Talk:Pannonian Basin

This one doesn't even contain the name Pannonia. Couldn't You use something like this? https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d1/Pannoniansea_currentborders.png 94.254.181.253 (talk) 10:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Explanation for my edits:

• I have corrected the sentence which started with he basin covers all of the nation of Hungary - all nation of? It covers all nation of Slovakia as well, I have corrected that to covers all Hungary which is more correct and doesn`t have any dubious meaning. I have also added all the countries that can be seen on the map and mentioned that it covers all of Slovakia too (according to the map).
• Link fix that directed the cultural area to the culture of Hungary. As it can be seen from the map, there is much more than only one nation culture here.
• I have added the Romanian name.
• I have deleted the link toward Kingdom of Hungary in see also section because it has no relevance here, again, there is much more than only one nation history (in this case).
• I have added {Citation broken} because link number 6 is strange. Please check it. Adrian (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
• In this edit I have deleted a sentence that was a part of POV pushing. There is no culture that is created or "unified" in the Pannonian Basin and all of this nation cultures are distinct one from another. Adrian (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Removed {Citation broken} because none are broken. Yes, that footnote is odd because it is not in a European language. I removed it.GroveGuy (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, I thought it it was temporary broken or moved and that the person who added it could add the page he intended to be present. Adrian (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is the map of Pannonian/Carpathian basin only showing the "flat" part of the basin?

According to Wikipedia, citing: Drainage basin

"Other terms that are used to describe a drainage basin are catchment, catchment area, catchment basin, drainage area, river basin, water basin and watershed."

This means that the catchment part (mountains) are also part of the basin. Abdulka (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Pannonian Basin is a sedimentary basin, not a drainage basin. Adrian (talk) 09:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The map is showing the "flat" part because that is the Pannonian Basin. What are you looking for is the other article the Carpathian Basin, which well, includes the Carpathians being the main difference from the Pannonian Basin. Hobartimus (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This is all in mutual conflict, because there's also a third article for Pannonian Plain. IMHO it is silly to keep all three terms apart because there isn't enough content for three articles here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this article could easily be merged into Pannonian Plain, which also has a lot more content it seems to me. It would also make it very clear how the two terms are different, the Pannonian Plain and the Carpathian Basin. One is a "Plain" and one is named after the "Carpathian mountains" thus including a lot of mountains as well, making clear it is both larger and a different area than the plain. Hobartimus (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The trouble began with this string of anonymous unexplained edits - as usual. I'm reverting them. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I've merged all three articles. The history of the Plain article is fraught with conflict regarding the plain's extent and characteristics, and the final product is insufficiently different from the Basin to be actually properly distinct. The categories and the intl links matched almost perfectly, so this really looks like a classic superficial distinction that can be explained inline, rather than in duplicated articles. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 08:23, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this map is certainly not map of Pannonian Basin, put physical map of proposed Greater Hungary. Due to that, it should not be used here. Here is map that show actual borders of the basin: http://geophysics.geoscienceworld.org/content/vol66/issue6/images/large/66_6_1669_fig1.jpeg PANONIAN 10:20, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

PANONIAN is right in that the map of the Carpathian Basin is not the same as the Pannonian basin. Of course it's a lie that it is a "proposed map of Greater Hungary" It is a topographical map uploaded by a wikipedia editor with the comment "Topographic map of Carpathian Basin - created on the basis of Image:Europe topography map.png". There certainly may be inaccuracies in it but it never claimed to have been a Pannonian basin map, it is a map of the Carpathian Basin. Hobartimus (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a map of Greater Hungary to me to :). It is very strange for this basin to follow the exact borders of this historical political entity. According to other maps of the Basin, it should go more south than the exact borders of Vojvodina. Also it includes the exact territory of Transylvania -which the basin doesn`t :). Anyway, since there is no clear evidence about this, and this is not the subject the important thing is that this doesn`t represent the Pannonian Basin map and as such it should be removed. Also this map doesn`t follow the referenced map about this subject. Adrian (talk) 10:47, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not saying that "map of the Carpathian Basin is not the same as the Pannonian basin". What I am saying is that this map neither show "Carpathian Basin" neither "Pannonian Basin", no matter of the question are these two same thing or not. This map is original research of its uploader and there is no source that would support claim from that map that mountains of Slovakia are part of any basin (and that is just one of many inaccuracies). So, Hobartimus,do you have any source that say that mountains of Slovakia are part of the Carpathian Basin? Besides that, we already have this map of the basin which does not have accuracy problems, so why should we use two maps that showing same thing especially in the case when one of them is obviously inaccurate. PANONIAN 14:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Pannonian Basin isn't a "basin" in the strict hydrological sense. The entire Pannonian Basin is within the Danube basin, but obviously not the entire Danube basin is part of the Pannonian basin. So it is futile to draw maps of watersheds. I agree that this map gives a good impression of the extent of the basin. Perhaps it might be better to use "plain" throughout to avoid such misunderstandings. But of course, a "plain" has no strict definition either, even less so than a "basin". And google book makes clear that "Pannonian Basin" is by far the more common term than "Pannonian Plain". It is a geological or geomorphological term and is not suited for ethnic or patriotic bickering.

The Pannonian Basin is what was on the bottom of the Pannonian Sea. The Pannonian Sea lasted for 9 million years. Obviously anyone discussing a concept stretching over such time periods isn't going to bother about narrow-minded questions on which village exactly is Pannonian, which is peri-Pannonian and which is non-Pannonian. --dab (𒁳) 10:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Please STOP to make politics on Wikipedia and please STOP to call the Carpathian Basin as Great Hungary, even if the Great Hungary like other countries was in the Carpathian Basin. So, you have to choice to call the whole article as Pannonian Basin, and remove that "or" Carpathian Basin, because the two names don't match. The Carpathian Basin includes more then the Pannonian Basin. Heinrich Reinhard (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Pannonian Basin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160830065104/http://www.sgd.org.rs/publikacije/glasnik/2009_4/10_Carevic.I._e.pdf to http://www.sgd.org.rs/publikacije/glasnik/2009_4/10_Carevic.I._e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110612215835/http://www.ieed.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?flags=eygtnrl&single=1&basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpokorny&text_recno=1481&root=leiden to http://www.ieed.nl/cgi-bin/response.cgi?flags=eygtnrl&single=1&basename=%2Fdata%2Fie%2Fpokorny&text_recno=1481&root=leiden
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211073956/http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/koros/overview/arch_background/arch_background.html to http://www.anthro.fsu.edu/research/koros/overview/arch_background/arch_background.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Upon coming to this page and arriving at the Region section, I couldn't help but note that *every* country in the list was linked to its WIKI page -- except for Hungary. Each of those links were removed (if they ever existed) by someone clearly harboring some sort of bias against the country. This is my first Talk comment ever, but I wanted to make a note of what I found and corrected. People who spend their time doing these types of petty link removals clearly need their editing privileges revoked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilona.Meagher (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Hungary is clearly linked in the lede. 50.111.18.139 (talk) 21:40, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Should these sections be combined into one? They both seem to contain appropriate information for a Geography section, though the first, shorter section is missing some citations. Helenofbrooklyn (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Please be aware of this fact & POV-pushing. See excellent Hungarian source (Péter Balogh, 2021).

The internationally primary term must come first.

Preference should be given to newer & online-accessible sources.

"Carpathian Basin", as a mainly Hungarian geopolitical term, tends to sometimes include areas otherwise left out, such as the Transylvanian Plateau. This complicates the definition and makes the whole article less useful, as the area of reference becomes less well-defined. Arminden (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I came across it in a Romanian article. Not touched upon here. Again, geogr. boundaries must be clarified first, and then - the local prehistoric cultures. Arminden (talk) 15:25, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The Hungarian irredentist angle tarnishes everything, since one doesn't get a clear definition of the basin. Hungarian concept covers several additional areas mostly seen by others as separate. It's abs. legit to mention the particularist views as such, but the mainstream concept must be defined first and as sharply as possible. Otherwise all this becomes an exercise in futility, if not worse. Arminden (talk) 15:31, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

In Romania there seems to be a clear view that Pannonian Basin and Carpathian Basin are NOT the same. The lead here states the opposite. Mess. Arminden (talk) 16:43, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

The Great Hungarian plain was not part of Ancient Roman province Pannonia. Eastern and Nnrthern borders of Pannonia was the Danube river. You need only a working eyeball or better glasses to compare/check the ancient Pannonia and modern territory maps.

You can find references that territory A is part territory "B" but you can not have references about thing A is not part of thing "B" etc..., so you can not prove that with references in most cases. For example: I can not prove with references that Germany is not located in the USA. You can have reference, that Germany located on the European continent, but you can not prove that European continent is not part of the American continent. It is obvious and based on commonsense and logic, but you can not prove even such basic things with secondary sources/references !

Somebody made a troll map about modern Hungary and inserted it to this article.

Here is the link of the troll map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Carpathian_Basin-Pannonian_Basin.jpg

Here is the real Topographic map with names: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Geographical-location-and-topography-of-Hungary-the-numbers-are-northern-latitudes-and_fig1_228468127

70-80 % of Transdanubia (the only part of Roman province Pannonia in present-day Hungary) is not even a PLAIN !

Watch detailed Pure topographic map:

https://media.istockphoto.com/id/1453140664/photo/hungary-topographic-relief-map-3d-render.jpg?s=612x612&w=0&k=20&c=tgjCwNPwTuPD59BLxsPfrCtHRvqLDaMy-BRInH9FfQI=

The Transdanubian mountains on the troll map states, that it ends at the Ukrainian borders, in the reality its easternmost mountain/hills are the hills located in Western parts of Budapest. its inaccuracy is about 250km !

The troll map also states the Lake Balaton located on the Great Hungarian plain, which is also utterly false. Also states thar the great plain started in Eastern Zala county... another 230 km inaccuracy.

Hungary is not a Russia- sized country, thus such errors/inaccuracy can be considered as enormous !

--Countler (talk) 18:45, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Countler. Please, a bit calmer. You need to explain your edits. Until now I had the impression that you are rather on the Hungarian irredentist side of the dispute. Now I see you're on the opposite side. It says something about how you communicate - and yes, maybe also of me jumping to conclusions. But taking sides is what I'm trying to fight against first and foremost, no matter what side!

Pls explain why you are so sure that Hungarian geographers and historians, who are the ones using the term, don't present the Pannonian Basin being exactly there where the map you threw out twice shows it is? That's what matters: what is usually meant by the term by those who use it most. Only secondarily can you then discuss why this term is polluted by irredentist considerations or other agendas, which are opposed by some, or by international norms, or whatever. Pushed to the limit, it's like discussing the "Final Solution" while avoiding to say what the Nazis meant by it because it's criminal and defies logic. See what I mean?

Also, the argument that the name Pannonian Basin comes from the Roman province of Pannonia implies that only territories inside that Roman province may be subsumed to this modern term, Pannonian Basin, is thoroughly illogical and wrong. That's a hugely common phenomenon, of gradual or even sudden extension/contraction/modification of meaning of an old toponym. Fighting it doesn't stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

You're more than welcome to add to the caption, based on sources, "as supported by X or Y". That's a valuable information! Deletion is not.

Your comment that "Hungary is not a Russia-sized country", in bold, is the perfect proof that you have utterly misunderstood the point: those who use the term Pannonian Basin claim that they would never openly equate it with modern Hungary! Your comment is neither here not there: it's beyond the point. What they are indeed claiming is that ethnogenesis is dictated and conditioned by geography, and use that argument in an irredendist manner. The distinction is obvious and huge. And one can even agree that a geographical unit (what that "unit" is being very debatable) served as cradle, or "cultural birth space", to an ethnos, without agreeing even remotely that it all therefore logically belongs to that ethnos alone, and even less that it should be part of one single modern nation state.

So please, clarify this, understand the opposing arguments, and only after reaching some consensus, if still needed, go ahead and edit. But not in spite of everyone else. Thank you! Cheers, Arminden (talk) 15:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I stand on the side of actual geography. I have shown that the term Pannonian Basin is inaccurate when used for the entire Carpathian Basin. I demonstrated that the eastern and northern borders of ancient Pannonia were defined by the Danube River itself. Therefore, it did not include the Great Hungarian Plain.

Labeling others as irredentist (or using similar terms) is meaningless in a rational discussion among adults.

According to etymology (https://www.etymonline.com/search?q=irredentism

irredentism is older than Nazism and older than the birthday of Hitler. So why try to confuse the term with Nazism? Romanians were called irredentists before World War I. Italians were called irredentists by the Habsburgs. The French were labeled irredentists by Imperial Germany regarding Alsace–Lorraine before World War I. It all depends on context and point of view. The word is considered extremely negative today in Romania, Slovakia, and Serbia (the former Little Entente countries), but this is a regional phenomenon.

I do not want to waste more words on political theories.

Let us return to physical reality — namely, geography. Countler (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks.

"I have shown that the term Pannonian Basin is inaccurate when used for the entire Carpathian Basin."

There's nothing there to demonstrate, 1) we need to present a term which is notable, it's not our job (or within our power) to cancel it, we just can't, and 2) the topic had been already covered in the article. Btw, you're knocking on open doors with me. Still, there are counter-arguments, supported by intelligent and well-read debaters, and they need to be addressed with care and rationally.

"I demonstrated that the eastern and northern borders of ancient Pannonia were defined by the Danube River itself."

Again: you've demonstrated that the wheel is round. There was nothing there to demonstrate, that's a simple and unopposed fact. The only point woth making, which I have stressed very pointedly but you didn't react to it, is that there is NEVER a need to preserve the exact meaning of an ancient toponym when its meaning evolves organically, nor when it's being abruptly recycled; sometimes the contrary may be true, see the Romanian nationalist fixation with Dacia (Cluj becoming Cluj-Napoca etc.). That is a meaningless, moot argument. What is NOT meaningless is the struggle against nationalist philosophies, and those usually are irredentist in nature.

If you don't understand my arguments I'll give up trying. I've already said it as well & clearly as I can, sorry. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 00:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we need references as proofs even for the shape of Earth. We should prove with references that it is not flat.

A historically inaccurate statement was made when you called the concept of irredentism as nazi, despite irredentism is much older concept than Nazism. Irredentist countries as pre-WW1 Italy, pre-WW1 Serbia, pre-WW1 Romania, and the pre-WW1 French Third Republic were not Nazis.--Countler (talk) 05:39, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Here we have a huge goulash mix, totally unencyclopaedic, unhelpful, and misleading. Arminden (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

Carpathian Basin’ designates a well-defined geomorphological unit; by contrast, ‘Pannonian Basin’ inherits the name of a relatively small Roman province whose historical limits never encompassed the majority of the region. The absurdity would be obvious: A fitting analogy would be to call all of modern Poland ‘Bohemia’ on the grounds that the Romans once applied that name to what is now the Czech Republic—despite Poland being roughly five times larger. The geographical inaccuracy in the latter case mirrors the imprecision inherent in extending the ancient Pannonian label to the entire basin.

That’s precisely the level of accuracy involved when people try to force the vast Carpathian Basin into the narrow costume of ancient Pannonia.--Countler (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

It's here. Arminden (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

The term Karpatenbecken—German for Carpathian Basin—is much more than a purely geomorphological designation. In German-language geographic, historical, and cultural scholarship, it has carried profound political, cultural, and identity-laden meanings. While today scholars may often use Pannonisches Becken or Pannonische Tiefebene, the use of Karpatenbecken in German academic discourse had particular weight in the interwar and pre‑World War II era, however the term is still in wide spread use in German geographic literature.

See Google Books results for Karpatenbecken: https://www.google.com/search?udm=36&q=Karpatenbecken

The Carpathian Basin (Karpatenbecken) as a geographical notion emerged in Central European scientific literature in the early 20th century. According to Gaudenyi and Mihajlović, the term was first introduced in geographical writings in 1921, and later—after further clarifications—its usage as a physico-geographical entity became more standardized.--Countler (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Carpathian_Basin-Pannonian_Basin.jpg

This map should be removed.

Weird statements of the map:

1. Nobody know in Hungary that the Great Hungarian plain lies on great lake (named Balaton). The great plain had nothing to do with lake Balaton.

2. Nobody know that Zala county is located on the great plan, but it lies 250 km further. (enormous inaccuracy)

3. Everybody knows that Transdanubia is bordered from the north and east by the Danube river.

Despite of this, he invent a term Transdanubian mountains, with goes across the Danube, and reach the Ukrainian (!!!) borders on this map. In the reality, the easternmost parts of Transdanubian mountains located in Buda part of Budapest. The real location of Transdanubian Mountains is in this article.

4. North Hungarian mountains are not Transdanubian mountains: North Hungarian Mountains

--Countler (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I start seeing what you mean, but could you please ask a friend for help or use Google Translate to improve the English? I have to guess much of the meaning of your postings.

I'm NOT an expert in Hungarian geography. What I am however able to easily figure out is that there are 2 different meanings for the term discussed here: a maximalist Hungarian one, and a more restraint one used by others. That map is very useful in that it shows the topography of the region, i.e. the relief of the ground, contrasting mountain ranges with flatland areas. That serves the article much better than the other maps. If the map is inscribed inaccurately, that is indeed a pity and there are 2 ways of fixing that:

• intervene in the map itself if you know how, or ask someone to do it; but in the meantime, you are welcome to
• add corrections in the legend, for instance: "(the section east of Budapest of what is inscribed as "Transdanubian Mountains" are actually the North Hungarian Mountains)".

The inscription does not look as part of the original map and seems rather schematic. I would never venture, based on it, to say that Lake Balaton lays in the Great Hungarian Plain or the foothills of the Transdanubian Mountains, and that is actually completely irrelevant for the topic here, but it's probably annoying to a local. Arminden (talk) 02:54, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

An inaccuracy of 200 km, sometimes 300 km, on the map is considered brutal. Hungary is not a Russia sized country.--Countler (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

I've answered to that already, won't repeat myself. Please read! Arminden (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

The map is just fine, the names of mountain ranges added by an editor are partly faulty or set in the wrong place and should be corrected. This can be done. See file details here. Arminden (talk) 11:15, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi OrionNimrod. This argument is not an argument. You may be St Stephen reincarnate, and it still wouldn't count: the intro is based on REFS. Fight those refs on the talk-page, try to replace them with your own findings, and IF (!) you succeed, only THEN can you rewrite. Until then it's called "original research", OR, and it's STRICTLY FORBIDDEN on Wiki. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Arminden, please avoid personal attacks.

I am happy that you did not put back the "sometimes" word

You stated that in Hungary "Carpathian Basin" term is used "sometimes", which is not true, this is a very standard default definition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pannonian_Basin&diff=prev&oldid=1288734794 Actually you did WP:ORIGINAL as you arbitrary changed the text to "sometimes" which is cleary not true (even not in your linked source), even your added own link clear explain the development of the term and says: "The Carpathian Basin has been the most crucial concept in Hungarian geographic thought" + "The Carpathian Basin has been the most significant Hungarian geographical notion." + "The concept of the Carpathian Basin (Kárpát-medence) has arguably been the most fundamental notion in Hungarian geographical thought." https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305748820301237 which is clearly not "sometimes" as you stated.

Hungarian Wiki term also the default "Carpathian Basin" "Karpat medence": https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A1rp%C3%A1t-medence However as the Hungarian article say, the other countries use mostly "Pannonian Basin" term, but the 2 terms is not exactly the same as we can see, so I suggest to make a separate Carpathian Basin article to explain everything and avoid all confusions.

Carpathian Basin https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pannonian_Basin.svg (historical area of Kingdom of Hungary + Hungarian population = Pannonian Basin + Carpathian mountains) as this is the Hungarian term.

Academic sources: Google scholar English: "carpathian basin" 40 600 VS "pannonian basin" 25 600 Which suggest that many non Hungarian scholars use the Carpathian Basin term in English, as it is more numerous than the Pannonian Basin term in English.

Google scholar in Hungarian: "kárpát medence" 17 700 VS "pannon medence" 1 110 17 times more the Carpathian Basin term in Hungarian, so not "sometimes". Pannonia word also not alien in Hungary, as it refer to ancient times, or archaic name of Hungary, or many other things, but this word does not include the Carpathian mountains as the geographical term of Carpathian Basin includes them.

As I showed this is a standard Hungarian weather forecast, always talk about "Carpathian Basin" (I hope you hear the Hungarian word "karpat medence" and dont deny the usage): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DWIqeZp7KP0 + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrnUTyWRWb0 + https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ic0jET2DU9U +1994 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWnTycH87Eg

Hungarian geography schoolbook, it cleary visible Carpathian basin = Carpathian mountains+Pannonian Basin. https://foldrajz-7a-sztmik.webnode.hu/a-karpat-medence/ So the Carpathian Basin terms means bigger area than the Pannonian Basin, so now it is incorrect to use the same article for both name, a separately article would be reasonable.

Hungarian maps with area of"Carpathian Basin" (by academic institutions) https://maps.hungaricana.hu/hu/HTITerkeptar/21490/ + +

Hungarian geography atlas for students, see page 4-9 https://www.tankonyvkatalogus.hu/storage/pdf/OH-FOL912ATL__teljes.pdf

Another book https://karpataljaiadatbank.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/karpat_medence_kotet_jul26_compressed-compressed.pdf

If you want more academic sources, please check this: International Cartographic Conference 2019 (950 participants over 75 countries), that Hungarian National Atlas won the 1st award: https://icaci.org/icc2019/

Just see in the academic texts how many times used the "Carpathian Basin" term in the English version of the atlas (Hungarian version is same), they also use the "Carpatho-Pannonian area" term, which refer to the same thing as the Carpathian Basin, as we can see in the maps: Pannonian Basin + Carpathian mountains.

Some examples from the atlas:

https://nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol2_Ch10.pdf

https://nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol2_Ch9.pdf

https://nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol2_Ch6.pdf

https://nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol1_Ch4.pdf

https://nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol1_Ch2.pdf

OrionNimrod (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

Good morning OrionNimrod.

Sorry, it's not a personal atrack: it mirrors 1 to 1 your own argument from your edit summary.

The fact that the article is the result of a long editorial process and clash of opinions is obvious and normal. Unilaterally erasing it by artificially distinguishing between two terms covering the same geographical reality, Pannonian Basin and Carpathian Basin, is out of question.

The fact that Hungarian irredentism created and promoted the term Carpathian Basin after the collapse of Greater Hungary in the 1920s and with repeated strength in the 1940s and after 1980 is not in doubt, not among Hungarian academics and not elsewhere. We have no reason to follow that route.

The fact that Hungary's neighbours prefer and promote the term Pannonian Basin as a means of countering Hungarian determinism, at times in as a disingenuous manner on their behalf, is as obvious.

All these facts have to be mentioned. Beyond that, the mainstream, especially English-language authors (this is English Wikipedia), determine the choice of terms and content.

The shortest of searches supports all these facts with an endless list of authors and titles. Here just a couple.

Irredentist bias

• Péter Balogh, "The concept of the Carpathian Basin: its evolution, counternarratives, and geopolitical implications". In Journal of Historical Geography, Volume 71, January 2021, Pages 51-62.

Interchangeable terms Carpathian Basin = Pannonian Basin

• Márton Péti of the "University of Pannonia" no less :) Co-Existing Spatial Concepts around the Carpathian (Pannonian) Basin
• Milkós Bakk here
• Tivadar Gaudenyi and Milan Mihajlović here

... and myriads more. So let's drop the useless discussion, life's too short for that. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Arminden,

1.

I see you so obsessed with "irredentism", but please dont forget that Hungarian irredentism was created by the response of Romanian and other irredentism, and the establishment of modern Romania state and its borders is also result of an irredentist concept as it got huge lands from their neighbors. By irredentist reason and proclamation of Romanian king "Romania is from Tisza to Dniester" Romania attacked Hungary in 1916 to occupy land as far as Tisza, but they lost WW1. After WW1 when Hungary capitulated and disarmed, 1 week later Romania attacked again, making huge occupation, plundering, massacres. The Entente Powers without allowing the Hungarian participation in the peace talk, they did not care with real ethnic borders, they detached huge 1000 years long Hungarian regions, Hungarian founded full Hungarian populated cities, many million ethnic Hungarians from Hungary to new states (and not just non-Hungarian populated regions). You can see these irredentist concepts which are in Wikipedia articles: File:RomanianTerritories.png ("historic Romanian territories" many regions where never part of Romania, so this is not a real history but pure irredentism to claim those areas as historical own). Or this map from 1855, Romania until Tisza? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rumânia_văzută_de_Cezar_Bolliac.jpg It is an irredentist claim in 1855, as it is not a real history at that time, even not today.

For example, if Spain would lost big lands and only Madrid area would be part of "new Spain", still the Iberian peninsula term would be quite obvious as this is a simple geography, and quite visible. And borders of Kingdom of Hungary followed the shape of the Carpathian mountains, I cannot do anything, if some people dont like the identical shape of the Hungarian kingdom or the shape of the Carpathian mountains. And today the Carpathian Basin term is a standard geographical term.

I think this article is mostly a geography topic, we have academic sources which describe well the development of Carpathian Basin term, so a well written historical development section can explain everything in an article.

https://nemzetiatlasz.hu/MNA/National-Atlas-of-Hungary_Vol1_Ch2.pdf + https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0305748820301237

2.

As you can see there are many confusion. It can be many overlapping, or sometimes simultaneously usage. The question is, the area of Pannonian Basin term is same the area of Carpathian Basin term? As you can see my all links, it is not. If not, we need make a 2 separate articles, and we can explain well everything, the differences of the terms as well.

Thanks to sharing me links, btw did you see my links above?

Your linked source clearly show that the Pannonia Basin and Carpathian Basin is not the same area: https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-area-of-Hungary-the-Carpathian-Basin-sl-and-Pannonian-Basin-cropped-from-8_fig2_359284959

Pannonian Basin does not have the Carpathian Mountains, but this clearly describes that the Carpathian Basin is a wider area https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350690077_The_Boundaries_of_the_Carpathian_Basin_-_Frontiers_and_Regions its geopolitical place being defined by geography (it is placed between the Eastern Alps, the Dinaric Alps, and the Carpathian Mountains) and from historical point of view by the fact that its core region was ruled for many centuries by the Hungarian Kingdom

Your link also show the well explanation https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Historical-political-territorial-units-and-other-geographical-features-that-shape_fig1_399566597

I feel WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT I also dont like many things which is exist in the world, but it does not mean those things dont exist just because I dont like them. And Wikipedia is a general encylopedia.

If you think Pannonian Basin = Carpathian Basin, and means 100% exactly the same geographical area, then what is your real problem? You know many things in the world has more different naming standards, so what is the problem here? And Pannonian Basin name came from Roman Pannonia province and Carpathian Basin name came from Carpathian Mountains, all relevant naming. So what is your real problem? If Hungarians would call it as Pannonian Basin and if Pannonian Basin area means 100% the same area exactly as the Carpathian Basin area, the Pannonian basin term would be also an "irredentist" term if a Hungarian would dare to say?

Because you repeated the "irredentist" word in this talk many times even earlier, and added to the article, I suppose you think (what I see and think also) that the Panonnin Basin term is not exactly the same area as the Carpathian Basin term. Or why would be a problem for you if Hungarians use a different name for the same thing? For example British and USA people use many different English words for many same thing...

Today 2026, English-language authors, Academic sources:

Google scholar English: "carpathian basin" 40 600 [6] VS "pannonian basin" 25 600 [7] Which suggest that many non Hungarian scholars use the Carpathian Basin term in English, as it is more numerous than the Pannonian Basin term in English. Which means the Carpathian Basin term is a quite standard term nowadays in English literature. Please blame "40 600 Carpathian Basin term" in English language academic sources as "irredentist bias" in 2026 :) OrionNimrod (talk) 12:21, 27 March 2026 (UTC)

Later I will paint a similar map based on your linked Serbian study which clearly show the area of Pannonian and Carpathian Basin The final delineation of the Carpathian Basin shown on Fig. 4. with applied colors for topographic layering.

The geographical name Carpathian Basin for the landscape unit or the physico-geographical unit has been often used by Central European geoscientists.

The notion of ‘Carpathian Basin’ is a result of a long evolution process both in the history of international and Hungarian geographic science.

“During the 19th and 20th centuries after the “inside members of the Carpathian Basin” (Germans, Hungarians, Slovaks, Romanians, Serbs etc.) the “external nations” (English, French, Russians, Italians etc.) also formed their opinion on the naming of the geographic space during the marking and naming of geographic territories in the natural geographical division of Europe. We can see here a special ‘naming competition’ which cannot be considered as a unique or peculiar phenomenon through the area in wider sense

“In the second half of the 19th century the notion ‘Central Danube Basin’ was acknowledged in hydrological research only; the country’s geographical macro region was rather referred to as ‘Hungarian Basin’. In archaeology and history, the notion ‘Pannon Basin’ (or ‘Pannonian Basin’) was also in use. The name of ‘Carpathian Basin’ was used by foreigners only (non-Hungarian literature e.g., German) [1].

Well, you expressed many times that "Carpathian Basin" term is "very irredentis" in your eyes, I think "Hungarian Basin" term would me more hardcore for you, qoute from your source:

“After the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries the majority of Hungarian geographical papers, textbooks and maps labelled the area as ‘Hungarian Basin

(At that time the whole region was Hungary, so it is logical naming convention and not unique, like "Persian Gulf, Arab Gulf, Mexican Gulf, Italian penisula, Biritsh Islands" etc

Carpathian Basin is not exactly the Pannonian Basin

The use of geographical name Carpathian Basin mainly favored by geoscientists who investigate the area of Hungary. It is the smallest natural unit (landscape/physico-geographic entity) which encompass the whole area of Hungary. The investigation of Hungary’s neighboring countries used this term rare and with confusion they prefer some other term however they have different meanings (e.g., Pannonian Basin). The term Carpathian Basin is useful among archaeologists, geoscientists, ecologists, and biologists because it is strongly connected with a landscape / geographical unit.

The term Carpathian Basin and its synonyms issue. The term Carpathian Basin used in the context of synonymy of the Pannonian Basin, Pannonian Basin System, Pannonian Plain. Due its definition and area which encompass, the Carpathian Basin has no synonyms.

The Carpathian Basin has no synonyms and it’s a unique geographical name.

The international award winner new Hungarian atlas use an another name for Carpathian Basin = "Carpatho-Pannonian area" (Btw we can call it "Mickey Mouse" or anything, if we name and think the same thing)

The recently published 2nd volume of the National Atlas of Hungary (Kocsis, [8]) have different delineation of the Carpathian Basin than in our study. OrionNimrod (talk) 23:35, 28 March 2026 (UTC)