Talk:Pannonian Latin

No section
I have done my best in order to translate from the spanish wikipedia the "Lengua romance panona".--Paul0559 (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Reinstating the article
I am recreating this article, in accordance to Guide_to_deletion. The deletion discussion reached no consensus, two for keep, and three for redirecting, of the proposed redirections one was for Pannonia, one was for History of Romanian and one was for Keszthely culture. The first redirect was to History of Romanian but that was later changed to Keszthely culture. I disagree with both redirects, History of Romanian has very limited information on Pannonian Romance, and Keszthely culture omits the use of the language in other settlements in other parts of Pannonia, this was not a language that was used by just one single settlement. The editor who saw a consensus reached should have updated the redirect articles to include the information of the closed article. The editors that discussed if the article should be deleted, redirected or kept, had not contributed or had only contributed very little to the article. The main contributing editors of the article did not partake in the discussion. The counterpart to this article exists in five other languages Asturianu, Español, Français, Italiano and Latina. The article is missing some citations but it is not void of citations. --Alternative Transport (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * please refrain from deleting sections of this article. I am attempting to improve it and bring up to standard. Please understand that this takes time since the sources are mostly in Latin, Hungarian and German and not readily available. I suggest you take a break from deleting sections of the article and return after two weeks and if you judge, that there are un-sourced sections of the article still present, then take further action. Or I invite you to join the effort of improving the article.--Alternative Transport (talk) 15:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Do not re-add without sources. You are now on the verge of violating the WP:3RR rule. Please see WP:BRD, which I already pointed you to. Uncited material may be removed by any editor at any time. I suggest you self-revert.  Editors may choose to add cn tags, and in some instances I do, this is not one of these instances, since this article has a troubling citation history. If you revert again, I will be forced to report you, which may result in you being temporarily blocked from editing. Onel 5969  TT me 15:24, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * please be careful yourself, you have been twice on the verge of violating the WP:3RR rule, and we don't want you to be reported or temporarily blocked from editing. Thank you for engaging in the discuss part of the WP:BRD. If you engage in repeated reverts of an article and there is the danger of a edit-war breaking out, then discussing the issue on the talk page is a very good idea of how to reach a consensus. As far as I can tell you judge those parts of the article to be poorly or uncited. I would like to ask you now, here on the talk page, if you see any further issues with the article. I would really appreciate your input and thoughts and I will do my best to address them.Alternative Transport (talk) 06:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, if you understand the 3RR rule, which you apparently don't, I haven't been close. My input is for you to learn WP policies.  Like not restoring an article which has been deleted through the AfD process.  Like understanding BRD.  Like understanding WP:UNSOURCED, which states: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Especially when the article was AfD'd, in large part, due to its sourcing. The article is still in incredibly poor shape, very thinly and poorly sourced. As for engaging you in discussion, it appears to be a waste of time.  You had an opportunity to self-revert, you chose not to.  So, you've pretty much shown that discussing things with you is a waste of time. Take care.  Onel 5969  TT me 13:24, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleting sourced content
@CriticKende

Please explain why the sourced content should not be in the article? Aristeus01 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi Aristeus01
 * The map you are trying to post does not correspond to reality, among other things, it is flawed because it lists settlements with Hungarian names as " Romanian ".  I believe you once agreed not to put this map in, but it was in the Vlach article. If it was no good there, why should it be here? CriticKende (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @CriticKende because it's part and connected to the content here, while in Vlach article it was additional information. Aristeus01 (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The map is also incorrect, as settlements with Hungarian names are also called "Latins", including land that was not under Roman rule. Why would we want to put an incorrect map in the article? CriticKende (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you read the map description? It says Romanian settlements, the author considered everything with a Latin root as Romanian. The topic was debated among others by Kniesza and Madgearu who (both) showed that although many of the names are of Latin origin, the likelihood is that Pannonian names are derived from...Pannonian Romance. Hence the relevance. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pannonian_Romance&diff=prev&oldid=1170495794
 * That is a clearly fake map that before Hungary in the Avar-Slavic times and in the full Hungarian kingdom, Croatia… it was allegeldy hundreds of Romanian settlements between 800-1400, even more settlement marked in the map as Romanian in west Hungary even today Austria, Slovakia than in Transylvania… :)
 * That 100 year old fake map was already discussed here, where clear Hungarian words and Hungarian conqueror names marked as “Romanian toponym”:
 * Talk:Vlachs/Archive 2
 * Legend of the map: ”Italics: toponyms of Romanian origin. Straight: foreign words found also in Romanian, not precisely located, or interesting for the research.”
 * Which means not only the map is fake but the provided caption also wrong. Provided caption: “Romanian settlements 800-1400” But the original map says that ONLY the names with italcs fonts are the allegedly “toponyms of Romanian origin”. So the provided description is wrong which is falsely pretend that hundred of ALL marked settlements in the map would be “Romanian settlements” between that 600 years long period. However the original map says only the italic settlements are just Romanian toponyms and not “Romanian settlements” all not at all all of them.
 * This is 3 history falsifications together which target mostly the Hungarian history. That remember the hardcore Romanian national communist times:
 * The national-communist dictator Ceaucescu celebrated the 2050th anniversary of the state of Romania in 1980 in North Korea style :D Fake map: Dacia! in the 9-13th century [11 ] Example fake map from 1980s from the national-communist times, Romania 9-13th century: [10 ] If we see international Europe maps, we will not find this "Dacia/Romania" country in the historical maps of Europe: [11][12 ][13]
 * What is the "Romanian" history of those hundred of marked settlements on the map outside this map? What is the historical base of Romanian settlements for example in Austria? If there is no historical base, the map is fringe and it is a bad faith edit to push this more times to articles.
 * And the other problem with the map is the disputed origin of the Romanians who were called Vlachs before 20th century. How possible that nobody knew about any Romanians between 800-1200 in the region in that huge 500,000km2 area if there were allegedly hundred of Romanian settlements 600 years long in that huge area as the 100 years old fantasy fake map suggest it? Morover the marked region is not only the present day Romania but much more. What next? Austria, England, France will be marked as Romanian settlements because half of Europe was part of the Roman empire?
 * British historian, Martyn Rady
 * "During the late twelfth century, however, the balance of forces on the Danube changed. The nomadic Cumans commenced not only a series of irruptions into both Hungarian and Byzantine territory, but also participated in the Bulgarian revolt, which led to the reestablishment of the Bulgarian empire and to the subsequent loss of the Greek forts on the Lower Danube. Around this time too, Cumans began to settle in large numbers east of the River Olt in the area which would later be known as Cumania. Just a little later, Vlach chieftains are first recorded in this region. A number of these and of their successors bore such Turkic names as Karapeh and Bazarab, while the toponymy of some of the earliest and most densely populated areas of Romanian settlement shows strong evidence of Cuman place-names. All this suggests an early Romanian symbiosis with the Cumans and points to a possible Cuman role in establishing the first Romanian political organizations."
 * "The sources consistently refer to Wallachia as being a largely uninhabited woodland before the thirteenth century, and, until this time, they contain no explicit references to Vlachs either here or anywhere in Hungary and Transylvania."
 * OrionNimrod (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What that has to do with anything? Draganu's research was done 20 years before communism, the author is cited in other articles so a RS, although old, and as faulty as it may be, is quoted and discussed by many authors: Rosetti, Kniezsa, Madgearu and others. It links with the Pannonina Romance topic and the text clearly said that and Romanian's in Czech and Slovak territories after the 13th century, so why not use that source? Aristeus01 (talk) 16:36, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * What is the historical basement to claim that hundred of settlements in the Hungarian kingdom were “Romanian settlements” in 800-1400? Only this map would be the evidence for itself???
 * Why do you falsify deliberately the description of the map which does not say “Romanian settlements” and only the italics settlements are marked as allegedly “Romanian toponyms”?
 * Why many pure Hungarian names, words, marked as Romanian toponyms as discussed earlier? Perhaps “békés” (peacefull in Hungarian) or “Csaba” (person in Hungarian legends) or together “Békéscsaba” would be Romanian? Or “Torda” (persons in medieval Hungarian legends)? Perhaps “Gyula” (9th-10th century Hungarian tribal leaders, rank) would be Romanian toponym? Or “fekete” (black in Hungarian), “erdő” (forest in Hungarian), “sziget” (island in Hungarian), “alma” (apple in Hungarian), or “hajdu” (17th century Hungarian military) would be Romanian words? "Érsek-Újvár"[4] it was called Oláh-Újvár only in the 16th century, the second phase of the castle development was under the reign of the Hungarian-Romanian archbishop Nicolaus Olahus, it named "érsek"="archbishop", so Hungarians named it after one significant person from 1500s, even this origin is not in the marked 800-1400 timeframe, but it does not mean that this settlement name is a Romanian toponym or this settlement was a “Romanian settlement” because of that reason of the renaming. It is clear the map is not correct and not related to the topic.
 * I see settlement dates on the map: 1200s, 1300s, 1400s… which are the allegedly“Romanian settlements” before and between 800-1200? And what is the historical basement?
 * What is the business the 5-6th century Pannonian Romance with the 13th century Vlach settlements in today’s Czech and Slovak territory (not Pannonia) due of the late medieal Vlach migration? Probably the establishment of some late medieval settlements are connected to the Vlach migration in north mountainous part of thr kingdom of Hungary which are marked as Romanian toponym in the map but I do not know what is their connection with the Pannonian Romance topic 1000 years earlier and in a different territory.
 * Romanian settlements in Austria? Historical basement of the map? Tell me please about the history of “Romanian settlements” in Austria and in Transdanubia between 800-1400 outside this map. OrionNimrod (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @OrionNimrod what's the source for such baseless accusations? Are you having difficulties, as a professional artist, reading the description of the image? Does it not say "Romanian settlements"? How would you translate "Românii în veacurile..." Does it not imply settlement since the toponyms are mostly about settlements that the author identified? Yesterday we had difficulties recognising an Old West Turkic word, today we are teaching etymology?
 * How can we see falsification here but not where edits were made especially regarding the alleged connection between Conquerors and Avars? Does the straight line bend and a curved line runs straight? And not only Avars, but others as well, all great warrior nations, but not the Bashkirs whom they shared most DNA... speaking of fantasies, Pirates of the Caribbean, while writing 50 shades of Turanism.
 * Instead, you should tell us how is it that the alleged DNA similarities did not stack but on the contrary, they got diluted to a 1% from an initial 38%, despite all that gathering of birds of a feather? Perhaps you also have a keen understanding of Romance languages and their history you want to apply to the study debated here? On a second thought, better not, because by the logic displayed it would probably look like Dacians were related to Romans, and the Romans knew exactly where to colonise in the area before they even reached the Danube. Aristeus01 (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aristeus01,
 * "baseless accusations?" Do you say that 100 years old map and that fantasy caption by you is accepted by all international modern historians that hundred of marked settlements there in the medieval Hungarian state were "Romanian settlements" between 800-1400? :D
 * Please tell me the Romanian history of the allegedly "Romanian settlement" (by you) Érsekújvár/Nové Zámky between 800-1400 which is in today Slovakia?
 * Please tell me the Romanian history of the allegedly "Romanian settlement" (by you) Felsőpulya/Oberpullendorf between 800-1400 which is in today Austria? OrionNimrod (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @OrionNimrod
 * I see you're having some difficulties understanding maps. It's important to read the "Legend" first. Also, please note that in documents like this brackets are used to add more info or specify a timeframe or the exact date associated with the location. For example the Érsekújvár, written as Érsek-újvár has additional information (Olah-újvár) and (sXV-XVI). The first bracket contains an alternative name, the second the period when it was documented. Reading a map correctly will help you ask correct questions. Unfortunately, the ones you asked are not.
 * Based on this, I suggest going back to primary history and try to fill some of the gaps that are missing from your basic training. Unfortunately Wikipedia is not the right place to do this, and spreading fringe theories like the "double-conquest" across multiple articles, as you did, is not ok. Please read the rules of editing and don't be afraid to ask questions (as long as you read the bracket information as well) - see what I did here? There's no stupid questions here really (except perhaps for the ones you just asked). Oh no, I just can't stop doing it. Anyway, I hope you learned something today (16th of August 2023) :D Aristeus01 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Madgearu (relevant pages BTW: 78, 79) says "only some of the names discussed by N. Drăganu were indeed of Romanian origin". I randomly looked at many of the emphasized Transdanubian settlement names in my etymological dictionary and indeed, they aren't connected to Romanian or Latin. Drăganu's map is fringe and outdated. Madgearu then mentions a few names unrelated to Drăganu's research he thinks are of Latin origin, noting that these "could be inherited from the Romance Pannonian population". Therefore, I believe File:Romanian settlements, 9th-14th Century.jpg has no business here. Gyalu22 (talk) 08:24, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aristeus01
 * 1.
 * "Romanian settlements" means Romanian settlements. Berlin is a German settlement, Budapest is a Hungarian settlement, Bucharest a Romanian settlement. It is very clear.
 * Constantinople/Istanbul had Roman, Greek citizens, well documented Roman, Byzantine history so we could call it "as a Byzantine settlement in 1000-1400" or "as a Roman settlement in 3rd century" and today as Turkish settlement. Königsberg/Kaliningrad was a German settlement with well documented German history, today it is a Russian settlement, like Oradea/Nagyvárad was a Hungarian settlement before 1920, today is a Romanian settlement with Romanian history and history of Hungarian there.
 * Do you say that Érsekújvár/Nové Zámky in today Slovakia was a Romanian settlement between 15-16th century (1400-1600)? Please tell me more about it, tell the Romanian history of that settlement. By the way what is the business with this with the early medieval Pannonian Romance article?
 * If you state that all marked settlements were "Romanian settlements" in your map, it should all of have Romanian history, so I ask again:
 * Please tell me the Romanian history of the allegedly "Romanian settlement" (by you) Felsőpulya/Oberpullendorf between 800-1400 which is in today Austria?
 * Please tell me the Romanian history of the allegedly "Romanian settlement" (by you) Szőlősardó (which means grape-barrel in Hungarian as it locates in a winemaker area) between 800-1400?
 * Please tell me the Romanian history of the allegedly "Romanian settlement" (by you) Thurzovölgy (which means Thurzó-valley in Hungarian) between 800-1400?
 * Even your sourced Madgerau disqualify that map "It has been pointed out that many of the interpretations put forward by Draganu are not plausible, because some names were certainly of other origin than the Romanian one." "Only some of the names discussed by N. Draganu were indeed of Romanian origin." 
 * 2.
 * Double conquest theory: The old Bulgarians assimilated among Slavs, so the theory developed as explanation why the smaller Hungarian elite than the locals did not lost their language. It says the Onogurs came around 670 who spoke Hungarian then Arpad's Hungarians around 895. That is why the "double-conquest" name. Sorry, but I do not remember that I ever sourced Gyula László or put anywhere the Hungarians conquested the Carpathian Basin in 670 then in 895. It has supporters and refusers like everything in the Hungarian prehistory.
 * As sources (example: converted Christian Avars in Pannonia in Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum in 870 as the taxpayers of the Franks) and archeology attest, it is clear the Carpathian Basin was not empty and there were Avar survivors when Arpad arrived. So not in 670! as the double conquest theory say, but in the time of Arpad. The Avars did not evaporate (Or do you say all Avars were dead after 822 when Avar Khagante collapsed after 250 years? However imagining hundred of Romanian settlements in the same place in that time, and be strong advocate of the disputed Daco-Roman theory which say "always majority Romanian population in 500,000 km2 area" without contemporary sources, you are not so critical in this case :D 1 2). My family's DNA also have many Avar sample matches (among huge sample matches with all other previous ancient locals from all timeline) which also proves the local Avars did not evaporated. Even the Hungarian royal DNA has Avar sample matches: (How interesting, the linked site depicts the Hungarian conqueros as classic way not as you want force with 19th century, reed huts, sheeps, betyars, and dogs as clearly a bad faith edit)
 * It is cleary not the double conquest theory that saying the Hungarian conquerors of Arpad assimilated all kind of locals in the Carpathian Basin. This would be the Turanism? :D Honestly I start to think that you are a Turanist as you boost 19th century 3000km far Bashkirs all the time an unrealated way in medieval Hungarian topics to make some Turkic commonwealth. This is an interesting cherry-picking, because I bet you would not like to present the other genetic kinship (not a complete identity!) of old Hungarians example to the Scythians, Sarmatians and Huns as it was attested in the genetic studies and old sources. Even you deny that the local surviving Avar groups assimilated in the newly established Hungarian state. You carefully removed this sourced from here by international team 2021: "During the conquest, Hungarian invaders, together with Turkic-speaking Kabars assimilated the Avars and Slavonic group" During the conquest (895) not during the double-counquest! OrionNimrod (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @OrionNimrod
 * I'm not going to make a synthesis for every place on the map you want. All the answers to that are here.
 * If you weren't rushing to scream fringe and national-communists, and actually took the time to read the edit you would've seen I wrote the same things as you quote from Madgearu. But hey, better rush to scream than actually listen and read, no? What the map linked to is the quote from Madgearu about Pannonian Latin names like Aqua, Zala etc. Although that is just a scholarly opinion, if it is true the research done by Draganu will pop up on this article and elsewhere as a starting point for investigation of Latin-based toponymy, either you like it or not. All this talk about how I say that's true and an attack on Hungarians is your invention, typical ad Hominem, and typical political propaganda.
 * Double-conquest theory or not we cannot present one edit as supported by the source when it is not. So when you said "According to the genetic evidence, there is a genetic continuity from the Bronze Age, a continuous migration of the Steppe folks from east to the Carpathian Basin" and added the web news as source, but ignored Oxford published studies and many other respectable publications, that was fringe. I guarantee you I will be looking out for edits like this and won't let errors like these be committed anymore. And then you come up with the same boring story how Romanians (xenophobic a bit?) write fringe things and the continuity theory is wrong and so on and so on, is the irony here really failing?
 * All in all, although you do not follow the double-conquest theory ad litteram, this "continuity" thesis is just a remix of it, with heavy political undertones.
 * You have Avar genes? Amazing. I am a direct descendant of Attila since I have N mtDNA. Perhaps you should donate your skull to research and pump up that similarity between the Avar- and Conquest-period skeletal material to a whooping 4.5manyzeros1%.
 * "Revisited in this study is a theory proposed some half a century ago. Although seemingly no longer of any relevance, not merely because of the many decades that have elapsed since, but rather because Gyula László’s theory was, with a few exceptions, virtually ignored and received with tacit dismissal in Hungarian archaeological scholarship at the time, while the international archaeological community was largely unaware of it owing to the language of the publications. Yet, this national-romantic theory continues to resonate in Hungary, even though its historical, archaeological, linguistic and physical anthropological assertions were neither accepted, nor acceptable at the time" - Csanád Bálint
 * So really, it's just romantic-nationalism, although in some cases it takes the form of ethno-nationalism.
 * And finally, how in the name of Aristotle, do you justify this:
 * "According to one theory the Hungarian conquerors together with the Turkic-speaking Kabars integrated the Avars and Onoghurs. "
 * as this:
 * "During the conquest, Hungarian invaders, together with Turkic-speaking Kabars assimilated the Avars and Slavonic group"
 * Just a minute before you were pretending the double-conquest is about Onogurs and your edits are not about that and now you claim I was wrong to remove it although the source says Slavonic? How can you justify this, please tell??
 * Don't get me wrong, I don't think you're a bad editor, but really you should find a better political stance than whatever mumbo-jambo this contemporary Hungarian "elites" are promoting and let go of this turanist-double-conquest-continuity melange, for the sake of objectivity. And if you can't, don't bring it here. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aristeus01,
 * 1
 * I see you have a selective reading, the international modern source also have this: " A few decades after the collapse of the Avar Khaganate (c. 822 AD), Álmos and his son Árpád conquered the Carpathian Basin (c. 862–895 AD). During the conquest, it is suggested that Hungarian conquerers, together with Turkic-speaking Kabars, assimilated Avars and Slavonic groups. Moreover, it is suggested that Hungarian conquerers together with the Turkic-speaking Kabars moved in and integrated the “Avar” (including Onoghurs, Proto-Hungarians etc.) people."
 * That is nothing do with double conquest theory, but I see you do not know what is that theory. The source talk about the Hungarian conquest and the assimilation of previous locals after the conquest. I did not say or write to articles that "the 1st Hungarians conquerors were the Hungarian speaking Onogurs in 670" :D
 * Btw for me the first sentence Avars with Slavs is ok, because the Onogurs arrived in 670 and they probably assimilated already in the Avars long before Arpad.
 * Many Hungarians has (I saw many) sample matches with Avar samples and Hungarian conquerors samples also, shared genoms with King Ladislaus I, Bela III (linked genetic study: " most of the King’s genetic ancestry is shared with present-day Croatians and Hungarians.", this could not mean only direct ancestry :D (your cousin has sample matches with you) As I said just in 10 generations (circa 300 years) everybody has 1024 great grandparents, and all previous people mixed in the same place. What is so suprising in this? Like today Hungarian genetic is not the same as Hungarians 1200 years ago, because the centuries long mixing with others. Btw I have 6 different Hungarian DNA samples from 6 different persons, all of them has significant shared genomes with Hungarian royals, but this does not mean direct ancestry, maybe that shared genomes came from a common ancestor 2000 years ago, I also have shared genomes with Hunyadi family :) This is the result if thousands of ancestors are mixing in the same place. The world's archeogenetic database is growing constantly and all analysed archeo samples go into that database, we will be more smarter 10-20 years ago as we will have more samples. As a Hungarian, in my personal genetic test I have a very significant genetic sample matches and shared genomed with many folks from the Carpathian Basin from all time period. Before Hungary I have genetic sample matches from the Carpathian Basin: Early medieval samples, Avar samples, Frank samples, White Croats, Gothic samples, Gepid samples, Sarmatian samples, Hun samples, Late Roman period samples, Roman period samples, many Iron Age samples, Iron Age Vekerzug culture, Celtic samples, Pre-Scythian samples, Scythian samples, Bronze Age samples, Bronze Age Maros culture, Copper Age samples, Proto Thracian, Illyrian samples. Please consult to the DNA database and the DNA company that you do not like this. I cannot do anything as a Hungarian surprisingly I have no sample matches with archeo Japanese and African samples but with local archeo samples and just with other European and Eurasian sample matches :D But anyway this is just a personal example as explanation I do not want to put in articles.
 * I also linked a genetic study which show sample matches between local Avar and Hungarian royal sample. Please blame the authors that you do not like that result. Also this is the other linked genetic study of the Hungarian king (however we have more studies since): "Such eastern Eurasian-related Y-chromosomes could, however, been also acquired locally, since three elite military individuals from the Hun and the Early Avar period have been recently found belonging to the same overarching hg R1a1a1b2-Z93"
 * "According to the genetic evidence, there is a genetic continuity from the Bronze Age, a continuous migration of the Steppe folks from east to the Carpathian Basin" Btw what is fringe in that? We know well many folks migrated to the Carpathian Basin from the steppe, Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Iazyges, Alans, Goths, Gepids, Avars, Hungarians, Cumans, Pechenegs etc and all of them gave genetic footprints. Do you imagine a pure untouched genetic or what? That info is from the Hungarian Research Institute who made the genetic tests which was published in the most respected scientific journals with hard supervision process. Published in Heliyon in open format to get available free for every researcher. Heliyon is a very prestigious Q1 ranked journal, a top ranked journal where only 17% of the articles are accepted. Btw the linked genetic test say similar: "Furthermore, during the Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age transition the “steppe” ancestry spread throughout Hungary providing the third genetic component present in most Europeans today" About the Bashkirs and King Bela dna shows a 2000 years distant relation: "Nagy et al. reported the Y chromosome sequence of Bela III and found the lineage traced to the region centering near Northern Afghanistan about 4500 years ago and the present-day Bashkirs were his closest paternal kin with a separation date about 2000 years ago"
 * Csanád Bálint refers to anthropology not to genetics. All Hungarian historians has many different views and they do not agree each other in many things, especially in the Hungarian prehistory. It is not a surprising. Just you cherry picked one based on your personal preference. Genetic studies revealed the Hungarian conqueros were a very diverse group.
 * 2
 * "quote from Madgearu about Pannonian Latin names like Aqua, Zala etc." I do not doubt there are Latin origin names, it is very logical it should be, I doubt those words would be Romanian words in Pannonia instead of just Latins. Btw there are a map in the András Mócsy book about them, and he consider even the Latin names as ancient names. Refering to my genetic example the natives always mixed with others and peoples did not evaporate, it is not a surprising that ancient toponyms always survived in the new generations. Your map was disqualify by Madgearu and Kinezsa. Why should we put if only some names are really Romanian toponyms there among the hundred of listed name? OrionNimrod (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Aristeus01
 * Just I am reading this 2023 genetic study: The archaeogenomic validation of Saint Ladislaus’ relic provides insights into the Árpád dynasty’s genealogy
 * Please take a relax pill, I read this:
 * The first appearance of R-Z2125 in the Carpathian Basin was detected in 5th-century-CE European Huns (Maróti et al., 2022), and 7the8th-century-CE Avars (Maróti et al., 2022), but it also arrived with the conquering Hungarians in the 9the10th century (Neparáczki et al., 2019; Maróti et al., 2022), including Árpád and his family (Nagy et al., 2021). Based on Y-STR markers, a previous study suggested phylogenetic connection between the Árpád house and a Xiongnu elite family (Keyser et al., 2021), supporting the mythical Hun origin of the dynasty The genomic analyses of the royal family members are in line with the reported conquering Hungarian-Hun origin of the dynasty in harmony with their Y-chromosomal phylogenetic connections. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I'll survive these devastating news.
 * It seems the distribution of R-Z2124 and subclades is already well covered by studies and Wiki articles. Perhaps the associated studies might interest you. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems the distribution of R-Z2124 and subclades is already well covered by studies and Wiki articles. Perhaps the associated studies might interest you. Aristeus01 (talk) 12:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Establishment
Hi Gyalu22, I see you edited more Pannonian Roman things before. Could you check which establishment is the correct? The link provided byAristeus01 says 10, the parent article says 20 and in this article we can see even 40… OrionNimrod (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a good question. Until Augustus, the Illyrian-Pannonian frontier was considered relatively less important and only slow progress was made towards the Danube for a very long time. The Romans became more aggressive from 35 BC and surely dealt with all tribal resistance by 9 BC. However, new conquests always went to the province they were connected to. (For example Caesar's cleansing of Gaul resulted in its whole aristocracy being replaced with friendly guys by 50 BC, but it was only made into provinces in 27 BC; until then tied to Gallia Narbonensis.) The exact year when Pannonia was separated from Illyricum is uncertain. In most sources that say one it's 10 AD, but guessings go as far as 20. So if we want a definite number the best option is 10. Gyalu22 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

What is this article about?
It is supposedly about a language, but it looks like a coat rack for a bunch of other stuff. Srnec (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a good question. If you go back a lot, this topic was a very strange and almost unsourced and fringe, even talk about Pannonian Romance during the Mongol invasion in 1241 with 80% destruction, however in reality Pannonia region (Transdanubia) was the less affected by that invasion https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pannonian_Romance&diff=prev&oldid=914580246
 * I think we just started to focus to the history of Pannonia and the history of the Roman population there and post Roman things like the Keszthely culture. There is a big book about this:  Mócsy, András: Pannonia and Upper Moesia – A history of the Middle Danube Provinces of the Roman Empire. (I added today a lot of contents from this book, however regarding the Keszthely things it could be outdated that section as  this scholar pov is from 1974 and we can see other theories)
 * We have a separate Roman, Hun, Gepid, Goth, Lombard, Avar, then Hungarian history article regarding the history of the region. We can see there are transitions between the populations because Pannonian Romans lived on more periods, Roman time, Goth time, Hun time... of Pannonia.
 * Do you have any suggestion? Talking only about the language? About certain Latin toponym or Latin toponyms based on ancient toponyms which moved to Hungarian language? Split the sections, history of Romance people and the language below?
 * Merge the history to the Keszthely culture and to Roman pannonia?
 * Btw I found a detailed German wiki about this: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binnenkastell_Keszthely-Fen%C3%A9kpuszta
 * I suggest to rename the article Pannonian Romance population. This could cover all things, previous and middle ages history and even the language things of them.
 * Or should we make 2 separate articles?
 * This is a big book “the Latin language history of Pannonia”
 * https://books.google.hu/books/about/Pannonia_latin_nyelvt%C3%B6rt%C3%A9nete.html?id=dieBtgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y OrionNimrod (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi @Srnec
 * It's supposed to be about the language, as the name clearly states. Unfortunately, due to scarcity of sources and perhaps some limits in making a distinction between archaeological cultures and diachronic linguistic analysis, it seems to gravitate towards a forked version of Keszthely culture article.
 * As @OrionNimrod pointed earlier, there are some good sources for the Latin language spoken in the province/area (unfortunately they do not seem to be available in English, so I'm making slow progress reading and adding them). The real question here, in my opinion, is if this Latin transitioned to a Romance language (even one in a very early stage of development) or not? I don't think it is very academic of us to postulate it's existence as a Romance language of its own right at this stage (and judging on the previous discussions this has been the main debate around the article). However, we can bypass for now by presenting the particularities of the local Vulgar Latin, which is attested, and present the theories regarding its state after the 4th century.
 * Although I'm fairly inclined at this stage to say we might be working towards a dead end, I do not have a complete overview of the subject and until I comb more books and articles about it, I do not want to dismiss it altogether as a fringe topic.
 * Please share your thoughts. Aristeus01 (talk) 04:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the name of the article is misleading “Pannonian Romance” because it could refer both to the Pannonian Romance people (as we can see even the old version also focused more to the history of the people than language) and the Pannonian Romance language, you can see all other language articles clearly name the article as “language”:
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_language
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_language
 * https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_language OrionNimrod (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There were no "Pannonian Romance people", only Pannonian Romance-speaking people. "Romance" is a category including languages like French, Spanish and the extinct Pannonian Romance that didn't live to be a modern language. Gyalu22 (talk) 07:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Srnec @OrionNimrod @Aristeus01
 * Pannonia latin nyelvtörténete by Bence Fehér is a very good book on the language that - from archaeological finds - infers how it looked like in detail. Unfortunately, I don't have it. Instead, I found works that may be very useful instead:
 * Keltischer Einfluss im Latein Pannoniens? Eine kritische Neubetrachtung [Celtic Influence in the Pannonian Latin? A critical reconsideration] https://www.academia.edu/32197002
 * A kelta nyelv hatása a pannoniai latinságra [Influence of the Celtic language on the Pannonian Latinity] https://www.academia.edu/26182566
 * The Blackwell History of the Latin Language https://www.academia.edu/7349460
 * An Inquiry Into Local Variations in Vulgar Latin: As Reflected in the Vocalism of Christian Inscriptions www.books.google.com/books?id=cdhCAAAAIAAJ
 * The Regional Diversification of Latin 200 BC - AD 600 books.google.com/books/about/The_Regional_Diversification_of_Latin_20.html
 * These authors wrote a lot about vulgar versions of Latin: Béla Adamik, Attila Gonda. Gyalu22 (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I did not read yet any book about the Pannonian Latin language (but I linked one, Bence Feher is a respected linguist), maybe the. Pannonian Latin is same as the original Latin and it had some development, a new Latin dialect during the time? I have more knowledge of the history of the region. Maybe we can split the article naming: "Pannonian Romance people" and "Pannonian Romance language", btw the "Romance" is good word for the population as many local Celts, Illyrians etc were Romanized. The Keszthely culture I think can be separate because this is just a town in a short period an uniqe thing, however the Pannonian Romance history article could mention it. OrionNimrod (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Pannonian Romance or Pannonian Latin (both of these names are used in sources) was a variant of contemporary Latin that was extant in Pannonia. It was more vulgar (managing grammatical laws loosely) and was shaped by the local tongues. The two authors I linked discuss these differences, such as the common use of -os name endings (that were more common in Celtic) instead of -us, and etc.
 * "Romance" is a linguistic term, if you don't believe me, look at https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Romance. Gyalu22 (talk) 08:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Aristeus01, the source what you used is just a introduction of the book of Bence Feher by Attila Gonda but not the original book itself http://real.mtak.hu/37591/
 * This is the original book, checking the chapters I see this is a very hardcore lingustic book in 560 pages :) https://www.regikonyvek.hu/aukcio/tetel/13-online-kortars-arveres-pannonia-latin-nyelvtortenete-karoli-egyetemi-kiado
 * other one: https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=639860
 * OrionNimrod (talk) 08:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Aristeus01 (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Romanisation
Romanisation was not an uniform phenomenon trough the Roman Empire. See for example this study for regional differences or this study for a possible time frame in Illyricum (aprox. 100 years of slow progress followed by more intense activity).

That in Pannonia there are only limited signs for 160 I can neither deny or confirm at the moment, but that it is not the case for the other provinces. Aristeus01 (talk) 07:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no deep knowledge in the topic, need more study. That was in the scource. Btw Romanization of a culture does not mean all locals will be Latin speakers, all European countries today have many cultural heritage from the Roman culture. Romanization (cultural) Here I can see this:
 * Romanization was largely effective in the western half of the empire, where native civilizations were weaker. In the Hellenized east, ancient civilizations like those of Ancient Egypt, Anatolia, The Balkans, Syria, and Palestine effectively resisted all but its most superficial effects. When the Empire was divided, the east, with mainly Greek culture, was marked by the increasing strength of specifically Greek culture and language to the detriment of the Latin language and other Romanizing influences, but its citizens continued to regard themselves as Romans.
 * While Britain certainly was Romanized, its approximation to the Roman culture seems to have been smaller than that of Gaul. The most romanized regions, as demonstrated by Dott. Bernward Tewes and Barbara Woitas of the computing center of the Catholic University Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, were Italy, the Iberian Peninsula, Gaul, southern Germany and Dalmatia. OrionNimrod (talk) 09:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Btw Romanization of a culture does not mean all locals will be Latin speakers, all European countries today have many cultural heritage from the Roman culture." - I completely agree.
 * One famous case both due to its nature and the quality of studies done on it is Roman Britain. According to most sources Romanization was comparable to mainland in Britain's Colchester and London area, while the rest of the island (under Roman rule) showed less influence, at various degrees. So there was internal differences as well as in between provinces. In any case, parallels between Romanization of the provinces are only useful to recognize patterns, not to postulate rules. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't support your edit of that sentence. We should be more careful about these academia.edu publications. History of Transylvania is a much more reliable work - having been made by very respected scientists of certain fields and strictly reviewed - so we should believe it when we find a point of divergence in their descriptions. Gyalu22 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatelly the link to the refered German study is dead. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed as well. I also strongly suspect the entry in the article to be original research based on this page of the cited source. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Original research = original research by wiki user, not researches by academic scholars. OrionNimrod (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I meant. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * There's a few good sources you can find at The Wikipedia Library. Basically none that I know will speak of Romanisation in such abrupt limits as 160 years. Romanisation is generally understood as a process of acculturation that lasted from day one until the province left the Empire.
 * For example:
 * "As a result of the Augustan frontier policy, the Romanisation process in the Rhine zone had a dynamic of its own." Jan Slofstra in Batavians and Romans on the Lower Rhine: The Romanisation of a frontier area
 * or
 * "This process was slower in Galicia than elsewhere in Iberia..." - John Nicols - Indigenous Culture and the Process of Romanization in Iberian Galicia
 * But if you are still unconvinced we can ask for neutral opinion. Aristeus01 (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Move request
All the sources call the language like that, so I'll retitle the article to "Pannonian Latin" (cf. "British Latin") if there's no reason not to. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * All of the sources do not call Pannonian Romance "Pannonian Latin". Also, your use of the British Latin article to support your move is poor support as British Latin is a dialect of Vulgar Latin while Pannonian Romance is not a dialect of any form of Latin, it is a descendent language. – Treetoes023 (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Treetoes023, thanks for joining. Please read through the cited sources: they speak of it as a vulgar dialect of Latin and call it "Pannonian Latin". Here's an example of the expression being used in an English text: . Is there any source calling it Pannonian Romance and including it in the Western Romance language family? Gyalu22 (talk) 13:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Crap, you were actually right. When I saw that you moved this article and said that this "language" was called "Pannonian Latin" in the sources used I just did a quick skim through the article's sources and saw that one of them had "Pannonian Romance" in the title and assumed you were lying. I assumed that "Pannonian Latin" was a separate language from Latin that was a part of the Western Romance branch because that is what the infobox says, I thought the infobox was right and you were wrong and not the other way around. Sorry for the mixup. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually crap again, there are articles in different languages on this topic and they all say it is a Romance language and not a dialect of Vulger Latin. This is very confusing. – Treetoes023 (talk) 18:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand now, this article is talking about the variety of Latin that was spoken in Pannonia during the reign of the Western Roman Empire, the non-English versions of this article are talking about the language that evolved from said variety of Latin after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. I think that this article should talk about the language that evolved from the Latin spoken in Pannonia like the other versions of this article do. – Treetoes023 (talk) 19:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any basis for speaking of a "Romance" distinct from "Latin" in late antique Pannonia. When Martin of Braga moved from Pannonia to Galicia in the 6th century, he almost certainly did not have to learn a new language. He just went from one Latin dialect area to another. Srnec (talk) 23:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source? – Treetoes023 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For Martin of Braga, see p. 339 in You can find this online if you look. Srnec (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I reverted the article to its pre-debate state. I'm not lying about the sources, that's why I'm telling you to look into them yourself. There's no way your version will stay if you can't directly cite sources to prove there's a scholarly consensus about each new information. And I doubt there is.
 * I confused you, but to clarify: I read lots of research on the topic and I'm making a list of relevant papers to expand the article in the future. According the them, Pannonian Latin is essentially the Vulgar Latin in Pannonia reconstructed from epitaphs that is special due to regionally common grammatical differences. The sources say the Migration Age virtually completely replaced the Antiquity population by the time of the Avar Khaganate. But of course, that's not equal to the Pannonian Latin-speakers. We don't know anything about the dialect from after the Roman retreat. No text uses it from later. So I say we can't be more exact than that it became extinct after the loss of the province. This is a correct statement anyway. Gyalu22 (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh, I'm just gonna leave this article to the people that know what they're doing (you). I only came across and edited this article because I am working on a table of extinct languages and dialects of Europe and when I saw that you moved this article I barely looked through the article and jumped to conclusions about your edits instead of looking into this article because I'm at school so I have to make quick edits in between classes, now I've caused a problem that wouldn't have happened if I wasn't so rushed. Sorry for the mess. Btw the extinction date I used was from Italian Wikipedia and it is on all of the other language versions of this article so it might have merit if you want to look into it (it could just be WP:CIRCULAR though). – Treetoes023 (talk) 14:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Treetoes023, you said "extinction in the 10th century". As a Hungarian user with deep history knowledge I can confirm have no any clue about any Latin language population in the 10th century in the territory of Hungary (Pannonia). What would be the evidences for that or sources to these claims? OrionNimrod (talk) 14:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem. Gyalu22 (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I support Pannonian Latin. Srnec (talk) 01:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For me the Pannonian Romance title was confusing, an early version of the article had mostly history of the region contents before founding Hungary which were mostly unsourced or fringe like it talked about “extinction of Romance in the 7th century” then in the next sentence “darkest time of the Pannonian romance people was the 10th century” :) so I supposed, this is an article about Pannonian Romance people, when other users edited I added many sourced contents about the migration period, battles, emigration of Romans, Roman saints, Roman ruins, just after talking with others I realized this is a language topic not a history topic and I moved those contents to related articles. I think the Pannonian Latin title is more clear for a language topic. OrionNimrod (talk) 06:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)