Talk:Oradea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure if your Greek Orthodox are Church of Greece or Church of Roumania - I have added link to the former as part of the disambiguation project re "Greek Orthodox Church" (which does not, apparently, exist)

---

Someone removed 'Vie' from the list of Quaters and added 'Oncea'. 'Vie' was linked to quite a lengthy article and Oncea has nothing. Can someone who has related knowledge of geography look into this and make the appropriate decision/fix. The 'Vie' article is no longer linked to anything. I`m from Oradea. There are actually more quarters...

---

• The link to the Korean page needs to be fixed.

What does Carl Ditters von Dittersdorf have to do with Oradea? There's no mention of Oradea on his page.

from Encyclopedia Britannica: "In 1765 he became director of the orchestra of the bishop of Grosswardein."

Grosswardein is the German name of Oradea Bogdan | Talk 20:06, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have the same problem with Attila. May be you can add some short comments next to the names. --Nk 13:45, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

The city walls of Cetatea Oradea have a pentagonal form. Two questions: does anybody know why (any specific reason)it has that form. 2) How common or uncommon is a pentagonal city wall structure for that period/place. (Decius)

Oradea has a rather traditional wall structure. It is not important how many sides it has (5 here) but the fact that they end in bastions and was surrounded by water. This form (water plus bastions) made it easy to defend even against canons. This new type of fortification is the inovation of Italian specialists and were used all over Europe. Oradea played a important role in the fights against the Ottomans and secured access to Transylvania from the Pannonian plains. (Agugu)

Contents 1 Romanians transplanted in Transylvania 2 Nicknames of Oradea 3 The municipality of Oradea is officially bilingual, with the Romanian and Hungarian languages being recognised officially. 4 History of Oradea - Merge in? 5 Oradea is not officialy bilingual, show a law stating such immensity

[edit] Romanians transplanted in Transylvania

Around 800,000-2,000,000 people were transplanted to Transylvania between 1920-1990

Do you have any reference for this? Anonimu 18:15, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have: Recensământul general al populaţiei României din 29 decembrie 1930. Vol. 4. (1940): XXXIV-XXXVII, XLII-XLIX., Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 15 martie 1966. Vol. 4. (1970): 2-9, 18-25., Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 5 ianuarie 1977. Vol. 1. (1980): 696-701., 720-725, Recensămîntul populaţiei şi locuinţelor din 7 ianuarie 1992. Vol. 1. (1994): 112-123., 130-141.

http://vargae.adatbank.transindex.ro/belso.php?k=29&p=2955--fz22 20:17, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

but you have some proofs that the reason of the growth of romanian population in transilvania was the "replantation" of romanians from other regions rather than the difference between the birth rate of hungarians and romanians (romanian one was much higher during the whole period)? Anonimu 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair to say how Romanians moved to Transylvania without saying how many Romanians left Transylvania in the meantime. In Bucharest, I know a lot of people whose parents are from Transylvania. bogdan 21:41, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

haven't you took a look over my links? (Sorry but it is only in hungarian). Those Romanians (who left Transylvania) were also counted ... The final result of this census shows that almost 900,000 Romanians were transplanted after 1930. that's why I've used 800,000 - 2,000,000 (others talk about almost 2 million Romanians)

oh, sorry for not reading hungarian. but the source is dubious, and the author could not be objective. Better find some respectable sources in english. And to make it clear, i don't deny the fact that settlements may have existed, but i doubt that the number you presented is acurrate. And the wording is not good either. Yous should also prove that none of these romanians moved in the region by free will, and all were part of a romanian gvt strategy (as the verb transplanted suggests).Anonimu 23:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

no prob ;) Apropos why it is dubious? Because does not fit your POV? Just take a look over the official datas from the 1966,1977,1992 Romanian census. there was a question about place of birth. You can summarize it for yourself--fz22 07:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

In my oppinion the word "transplanted" is the main problem and it is a term to harsh. I think that the increase of the Romanian population in Transylvania can be related to economics. Transylvania was more developed than some areas of the old kingdom and there were jobs to be filled. There was not enough population because some hungarian urban population quited for Hungary, the german population diminished in several steps and the romanian population could not fill all the jobs, so people came and the state had to encourage them so that the economy can recover and grow. It's called movement of the workforce and is is one of the key elements for any common economycal area and it is a continuous process everywhere. --Mihai -^talk 23:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Just take a look over an etnic map. Romanian colonies -Ianculesti, Lucãceni, Marna Nouã, Horea, Scãrisoara Nouã- were planted near the Ro-Hu border after 1920. (The peoples living in that regions called them even today colonies! They were settled from the Maramures, Salaj, Apuseni region). A clear policy by Romania to change the etnic composition of those areas. " I wrote this several month ago in the Satu Mare page. i stand by what I have said

Among us this is just killing two birds with one stone ;) --fz22 07:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree that some areas were populated with romanians on purpose, but the numbers of those who were settled in "collonies" like the ones in your example are far smaller than the millions you invoke. Once again, I say that the thing that annoys me is the use of the term "transplanted" which for me is an unnatural thing, or forced. I agree that there was a great afflux of romanians comming in Transilvania, but that was mainly a natural mouvement of population inside a country and not a forced one. That can be related to economic reasons, as stated above, and it happends in every country where exists different levels of economical developement. I do not doubt your example in Satu Mare, contrary I consider it is important and any examples in Bihor County are welcomed. But to say 2,000,000 transplanted has only limited connection with these cases and only enfalmes nationalistic feelings, a thing that I honestly do not want. --Mihai -^talk 10:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I've stated that around 800,000 Romanians from Transylvania was born in the Old Kingdom according to 1992 census. This fact could be checked very easily from the 1966, 1977, 1992 census datas. Some other sources talk about 2,000,000 Romanians. Sure it wasn't an agressive deportation, but from the Hungarian POV this is almost irrelevant.--fz22 12:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If we look at the data for ethnic composition in transilvania between 1869 and 1910, we see that romanians have increased by 13.4%, while hungarians by 57,5%. So maybe we should also speak about hungarian transplantation in transylvania in that period. And please make it clear, 800.000 thousand is the number of romanians claimed by that source as "transplanted" in transylvania during 1920-1992, or the number of transylvanian romanians who, in 1992, were born outside the region? Anonimu 12:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The latter. And yes 800,000 (+ descendants!). Don't forget that almost 900,000 Jews have immigrated in Hungary between 1869-1910, (one quarter of Oradea's population was jewish in 1910 - that's the reason why Nicolae Iorga called Oradea the city of Magyars and Jews) and a considerably part of these were Magyarized. Around 1860 they were counted as jews (as a separate ethnic group). in 1910 hungarian census was based on mother tongue and not etnicity. In other hand there was no Magyar transplantation during the dual monarchy ... moreover a lot of village in South-Transylvania lost its Magyar identity definetely in this period! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fz22 (talk • contribs) .

What Magyar villages in Southern Transylvania??? --Mihai -^talk 13:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

not even the jews and magyarized minorities could explain an almost 60% growth rate. you would have about 150.000 hungarians who appeared from nowhere. about the villages in southern transylvania, i doubt that most ever had a strong magyar identity. Anonimu 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it explains. 2-300,000 Jews settled in Transylvania + In the early 20th century the Magyars had a high rate of population growth. 1,300,000 + 250,000(the hungarian Jews) = not 57% but 28% ...

"transplantation" of population is also part of population growth. and those 200,000-300,000 hungarian speaking jews are still hungarians. so we have 200-300,000 transplanted hungarian jews + about 50-100.000 non-jew hungarians= 350-400,000 transplanted hungarian speaking population --Anonimu 15:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames of Oradea

Those Hungarian nicknames are unknown among the new-settler Romanians only ... every primal-oradean/váradi have had heard about them ... --fz22 20:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the situation among Romanian inhabitants of the town but Ronline said they are not widely used. As far as I know these names are connected to Hungarian literary traditions from the turn-of-the-century so it seems reasonable that they are not favoured/known by present-day Romanians Zello 20:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Luv, I live in Oradea/ Nagyvarad. My family is an old mixed Transylvanian one - Hungarian, Romanian, German. Most names I have not heard used by anybody in present day common parlance. They were mostly used during the 19th century, by local press and authors, in both languages literaturess - because, mates, even though Romanian press and literature in Partium/ Crisana in the Austro-Hungarian monarchy was a minority press or literature you cannot disregard it when oit comes to Nagyvarad/Oradea. It would be like talking about Romanian press/literature today and disregard its Transylvanian Hungarian component. The exception to the lack of use of these too much discussed nicknames is ' Paris on the River Pece', still used currently with a touch of grandomania, even in local election campaigns, notably by a Romanian party in the 90's. What do you want more than this, mate? Drop the ethnic line and do not go by what 'is reasonable' because you don't know, as you say. Common sense does not replace knowledge, mate.

I'm not your mate... Zello 00:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cheers for the understanding Zello. Even you say you are not, you definitely have mate material. Hahhahahaha

These names are historical nicknames and are not widely known in the city at the moment. Even if people from Oradea/Nagyvárad (I use the dual name here because Hungarian is the second official language of the city) recognise these names, this recognition is only historical, and they are not used currently to describe the city. I don't have a problem with promoting the Hungarian cultural heritage of Oradea, since there is a lot of that, and a lot of it is quite beautiful, but Oradea is currently majoritarily populated by Romanians, and thus it is odd to call it "Hungarian Compostela" or any of those other names, particularly since these names are, as the article states, historical literary nicknames used during Hungarian rule. I've moved them to the History section. Ronline ✉ 11:16, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to create a cultural section and put it there. Until there remain any Hungarians living in Oradea nicknames are not obsolate but part of their heritage. Zello 11:48, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

My dear friends, stop seeing things necessarily in Romanian or Hungarian colours. You talk about Oradea/Nagyvarad and things are a bit special over here - things here are primarily from Nagyvarad/Oradea, maybe after that from Transylvania and the rest is open to discussion - as you might notice, an endless discussion. Try not to be culturally imperialistic either in a Romanian or Hungarian fashion. Respect the people here, try to get to know them, and try not to look at them through any dominant cultural lenses because that way you shall find only what you want to see. Try to figure out how people here settled or work with this endless cultural story and live a special multicultural situation (I do not imply necessarily a pink image for multiculturalism here). Do respect the people from the town you are writing about.

[edit] The municipality of Oradea is officially bilingual, with the Romanian and Hungarian languages being recognised officially.

what does this mean officially? --fz22 10:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It means that the Hungarian language can be used in public administration and in the justice system, that bilingual signs are provided, that the City Hall's publications can also be requested in Hungarian (it publishes its newsletter in both Romanian and Hungarian). Also, public education is provided in Hungarian alongside Romanian (i.e. one can choose to go to a Hungarian-language publicly-funded school, or a Romanian language one; some schools have Romanian and Hungarian sections). In short, Hungarian is co-official to Romanian in the Municipality of Oradea, because the Hungarian minority exceeds 20% of the population. Ronline ✉ 04:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

ronline i think u mistake this "officialy bilingual" for the law that "grants access to ethnic minorities unable to understand romanian to information in relation with the administration" (meaning, a hungarian that doesnt understand romanian living in the city of oradea should be able to identify buildings of administration, public utilities, and request translator in justice". That law doesnt make hungarian official language. the convention about cities in Romania having a name in the hungarian and german language on wikipedia i think takes in consideration the recent history of those cities under authority of Austria-Hungary employing an austrian or hungarian name for that city, that being only a name legacy convention, not based on a suposed "german and hungarian official languages in a city of ROmania" Criztu 15:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Take a look on this: http://www.cjbn.ro/legislatie/lege%20%20nr215%20pe%202001.doc. --fz22 15:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

perfect link thnx :

"ART. 90 (2) În unităţile administrativ-teritoriale în care cetăţenii aparţinând unei minorităţi naţionale au o pondere de peste 20% din numărul locuitorilor, în raporturile lor cu autorităţile administraţiei publice locale şi cu aparatul propriu de specialitate aceştia se pot adresa, oral sau în scris, şi în limba lor maternă şi vor primi răspunsul atât în limba română, cât şi în limba maternă.(in administrative-teritorial units where citizens belonging to an national minority form over 20% of the population, in their raports(relations) with public local administration authorities and their specialised apparatuses, are enabled to express, solicitate oraly or in writing in their maternal language also, and are enabled to a respons in both romanian and their language.)

(4) Autorităţile administraţiei publice locale vor asigura inscripţionarea denumirii localităţilor şi a instituţiilor publice de sub autoritatea lor, precum şi afişarea anunţurilor de interes public şi în limba maternă a cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţii respective, în condiţiile prevăzute la alin. (2). (local public administration authorities will provide inscriptions for the names of localities and public institutions under their authority, and display public interests announcements in the native language of the citizens of the respective ethnic minority in conditions stated at point (2))

(5) Actele oficiale se întocmesc în mod obligatoriu în limba română (official documents are made in romanian language , mandatory requirement) Criztu 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

no paragraph about no city having no name in a language other than romanian language in legal documents. It regards inscriptions on the town entry panels, public buildings and utilities, in the language of the local ethnic minorities next to the romanian names. In official documents regarding that city, its name is written in romanian only. I intend on removing the hungarian name from the Oradea infobox unless evidence of Britannica using such infobox is provided lol. The hungarian name of city Oradea in the lead paragraph i consider a convention regarding name legacy utility (oradea being under austrian hungarian administration in recent history). that is perfectly understandable Criztu 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Oradea - Merge in?

Where is a chapter about Oradea's history?--Untifler 14:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good question :) I'll revise it later. --fz22 07:25, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This article looks pretty good, but could someone take a look at History of Oradea? It needs a lead section, wikifying and probably conversion to prose. Piet 07:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Support merging in the pretty stubbish timeline Fastifex 13:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the History of Oradea section will be so long that we will need a separate article sooner or later.

there are barely 20 lines in History of Oradea. such thing doesnt require voting for merging in my opinion Criztu 17:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oradea is not officialy bilingual, show a law stating such immensity

Oradea is not officialy bilingual, show a law stating such immensity Criztu 09:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Bihor County. While the law does not explicitly use the term "official language" regarding Hungarian, the Municipality is obliged to offer all services in Hungarian alongside Romanian, including education, correspondence, justice system, signage, etc. This amounts to Hungarian being an officially-recognised language of the Municipality of Oradea. Ronline ✉ 09:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

can u point me to an article of a law stating "Hungarian language is used in official documents of Romania, the name Nagyvarad for Oradea is used in international maps and international documents "? Criztu 11:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

here i agree with critzu. Nagyvarad should stay in the lead section, but not in the infobox. according to the romanian constitution the only official language in romania is romanian Anonimu 11:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Criztu, this isn't about usage in international maps and documents. The Romanian national government will only officially use "Oradea" when referring to the city since Romanian is the only official language at national level. However, we're talking about the Municipality of Oradea here, as a territorial-administrative unit which officially-recognises the Hungarian language and is obliged to provide services in it. "According to the romanian constitution the only official language in romania is romanian": this refers to the national level only. At local level, other languages can also be used, if a certain ethnic group makes up over 20% of the population. Hungarian is in this situation in Oradea, and thus the infobox should reflect the officially-bilingual nature of the city. This usage is not only present in Oradea; see other cities' infoboxes where minorities make up more than 20% of the population: Budeşti, Salonta, Miercurea-Ciuc. Ronline ✉ 01:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That's not official. There are cities in Europe that have officially 2 names . see Bozen-Bolzano, Aoste-Aosta, Donostia-San Sebastián, Abanto y Ciérvana-Abanto Zierbena just to show some examples. This is not the case for any city, town or village in Romania. Btw all the cities i mentioned have the two names stated in the english version of their site. While the site of Oradea doesn't even have a hungarian version, while oradea is the only nane used in the romanian, english and french versions. So i'll leave only the official (ie romanian) name in the infoboxes of cities of romania. It's not like i want to hide any alternative name, since they're all present in the first sentence of the articles Anonimu 11:38, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I agree that the minority rights law is somewhat ambiguous in that it doesn't formally recognise official languages and the name is not hyphenated in the same way Basque cities are. But I still believe that since these cities are bilingual in their public administration, this should be reflected in the infobox. I have raised this issue at Wikipedia:Romanian Wikipedians' notice board. Ronline ✉ 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

i am not sure of the exact meaning of public administration. as i understand the law, official documents at local level are written only in Romanian, with the possibility of providing a translation of those documents for personal use to a citizen that belongs to the ethnic minority that forms 20% of the population of that locality. Criztu 16:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

---

and i feel it has to be explicitated eventualy by Wikipedia Naming Conventions that an alternative name is a name by which english sources (not another language sources translated into english) refer to that city. like, battle of Stalingrad is a widely used term in english sources, but the name of the city is now Volgograde, so the name of Stalingrad is preserved in the lead paragraph not because Stalingrad is another official name of Volgograd, but because it is used in english sources, like maps, news reports, letters, etc. Criztu 16:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)