Talk:Cluj-Napoca

More information in the introduction please

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

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

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

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

It went Dacians then Romans. Never the Celts. ~2026-31980-75 (talk) 21:45, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

GA concerns

I am concerned that this article no longer meets the good article criteria. Some of my concerns are listed below:

• There are uncited passages in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "citation needed" tag from 2016.
• The "History" section does not give much information post-1989, while the 20th century gets several paragraphs. I think the history section needs to be trimmed and some recent events included.
• The article, at over 11,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG and should probably be trimmed or information spun out I think lots of information, such as prose in "Sports" and "Culture and media", can be removed.

Is anyone interested in fixing up this article, or should it go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 15:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Cluj-Napoca

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Delisted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There are uncited passages in the article, including entire paragraphs. There is also a "citation needed" tag from 2016. The "History" section does not give much information post-1989, while the 20th century gets several paragraphs. I think the history section needs to be trimmed and some recent events included. The article, at over 11,000 words, is considered WP:TOOBIG and should probably be trimmed or information spun out. I think lots of information, including some prose in "Sports" and "Culture and media", can be removed. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cluj experienced a decade of decline during the 1990s, its international reputation suffering from the policies of its mayor at the time, Gheorghe Funar.

What is the meaning and the relevance of this? What exactly was this "decline" that Cluj suffered because of a mayor? 46.97.168.54 (talk) 16:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It was already mentioned. Reduction in the industrial base. Collapse of foreign investment due to anti-Hungary Hungarian policies of the mayor Funar. ~2026-31980-75 (talk) 21:40, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Anti-Hungarian hit piece

Instead of keeping to factual statements the article presents several statements without references that mean to just libel the majority Hungarian population when discussing the Romanians who were in minority for the majority of the city’s history. It’s not factual. It’s borderline racist. It’s not scholarly or helpful in any meaningful way whatsoever. Should be edited heavily especially since the article is already too long. Can’t sign in, the login page is not currently working. ~2026-31980-75 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)

Now the login is working:

Instead of keeping to factual statements the article presents several statements without references that mean to just libel the majority Hungarian population when discussing the Romanians who were in minority for the majority of the city’s history. It’s not factual. It’s borderline racist. It’s not scholarly or helpful in any meaningful way whatsoever. The majority of articles related to Transylvania are like this reflecting present-day anti-Hungarian prejudice in Romania in 2026 quite frankly. Should be edited heavily especially since the article is already too long. Septimiusseverusimp (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2026 (UTC)