Talk:Cluj-Napoca

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Cluj-Napoca as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Romanian language Wikipedia.

As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia should use the current official name for the city article and use that name throughout. Alternate names should of course be listed at the beginning of the article; I also greatly support having the alternate name listed once in parentheses at a relevant spot in the history section of an article. For example, the article for Strasbourg consistently refers to the city as Strasbourg, even though it was was mostly German during the Middle Ages. Off the top of my head, the only major city that would be an exception to this would be Königsberg/Kaliningrad, where the latter was practically built up as a new city entirely.

The (extensively dicussed) consensus view of the Wikipedia community (at least in the similar German-Polish case) is, however, to use the name that is appropriate in each period (see Talk:Gdańsk for the discussions and vote). In the spirit of that consensus, the town should be called Kolozsvár at least from about 1600 to 1918... -- Marcika 15:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I personally agree with that logic, but have usually used only one name in an article to avoid naming disputes. Olessi 16:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed the link to the Hungarian website because it just links to the Romanian site (correct me if I am wrong).

Regarding the history I added to the article, I primarily took the info from the German interlang, although I also looked at these websites:

• http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/world/A0812639.html Columbia encyclopedia
• http://www.cjnet.ro/cj/istoric.html Romanian POV
• http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ro-cluj.html Hungarian POV, questionable dates
• http://20.1911encyclopedia.org/K/KO/KOLOZSVAR.htm 1911 Britannica, Klause name
• http://sal-cnc.me.wisc.edu/~ilies/webcluj/history/istorie.html Romanian POV, clusum name

Some of the info and dates conflict, so could someone take a look at the Romanian and Hungarian interlang articles and see what needs to be added/replaced? Olessi 2 July 2005 05:01 (UTC)

---

In the Hungarian article there are some other infos, which are missing from the English one. ie. the 2nd paragraph of the history section. Or another:

1910-ben 60 808 lakosából 50 704 magyar, 7562 román, 1676 német, 371 cigány és 107 szlovák volt. 

in English:

In 1910 the town's population was 60 808, ethnic composition: Hungarians 50 704, Romanians 7562, Germans 1676, Roma 371, Slovaks 107.

etc. 10 November 2005 01:01

Contents 1 POV Pushing by 194.105.21.41 2 Etimology 3 Percentage 4 "Name change" 5 history 6 External link 7 rv

[edit] POV Pushing by 194.105.21.41

I have reverted the following major changes (among others):

• "Trying to highlight its highly disputed Dacian orrigin, the communist Romanian authorities changed the city's name to Cluj-Napoca in 1974."

Right, the origin of Romanians is disputed, however the fact that the city was named Napoca in the past cannot be disputed. And yes, it is already stated in the article that the city "[..] was renamed to Cluj-Napoca by the Communist government to recognize it as the site of the Roman colony Napoca."

• "Others consider that the Romanian name, Cluj it is simply the adaptation of the much older Hungarian Kolozsvár".

Weasel wording. Who are the "others"?

• "After that a very strong policy of Romanization started, and the ethnical balance became more and more favourable to the Romanians."

This is your POV. See also the talk page of the Romanianization article.

• "In August 1940, during the Second World War, Hitler awarded the northern half of Transylvania (including Cluj-Napoca) to Hungary by the second Vienna Award (Vienna Arbitration Award or Vienna Diktat)." was replaced by "[..]the northern half of Transylvania (including Cluj-Napoca) returned to Hungary by the second Vienna Award."

Is it not true that Hitler and Mussolini awarded the Northern Transylvania to Hungary?. Mentatus 13:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etimology

I thought that the etimology is quite well explained in its own section. So why do some people want to include in the History section the following:

It has been suggested that the Romanian name Cluj may be derived from Klause as well, or from the Hungarian name Kolozsvár, the name by which the city was known until 1919, or from its Latinised form Castrum Clus, that first appeared in written documents, around 1170 (clusum (Lat.) = "closed", referring to the city being surrounded by hills). During the Middle Ages Cluj was thus known as Kolozsvár and Klausenburg by its Hungarian and German inhabitants, respectively.

It seems like someone is not happy with the Romanian name coming from Latin and not the Hungarian one. Anyway, the paragraph above duplicates the information from the Etimology section and therefore, I believe it should be deleted from the article.Alexrap 10:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Percentage

The page [1] didn't show the percentage to which refer Pannonian insistently. --Mihai Andrei 19:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that that page says that Kolozsvár cmr. (the city itself) had 60808 inhabitants (50704 Hungarians and 7562 Romanians) and Kolozsvári (its municipal area) had 37448 inhabitants (9316 Hungarians and 27380 Romanians). Which represent the exact percentages PANONIAN refers to. Alexrap 20:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The District of Kolozsvár wasn't the municipal area of the town but an administrative entity composed of other towns and villages. Speaking about the historical population of Cluj there is no relevance of a data that shows another territory. Many settlements of this district isn't incorporated into Cluj even now although the city grew a lot in the 20th century. The data only speaks about the ethnicity of a small rural district of Transylvania, not Cluj. Zello 13:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Zello. You might be right, so I give you the benefit of the doubt. However, it would be useful to know which of the current villages were included in the ex-district Kolozsvári? Also, mentioning the ethnical percentages in the vicinity of the city (and in the whole county as well) is still relevant for this wikipedia article. If we don't include anything, then the change between 1910 and 1930 seems more artificial than it actually was. And we all know that one of its main reasons was the change of social rights for Romanians (who were initially not allowed to settle inside cities' boundaries). Therefore, I don't think that the whole information must be removed, but corrected. Alexrap 13:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Romanians were allowed to settle inside the city boundaries in the second half of the 19th century when the first great urban expansion happened. I agree that there is some importance of the ethnicity of the surrounding area regarding the movement of the mainly Roman rural population into the town but do we really know how much of the newcomers arrived exactly from this district?

Shall we write then the following:

60,808 in 19 December 1910; (of which 81.6% Hungarian). At the same date, the district of Cluj (that included surrounding villages) had a population of 37,448, of which 27,380 (73.12%) Romanians and 9,316 (24.88%) Hungarians ([2]). The population of the whole county of Cluj (to which the city belonged) had a population composed of 56.25% Romanians, 38.87% Hungarians and 2.9% Germans (see also Kolozs). Alexrap 15:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that you modified the article to include what we both agreed below. You did not express your agreement/disagreement to the phrase above. Does it mean that you have nothing against it, or shall we have some more discussions on it? Alexrap 17:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Also the city grew and included the former municipal area (largely Romanian)" - I think we should improve this sentence like that: "Also the city grew and many people moved to the town from the surrounding area and Cluj county (populated largely by Romanians)."

I agree with this improvement. Alexrap 15:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The District of Kolozsvár was composed of about 30 independent settlements like Bonchida/Bonţida, Válaszút/Rǎscruci, Fejérd/Feiurdeni, Kolozs/Cojocna, Györgyfalva/Gheorghieni, Kolozsgyula/Giula, Kajántó/Chinteni. The municipal area of the town was much smaller with clearly defined boundaries. The fact that Cluj didn't incorporated this villages even now 100 years later shows that around 1910 this wasn't an "artifical separation". Zello 14:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know exactly what the Hungarian source means when it says Kolozsvári in [3]. I think that you are right for most of the villages you mentioned, but I am pretty sure that at least Kolozs/Cojocna was included in Kolozs cc., and not in Kolozsvári, as you say. What about Mǎnǎştur/Monostor? Alexrap 15:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is a complete list of all settlements of the Kolozsvári District:

Bonchida/Bonţida, Válaszút/Rǎscruci, Kolozsborsa/Borşa, Kolozsgyula/Giula, Csomafája/Ciumǎfaia, Magyarújfalu/Vultureni, Kide/Chidea, Bádok/Bǎdesti, Magyarfodorháza/Fodora, Sólyomkő/Şoimeni, Bábuc/Bǎbuţiu, Kolozskovácsi/Fǎureni, Hosszúmacskás/Satu Lung, Szentmártonmacskás/Sǎnmǎrtin, Fejérd/Feiurdeni, Diós/Deuşu, Bodonkút/Vechea, Magyarmacskás/Mǎcicaşu, Kajántó/Chinteni, Apahida/Sub Coastǎ, Szamosszentmiklós/Sǎnmicoarǎ, Korpád/Corpadea, Dezmér/Dezmir, Kara/Cara, Szamosfalva, Pata/Pata, Bós/Boju, Györgyfalva/Gheorghieni, Rőd/Rediu, Ajton/Aiton. Kolozs/Cojocna was also part of the district as "rendezett tanácsú város" (independent municipality or something like that).

On the other hand Mǎnǎştur/Monostor was part of the real municipal area of Kolozsvár, not the district so the town data contains this settlement.

From the list above only Kolozs/Cojocna was incorporated into Cluj until now (or 1992, the date of my map). This is why I said that the population data of the district isn'nt relevant speaking about the town. Zello 17:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

ps. By the way the town of Cluj itself wasn't part of the Kolozsvári District at all so the data is really misleading... Zello

[edit] "Name change"

Name change that never happened... The town was first called Kolozsvár in the 13th century ("congregare civitatem Kulusuar") and continuously called so since then. After 1867 only Hungarian place names were officially used. (Historical Topography of Transylvania, Banat and Partium, Szabó M Attila, 2003, I/285 p.). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zello (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Of course that the name Kolozsvár was not invented in 1897. Exactly as the Romanian name Cluj was not invented after 1918. Romanians, Hungarians and Germans always used to call the town Cluj, Kolozsvár and Klausenburg, respectively. And they do so even nowadays. But, as the added text clearly says, in official documents, the name Klausenburg was used until 1897, when the Hungarian government decided that the only official name to be used for the town is the Hungarian one. Which means that we both say the same thing and I don't understand why you reverted my edits. Alexrap 18:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Only Hungarian place names were used in official documents in the KoH after 1867. All the contemporary official toponymical lexicons used the Hungarian name. 1877: "Kolozsvár tjv szkv", 1882: "Kolozsvár törvényhatósági joggal felruházott szabad királyi város", 1893: "Kolozsvár szkv". See the same book with correct citations. It is a simple mistake and a quite serious one that cast doubts on the quality of the book you mentioned. It was customary for the official toponymical lexicons to mention alternative names in the second/third place. The 1877 and 1882 book followed this tradition mentioning Klausenburg and Cluj AFTER Kolozsvár but the later volumes give up the tradition and mentioned only the Hungarian name (at first in 1893). Klausenburg was used as an official name only by the Habsburg government between 1849 and 1867. Zello 18:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that in 1897 the parliament voted the so-called Banffy law that was saying that from that date on, all the official names of the villages and towns in the Hungarian Kingdom are only to use their Hungarian version? Alexrap 18:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

They prohibited the official use of alternative names. Imagine a law in present-day Romania that prohibits the use of Csíkszereda in official documents - does it mean that before that law the town official name wasn't Miercurea Ciuc? Does it mean a name change? Zello 11:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you totally misunderstood the whole thing. Nobody said that the name Kolozsvár was invented in 1897. This discussion is pointless as we are both saying the same thing. Alexrap 12:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

At first you claimed that the official name of the town changed in 1897 - that was a mistake, as the Bánffy law was only appplied to the usage of alternative names. The official name was Kolozsvár before and after 1897. Zello 21:58, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you call official name, as in official documents the name Klausenburg was widely used before 1897. And about the removal of the Magyarization reference: Cluj as a city, was in those times 80% Hungarian, but in a largely Romanian rural Transylvania. And exactly this status (being a big 80% Hungarian town in a largely Romanian region) made it the centre of the Magyarization policy in Transylvania. I cannot see why you would not admit this fact. It is part out our common history. Alexrap 12:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Klausenburg was really widely used (but not exculsively) in the 18th century and in the period between 1849-1867 by the Habsburg government when many government documents were written in German. Only the fact that a town has a Hungarian majority and the surrounding region is populated mainly by Romanians doesn't mean that it was a center of Magyarization policy. That's a weak connection. Bigger cities always attract rural population and people moving to town can be assimilated. Sometimes this is supported by government policies. But with the same reason you can claim that Kolozsvár was always a centre of Magyarization in Transylvania (before 1920). And reading your sentence nobody will think of the surroundings but that "the original Romanian town was Magyarized". Zello 14:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Zello, it is not a weak connection. It is an undispued fact that Magyarization existed as a governmental policy in the Kingdom of Hungary. There were authorities responsible for applying this policy especially in the territories with significant other ethnic groups. Well, in Transylvania, the town of Cluj was the main location for these governmental bodies. I let you to find an appropriate formulation to include this into the article, if you think that my formulation is not clear enough for the readers. Alexrap 11:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Kolozsvár was only the seat of ordinary governmental institutions of education, justice, county administration etc. There wasn't any special authority for Magyarization because such authorities never existed. Should I add to the Marosvásárhely article that it is the center of Romanization policy in Székelyland? Zello 13:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the "Romanization policy in Székelyland"? --Roamataa 18:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] history

• Saxons were settled by the King near the new castle indeed, but they were not the founders of the city. An settlement existed even before the Mongol invasion. A new castle was built after 1242 in a new place and of course a new village
• "In 1270 Klausenburg received town privileges from Stephen V and ..." FALSE and in contrary the "town" (in fact a village until 1316) was degraded, donated to the bishopric.
• In 1316 received town privileges from King Charles I and as a memorial to this event the St Michael Church was built—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fz22 (talk • contribs).

Please make the necessary modifications and specify the source(s).--Roamataa 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External link

I made an edit today, adding an external link to the IRC website of #Cluj, the primary IRC channel of the city. I note that the edit was undone immediately. I can't help but notice that several other external links do not have the level of quality required for being on this page in the first place. "The first virtual city of Cluj-Napoca" listed as the first external link is a website of rather poor quality.

While many of us may not agree with relay chat as being an integral part of the city, I feel compelled to disagree. I used to be actively involved in the management of the channel and it proved an important ramp for advertising events. I'm not currently involved in IRC activities of any sort nor in the web presence of the #Cluj IRC channel. I stress this because I don't want to hear the usual yadda yadda about my wanting to obtain personal benefits

I therefore ask the editor(s) of the site to please revise the external links and allow my change. Also please review the existing external links having poor quality (in both content and presentation) and consider removing them.

Viridium 22:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a look at Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided:

7. Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace), discussion forums or USENET.

The last time I checked, IRC was a discussion forum. Mentatus 16:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. This cleared things up. Viridium 04:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] rv

I had to rv Zello since his edits look like Magyarisation in 2007! By applying his criterium I can put NAPOCA all over since the romans where in Cluj-Napoca first. --Heavypiece 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You know this is a very interesting point I never thought before. You are right. --Roamataa 21:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As you know exactly I applied only wikipedia naming convention the same way as in the Bocskay article - historical name + present-day name in parenthesis. Deleting the whole Hungarian history of the town between the 6th century and 1918 is simply an absurdity. This is the typical case for launching an RfC. Zello 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It was not deleted but moved to a specific article. That part had enough information to form a new article. The same as is for the politics paragraph. Please verify before acussing. --Roamataa 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I wait for a reasonable Romanian editor to put back the deleted paragraph or write a compressed history section containing every period of the town history with equal weight. I'm not going into your game. Zello 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would expect that if large amounts of information are move from one article to another, the removed information would be summarized in the original article. Olessi 03:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)