Talk:Pannonian Plain
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality. Wikipedians in Europe may be able to help! |
relevance to Kingdom of Hungary
[edit]PANONIAN wrote: Deleted statement: "This more or less includes the historical territory of the Hungarian Kingdom", because borders of Hungarian Kingdom were very different then borders of the Pannonian Plain.
- How so? They're very similar AFAICT. --Joy [shallot] 22:11, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
For Joy:
I think that you reverted this page, but you didn’t see what other changes I make in this page. I will make these changes again, except of this disputed one.
I added Ukraine as one of the countries among which is divided Pannonian Plain (I believe that this fact is not disputed, since Transcarpathia Province of Ukraine is partially located in the Pannonian Plain). I changed order of names of the countries in which is located Backa region (Most of Backa is in Serbia-Montenegro and smaller part in Hungary, so, that should be order of names here). Same thing with Banat: largest part is in Romania, then in Serbia-Montenegro and smallest part in Hungary. Largest part of Baranja is in Hungary, and the smaller one in Croatia.
- Okay. I saw those, but I didn't think anyone will mind the rollback, because you mainly changed from alphabetical sorting to another method - a fairly minor change tacked on to the main one. I'm afraid I missed the mention of Ukraine, sorry about that. --Joy [shallot]
Now, second question: "This more or less includes the historical territory of the Hungarian Kingdom". First of all, what is the meaning of the word "historical" anyway? One definition of the word history is change. So, Hungarian Kingdom had different borders in different parts of history. To what historical period this statement applies anyway? You see what is the problem if you use the word "historical". This word is not proper for this kind of use at all (Not if you do not specify exact time period to what this statement apply). If you use this terminology in this way you could to say that Bulgaria is historical territory of Turkey, for example. But I see this statement as nonsense if we do not specify exact time period in which Bulgaria was territory of Turkey.
- I agree that there were periods in history when the Hungarian kingdom didn't encompass most of the plain, however, that was mostly due to the Ottoman occupation which was eventually repelled and turned out to be transient. I'm open to suggestions as to how to rephrase it to avoid the 16th, 17th and 18th century, of course... --Joy [shallot]
Now, lets assume that you talk about borders of Hungarian Kingdom, as they were about 1900. See map: http://www.thomasgraz.net/map-H-1920.htm Now see map of the Pannonian Plain: http://lazarus.elte.hu/hun/summer.jpg I see large differences here. Hungarian Kingdom was centred in the Pannonian Plain, but it also included non-Pannonian lands, such are mountains of Transylvania (very large part of the Kingdom), and also mountains of Slovakia, Croatia and Ukraine.
- It included the surrounding mountains, but they were relatively small and insignificant compared to the part that was in the plain. --Joy [shallot]
On the contrary, Hungarian Kingdom didn’t include some peripheral parts of Pannonian Plain, located in Austria, Serbia-Montenegro, Slovenia and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
- I don't have the impression that the differences are large. Let's review in more detail which peripheral parts it miss: it had Burgenland more often than not, it had all of today's Vojvodina — meaning it only missed the plains on the left bank of Sava and Danube, as well as the valley of Velika Morava — and it also had Prekmurje AFAIR. --Joy [shallot]
Now, what we will do here? If these maps didn’t convince you to delete this statement (and they should to), at least you should to change the word "historical". What is your opinion?
- The sentence says "more or less" for a reason, and I believe that it's sufficiently accurate... but I wouldn't mind replacing the vague adjective "historical". I'd object to the complete removal of this note because it's rather pertinent with regard to history. --Joy [shallot] 22:28, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Ok Joy,
I still do not agree with you, since I still claim that borders of Hungarian Kingdom and borders of Pannonian Plain are not similar. However, this is not important question and I will not argue further about this with you. I will only change this statement to sound better: "This more or less includes the territory of the former Hungarian Kingdom". I will change this in the article and you are free to revert if you do not agree with this change. PANONIAN
- I've rephrased the article further, please see if this is better. --Joy [shallot] 18:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have no objections. By the way, I uploaded map of Pannonian Plain (I hope it would be acceptable). PANONIAN
"unified" and "looks more toward"
[edit]- [...] surrounded by imposing geographic boundaries that have created a fairly unified cultural area that looks more towards the south and east than to the north and west.
Can someone elaborate this? Why exactly are the Dinarides, the Balkan mountain and the Translyvanian Alps more apt for "looking" at compared to the Tatras and the eastern Alps? How is the landscape causing the area to look more toward some region, anyway? I don't quite see how this follows in this case. --Joy [shallot] 18:28, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This sentence is weird indeed. Perhaps it should be changed to sound better. PANONIAN
Difference between Pannonian Plain and Great Hungarian Plain
[edit]This difference should be dealt with in some detail, since the latter term is also mentioned in the article, although there is a concept of Alföld or Nagyalföld (Great Plain), which is only a part of the Pannonian Plain. It ends at Dunántúli-középhegység (Transdanubian mountains) and Mecsek mountain in the west (so it certainly does not include most of the Transdanubian area) and at Északi-középhegység (Northern mountains) in the north. In short, the Pannonian Plain is bigger than today's Hungary, and the Great Plain is smaller; they should not be confused. Could anyone clarify it in the article?
-Adam78 03:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The difference between the Pannonian Plain and the Carpathian Basin should also be emphasized since Pannonia itself does not include the fringe regions of the Carpathian Basin (like present-day Slovakia and Transylvania) which nevertheless belong to the same ecosystem. The Carpathian Basin itself is not only defined by the Carpathian Basin itself but also by a uniform river catchment area (the only exceptions are the rivers Olt and Dunajec). Árpád 05:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
related links with related information pov? I don't get it.
[edit]There is related information that will be useful to anyone researching this subject at the article Pannonian basin before Hungary.
User Panonian deleted this twice stating that this is "POV".
I must say, this is a new one on me. How can a "see also" link be POV?
What is the supposed "POV"? I'm just saying that this is related (and overlapping) information. The idea of wikipedia is to provide links if there are related articles, not suppress them.
I cannot for the life of me imagine what "POV" you see here. I'm not stating that the two topics are equivalent. I'm not stating anything at all. I just want to make it easier for researchers to get to related information.
ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- If you read this history section, you would know that it do not speak about history of Hungary or about time period before Magyars arrived to Hungary. It speak about ENTIRE history of the plain that belong to several countries, and if you post that link there, that imply that entire plain is Hungary, which is claim of Greater Hungarian irredentists. I hope that you understand now what is POV here. PANONIAN (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well I wasn't trying to imply anything and I'm not sure a "see also" link implies anything. It is just to help people researching the subject to find related info. But if you object, fine - I guess a clever researcher would still be able to find that other article, if they were determined enough. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 21:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- I did not said that you had intentions to imply, but that link itself imply. I suggest that you learn more about regional politics. :) PANONIAN (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Map
[edit]This article could use a map. Anybody? --AW (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Vladar86 (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Citation needed: "it is sometimes said that these fields of rich loamy loess soil could feed the whole of Europe" Who says? Ed8r (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2009 (UTC)