croats were also paired with Vlachs (corvati et morlacchi) as quarrelling parties in the late 1480s in Dubašnica and in a Poljica (not the one near Split) in the territory of the Bishop of Krk, Donat. The same groups were referred to in 1504 as owing tithes to the cathedral church, listed as: “every Christian, nobleman and peasant, Vlach or Croat” (morlaco over crovato)." The Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs, Croats are not of Serbian origin. Mikola22 (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

They explained to you a hundred times that the meaning of the term could changed, but you wp:NOTLISTENING. All refugees from Serbia were also often called the "Vlachs." [6] But they themselves in their catechism said: "Question: Who are you? - Answer: I am a human, Serb, Christian."--Nicoljaus (talk) 13:15, 18 February 2020

We have no historical information that Vlachs coming from Serbia to Croatia, we have a couple of records for Vlachs ie Serbs who coming to Bosnia, most data is for Vlachs but we do not know from where they coming. For great migration of Serbs(from Serbia, Kosovo) to Vojvodina, eastern Slavonia(Croatia), southern Hungary, the records generally mention Rascians(Serbs).After the establishment of Ottoman rule in the territories that once constituted the Serbian state, large population movements continued. Most of these movements are not possible track in documents.(Sima Ćirković). All refugees from Serbia were also often called the "Vlachs. it is not source which proves the fact that Vlachs is (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs Bosnia refugees are also called Vlachs etc. All refugees are mostly referred as Vlachs, in which there is probably and Croats but Vlachs are not Serb or Croats etc. Sima M. Ćirković Serbian academician: On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves We can not from present time interpret time before 500 or 400 years. Two sources which proved that quote on the article Croatia talk about Vlachs Serbisation which refutes claim that Vlachs is "term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs". Therefore, this information violates Wikipedia's rule and must not be part of this article. This claim without proof in the sources may indicated that part of Croats etc are of Serbian origin so this should not be promoted because Croats are also and Vlachian origin. As the archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only a Vlach name, Aleksa lvić(Serbian historian), retelling archival writings, simply where writes Vlach read a Serb. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings about Catholics Vlachs, ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he will also declare these Vlachs to be Serbs, calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith etc etc. Mikola22 (talk) 14:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

wp:NOTLISTENING - again, plus claiming mastery of the subject (which I - doubt, to say the least) as if that is an argument. I believe that this 100% prooves that we have agenda driven editing at hand. [7] [8] Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:58, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sadko: I don't know how much you understand the seriousness of the situation. In the geographical area of Statuta Valachorum ie Varaždin Generalate a large part of the Croatian Serfs etc migrates to that area because of benefits. Many become Vlachs and some convert to Orthodoxy(we don't know how much) Many villages in that area today are populated with Croats but they are referred in the documents as Vlachs villages. Accordingly, part of the local Croatian population is under the Vlach name and part of them is and of Orthodox faith. We must respect and this informations from reliable sources and present it to the public. However, the Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs nor does this information exist in the sources and for this reason it must be deleted because it violates Wikipedia rule: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Ultimately promoting such claims without confirmation in the sources assumes that and Croats have Serbian origin but unfortunately this is not true because Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs. However, it is important to mention that military border created in the 15th–19th century by Hungarians, Habsburgs, Venetians and Turks contributed greatly to the strengthening of the Vlach-Slavic ethnic relations. “Vlachs” of military borderlands were of various ethnic backgrounds, many of them were one hundred percent Slavs, but on the other hand, Vlach highlanders were settled there next to the Serbian, Croatian and Bulgarian peasants(Ilona Czamańska (Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań), 2016)... Morlacs, that is, according to Marko Jačov(Serbian historian) interpretation exclusively to Serbs. In the introductory section of the book, Marko Jačov claims that all Morlacs are Serbs.(book review, Lovoka Čoralić). We must not present Vlachs as Serbs or mainly Serbs, Croats etc because by promoting this fact we are forging history but also breaking Wikipedia rules because we are putting something in articles that has not evidence in the sources. Mikola22 (talk) 06:36, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Morlacs, that is, according to Marko Jačov(Serbian historian) interpretation exclusively to Serbs. In the introductory section of the book, Marko Jačov claims that all Morlacs are Serbs. -- Very well. If this author is a respected historian, then this is quite enough for Wikipedia purposes.--Nicoljaus (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

(UTC)

What are you talking about? Morlacs ie Vlachs are not Serbs, Marko Jačov(Serbian historian) clame in his book that all Morlacs are Serbs, but Morlacs are also Croats, that is, most of the Croatian population of Dalmatia are Morlachs. But Croats are not of Serbian origin, because Morlachs-Vlachs are not Serbs. "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 is easy to see that the adjective "Serbian" was put in the place where it was written: Vlach, Morlak, schismatic, Greek, Orthodox, or simply added, inserted. This practice is not created by Marko Jačov(Serbian historian), but he continues. This already wrote Aleksa Ivic, Nikodim Milas, Jovan Radonoc, etc.(Serbian historians)".Mikola22 (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

This practice is not created by Marko Jačov(Serbian historian), but he continues. This already wrote Aleksa Ivic, Nikodim Milas, Jovan Radonoc, etc.(Serbian historians)" Perfectly. Long-established opinion of professional historians. But your spells that "Morlacs are not Serbs!" and "Vlachs are Croats!" - no one is interested in Wikipedia.--Nicoljaus (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Vlachs are Croats, today Croats. But Vlachs or Morlachs are not Croats. Vlachs are not Serbs, Croats etc. Bulgarian are not Slovenians and Macedonians are not Hungarians. I don't know how you can't understand, Vlachs are not Serbs etc. Sources in the article do not prove this clame and this cannot be part of the article because Vlachs are not Serbs. This information without proof in sources violates Wikipedia's rule "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered". Perfectly. Long-established opinion of professional historians. We cannot come to quality historical conclusions by falsifying history. As the archival material, with few exceptions, gives the researcher only a Vlach name, Aleksa lvić(Serbian historian), retelling archival writings, simply where writes Vlach read a Serb. Having found in the archival material a large number of writings on the Vlachs of the Catholics, ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he will also declare these Vlachs to be Serbs, calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith These Serbs of the Catholic faith are today Croats. "Perfectly. Long-established opinion of professional historians." You cannot on Wikipedia promote claims of such historians, these historians and their conclusions confirms what I say earlier ie that this thesis without evidence in the sources actually assumed that Croats are Serbian origin. It's not in good faith and this is proof that without quality sources this citation should not be part of the article, this is just a confirmation that I was right.Mikola22 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

actually assumed that Croats are Serbian origin -- Nope. It's just your very strange concoction (typical strawman). --Nicoljaus (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Having found in the archival material a large number of writings on the Vlachs of the Catholics, ie descendants of the ancient Croatian Vlachs: Bunjevci, Morlaci and others, he will also declare these Vlachs to be Serbs, calling them • Serbs of the Catholic faith. Why respected Serbian historian says that "Bunjevci, Morlaci and others Vlachs are Serbs of the Catholic faith? Because he considers Vlachs as Serbs regardless of their religion. Another Serbian historian Marko Jačov: "Morlacs, that is, according to Marko Jačov interpretation exclusively Serbs. In the introductory section of the book, Marko Jačov claims that all Morlacs are Serbs". Part of the Morlachs(Vlachs) are Catholics and they are today Croats. But Vlachs and Morlachs are neither Serbs nor Croats. Accordingly, these Serbian historians who forged historical data, consider Vlachs and Morlachs to be exclusively Serbs. Clame from article Vlachs (a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs) with no evidence in the sources shows that this fact presents precisely their interpretation of history. The only thing which separates theses of Serbian historians from them is fact that in citation Catholics were not mentioned. The person who entered this information here and in Croatia article (same citation, different sources which do not prove this citation) saying that someone edited this and article Croatia not in good faith. Croatian historian: "he will also declare these Vlachs to be Serbs" It means that Serbian historian and Orthodox Vlachs proclaims as Serbs. Croatian historian mentions Vlachs as "ancient Croatian Vlachs" and he does not say that they are Croats because Vlachs are not Croats. Therefore, we must have motive of that person who put this information in the articles without proof in the sources, this edit is precisely on the basis of this Serbian historiography which all Vlachs and Morlachs considered as Serbs. But unfortunately Vlachs and Morlachs are not Serbs.Mikola22 (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Proof for my clames are data from entire article. Balkan refugees, including Serbs, crossed into Habsburg lands But and the Vlachs and others arrive. Slavonia (including the Varaždin Generalate) was continuously settled by Serbs from various regions since the 15th century. Here are the most mentioned Vlachs, and Vlachs from Bosnia (16th and beginning of 17th century). A large migration of Serbs (called "people of Rascians or Vlachs") into Croatia and Slavonia from Ottoman territory took place in 1600. They are mostly Vlachs. How many Rascians were with the Vlachs we cannot know that because the most are mentioned Vlachs. In early 1630, representatives of Croatian nobility and Vlachs (Serbs) met in Vienna Serbs are not mentioned in Vienna. The Croatian nobility pressured the Emperor to enact a decree on 10 May in which the Serbs pay the nobility as much as they paid their captains, however, the unhappy Serbs between the Sava and Drava instead gave colonel Trauttmansdorff their own draft, which would regulate relations to the state, and economical, legal and social relations. Serbs are not mentioned(or possible smaller groups) in that area, Vlachs are mentioned The Orthodox refugee community, called "Vlachs", were mainly Serbs. Vlachs come to this area and Vlachs are not Serbs nor mainly Serbs. These grants to Serbs made them valuable allies of the Habsburg government against the Catholic Croatian nobility. Vlachs are mentioned who were not Serbs. The warrior-tradition of the Serbs of Croatia, which includes the service to the Habsburg Monarchy and the Statuta Valachorum, is an important part of the identity of the community still today. The Vlachs are mentioned not Serbs. All of this indicates that Serbian view of history is being promoted here and opinions of Serbian historians of which I spoke earlier. That is, those who consider all Vlachs to be Serbs. This assumes that Vlachs are in fact Serbs, but the Vlachs are not Serbs. There are many Croatian peasants(surfs, large groups of immigrants, records and historians speak of nearly half of that population) which coming to that area and who become Vlachs. But these Croats today are not of Serbian origin because are referred as Vlachs because Vlachs are not Serbs. Sima M. Ćirković Serbian academician: On the basis of documents from 13th to the 15th century it is evident that Vlachs (descendants of indigenous peoples) Serbs considered as "others" i.e. different from themselves..... Mirko Marković Croatian academician: Vlach population(16th and 17th century, Slavonia) needs well distinguished from ethnic Serbs who come here in the late 17th and early 18th century as fugitives from southern Serbia...Orthodox Slavs and Vlachs fled from the Ottomans into Dalmatia, Bosnia, and Herzegovina, or farther northward across the Danube. They were strategically resettled in the area of the military frontier. Many people retreated to the mountains of Albania, Greece, and Montenegro, where, as migratory shepherds, they remained largely untouched by Ottoman rule.... About early period of Vlachs(Slavonia, area of Statuta Valachorum) there are hardly any reliable information, it can be said with great certainty that they were once Romanized groups. The emerging Balkan states tried to integrate these Vlachs, but they only partially succeeded. Nevertheless the gradual Slavicization of Vlachs began with parallel integration into Greek Orthodox Church.... In 1555, all taxpayers in Srijem and Slavonia are called "Vlachs", which includes not only indigenous Croatian population but also and Hungarians.... The Habsburg government in this way came to relatively cheap military force using the South Slavic (Croatian, Vlach, Serbian) grencers. ... However, it is important to mention that military border created in the 15th–19th century by Hungarians, Habsburgs, Venetians and Turks contributed greatly to the strengthening of the Vlach-Slavic ethnic relations. “Vlachs” of military borderlands were of various ethnic backgrounds, many of them were one hundred percent Slavs, but on the other hand, Vlach highlanders were settled there next to the Serbian, Croatian and Bulgarian peasants Mikola22 (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Mikola22 -- You need to find someone else. I've seen your arguments many times and not impressed.--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I know you're not impressed but this clame Vlachs is a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs has no evidence in the sources and for this reason violates Wikipedia's rule "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered" Reason why this quote has no evidence in the sources is exactly this data which did not impress you. The Vlachs are not term for Serbs nor mainly Serbs and that's why this clame Vlachs is a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs has no evidence in the sources. This information has been removed from Croatia article precisely because there is no evidence in the sources for this clame. Therefore the matter is very clear.Mikola22 (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Therefore the matter is very clear -- Yes, the question is very simple. And if you had any desire to understand and not fight and push your point of view, you would have figured it out a long time ago. I recommend you to use the procedures from this list further: wp:DRR--Nicoljaus (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but we are working together. If you see that this claim is without evidence in source, then you need to remove this clame not me. You are now suggesting that this be discussed(wp:DRR) but it was not suggestion in Croatia article and this information was deleted because it had no evidence in the sources without wp:DRR. Therefore we can see that you do not have good faith as far as editing this article is concerned. Now again, we have to discuss something which with some good will can be resolved here. Mikola22 (talk) 08:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Changing some parts of the article with new data

• In the mid-16th century, the Military Frontier was established as a buffer against the Ottoman Empire. Balkan refugees, including Serbs, crossed into Habsburg lands. Military colonists were exempted from some obligations and granted small land tracts, and allowed to elect their own captains (vojvode) and magistrates (knezovi) Here should be stated and Vlachs. I quote: Border military sources from the late 16th and early 17th century are new immigrants from the Ottoman Empire, most often called as Vlachs.(page 164)Ethnic origin of Orthodox population(Vlachs) of Military border cannot be determined precisely, because the Catholics of Military border also converted to Orthodoxy during the 17th century.(page 70)
• Slavonia (including the Varaždin Generalate) was continuously settled by Serbs from various regions since the 15th century.. An earlier sources said that in this area Vlachs are mentioned. How many and when the Serbs coming to that area I don't know. I know that Croatian Historian Mirko Marković in his book says that Vlachs from that area should distinguished from ethnic Serbs which coming to Vojvodina and south Hungary(late 17th and early 18th century). Other Croatian sources speak about Vlachs which in this area come from Bosnia.
• A large migration of Serbs (called "people of Rascians or Vlachs") into Croatia and Slavonia from Ottoman territory took place in 1600. We have previous sources which talk about Vlachs. Article "Vlachs in the history of Croatia" and "Serbs of Croatia" do not speak about this "large migration of Serbs" in 1600 to Slavonia.
• The Orthodox refugee community, called "Vlachs", were mainly Serbs I discussed this before, I do not know who is promoting this information but in the area of Statuta Valachorum Vlachs are mentioned. There are many Croatian serfs (peasants) among these Vlachs. I quote : "In the Croatian Parliamentary Conclusion from 1628, when the classes complained to the ruler that there were more Indigenous people ("our people") living in Krajina under the name of "Vlachs", who sought to come under protection of Krajina commanders than the true "Vlachs".(page 164).Mikola22 (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

I do not see that the article would benefit from this change and your request is not clear enough. This goes for the second request as well. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 19:38, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "would benefit from this"? This are historical data about Vlachs in the area "Varaždin Generalate" and population on which the law of Statuta Valachorum refers. Conclusion from 1628, when the classes complained to the ruler that there were more Indigenous people ("our people") living in Krajina under the name of "Vlachs".. this information is not for the territory of Dalmatia but for the area to which the law "Statuta Valachorum" apply. The whole article, or most of it, cannot promote existence of the Serb population when there is little mention of Serbs in that area in that time. The Vlach population is mentioned there, many of which are of indigenous origin which have nothing to do with Vlachs but are called Vlachs. That is why I quote information of a Hungarian historian who cites the Uskoks, Vlachs, Croats, Bosnians, Serbs, etc. This informations must be part of the article. Mikola22 (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

The Hungarian view of settling balkan population to their land

"Vlachs is a term used for a community of mostly Orthodox refugees, mainly Serbs"

• Géza Pálffy book from 2000, A tizenhatodik század története [Geschichte Ungarns im 16. Jahrhundert / History of Hungary in the Sixteenth Century].
• After the advancement of Slavonian and South Transdanubian Turks in the 1540s and 1550s, more and more people appeared in these areas, mainly in Pozsega, Baranya, Tolna, but to a lesser extent in Somogy and Fejér counties as well. Along with them came a significant number of livestock ethnics from the northern Balkans, a mixture of several Yugoslav ethnic groups, the Vlachs, who were the source of the ancient Hungarian-language sources for the Olah (Latin vlachus , Turkish eflak).). (However, they should not be confused with Romanians, also called Italians.) The number of Orthodox Rascians and Vlachs along the Danube was so great that in 1585 a special monastery was established in Grábóc near Szekszárd.
• Although our historians consider the occupied South Slavs to be almost exclusively Serbian on the basis of uncertain terms at the time, recent studies of Yugoslav and Hungarian church history have recently clarified this exaggerated picture. According to these, the South Slavic population immigrated to the base of the occupation the vast majority were Serbian and Vlah Orthodox, but a significant number (tens of thousands) of Catholic Bosnians, as well as a few Croatians and even Gypsies, came here. Significant homogeneous blocks of Bosnians originated primarily in the former Slavonia east of the Pozega-Velika line, and in the West Sermen, that is, roughly in the eastern part of the former Pozega county and in Valkoo and beyond the Baranya beyond the Drava.
• By the end of the 16th century the settlement of Serbs, Vlachs and Bosnians in Hungary was huge. To the south of the Maros(Maros-Torda County) line and in the extension of the Danube-Tisza River, along with the Bosnians, the Serbs already had a large majority, while their presence in Southeastern Transdanubia was also significant.
• The Habsburg military leadership was much more fortunate with the Vlahs advancing in Slavonia.
• Thus, like the Uskoks, the Vlahs received land and various privileges (exemptions from tax and other services) in the Slavonic headquarters for their military service.
• As the Fifteen-Year War in 1593 had escalated from a war erupted in this area into a nation-wide conflict, the consequences of smaller or larger expeditions also resulted in a tragic situation here. Between 1597 and 1600, some 10,000 new immigrants arrived at the Slavonic headquarters.
• This was realized in 1630 after their resettlement in the area of ​​Kőrös, Ivanics and Kapronca. II. King Ferdinand then wrote a special letter of privilege ( Statuta Valachorum), which was later confirmed by Emperor Leopold I (1667). The "Vlah statutes" regulated in detail their self-government, their judiciary, their military responsibilities and all aspects of their semi-military, semi-civilian life. The Vlahs living in fortified settlements of special structure played an important role even in the newly organized border guard system of the early 18th century.
• However, as the former villages of the movers from Croatia and Slavonia did not remain empty for a long time, further settlements in Hungary and Austria, although declining, could not be prevented. Close to the front line, there was always plenty of supply between the Drava and the Sava, mostly from the Vlahs but also from the Croats. At the beginning of 1566, for example, Kristóf Batthyány granted a tax exemption for ten years to Croats who settled in Jakupec, Varadskaya.
• Overall, Hungary's ethnic profile changed dramatically in the 16th century. The waning Hungarians started irreversibly on their way to the minority population, against the Yugoslav-Slavic (Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, Vlah) and Romanian population. However, the coexistence of different ethnicities did not cause problems of nationality at that time.

This Hungarian source divides Hungarian population into Vlachs, Uskoks, Bosnians, Serbs etc. Mikola22 (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

• Book "Ottomans, Hungarians, and Habsburgs in Central Europe: The Military Confines in the Era of Ottoman Conquest" (Ottoman Empire and Its Heritage)

  The troops of the new military frontiers were made up of Serbian, Croatian and Vlach refugees who had settled in the southern territories of Hungary"(page 62)Mikola22 (talk) 12:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Massive changes to give UNDUE weight to controversial hypothesis about non-Serb (Vlach) origin of Serbs in Slavonia, Dalmatia and Croatia

I am against massive changes performed by Mikola22 during last couple of months, all aimed to give UNDUE weight to controversial hypothesis about non-Serb (Vlach) origin of Serbs in Slavonia, Dalmatia and Croatia (link to multiple diffs). Such massive changes, accompanied with removal of well cited assertions, should be performed only after reaching consensus on the talkpage. I advise editor in question to revert his massive changes and seek consensus on the talkpage first.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

@Antidiskriminator: These are not mass changes at all. 1. edit source, 2. one source cannot be checked(WP:VERIFY) 3. (The heraldic emblem used for these "Vlachs" was the Serbian Nemanjić dynasty coat of arms.) What this have to do with the Vlachs in Varaždin Generalate? It needs to be specified what it is about, Vlachs exist and in Lika, Dalmatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Slavonia, Slovenia, Hungary, Istria, etc. Not all Vlachs have the heraldic emblem of Nemanjić dynasty. Croats are also Vlachs. 4. Tags added 5. additional information from the source, page 92 (Karl Kaser book) 6. edit sources 7. I align information according to the source, see source page 129. What is here massive change? We need to make the article better, that why we are here. You have the freedom to change my edits and give your reasons for doing so. Mikola22 (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Otherwise, nothing is removed from the article. Today one source has been removed because we do not know what is written in it, the source cannot be found anywhere nor is it known what is written in the source. Information based on that source is still in the article. As far as Vlach "heraldic emblem Nemanjić dynasty" is concerned, it is not known what exactly the source says, what I found concerns year 1690 and Arsenije III Crnojević and this is time after Statuta Valachorum ie after 1690 and for these Vlachs. (A least known fact is that after the refuge of Arsenije Cernojevic, the Serbs were issued a Diploma by Rudolf II called the Vlachs Diploma. The heraldry depicted for these “Vlachs” is consisted of the Serbs coat of arms from Nemanjic Serbia.) page 81 [9] And one information is align with the source, see source. Mikola22 (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Anti, go ahead and clean up his mess please. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be dealing with consequences instead of the real issue. It is necessary to resolve the real issue first, not the consequence. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

There is no mess. Therefore any "cleaning" must be clarified as I explained my edits here. Mikola22 (talk) 20:20, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Therefore as I said "There is no mess" and answer of editor Antidiskriminator prove this(if this were not so, he would corrected my "mistakes" or "mess"). Every edit I made is by the rules. And anyone can this edits revert etc but he must state the reason for it to see what it is all about. As far "real issue first" is concerned, all information entered into article are from RS and that cannot be changed. Unfortunately. Mikola22 (talk) 06:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Your misinterpretation of my comment proves that I am right about the real issue here. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

These are very vague comments, you should be more specific. Nothing in those diffs is uncited and the cited sources don't look unreliable. Tezwoo (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I can't get involved in any rewriting of the article right now because of limited time throughout August, but I want to highlight that there is nothing "controversial" in the discussion about the ethnic origins of the communities which were placed under Statuta Valachorum. Serbian historiography considers them as ethnic Serbs and encourages no debate about their origins - but the approach of Serbian historiography as an institution is regularly in opposition to international bibliography because of its very one-sided approach in many fields.Knezevic, Anto (1995). "Review: Bosnia and Hercegovina, a Tradition Betrayed". Canadian Slavonic Papers. 37 (1–2): 245. doi:10.1080/00085006.1995.11092091. : The identification of the early Orthodox population with the Serbs is particularly misleading because considerable evidence suggests that this group was predominantly of non-Slavic. Vlach origin. In 1630, Ferdinand II adopted Statuta Valachorum, the Law of the Vlachs in the Croatian Military Frontier, and use of the term Vlajine ("Vlach women") for local Orthodox women-recorded in June 1990 in northern Bosnia--confirms the longevity of this ethnic denomination.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Also, just because this was the 17th century, it doesn't mean that people were confused about the existing identities. Identities were a lot more fluid, non-exclusive and more politically-driven than today but identities did exist. So, the Austrians habitually had to: In order to prevent the misuse of Statuta Valachorum , the military authorities started to send commissions with a task to detach , proper Vlachs from , false Vlachs , private Vlachs , refugees , locals and others on the Slavonian Border. (p.558, Marlene Kurz (ed), Das osmanische Reich und die Habsburgermonarchie This law didn't apply to Orthodox Slavs initially.--Maleschreiber (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been two months - I've added the sources. A general rule which is not followed in most articles about historical topics related to the Balkans: use WP:RS - no WP:OR - no personal readings of obscure WP:PRIMARY sources. This article is no exception. Thank you.--Maleschreiber (talk) 00:48, 13 October 2020 (UTC)