Talk:Cluj-Napoca

The capital and the economic centre of Transylvania is Kolozsvár (Cluj)

The capital and the economic centre of Transylvania is Kolozsvár ( Romanian : Cluj-Napoca). Until 1974 this city was known under the name of Cluj, which in fact is a denigration of the Hungarian Kolozs. The pronunciation of both names is roughly the same. The Romanian dictator Ceauşescu renamed the city in 1974 to Cluj-Napoca. Imagine that the city of Maastricht would be renamed to: Maastricht -Trajectum ad Mosam. The name Napoca has been added to the historical name of the city to make a public statement “Hungarians, remember that the Romanians were here earlier”. This doctrine of Daco-Romanian continuity' has been used to declare Hungarians as inferior citizens in the country where their ancestors have been born. The city also has been cleaned from its Hungarian majority by ethnic engineering. It is easier to artificially change the ethnic composition of a large anonymous city, than that of a small countryside village. This is why in today's Kolozsvár less than 20 % is Hungarian. The villages around Kolozsvár have been less modified, the majority in these villages is still consisting of the autonomous Hungarian population.

There have been two petitions recently, one concerns this use of the Hungarian languages in tourism signs in the city, which is a legitimate claim, because the city has Hungarians roots and because the majority of visitors to the city is coming from the neighbouring European member state Hungary and speaking Hungarian consequently. Petitions by CEMO and initiated by the RMDSZ to the city council of Kolozsvár . The aim of this petition is to use the Hungarian name of the city in addition to the Romanian name, which is even obligatory if more than 20 % of the population of a given administrative region belong to an autonomous minority. The reaction of the Romanian governance of Kolozsvár to both petitions has been very critical and negative. It is not certain that both legitimate claims will be answered positively. The usage of the Hungarian language is of course also a symbolic issue, because there are still other occurrences of discrimination that are much more severe, such as the lacking of proportional ethnic representation, which is a violation of the spirit and the letter of the law.

Can you imagine that a part of the autonomous population is significantly under represented in governmental services, such as the police, tax authorities and all other governmental agencies? Imagine the outrage if 95 % of Belgian police agents would be Flemish, whereas the Flemish make out less than 60 % of the total population of Belgium.

Transylvania is a multilingual region, which belonged to Hungary until 1921 and partially between 1940 and 1947 to Hungary. Its population consisted in 1921 of almost 50 % Romanians and over 40 % of Hungarians. In 2002 the number of Hungarians has declined to less than 20 % of the total population. This is a result of many Hungarians having fled Transylvania after the ethnic cleansing in the Ceauşescu regime. The bad economic circumstances during the nineties have amplified this trend unfortunately.

Nationalism of Gheorghe Funar.

A very ugly and backward nationalism has ruled the city from 1992 till 2004, which was aimed a the humiliation of the autonomous Hungarian population. Disgusting signs have been placed at the entrance of the city of Kolozsvár. Some of these signs can still be found today. Besides public humiliations, all Hungarians were banned from public functions if this was possible. Consequently the police force in Kolozsvár is almost consisting of ethnic Romanians only. Hungarians were not allowed to become police officers. An active policy has been implemented to disencourage Hungarians from becoming active in public functions. Till today the autonomous ethnic Hungarian population is underrepresented beyond the level of statistical bias.

Even by 2020 Hungarian language signs are banned in Kolozsvár.

http://www.hungarian-human-rights.eu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.205.205 (talk) 10:37, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Horváth Anna, ethnic hungarian, was vice mayor of Cluj a long period. Also, there isn't any ban on hungarians joining police or anything as it's illegal under Romanian constitution to restrict rights of a person due to his minority.

Please get your info from more reliable sources Mindfrakker (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Air Quality

The statement about air quality is not accurate. The study was refuted by a lot of subsequent studies. Please remove the false propaganda

https://cluj-napoca.pulse.eco Mindfrakker (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Your RS that supports this? 50.111.195.179 (talk) 00:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

More information in the introduction please

I think that the introduction should also include information on the Middle Ages within it, in order to be an accurate summary of the history section as well. In other words, the introduction should also include information on the fact that the Transylvanian Saxons developed the city during the Middle Ages and that they lived there in majority before the Transylvanian Hungarians became the dominant ethnic group followed by the Transylvanian Romanians later. The Transylvanian Saxons re-populated the city starting in the 13th century. Of course, everything historical pertaining to these claims should be very well referenced.

For some odd way of reason, it was decided that a previous edit which summed up those things (as later described in the history section) was 'poorly' formulated or written, although it was historically accurate and without any grammar or vocabulary errors at all, just as in the history section. I am not going to write this again, because it is superfluous and counterproductive given the fact that it's very likely going to be deleted again (because it is allegedly 'poorly' formulated), although there is no proper reason for that at all. Instead, I am asking for consensus here, if possible, on behalf of other users. Going all of a sudden to the Modern Age in the introduction and skipping the Middle Ages altogether is not only historically inaccurate, in my humble opinion, but also not entirely alright encyclopaedically as well. In addition, information should be better chronologically ordered overall (it obviously gives a better and more logical reading experience). Any thoughts please? Thank you very much in advance!

P.S.: But, before the Middle Ages, I strongly think that the introduction should also include information on the ancient age/late antiquity with respect to the city, in order to have a complete historical overview, well-established, neutral, and accurate. The English version of this page/article should be consistent as much as possible in terms of introduction with the Romanian version which includes the information I have requested and, not only that, but even more in-depth historically accurate information as well. All the best and thank you for your time, attention, and readership! Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, for the late antiquity, there should be mentioned that the city was previously inhabited by Dacians and then by Celts before being ultimately conquered by the Romans. This also appears on the Romanian version of this page and is well referenced there. Ideally, the very same thing should be applied here with at least one reference supporting these claims. But, before doing this (or any other user with good faith edits), I truly need consensus because it would be deleted altogether otherwise... Rosenborg BK Fan (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cluj-Napoca Cluj Arena 5.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary flag symbol

Sumek101, if we want to reach an agreement, the problem should be clear: Cluj-Napoca was part of Hungary, not Austria. Therefore, the Austrian flag is incorrect. Also in an informal way for the same reason you disliked the third one. Also in a way where it signifies the Habsburg family. So what do you think about using the Hungarian flag? Gyalu22 (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, Austria-Hungary was a Dual Monarhcy, only the military, foreign affairs, and monetary was common. Austrian emperor was crowned as King of Hungary. Hungary and Austria had a separate citizenships inside the monarhcy. This city belonged to the Kingdom of Hungary, so the Kingdom of Hungary flag for that period is correct. List of Hungarian flags

https://hungarymap360.com/img/1200/ancient-hungary-map.jpg.webp

https://tile.loc.gov/image-services/iiif/service:gmd:gmd6:g6030:g6030:ct002033/full/pct:25/0/default.jpg OrionNimrod (talk) 12:10, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Gyalu22 Thank you for starting this discussion thread. First of all, the black-yellow flag was not simply the „flag of Austria”. This is „Reichsfarben flag” (imperial colours flag) of Habsburg dynasty ruling the Austria-Hungary and often used as a symbol of this country, as the most important thing that unites it. It is certainly a better representative of this country than the ensign of the merchant navy (the use of which to represent land formations is bizarre). The nationality of this city can also be correctly represented as part of the Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen (under the Hungarian flag) in Austria-Hungary. But please don't use the merchant navy ensign here (luckily we finally got rid of this terrible mistake from en wiki). Regards Sumek101 (talk) 16:00, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

I see it was many debates about the flag in the Austria-Hungary topic, honestly I do not understand. Austria-Hungary was in the beginning of the 20th century not in the time of the cavemen. It should be know what was the flag, maybe it was not a common flag just raised the Austrian and Hungarian flag together. I think it would be good to ask experienced local historians about this. OrionNimrod (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

The internal situation of this country was exceptionally complicated compared to other countries at the turn of the 19th and 20th century. For this reason, this country has never created anything like a state flag. Any use of flags in the context of the entire country was only unofficial and, apart from a few situations, was not regulated - that is why these problems arise. Austria-Hungary does not fit into our modern habit of perceiving countries and their individual flags as something obvious. Sumek101 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary did not have a complicated structure. Read this legal history stuff here, and you will understand it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Hungarian_Compromise_of_1867 The constitutional structure of USA or Switzerland were always much more complex than the Austro-Hungarian.--Pharaph (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2023 (UTC)