Jump to content

Talk:Cluj-Napoca/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

older entries

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:

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

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)

Hungarian minority

This section contains details about BBU that are too individual to be able to portray a general situation. ej 13:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A plausible point, but let's discuss first. "The university entered a controversial period during 2006, when two Hungarian-speaking lecturers (Péter Hantz and Lehel Kovács) lost their jobs after they put up signs in Hungarian in several university buildings, in spite of the rector having issued a decree permitting the use of multilingual signs." Should this stay, or go in the UBB article? Biruitorul Talk 14:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

LET's! But let's also try to make objective statements from the very beginning. That way people don't get the chance to be missinformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Edward.jones.1967 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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

"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)

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—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fz22 (talk • contribs)
Please make the necessary modifications and specify the source(s).--Roamataa 12:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Armand Assante

http://www.ziuadecj.ro/action/article?ID=4777

Assante: “Clujul e un fel de Sankt Petersburg”

Renumitul actor american Armand Assante, care joacă rolul căpitanului Jones în filmul “California Dreamin’” al regretatului regizor Cristian Nemescu, a sosit ieri, la ora 16.57, la Cluj, de la Sibiu, la bordul unui Jeep negru. Destins, afişând o formă de zile mari şi zâmbitor, a făcut cunoştinţă cu conducerea hotelului City Plaza, unde este cazat pentru trei zile. A urcat pentru a-şi lua în primire camera şi apoi a acordat un interviu pentru ZIUA de Cluj. Ce ştiţi despre Cluj şi despre Festivalul de Film Transilvania?

Am fost doar în trei locuri în România, în acest turneu de promovare a filmului lui Nemescu: Moldova, Sibiu şi acum Cluj. Din câte văd eu acum e un oraş superb, seamănă foarte mult cu Sankt Petersburg. în rest, sper să am timp să-l vizitez.

De ce credeţi că filmul lui Cristi Nemescu a câştigat secţiunea “Un Certain Regard” la Festivalul de la Cannes, deşi critica nu i-a acordat nici o şansă?

Nu a fost considerat terminat, aşa e. Era să fie eliminat de tot, dar, când toţi au văzut cât de bun este, criticii secţiunii nu au mai avut ce face. A fost emoţionant, mai ales că toţi au fost de părere că e cel mai bun film. Şi este un film excelent.

Cum aţi ajuns să jucaţi în “California Dreamin’”?

Este meritul lui Andrei Boncea, manager al platourilor de filmare de la MediaPro Pictures. Eu am mai filmat două pelicule străine la Bucureşti şi el mi-a făcut cunoştinţă cu Cristian Nemescu. Acesta mi-a prezentat scenariul, care mi-a plăcut enorm din prima clipă. Am filmat în total şase săptămâni, atât a durat totul. Dar a ieşit foarte bine.

Aveţi la activ o carieră impresionantă. Totuşi, aţi declarat că aţi avut ce învăţa de la un regizor cum a fost Nemescu?

Cred că am avut şi am marele avantaj să simt un personaj, să am abilitatea să văd caracteristicile endemice ale societăţii respective într-un personaj sau altul. Nemescu a fost un regizor cu astfel de viziune, de simţ. Ca un fel de creator de benzi desenate care are un simţ al umorului. Uitaţi-vă cât umor de efect are acest film. Mereu ne zicea să fim mai spontani, să descoperim cât mai multe în rolurile pe care le jucam. Era un tip subtil şi talentat.

Dacă acest film va ajunge să fie difuzat în SUA, credeţi că va avea succes la publicul american?

Nu pot face predicţii despre cinematografele americane. Cunosc bine cinematografele newyorkeze (Assante trăieşte lângă New York - n. red.). Lor le va plăcea, pentru că acest film e un amalgam de culturi. Este o metaforă pentru felul în care funcţionează lumea. Nu se ia totul în serios şi aceasta îl face foarte puternic.

Is there no one after all this time who can translate — or at least summarize — these last several paragraphs so that editors who know English, but not the language in which these paragraphs are written, can address whatever points are being made? Thanks! Lawikitejana (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'll translate it, although I have no idea what does this text have to do with this article:

Assante: “Cluj is like Sankt Petersburg”

Armand Assante, the well-known American actor who played Captain Jones in “California Dreamin’”, a film by Cristian Nemescu, has arrived yesterday at 5pm in Cluj. Assante, who was in a very good mood, met the staff from the City Plaza Hotel, where he is going to stay for the next 3 days. After checking in, he gave an interview for ZIUA de Cluj:

What do you know about Cluj and about TIFF (Transylvania International Film Festival)?

I have only seen 3 places in Romania in this tournament, Moldova, Sibiu and now Cluj. From what I can see it's a great city, that looks very much like Sankt Petersburg. I hope I'll have some time to visit it.

Why do you think that Cristi Nemescu's film won the “Un Certain Regard” award in Cannes, despite the fact that the critics weren't giving him many chances?

It was considered unfinished. But when they saw it, they couldn't deny how good it was. It was very emotional, especially because everyone agreed that it was the best film. And it is an excellent film.

How did you end up playing in “California Dreamin’”?

It is because of Andrei Boncea, a MediaPro Pictures manager. I played in another two foreign movies that were filmed in Bucharest and he introduced me to Cristian Nemescu. He showed me the script and I really liked it from the first look. We then filmed everything in 6 weeks and it turned out to be very good.

You already have a very impressive career. However, you said that you still had something to learn from a director like Nemescu?

I think that I had, and I still have, the advantage of being able to feel a character, to see in him the endemic characteristics of the society as a whole. Nemescu was a director with such an ability and such a vision as well. Like a cartoonist who has the sense of humour. Just look how much humour there is in this film. He was always telling us to be more spontaneous, to discover more the characters that we were playing. He was very subtle and talented.

If this film is to be screened in the US, do you think that the American public will like it?

I cannot make any predictions about all the American cinemas. But I know quite well the New York cinemas (Assante lives near New York). They will certainly like it. Because this film is a mixture of different cultures. It is a metaphor for the way things work in the world. The film doesn't take everything seriously, and this makes it very strong.

Alexrap (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tiperit en Klus.JPG

Image:Tiperit en Klus.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 01:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced the tags on the image page with {{PD-old}}. This image is not fair use but public domain. KissL 09:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits - please doublecheck

There has been quite some vandalism going on here recently. I have tried to sort it out by performing comparisons to a number of older revisions, but I may have overlooked a few things. Could someone please doublecheck that the article is now in a good shape? Thanks, KissL 16:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CFR-Cluj.png

Image:CFR-Cluj.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CFR-Cluj.png

Image:CFR-Cluj.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Historic name

It is a misleading oversimplification to add anything like "Cluj became part of Romania in 1919" to the lead. (It was actually de facto 1918, or de jure 1920, but one could even argue 1945, as well as a number of various earlier dates. This is simply not something that can be made clear in a single relative clause.) This kind of addition, combined with the random bolding of the German name throughout the article, resembles stupid ethnic POV-pushing in a very unfortunate manner (apologies if I sound harsh). I have reverted. KissL 15:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well you're out of order as I am a Scot and not "pushing" anything. The very simple fact of the matter is that for the better part of 800 years this city was known in books and on maps by its Saxon name. No-one (other than in Romania) has ever heard of Cluj. This is the English-language version of Wikipedia. We need to highlight the names that are most commonly known in that medium. It seems to me it is you who are attempting to bury history here, whereas I am attempting to balance the scales. David Lauder (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, for my part, I am Hungarian and have never been to Romania, yet I have very much "heard of" Cluj (and this despite the kind of bias I was educated to, which – unsurprisingly – prefers the name Kolozsvár for the place). But to the point: as long as the article explains that the names "Castrum Clus" and "Kulusuar" were both recorded at least one century before the Saxon name, I cannot see how my edit could reasonably be considered "an attempt to bury history". Moreover, even if your argument was absolutely correct, it would still fail to justify either the addition of an incorrect date (1919) or the bolding of things here and there randomly (e.g. the year 1974 in the middle of the article, while it is already mentioned in the lead). On the other hand, if you could bring evidence that scholarly sources in the English language prefer the name "Klausenburg" even when referring to times before the Treaty of Karlowitz, that would be something to seriously discuss. KissL 14:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


Violant (sic) relocation

Quoting: "[...in the 1960s] Romanians began to outnumber Hungarians, thanks to the violant [sic] relocation of thousands of Romanian people from the region Moldavia". Violent relocation is a pretty strong wording. Could proof be brought of this? The growth of the population in the 1960s was a natural result of the policy of industrialization of the city. The basis of that policy is debatable, but the population growth and subsequent shift in percentage was hardly violent. Also, the the alleged "Moldavian" origin of the population influx is highly questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.83.42.198 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Sister/twin cities

Why is it so bothering to have the sister cities in the infobox?

ES Vic (talk) 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Some issues

Geographically, it forms an imaginary rhombus together with Bucharest (426 km / 265 mi), Budapest (397 km / 247 mi) and Belgrade (455 km / 283 mi).

This is unsourced trivia and I don't see why it should belong to the article.

The first written mention of its name – as a Roman camp – was in 1213 under the Latin name Castrum Clus.

A Roman camp, in 1213? Wasn't it the name used by the Saxon colonists?

Trivia section

from Wikipedia:Trivia sections: "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined."

bogdan (talk) 11:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Danutz (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

An important problem in this article is that there are way too many red links for a FA... I counted more than 50 of them, including one, Unirii Square, in the introductory section. bogdan (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Danutz (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Done? There are currently, exactly 190 red links in the article. Perhaps in reality fewer, because some articles are linked in more than one place, but it's still a huge amount. bogdan (talk) 18:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Romanians

the population influx, mostly Romanian, from other regions of Romania

were they mostly from other regions of Romania? I would have thought they were mostly from Cluj County. bogdan (talk) 12:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Danutz (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Ancient Napoca

Given that we seem not to have a separate article on ancient Napoca, a single paragraph here seems remarkably little on the topic. It doesn't even make it clear: was Roman Napoca on exactly the same site (presumably of lesser extent), or nearby? What ruins survive? I take it from "The colonia was evacuated in 274 by the Romans" that there was no continuity of settlement. - Jmabel | Talk 17:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Is not that there was no continuity, just that we donnot have enough written sources for the period after 274, as we donnot have for all Romania (see for istance Roesller Theory. I'll suggest a separate article on Napoca. --Danutz (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Population before 1850

There's nothing on demographics before that. Since Cluj is a major city, I'm sure there are estimates made by historians for the demography of Cluj before that based on local records. bogdan (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hungarian-Romanian relations in Cluj

That would deserve an article in itself since it's a very complicated subject, but at least this article should write at least a few words on it.

BTW, I just saw in today's newspaper there are a few articles about the Romanian nationalists/fascists' anti-Hungarian rally in Cluj on the Hungarian national day. bogdan (talk) 18:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, relations between those groups are treated somewhat in the article with reference to the ex-mayor Funar. However, Cluj was never the site of large protests between those groups, more than between Romanians and whatsoever group in Bucharest. The site of fightings and protest was Târgu Mureş. And, BTW, the meeting of Noua Dreaptă was not directly against the Magyars, it was against separatism and allegedly in support for the Kosovo issue. The things degenerated a little I heard (a Magyar was beaten), but that was somehow all (not mass fighting or such things). --Danutz (talk) 22:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

However, I wrote a section about the Hungarian community. --Danutz (talk) 21:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Chronology

"The Tatar's invasions in 1241 and 1285 destroyed the old wooden fortress and also the surrounding village. At the earliest in the late 12th century, a new castle and a village were built to the north-west of the ancient Napoca." Doesn't make sense: says, in effect, that the new castle and a village were built before the Tatar invasions. - Jmabel | Talk 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Right to the west of Cluj is the forest of Baciu, which is famous for its alleged paranormal activity (including but not limited to UFOs). Perhaps there was a time warp! :-) bogdan (talk) 18:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't explained very well, but the articles talks about two different settlements (one in the current city center, and an abbey in Manastur). --Danutz (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Nationalisitic anachronism (writing history backward)

"For a year, between 1600-01, Cluj-Napoca became part of Romania, unified under Michael the Brave." The term "Romania" is anachronistic. Also, was there any formal unification of the three principalities (vs. one prince holding multiple crowns)? - Jmabel | Talk 18:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no idea of "Romania" or national unity back then. Michael the Brave conquered the two principalities (Moldavia and Transylvania), that's all. The view as Michael as a Romanian patriot was created by the modern 19th century Romantic Nationalist historians.
In the writings of the Moldavian chronicler Miron Costin, Michael the Brave appears in the role of conqueror of Transylvania and Moldavia, “the cause of much spilling of blood among Christians”, and not even highly appreciated by his own Muntenians: “The rule of Voivode Michael was hateful to the Muntenians, what with his armies and wars" (Lucian Boia)
bogdan (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Done. Replaced with "the personal union of Michael the Brave". --Danutz (talk) 21:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"Spreads toward"

"The city spreads toward St. Michael's Church": I cannot imagine what it means for a city to "spread toward" a church (unless that church was originally outside the city and the city grew in the direction of the church, which seems unlikely here). I'm guessing that this means to say "The city spreads out from St. Michael's Church". - Jmabel | Talk 22:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Danutz (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Rivers & nonsense

"It strains on the valleys of Someşul Mic and Nadăş, and, through certain extension on the secundary valleys of Popeşti, Chintău, Borhanci and Popii rivers." Makes no sense. I'm guessing that "secundary" is a typo for "secondary", but it still makes no sense. What does it mean to "strain" on a valley? How does a river have a secondary valley? "...through certain extension..." doesn't make any sense either. - Jmabel | Talk 01:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"Se întinde pe văile râurilor Someşul Mic şi Nadăş şi, prin anumite prelungiri, pe văile secundare ale Popeştiului, Chintăului, Borhanciului şi Popii." I replaced that with "It sprawls over the valleys of Someşul Mic and Nadăş, and, to some extent over the secondary valleys of Popeşti, Chintău, Borhanci and Popii rivers." I'm not an expert in geography, but I guess there are "secondary valleys" if the sources say so. --Danutz (talk) 11:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Peri-urban

"The population of the planned Cluj-Napoca metropolitan area includes 360 thousand people, while the population of the peri-urban area (Romanian: zona periurbană) exceeds 400 thousand residents." Two problems here:

  1. "the planned Cluj-Napoca metropolitan area": along with "The metropolitan area of Cluj-Napoca should be functional". I assume that what is meant is something like the proposed officially recognized #"the Cluj-Napoca metropolitan area" or some such, because a "metropolitan area" normally refers to something that cannot be neatly specified by official borders.
  2. "peri-urban" simply does not exist in English. I don't really know what periurbană means, but making up a corresponding English neologism is completely uninformative.

- Jmabel | Talk 01:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done.
  1. Yes, the sentence reffers to the legislative project of the Cluj-Napoca metropolitan area. I replaced that with "The population of the Cluj-Napoca metropolitan area includes 360 thousand people" and "The metropolitan authorities of Cluj-Napoca should be functional as early as June 2008".
  2. See wikt:peri-urban/wikt:periurban, Google peri-urban/Google periurban. --Danutz (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
  1. "The metropolitan authorities of Cluj-Napoca should be functional" still seems like an unfortunate wording. "Authorities" most often refers to people. Given that one of the main uses of "functional" is to mean a human being capable of functioning appropriately, this conjures an image of dysfunctional leaders who will have their act together in a few months. Also, "the Cluj-Napoca metropolitan area has a population of 360 thousand people" would be a lot more straightforward.
  2. Note that wikt:peri-urban says "Used especially in English-speaking Africa and in India and Australia etc". That is, uncommon in U.S. and UK English, the two most dominant forms of the language. I'm a well-educated, well-read American who has also spent what adds up to years in the UK, and the word was not in my vocabulary. So if we are going to use it, we should at least have a Wiktionary link on it.

- Jmabel | Talk 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to know all the words in a language, even if it is your native language. I myself haven't heard about "periurban/periurbană" before I saw the metropolitan area project. However, I didn't know it is acceptable to use a wiktionary link in Wikipedia articles, but I fixed that now. --Danutz (talk) 17:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

References

There are some books in the "References" section that are not used in the notes section. Are they needed? bogdan (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes they somewhat "double-reference" many affirmations in the text. --Danutz (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but they should either be referenced in the notes section or removed. bogdan (talk) 12:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Why is that? Inline citations are not obligatory. So if we have further sources, the better. In the worst case they could be inserted as Further reading. --Danutz (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please tell me which are the books is the discussion about? I'll try to integrate them in the article notes system. --R O A M A T A A | msg  15:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Estate experts

"According to estate experts...": What the heck is an "estate expert"? - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. Replace with "real estate experts". --Danutz (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"interrogatories"

"... following a three year long forensic investigation comprising four thousand interrogatories." Interrogatory is not normally a noun, and I have no idea what it is intended to mean here. - Jmabel | Talk 02:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with cross-examination. --Danutz (talk) 12:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that is not the correct word either. A "cross-examination" is when a lawyer for one side in a courtroom asks questions of the other lawyer's witness. Perhaps you mean "interrogations"? Although even then, the whole thing is vague. Does this mean that 4,000 separate people were asked questions, or what? If so, "in which 4,000 people were questioned". If you mean that the same person was asked 4,000 questions, then "during which he was asked 4,000 questions". - Jmabel | Talk 16:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I replaced with "in wich 4,000 people were questioned".--Danutz (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

World War I

Did anything notable happened in World War I in Cluj? When did the Romanian troops occupy the city? There's absolutely nothing about that. bogdan (talk) 12:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Danutz (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

A few more problems

Famous local brands that have become well-known at a national, or even international level

I really doubt that any of them is known on international level. Any reference for that? bogdan (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Banca Trasilvania extended in Cyprus, Jolidon has its own business in France, Hungary and Italy, but its products are distrbuted widely than that (Germania, Elvetia, Belgia, Slovenia, Croatia, Polonia, Letonia, Rusia, Austria, Cipru, Malta, SUA, Canada, Japonia, Africa de Sud, Liban, Israel)[4], Ursus is distributed in Spain, Italy and USA [5], Farmec exports to 60 countries.
These brands are not "well-known" at international level:
1) Banca Trasilvania has a Cyprus branch for helping Romanians with money laundering, it's not intended to be used by Cypriots
2) Jolidon is not a well-known company at international level.
3) Ursus is exported only to the countries with larger Romanian minorities, for the use of people who miss home.
4) the products of Farmec are infamous, not famous (for instance, Gerovital has been banned in the United States since the 1970s for being simply quackery)
bogdan (talk) 22:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The city also houses headquarters of MOL,[81] Aegon,[82] Perfetti Van Melle,[83] Bechtel,[84] Office Depot and Genpact.[85]

The headquarters of MOL is in Hungary, of Bechtel in the US, etc. Perhaps you mean the HQ of the Romanian subsidiaries of these companies? bogdan (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't wrote "the headquarters", i wrote that it "houses headquarters". I couldn't write the Romanian headquarters, because for example Office Depot doesn't have a Romanian subsidiary, and Cluj headquarters the European offices. However I inserted "regional and local" headquarters.
The city has also become an important IT sector centre, with over 100 software companies and two universities that provide quality graduate engineers. Nokia invested 200 million euros in a mobile telephone factory and a research centre in Cluj.

Not in the city, but in Jucu, Cluj County. bogdan (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The research centre is in Cluj-Napoca. I clarified the sources in the article. See Cluj-Napoca#Economy.


In spite of the influences of modern culture, the traditional Romanian culture, however, continues to have an influence in domains such as theatre and music.

Where is that traditional culture in theatre? It's not clear. bogdan (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the influences of modern culture, the traditional Romanian culture, however, continues to have an influence in diverse domains of arts. (pending explanation and citations in the following paragraphs).
Moreover, the city also preserves a Historic Collection of the Pharmacy, in the building of the first pharmacy (16th century), the Hintz House.
The first pharmacy from where? in Cluj? in Transylvania? in Romania? in the world? bogdan (talk) 12:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The first pharmacy in Cluj. Details in the separate article about the Hintz House. I changed to "building of its first pharmacy" --Danutz (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Aliens

Various urban myths have developed across the years, including reports about large networks of catacombs that connect the old churches of the city and alien presence in the forest of Hoia.

I'm not sure where to put the stuff about the famous Cluj extraterrestrials, but they certainly don't belong in the Geography section. bogdan (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I know, that is why I put if first in a separate Trivia section. I finally moved the paragraph to Surroundings section as follows: ...squirrels live in the forests in the nearby areas, like Făget or Hoia. This last forest hosts the Romulus Vuia ethnographical park, with exhibits dating back in 1678.[1] Also, various urban myths reported alien encounters in the Hoia-Baciu forest, yet such myths also involved large networks of catacombs that connect the old churches of the city, or monster presence in the nearby lake of Tarniţa.' --Danutz (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

"State-renowned"

"...state-renowned cultural institutions...": "state-renowned" is odd in English. Does this mean "nationally renowned"? Or something else? - Jmabel | Talk 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with nationally renowned. --Danutz (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

A few issues in this section:

  1. "The Romanian name of the city used to be spelled alternately as Cluj or Cluş – as in the case of Mihai Eminescu's Poesis. "
    • Why the link to Romania for "Romanian"? Presumably, the language, not the country is meant, and unless this is a clarification (which I think it is not) it is an overlink: we should lose the link.
    • "as in the case of...": meaning that Eminescu uses both spellings? Or that he uses Cluş? Either way, this is unclear. This should either say, "both spellings appear in Mihai Eminescu's Poesis" or "Mihai Eminescu used the latter spelling in his Poesis", depending which is correct.
  2. "In Slovak and Yiddish the city is known as Kl'už and קלאזין (Klazin, Kloyznburg), respectively." Confusing, and presumably unnecessarily so. I believe Klazin is the transliteration of this Yiddish, but then what is Kloyznburg doing here? It is certainly not another transliteration of the same Yiddish. Perhaps it is an alternative name in Yiddish? Sounds Yiddish. But then the Yiddish orthography for that should also be present. I think that is קלויזענבורג (I looked at the Hebrew article, but I'm pretty illiterate in Hebrew and Yiddish); someone should verify before that goes in.

- Jmabel | Talk Jmabel | Talk 22:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the Yiddish name is קלויזענבורג, {Kloyzenburg) similar to the German Klausenberg. I've corrected the in-article text. -- Avi (talk) 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
So Done on question 2, but question 1 is still open. - Jmabel | Talk 23:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Replaced with : The Romanian name of the city used to be spelled alternately as Cluj or Cluş – the latter as in the case of Mihai Eminescu's Poesis. --Danutz (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberation

on 11 October 1944 the city of Cluj was liberated by the Romanian and Soviet troops

The word "liberation" is the Romanian POV. At the time, most inhabitants of the city were Hungarians, who would have not seen it as a liberation... bogdan (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with captured, as per the NY Times article.--Danutz (talk) 14:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Geography

More little stuff:

  1. "...the northern town hosts the Dealurile Clujului...": "hosts" is odd here, and I'm not sure of what is meant. One doesn't normally "host" a hill. If these hills are actually within the town, then "...the northern town is the site of the Dealurile Clujului..." or even "...the northern town is home to the Dealurile Clujului...", but not "hosts"
  2. "Nonetheless, other hills are located in the western districts, whereas the inner side of the town also hosts the hills of Calvaria and Cetăţuia (Belvedere)."
    • Why "nonetheless"? Why would one not expect the western districts to include hills? I think just drop the word. Similarly for "whereas".
    • "the inner side of the town" makes no sense, at least as far as I can tell. The centre is not a side.
    • So I'm guessing that what this means is "Other hills are located in the western districts, and the hills of Calvaria and Cetăţuia (Belvedere) are located near the centre of town." If that is a correct understanding, then that is the wording I'd propose.
    • "the inner circle of the city": does this have a precise meaning (e.g. inside a ring road)? Or is it just a figure of speech, in which case one less suggestive of a false precision would be more accurate.
    • "the "Haşdeu" Park, within the homonymous student campus": "homonymous" may be technically correct, but it is not what any English speaker would say. "Homonym" in English most often means two words pronounced the same but with different spellings. And what is a "student campus"? Is it the campus of a university, or a special area specifically containing student housing and associated with a university that has its main campus elsewhere, or just a neighborhood with a lot of students? Or something else entirely?

- Jmabel | Talk 00:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, shouldn't it be spelled "Hasdeu" instead of "Haşdeu"? bogdan (talk) 00:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Haşdeu is the correct name.--R O A M A T A A | msg  06:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Bogdan Petriceicu Hasdeu#Note on his name bogdan (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't knew this. Anyway the name used in Cluj is Haşdeu, in this case what would be the form prefered - the grammatical correct one or the one used there? And finally I don't know if the park's name come from the writer name or from someone elses name. --R O A M A T A A | msg  09:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
I adressed of all your concerns. About the last one with the "Haşdeu" Park: I replaced it with the "Haşdeu" Park, within the eponymous student housing district (per Arnaud Lagardere, head of the eponymous media group - The Guardian, July 17 2007) --Danutz
Yes, eponymous is a much better word here, because it indicates the nature of the connection. - Jmabel | Talk 16:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Baroque

The National Museum of Art is located in the former palace of the count György Bánffy, considered to be the most representative construction built in the Baroque style in Transylvania.

POV and weasel words. Considered by whom? If it is considered so by an expert in Baroque art, we should write the name of the expert. If it's just taken from a tourist guide written by a non-expert, it doesn't belong here.

I would argue that there are many Baroque buildings in Transylvania which are much more representative: for instance, the building on the right-side of this pic (in Sibiu, not sure of the name of the building) has more Baroque elements than the Bánffy Palace and as such, it would be more representative. bogdan (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The building in the photo has only a Baroque facade, whereas, the Cluj-Napoca Banffy Palace is a real palace, in that it has a Baroque inner yard. The source provided is a book about Cluj, not a touristic guide. I know asked the exact quotation in the book, to see if there are any details we could include.--Danutz (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Here you have the quotes: See: [6], [7]

Urmatorul imobil de pe aceasta latura a pietei Unirii este considerat cel mai important monument laic-baroc al Clujului, dar totodata, si din intreaga Transilvanie. Cunoscut [...] drept Palatul Banffy, aceasta cladire adaposteste astazi Muzeul National de Arta

— Lukács József 2005, p.83

Palatul Banffy, cel mai impunator exemplu de constructie baroc-laica din Transilvania, a influentat intreaga arhitectura baroca din Transilvania

— Lukács József 2005, p.83

--Danutz (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Pontiffs

Of the Madonna of Nicula: "During this time, nobles and officers, laity and pontiffs came to see it." "Pontiffs" seems an odd choice. In the Roman Catholicism, "pontiff" is a term usually used only for the Pope; the term is not used in Protestantism. Does it have a much broader meaning in Eastern Orthodoxy? If not, I strongly suggest "clergy" instead. In fact, even if it has a broader meaning in Eastern Orthodoxy, unless there is something wrong with "clergy", I think that word would be clearer to most English-language readers. - Jmabel | Talk 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Done - Jmabel | Talk 06:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Exaggeration

after the elections in 2004, the situation changed dramatically, with the city entering a period of rapid growth both in terms of economics and demographics.

Demographically, the city of Cluj is exactly the same as in 2004. I can't see any "dramatic growth" in its population. In 2005, it had 310,194 inhabitants, in 2007, it had a whooping 310,243 inhabitants, almost fifty people more in two years! bogdan (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I removed "after the elections in 2004". Maybe is was not the happiest timeline, however the city is experiencing a rapid growth. (2006 297 thousand, 2007 310 thousand). --Danutz (talk) 08:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Those are just some year-to-year fluctuations... But even if they were not, a 4% growth is not explosive for a city. bogdan (talk) 09:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should temperate the sentence and exclude dramatically and rapid. In last years is true that the population increase was not so big, at least not in the official numbers. The economics changed dramatically, but a reliable source would be necessary. --R O A M A T A A | msg  12:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The reliable source is allready listed, the Financial Times article. I clarified the affirmation. It said, Cluj-Napoca entered a period of rapid demographic growth, that hasn't ended yet ("population growth is projected to lead to the city’s population more than doubling in the next ten years"). About economics, "Things have changed since[...] Cluj has been leading recently.[...]Rapid growth is bringing problems."--Danutz (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

A few points

I'll raise some issues here, and more if they come up.

  • The DA alliance no longer exists - maybe someone could update this (or we could wait for the local elections this summer and make a new one).
Actualy in Cluj-Napoca the alliance as far as I know is still functioning, see http://www.primariaclujnapoca.ro/componenta-consiliului.aspx where it is still listed.
Well, it could be they didn't update the site, but I e-mailed for clarification. Also, does the PD still exist? We describe Emil Boc as PD president, but I think that's being replaced by the PD-L... Biruitorul (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Actualy the alliance is not disbanded in some provincial areas, including Cluj-Napoca.
  • What happened in Cluj in the 1918-1940 period? Maybe a one-sentence summary would be helpful.
Nothing important, so far I know, maybe if you cant point somthing...--Danutz (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll try to do some research and include 1-2 sentences about the interbelic Cluj. --R O A M A T A A | msg  14:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Roamataa please pay attention to the lenght of the section, and include those sentences only if they really are relevant.
Well, of course. But do tell us what you came up with, at least here on the talk page. Biruitorul (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I know we can't include every episode in history, but the 1946 student strike and the 1956 demonstrations (which led the regime to merge Babeş and Bolyai universities) might be worth mentioning. And, come to think of it, people died in 1989 in Cluj too - a couple of monuments are dedicated to the victims.
I added infos about those two events.--Danutz (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Great, thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
  • No one (outside the government) actually uses the "Napoca" part; we should put that in if we find a citation. Also, why hasn't the city's name reverted to "Cluj"? Maybe we can find a source for that as well.
The official name is Cluj-Napoca. See [8] for example. Cluj is the colocvial name, note the official one. --R O A M A T A A | msg  06:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, of course. I was just wondering if we should put "until 1974 and colloquially still Cluj", but it doesn't seem an absolute necessity. Biruitorul (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
It was suggested in this discussion to include something about WW1 in the article. Amos Francu was the leader of the revolutionary activities during the WW1. I find that rather important.
Granted, it's just that he has a low Google count, but maybe he's more prominent in the history books. Incidentally, what was the thrust of these revolutionary activities in 1918? Socialist? Anarchist? Or just anti-imperialist/pro-Union? Maybe an adjective could clear up the uncertainty. Biruitorul (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that is obvious from that paragraph: pro-Union: "In the autumn of 1918, Cluj became a centre of revolutionary activities during World War I, headed by Amos Frâncu who, on 28 October 1918, made an appeal for the organisation of the "union of all Romanians"."--Danutz (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough. Biruitorul (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I suggest cutting the whole Lészai Lehel/Noua Dreaptă part, not because I want to cover it up, but because it's relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, and represents quite an extreme. Hungarians are freely able to live and walk about Cluj, using their language and so forth, and while a celebration of their national day might cause friction, and inflame a group of extremists (who don't represent the majority's sentiments), it tends to distort the picture, as inter-communal relations are quite harmonious in the post-Funar era. It seems like more of a "current event" than something we'd want in a stable article on the place.
For me it's ok. Seems to be a minor thing and there's no absolute need to include it here. Eventually it can be included in the article about Cluj history or somewhere else. --R O A M A T A A | msg  06:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The subject was largely treated in the Romanian press (both nationaly and localy), so I think it should stay in the article as an example of such ethnic tenssions. This was also suggested by User:Bogdangiusca--Danutz (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I grant that it was widely covered. However: a) if you want to talk about ethnic tensions, Kosovska Mitrovica is an appropriate place to look - Cluj, not so much. b) Is the incident part of a wider trend, is it expected to have a lasting impact? Probably not. A few Romanian kids beat up a Hungarian kid - it's unfortunate, it's not something that should be happening, but neither does it happen every day, not does it represent part of a wider undercurrent of ethnic tension. Biruitorul (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't assert it has such ethnic tenssions, but just because of that this example should be noted, as it is unique. --Danutz (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Answering Biruitorul's request for comment, I think the paragraph is an example for giving undue weight for a minor incident. In the Funar era, ethnic relations were more strained but there is only one sentence about that whole decade long period. I suggest cutting the whole paragraph hoping that it is not the beginning of a new trend. In Vojvodina where Hungarians are regularly beaten up, every new case is important, but in Romania ethnic relations are generally much more peaceful. Zello (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Zello. And I agree, there's more to be said about Funar (the flags everywhere, the painted benches, the refusal to allow a marrying couple to say igen, the excavations in front of Szent Mihály, the erasure of "Hungarorum" on Corvinus' statue, etc). Whether that should go here or in the History of Cluj-Napoca article is debatable, but like you noted, this latest incident should not be given undue weight unless it proves to be the start of a wider trend, which all accounts indicate is not the case. Biruitorul (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Any word on Roma life in the city/surroundings? What about Germans and Jews? There were quite a few in the past (especially Jews, in the interwar).
There are no more German and Jew communities in Cluj-Napoca, so for example there are no more Germans than Italians or Moldovans. About the Roma community is not very much to write, because the situation is the same as in the entire Romania. Pay attention, this articles is about Cluj-Napoca, and it should focus on its features, not the generalities reported to Romania (The article allready contains the procents of this minorities).--Danutz (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer. In 1930, Cluj was 2.5% German (not that important), but 13% Jewish - pretty important. Currently the article says nothing about the Jews of Cluj except how they were killed. That may be fine. However, it might be nice (though not essential) if we could come up with something along the lines of "Jews from Austria and Russia began to settle in Cluj in 17__ and by 1930 comprised 13% of the city's population. With _ synagogues and numerous businesses, artists and festivals, they led a vibrant religious, economic and cultural life". That's what I was saying. Biruitorul (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I missread your comment, sorry. I did not find anything relevant on the Internet about Jews of Cluj-Napoca, except for the percent you allready noted: 13 percent. Maybe you have a source. --Danutz (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Finally I found something abouth ethnics in the city, see the Cluj-Napoca#Demographics section for updates on the Jew, German and Roma communities.--Danutz (talk) 00:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Wonderful, thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is not about Hungarian minority in Romania, so we donnot focus on it. That is why it would be to much to speak about secondary schools (that are available throughout Romania) and other such things that are not special to Cluj-Napoca. It would also be strage to talk only about the Hungarian secondary schools and not about the Romanian ones, but if we would do so we will overcharge the article. The Hungarian university teaching is a unique feature of Cluj-Napoca within Romania. --Danutz (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I put in a sentence that hopefully covers the matter. Biruitorul (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I found some information about that, but do you think it is really relevant. If Cluj were the first European/Romanian city to be electrified or to have a railway, then I would find it relevant, but otherwise. However, here you have the quote and the source. Feel free to include it, if you find it relevant:

De la felinarele cu lămpi de petrol, din 1826, se trece, în 1871, la iluminatul cu gaz lampant, iar în 1906 se introduce iluminatul electric.

— Lazarovici et al. 1997, p.73 (4.1 Centru al mişcării revoluţionare)

--Danutz (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I put that in the "History of..." article - thanks. Biruitorul (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Danutz, I note you cut "The main reasons for these shifts were the extermination and emigration of the city's Jews, the outlawing of the Greek-Catholic Church (1948-89) and the gradual decline in the Hungarian population", dealing with the change in Cluj's religious demographics between 1930 and 2002. Granted, ideally we should have a citation, and by all means let's try to find one. But given that a) "we know" this is true (ie, I don't think you actually dispute what I say), and b) readers unfamiliar with Romanian history are apt to wonder why such a dramatic transformation happened in just 72 years, one could IAR and keep the sentence in there. I'm not prepared to do that at present, but there is a case for it. Biruitorul (talk) 02:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Judes"

"royal judes": is this a typo for "royal judges" or something related to judeţ? (Ah, yes, Jude is obscure.)- Jmabel | Talk 06:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is connected to "judeţ". In Romanian it is "juzi regali" (not "judecători roiali" that would mean "royal judges".--Danutz (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Jude (pl. juzi) had both administrative and judiciary functions within a judeţ (county). I think "judge" is an appropriate translation, since, for instance, this is the word used in English for the Biblical judges, who also had administrative roles. bogdan (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Then either "royal judge-administrators" or (ideally) a link to an article on this particular role. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

What name when?

This isn't exactly "Danzig/Gdansk" but as the article currently stands: "For a year, in 1600–1601, Cluj-Napoca became part of the personal union of Michael the Brave. With the Treaty of Carlowitz in 1699, Klausenburg became part of the Habsburg Monarchy." There might (barely) be a case to be made for "For a year, in 1600–1601, Cluj became…" (though I presume that Romanian was not the official language of Michael's court) but "Cluj-Napoca" is absolutely anachronistic; it sits very oddly by "Klausenburg" in the next sentence. - Jmabel | Talk 06:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Replaced with Cluj. --Danutz (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

WWII

"After the Germans occupied Hungary in March 1944 and established a pro-Nazi government there, large scale antisemitic measures were taken in the city" is both understated and a bit confusing. The prior Horthy government was already pro-Nazi (both a cause and an effect of the Second Vienna Award) and its views and policies were duly antisemitic. The difference is that the Horthy government was not murderously antisemitic. How about "After the Germans occupied Hungary in March 1944 and established the virulently antisemitic Arrow Cross government there, nearly all of the city's Jews fell victim to the Holocaust" (to which one might add, accurately but perhaps off-topic, "as did virtually all Jews in Hungarian-controlled territory outside of Budapest itself").- Jmabel | Talk 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Arrow Cross Party, while legalized in March 1944 when a German puppet government was installed, didn't actually come to power until that October, when Germany intervened again and ousted Horthy. By that time the Jews of Cluj had been liquidated. So how about "After the Germans occupied Hungary in March 1944 and established a puppet government under Döme Sztójay there, nearly all of the city's Jews fell victim to the Holocaust"? Biruitorul (talk) 00:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Fixed: After the Germans occupied Hungary in March 1944 and forced the establishment of the pro-Nazi Döme Sztójay government there,[58] large scale antisemitic measures were taken in the city I also changed the source to reference the new content.--Danutz (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but Horthy too was pro-Nazi, though less so; personally, I would say "a puppet government under Sztójay" to make the distinction clearer. Biruitorul (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
It is better withouth puppet, as I havn't found a reliable source for that. The affirmation doesn't say the previous government was not pro-Nazi, it just says this one is pro-Nazi. I also (temporarly) removed the affirmation "The main reasons for these shifts were the extermination and emigration of the city's Jews, the outlawing of the Greek-Catholic Church (1948-89) and the gradual decline in the Hungarian population." until we find some sources. Also, Biruitorul, please pay more attention on the sources. I saw you modified an affirmation about the Hungarian Revolution in 1956. Indeed your edit is suported by the source I provided, because I made previously an unfortunate translation on that matter using the word "uprasing" (with the source stating "mişcări studenţeşti"); however, when you do such edits please search for an appropriate source, if you modify the whole affirmation, and not just the wording. --Danutz (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, put it this way (this is sourced too, by the way): Hungary moved from being a Nazi satellite to a Nazi puppet in March 1944. But I did cite for the claim. I do tend to be careful with sources, especially if I don't have them right in front of me, but as I've read about what happened and didn't veer too far into speculation, I think my rephrasing was sensible. See above for my comment on the sentence you cut. If we can't find a source, I don't know if one is strictly necessary - it seems like common sense and helps unfamiliar readers. I will, however, wait and see what I can find. Biruitorul (talk) 04:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay.--Danutz (talk) 14:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Twin Cities

Is there any source for them? bogdan (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See for example: http://www.ana.gov.ro/rom/20.10.2006/LISTA%20MUNICIPIILOR%20INFRATITE%20DIN%20ROMANIA.doc --Danutz (talk) 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Is there any basis for the term "twin cities"? In the US, at least, we usually call these "sister cities". "Twin cities" means two roughly equal sized cities near one another, like Minneapolis and St. Paul in Minnesota. - Jmabel | Talk 06:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See Town twinning. "In the European Union, such pairs of towns are known as twin towns, friendship towns or partner towns; in North America, India, Pakistan and Australasia, the term sister cities is used for the same concept; and brother cities is the term in the former Soviet bloc." Cluj-Napoca is in the European Union. --Danutz (talk) 12:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Significant natural increase

At this time, due to Ceauşescu's ban on abortion and contraception, natural increase was also significant.

Actually, from what I read, it was "significant" only in the countryside, not in the cities. I found a study which says that between 1987-1990, in cities the fertility rate was 2.0 (compared with 2.8 for rural areas). A fertility rate of 2.0 is less than the 2.1 replacement rate, so it cannot generate any natural increase. I suspect that in the cities in Moldavia and in cities with higher percentage of Roma population, the fertility rate would be greater, so it's quite probable that in Cluj, it was lower than 2.0.

Urban fertility rate: 2.0
Rural fertility rate: 2.8[1]

Do you have any reference which says otherwise? bogdan (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I clarified the paragraph: The population influx during this era was largely based on the net migration, given that this latter comprised ca. two thirds of this progress; indeed, natural increase was also significant after 1966—Ceauşescu's ban on abortion and contraception—being responsible for the remainder.

Creşterile mari de după anul 1966 s-au datorat, în proporţie de circa două treimi, sporului migratoriul, restul revenind sporului natural.

— Lazarovici et al. 1997, p.154

"Non-inscrits"

"Non-inscrits" isn't English. Does this mean anything other than "independents"? Does it perhaps mean "unregistered parties"? - Jmabel | Talk 06:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced it with "Non-attached". However, "non inscrits" is prevalent in English.--Danutz (talk) 11:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

subject/verb agreement

"...headquarters of the county council (consiliu judeţean) and prefect, who is appointed...": if the council and prefect are both appointed, "...headquarters of the county council (consiliu judeţean) and prefect, who are appointed..." If only the prefect is appointed, then "...headquarters of the county council (consiliu judeţean) and the prefect, who is appointed..." (bolding for emphasis only in both cases). - Jmabel | Talk 06:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

The prefect is appointed by the central government.--Danutz (talk) 11:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

PUNR

"In order to counterbalance the influence of the UDMR, the beginning of the 1990s brought the establishment of the Party of Romanian National Unity...": besides the nearly passive voice ("the beginning of the 1990s" should not be the subject of the sentence), what is going on here? It seems to completely remove agency: who founded the party? Why did they feel a need "to counterbalance the influence of the UDMR"? I can pretty much guess (anti-separatism, Romanian nationalism) but it's going to be a lot less clear to a random English-language reader. - Jmabel | Talk 06:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I replaced with "In order to counterbalance the influence of the Hungarian minority in Transylvania, the Romanians in Transylvania founded the Party of Romanian National Unity (PUNR) at the beginnings of the 1990s; the party was present in the Romanian Parliament during the 1992-1996 legislature". I cannot figure another rephrasing.--Danutz (talk) 11:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Further points

  • Any reason we give the Slovak name? In 2002 the city had just 25 Slovaks.
We give it as a name in another language, as we use the Jewish name or the German one.
In general (and I'm sure this is somewhere in the MOS, but let's just think logically for a moment), alternate names should have some connection to a place, whether historic or contemporary. Klausenburg and the Yiddish name have historic significance; Kolozsvár both. I don't see either for the Slovak name. The Turkish Kaloşvar, the Romani Kluzh, the Ukrainian Клуж-Напока or the Polish Kluż-Napoka probably have better claims at being listed, but let's not (because, other than Romanian, only Hungarian, German and Yiddish have really been significant in Cluj history), and let's not give the Slovak either, as there's not much basis for doing so (unless you want to give the Chinese 克卢日-纳波卡). Biruitorul (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I knew Slovaks had had some presence in this area. I'm sure it was some kind of colonisation during history (For Oradea for example I'm sure). You can remove it, I put it there because it was listed in that source along with the Yiddish name.--Danutz (talk) 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, if it was in a source, and Slovaks were there at some point, fine, I suppose. Biruitorul (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "In 1488, King Matthias Corvinus (born in Klausenburg in 1440) ordered that the centumviral court be half composed from the homines bone conditiones (the wealthy people), while the remaing members should come from the commonwealths; together they would elect the chief judge and the jury." Brubaker (p.90) frames this in more ethnic terms: "By the middle of the fifteenth century...an agreement was reached providing that half of the representatives on the city council were to be drawn from the Hungarian, half from the Saxon population, and that judicial offices were to be held on a rotating basis. Although the historical literature refers to the 'national struggle' between Hungarians and Germans in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, the struggle was not between 'nations' in the modern sense but between medieval nationes, understood as legally privileged status groups, not as 'demotic', vertically inclusive ethnocultural communities".
Now, we can just ignore Brubaker - that would be fine. However, while I like the mention of Corvin in the first source, the second one uses plainer English, which is an advantage. "City council" is better than "centumviral court"; and "commonwealths" isn't explained, while Brubaker is quite explicit in defining his terminology. Anyway, something to think about. Biruitorul (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The sources talk about two different things. Commonwealth reprezintă breasla. This is a quotation from Lazarovici, p.38: "În 1488, regele Matia Corvinul decide ca din corpul centumvirilor, 50 să fie aleşi dintre "oamenii cu stare bună" (homines bone conditiones), iar ceilalţi dintre breslaşi, aceştia alegând judele şi juraţii. Jumãtate din centumviri urmau sã fie maghiari, cealaltã jumãtate sasi." I clearified the text in the article. --Danutz (talk) 14:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't "breaslă" be translated by guild? bogdan (talk) 15:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
A guild is a association of craftsmen. So it is more likely to use "craftsmen" than "guild member".--Danutz (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes, but a) not all craftsmen were guild members and b) all centumvirates of that class were guild members and craftsmen. Also we mention the guilds right at the beginning of the paragraph. And looking at DEX, breslaş is "membru al unei bresle", while breaslă is "asociaţie de meşteşugari de aceeaşi branşă, creată pentru apărarea intereselor comune; organizaţie închisă a meşterilor". The source says breslaşi, not meşteri / meşteşugari, so it seems more logical to use "guild members". Biruitorul (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a "breaslă" is that what you pointed, but the council was formed by members of all such "bresle"— and that includes all "meşteşugari". Moreover, we already speak in that paragraph about "craft guild", so craftmen is well understood given the context.--Danutz (talk) 17:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Fine. Do also see my continuation of the Slovak point just above. Biruitorul (talk) 17:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I wonder if there's anything regarding city walls/fortifications. We do mention Mănăştur, though there's precious little said about Cetăţuie or remaining walls in the city (which do remain). Anyway, this material is best suited for the "History of ..." and Cetăţuia, Cluj-Napoca articles, so I'm not suggesting we put it here, but it is something to think about for the future. Biruitorul (talk) 18:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
If this will be necessary, ro:Cetatea Clujului could be a starting point. --R O A M A T A A | msg  19:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
That and ro:Cetăţuia (Cluj-Napoca) - ah yes, excellent, thank you for pointing them out. Certainly they should be translated at some point. Biruitorul (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Image

It's not that the photo was shot in cloudy days, but it was not well rendered in that gallery, whereas all other photos on that line were sunny. This one is better, allthough not perfect, as a large part of it is covered by buildings, in contrast with the pictures that stand by them. BTW, I don't own a camera, outside the mobile phones, and I also don't see myself taking pictures. However I did search on Flickr, and found no (free) picture with the monument. --Danutz (talk) 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I misspoke - you were the one who uploaded the picture to Commons, but not the original creator. I'll see if I can find a better replacement or ask someone to take a new photo. Biruitorul (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Biruitorul, I will point you the characteristics of the gallery, as I realise you can see them. In the first line, the buildings occupy a overwhelming part of the picture. In the second line, the tone varies from sunny, to grassy: Image:Statuie Teatrul National.jpg to Image:Central Park Cluj-Napoca2.jpg. The last one includes also close pictures overwhelming dominated by the buildings (and not the sun, like the picture you added with St. Michale), all of this buildings having the same colour. Please pay attention when adding a photo that it fits, becuase as I said before, this is a featured picture gallery, and not a gallery like in Commons. We have many more pictures about Cluj, but we donnot include them here.--Danutz (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. That said, we should put Sf. Mihai somewhere in the article, as it is, after all, the most representative landmark of Cluj. Would "Hungarian community" be a good place to insert it? Biruitorul (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I suggest, another picture for that section (n.p. Cluj-Napoca#Hungarian community). Maybe the interior view? See

--Danutz (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem per se with those images. However, here's the thing. More than any other building, Sf. Mihai represents Cluj. It's what the Coliseum is to Rome, Westminster Palace to London, the Eiffel Tower to Paris, the Capitol to Washington, etc. That's why I think it's imperative the article have a picture of the church in its entirety. We have this, we also have this (albeit with the spire cut off), we can also ask Roamata to take a new picture if these aren't good, we can also use this... Any will be suitable, but as I said, we really ought to include a picture of it. Biruitorul (talk) 20:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I entered this picture. it is a bird-eye picture, and it shows the entire building.--Danutz (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Beautiful! Thank you. Biruitorul (talk) 21:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

"lack of discernment"

"lack of discernment": a very odd term to use in English with reference to a serial killer. Precisely what does it mean? Is it comparable to the common-law notion of insanity, in that he could not distinguish right from wrong? Or is it something else? - Jmabel | Talk 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

"Piarists"? Perhaps Pietists?

There is an image in the gallery captioned "Piarists' Church" and linked to the (non-existent) article title Cluj-Napoca Piarists' Church. I presume that piarist is a Romanian word that someone has tried to give an English-style plural. Is it equivalent to "Pietist"? If so, the caption and link should both change accordingly. If not, someone should try to find out what is the equivalent English word and use it. - Jmabel | Talk 23:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jmabel, meet the Piarists! Biruitorul (talk) 00:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! New one to me. Now if we linked it from the article... (which I will). - Jmabel | Talk 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Established in 1581

To say that the Babeş-Bolyai University (UBB) was established in 1581 is really pushing things. The Babeş-Bolyai University as such dates only from 1959. It incorporates the University of Cluj, so it would be reasonable to say that it was established in 1872. As far as I know, there is no continuity back before that time. Yes, I gather that the first institution of higher education in Cluj was established in 1581, but as far as I can tell this is like someone opening a brand new restaurant in a building that housed a restaurant for a year in 1912 and saying that their restaurant was established in 1912. Or am I missing something? - Jmabel | Talk 23:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

External links in the middle of the text

I notice that someone recently adde two external links in the middle of the text: [http://www.akademiacenter.ro/ ''Akademia Center''] and [http://www.nisco.ro/ Nisco Invest]. This is rarely the right thing to do. My own inclination is that neither needs to be a link at all; in the unlikely event that there is a reason to link these, either they merit articles (and should be internal links) or they don't (and should be external links at the bottom of the page). - Jmabel | Talk 16:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Referenced nonsense

"the city's population is projected to more than double by the late 2010s"

Yes, it's sourced, but it's a completely nonsense. The journalist probably heard this from an overenthusiastic local and believed it without looking into the issue. If you look at the population from 2002-2007, you can see it clearly that the population is not going to double anytime soon. What are we supposed to do with things that are against common sense, but yet they are referenced? bogdan (talk) 00:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Financial Times is that kind of Bucharest newspaper. I also heard such provisions in the news and analizes by Sorin Apostu, in the Cluj city hall, so I think it is in projected by the City Hall strategy paper, or the airport strategy paper.--Danutz (talk) 01:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Anyway, in current state, it's still weasel-worded. It doesn't say who made the projection. bogdan (talk) 13:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Charlotte Hord, Henry P. David, France Donnay, Merrill Wolf, "Reproductive Health in Romania: Reversing the Ceausescu Legacy", in Studies in Family Plan, Vol. 22, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1991), pp. 231-240
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cluj-Napoca/Archive_1&oldid=390182695"