Talk:Bucharest

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

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

• Bucharest - Palace of the Parliament (2024) (2).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

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

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

• The Royal Palace (AP4K1357 1PS) (29291577856).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

History section in lead section

Hello, the paragraph of the lead section devoted to Bucharest's history currently looks like this:

Bucharest was first mentioned in documents in 1459. The city became the capital in 1862 and is the centre of Romanian media, culture, and art. Its architecture is a mix of historical (mostly Eclectic, but also Neoclassical and Art Nouveau), interbellum (Bauhaus, Art Deco, and Romanian Revival architecture), socialist era, and modern. In the period between the two World Wars, the city's elegant architecture and the sophistication of its elite earned Bucharest the nicknames of Little Paris, or Paris of the East. Although buildings and districts in the historic city centre were heavily damaged or destroyed by war, earthquakes, and even Nicolae Ceaușescu's program of systematization, many survived and have been renovated. In recent years, the city has been experiencing an economic and cultural boom. It is one of the fastest-growing high-tech cities in Europe. In 2016, the historical city centre was listed as "endangered" by the World Monuments Watch.

I've taken the liberty to highlight a section which I see as problematic. Namely, a majority of the paragraph is dedicated to the (alleged) perseverance of "elegant", "sophisticated" 19th-century architecture. It basically positions Bucharest's built environment as a story of 19th-century "Paris of the East" survival despite post-fin-de-siecle changes, which is, to put it simply, not accurate. The overwhelming majority of present Bucharest wasn't even part of the city when the historical architecture was built, and much of it was demolished between WWII and 1989. The current paragraph nostalgically privileges a few decades of the city's 500-year history, implicitly denigrating the rest of its built heritage. If anyone has thoughts on this, I'd love to talk. For what it's worth, I'll paste my own proposal here, although I won't change the page for now:

Bucharest was first mentioned in 1459, and became a center of Wallachian governance and commerce in the 16th and 17th centuries. The city became the capital of present-day Romania in 1862, and boomed after the 1877 founding of the Romanian Kingdom. In the following decades, the city became known for its cosmopolitanism and eclectic architecture, being nicknamed "Paris of the East". However, it was severely damaged in the Second World War. Under the Peoples' Republic of Romania, the city again grew massively in population and area, and new developments were characterized by socialist architectural and planning schemes, particularly Nicolae Ceaușescu's program of systematization. In the postcommunist era, the city has experienced an economic and cultural boom. It is one of the fastest-growing high-tech cities in Europe. In 2016, the historical city centre was listed as "endangered" by the World Monuments Watch.

Thanks for considering! Theodore Christopher (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)