Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:45, 6 July 2012

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cluj-Napoca article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months

	Cluj-Napoca has been listed as one of the Geography and places good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result March 15, 2008 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 15, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Cities This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cities, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of cities, towns and various other settlements on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CitiesWikipedia:WikiProject CitiesTemplate:WikiProject CitiesWikiProject Cities Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Romania High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Misplaced Pages Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Misplaced Pages Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2011-01-20 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : pictures, references Expand : introductory paragraph, expand on the Ancient History related to Dacians, Celts and Romans

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Memorandum

1. Without providing an exhaustive history of Romanians in Transylvania, it's quite right to sketch out a general view of their situation. Remember, this is also for readers in Toledo and Peoria, not just those in Turda and Szeged, so we can't assume familiarity. This is especially true in regard to the Memorandum, which was quite a crucial episode for them. No objection to mentioning the Memorandists' amnesty. And yes, the sources do seem to agree they received "long" sentences. Also, street signs are a recurring issue in Transylvania generally and Cluj in particular, so we'll mention that as well.

2. We really don't need to bring in the sterile King/Emperor distinction here. Yes, he was King of the Hungarian lands. However, Romanians tended to regard him as an Emperor - their Emperor, rather than King, as Hungarians saw him. More important, modern English-language sources (such as Brubaker) call him "Emperor" in regard to his Transylvanian role, so there's no reason we shouldn't as well.

3. We will not simply eliminate mention of Horthy. Sure, during the Ceauşescu era, there was a tendency in Romanian historiography to play up and even exaggerate his crimes; obviously, that should be avoided. But neither should his name simply vanish. Again, it may have been excised out of a desire to have this a "Cluj-only" article, which is understandable, but a few words of context will be helpful. - Biruitorul 00:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As to 1 . The relevance of the Memorendum issue in this article is not more than the trial was here. The rest should go the relevant article. By the way, the leader of the Memorandists was sentenced for 5 years, the rest of them received between 2 months to 2,5 years in "state captivity", which was reserved for duellists and similar gentlemen, so the 'long years of prison' is misleading. I am convinced that the long exposion of the problem here is to present the topic of the "Hungarian oppression" before 1918, not the relevance of the issue itself.

As to 2. The Emperor / King distinction is more than relevant here, as this explains why the Hungarian government over-reacted the memorandum and why the participants were indicted for treason. The Memorandists sent the memorandum to the "Emperor" (of Austria ie. ruler of a foreign state) which was reminiscent for the Hungarian government of the 1948-1849 Romanian stance as well as Romanian position with respect to the retaliations by the "Emperors's" government after 1849. Franz Joseph's rule as of a duly coronized king of Hungary was regarded as the expression of the end of the Austrian rule in Hungary further to the Constitutional Compromise.

As to 3. After the German occupation, it was not Horthy who was directly responsible for the deportations. If you want to mention someone personally it is Döme Sztójay. When it was thought useful, Romanian authorities themselves were active in anti Jewish massacres in Bessarabia and Odessa, therefore, I do see that the emphatic mention of Horthy is aimed at presenting here some anti-Hungarian agenda (fascism and the return of Northern-Transylvania to Hungary which was ended by Romanian liberation). As per above, I think that the neutrality of this section is questionable. Rokarudi --Rokarudi 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1. At times, trial venue can cause a specific case to be connected to it, even if the crime took place elsewhere. To give one famous example, even though Nazi crimes happened across Europe, they're often associated with Nuremberg, because that's where they were adjudicated. Or take Sacco and Vanzetti: the crime took place in Braintree, but a focus of attention is often the Norfolk County Courthouse in Dedham, where they were tried. Now, in this instance, let us recall that there were large demonstrations in Cluj and that the trial was the occasion for some stirring rhetoric. Moreover, the episode is rather vividly alive there: an imposing monument, also featured on the coat of arms. Yes, these are the work of Funar, and Funar is a bad man, but no moves to alter them have been made in the 6 years since he left office, and they seem to have stuck for now in the city's fabric.

And by the way, the city's small Romanian minority were oppressed at that time. They were not participating in governing an autonomous Transylvania, in spite of being a slight majority or strong plurality there; instead, they were a small minority within the much larger Hungarian Crown Lands. And within Cluj, they were decidedly second-class citizens. Now, of course, this isn't the place to launch lamentations and air nationalist grievances. But this history, when presented neutrally, is relevant to the city.

Finally, and this isn't always a convincing argument, but it does give us something to say about the late 19th century. Why not consult Hungarian sources and add a sentence about how the 1896 celebrations had an echo in Cluj, if such was the case?

2. In the spirit of <joke>Compromise</joke>, I've altered the phrasing a little. I called him Emperor-King to begin with (there are English sources that do so), then "Emperor" in his capacity of dealing with Romanians, but "King" when acting upon his Hungarian premier's advice. How does that strike you?

3. First, I never said Romania did not participate in the Holocaust, so let's drop that line. Second, no, naming the leader of Hungary is not anti-Hungarian, and mere naming is not "emphatic". While not really a fascist himself, Horthy was surrounded by them, especially after the German occupation. And yes, terrible crimes did take place under his administration. In Northern Transylvania, these started right away in 1940, though more often targeted at Romanians than at Jews. Moreover, the article does not speak of his being responsible for deportations, but for "severe sanctions". Now, lest we forget, the first anti-Semitic legislation in Hungary dates to May 1938 - limiting Jewish activity in the economy to 20%. A year later, that was reduced to 6% and defined "Jew" by race. The third law of 1941 mirrored the Nuremberg Laws and formally turned Jews into second-class citizens. Granted, although their civil and economic rights were limited, their lives were still safe until March 1944, but one cannot say that these laws, passed when Horthy was in full control of an unoccupied Hungary, did not amount to "severe sanctions".

We could, though, do this: "Despite facing severe sanctions from Miklós Horthy's Hungarian administration" becomes "Despite facing severe sanctions from the Hungarian administration", and "In 1940, Cluj, along with the rest of Northern Transylvania, was given back to Hungary" becomes "In 1940, Cluj, along with the rest of Northern Transylvania, was given back to Miklós Horthy's Hungary". How does this sound? - Biruitorul 16:06, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I am engaged in a monotonous and time-consuming project at Harghita county, so it would be an irresponsible undertaking to embark on editing this article too. I would like to say that your recent edits improve the article, and I agree with your suggestions, however, the modern history section, in my view, still does not comply with good article quality standards. It has a tendency for (1) over-emphasizing Romanian-related topics as to pre-1960 era when the city had had a Hungarian character (2) deals in more than necessary details with controversial or symbolic issues (3) uses POV formulas and redaction. Examples:

-"Ethnic Romanians in Transylvania suffered oppression and persecution." Persecution is an obvious exaggeration for the late 19th century. Oppression may be mentioned in the proper context: Transylvania has been a place of competing national aspirations since the end of Ottoman suzerainity; Romanians in Transylvania were not more oppressed between 1867-1918 than Hungarians have been since 1918. Moreover, it is not primarily the individual Romanian or Hungarian that is or was oppressed, but the respective national communities were/are restricted in their political aspirations. If oppression is mentioned, it must be done both ways. If you want to present the motives behind the memorandum, we can bravely speak about unequal treatment or Hungarian dominance, or even political discrimination instead of oppression. I would personally prefer omitting the whole “oppression issue" from a settlement article, and would restrict myself to the presentation of those particular facts which are relevant in the city's history without smuggling the ethnic conflic element into the article. If we bring the background up, all the background must be brought up which easily leads to controversial issues and far beyond the scope of a settlement article. If we raise placename issue, beside the ban on using Romanian placenames in official life, we must also mention that the same applies for post-WWI Romanian practices vica versa, or that under Ceausescu, the Hungarian name of the city became Kolozsvár-Napoca (kolozsvár-napocai Állami Magyar Színház:).

- Presentation of the second Vienna award is POV ("imposed by Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy", instead of simply Germany and Italy, or simply second Vienna Award). It suggests that the award was a bad thing, as it was passed by Nazi and Fascist. In reality, the arbitration took place between two allies of two regional powers, upon request of Romania (it being the closest ally) The award had nothing to do with ideology, it was based on pure geo-poltical and ethnic considerations. In the given case the encyclopaedic fact is that Cluj / Kolozsvár, unlike nearby Turda that remained on the other-dide of the border, had a clear Hungarian majority, this is why it was adjudged to Hungary. It is also a city-related fact that most of the locals welcomed the return to Hungary as a liberation. The name of Horthy may be mentioned in the context of his solemn march into Kolozsvár in 1940 as it was a notable event at least for the Hungarian community of Transylvania, and is preserved on a film which may be a link.

- As to Horthy: After German occupation Horthy lived in recluse in the Buda castle and came back to politics in Juin 1944 when stopped the deportation of the Budapest Jewry. It is not accurate to speak about "his" administration, as in June 1944 the key-people of "his" administration were already either deported to concentration camps (e.g Ferenc Keresztes-Fischer) or hiding (e.g István Bethlen), or in asylum in a foreign embassy (e.g Miklós Kállay). Miklós Horthy, Jr. was himself deported to Dachau later. If a settlement article contains that that Romanian militiamen killed X Hungarian civilians here in 1849, it may be NPOV in itself, but it is likely to be POV to say Romanian militiamen of Avram Iancu killed X Hungarian civilians here.

-It is obviously not the previous anti-jewish legislation of the Horthy-era that is meant under "serious sanctions" (In Romania, such legislation preceded in time the Hungarian one) but unspecified wartime sanctions, such as execution on the spot for attempting to illegaly cross the border or similar, therefore, the name of Horthy is only mentioned here to give a negative connotation for the Hungarians. For NPOV, it would be enough to speak about sanctions by the authorities.

"Liquidation of the 16,148 captured Jews occurred through six deportations to Auschwitz in May-June 1944." The context suggest that the Hungarian authorities were directly involved in the concrete act of liquidation. NPOV is stating facts as they were "In June, 1944 deportation of 16,148 Jews took place in six transports to concentration camps in the Third Reich, out of them X were killed in Aushwitz etc." When we speak about pro-Jewish activity, a city-related fact may be mentioned: Áron Márton was preaching in the St. Michael Church against deportations, and was very active in favour of the persecuted Jews.

- The city was captured only by the Soviet Red Army (27th army, 18 infantry division), not by the Romanian Army and the Soviet Army. Hungarian troops gave up Kolozsvár 10th October, 1944 Soviet troops marched into the city one day thereafter and it became the administrative center of northern-Transylvania. Romanian authorities were expulsed from northern-Transylvania by general Vinogradov (because of the activity of the Voluntarii pentru Ardeal »Iuliu Maniu«) so the city was "autonomous" until spring 1946 when Cluj came under Romanian control.Rokarudi--Rokarudi 22:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to leave for a week, and cannot possibly do justice to all your points in the time I have left. That must wait for next month. However:

• The article was largely written by Romanians. We tried to be fair, but none of us knows much Hungarian. Naturally, more sources in Hungarian providing a more well-rounded view would be welcomed. But remember, everything should be tightly sourced.
• At some point we have to start making more use of the History of Cluj-Napoca article. This may mean transferring some Memorandum content there. It may mean using it to develop some of the themes you mention here. Anyway, something to think about.
• According to the New York Times of the day, Cluj was taken by the Red Army "with the aid of Rumanian troops". According to the Romanian Defence Ministry, it was taken by the 18th Infantry Division from the NW and by the 2nd Mountain Division from the W, with help from the 104th Soviet Corps, who made a frontal assault. Now, perhaps it was actually the Romanians assisting the Soviets and not vice versa, but the point is the same: Romanian troops definitely participated in liberating the city. (And, yes, taking a city from Ferenc Szálasi counts as a liberation, at least on talk pages.)
• It's standard practice to call 1933-45 Germany "Nazi Germany" and 1922-43 Italy "Fascist Italy". We are not talking about Willy Brandt's Germany; we are not talking about Giulio Andreotti's Italy; and we may as well state it.
• It may be there were valid geopolitical or ethnic reasons for the second Vienna Award. That said, the notion that this was a neutral, voluntary arbitration between two states acting in good faith is not supported by the sources. Let me quote a few recent ones:
  • Romania had to cede Northern Transylvania to Hungary
  • a weak Romania was forced to cede Transylvania back to Hungary
  • Hitler forced King Carol to cede northern Transylvania to Hungary
  • under German pressue, Romania was forced to cede Transylvania...to Hungary
  • King Carol...was forced by Hitler to cede northern Transylvania to Germany's ally Hungary
  • To keep Hungary quiet, Hitler forced Rumania to cede Northern Transylvania to satisfy Hungarian claims
  • Romania was forced to cede Northwestern Transylvania to Hungary
  • Hitler, mediating the territorial dispute between his allies, obliged Romania to cede...
    

As you can see, Romania did not give up her territory willingly. And what prompted the Award? Hungary, sensing Romania's weakness (Bessarabia had just been forcibly ceded), twice massed troops on the border, forcing Hitler's hand. What happened then? The King who had ceded the territory without a fight was forced to abdicate days later, and his successor spent the entire war trying to persuade Hitler to reverse the award. But I agree, either here or at the "history of" article, we may mention Hungarian joy at the event.

• See you in a week. - Biruitorul 05:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient Napoca and present day Cluj-Napoca

The discussion is about the inclusion or the non-inclusion of this words: (Iaaasi (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

"There are no references to urban settlement on the site for the better part of a millennium thereafter" (Brubaker et al. 2006, p.89) (Iaaasi (talk) 09:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

A few observations:

1. Just because Mr. Brubaker doesn't know about any, it doesn't mean that there are none or that there won't be any ever found. I guess this topic has to be expanded anyway as it has only one view (WP:NPOV). Even if it was theoretical gap of one millennium, which to me defines logic and common sense given the city is in the middle of Europe and on the path of migrations, and there was no known asteroid, volcano eruption or ice age in that period. It was a simple conquest by others, which happen throughout the history all the time. The native population was wiped out, assimilated, enslaved, dominated (most likely in my opinion), whatever. But it doesn't make sense to assume a waste land for 1000 years, after a significant ancient history and with so many invaders.
2. The Dacian and Roman ruins and artifacts are in the middle of the medieval city and not 50 km away as in other situations. Even if there are speculations that the native Daco-Roman population disappeared or was wiped out by the new invaders, the new comers obviously built their "new" town exactly on top of the ruined ancient city. They even probably named it after the Castrum Clus/clausa as described in the etymology, thus they insured continuity and created a clear link to the ancient city. Napoca was under new management. Why they didn't call it Napoca anymore? There are many possibilities, one being a desire to impose a new culture, to erase previous history.
3. Having the Napoca name appended back to Cluj, is questionable and debatable, can be deemed political or protochronistic, but at the end of the day, not entirely unfair, as the city obviously has a very significant and rich ancient history that happen exactly in the same place where the medieval Cluj was. The municipium is depicted as a major city on Tabula Peutingeriana section of Roman Dacia, on equal footing with Apula, Axiopolis, Ratiaria, Serdica and this speaks about the importance, size etc. So the ancient history part of the city deserves it equal share on an encyclopedic article like this. Cluj-Napoca is obviously not just a medieval city.
4. The section on ancient history also doesn't mentions the Celtic presence at all. See also Celts in Transylvania and also the National Museum of Transylvanian History. Nothing about rich archaeological finds either. A lot of content is missing and deserves its place here.

--Codrin.B (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This is original research, you need a valid source for your statements. I have brought one that supports mine, if don't do the same I think there is no reason to continue the discussion(Iaaasi (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC))

What?! All of this is original research? Is Tabula Peutingeriana not a source to you? Most of these facts are already on Misplaced Pages, with sources. But I will bring sources and verified content to this article regarding ancient Napoca, no worries. --Codrin.B (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing those sources (really, I am interested in this subject). But when using the Tabula, let's keep in mind WP:PSTS: "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". While you or I can see that Napuca on the map is probably a predecessor of the modern Cluj-Napoca, we do need a secondary source making the link explicit. - Biruitorul 01:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see, no problem. Can do that too. --Codrin.B (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You have to proof that the name from Tabula Peutingeriana is in Dacian Language (we could assume that it is in Latin) and that the ancient settlement is the same with the modern one (and that is false that Cluj was build later on the place of old Napoca). For similar reasons I've reverted your edit on Alba Iulia article (Iaaasi (talk) 06:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC))

I think you should stop all this Medieval vs Ancient Latin nonsense, it clearly shows a dubious agenda. How can you remove Apulum from Alba-Iulia?! That is the Roman name of the city, in LATIN, the latinized Apula. I never seen something more outrageous. What are you trying to prove here? Your theories that Romans and Dacians never existed?! --Codrin.B (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please try to be calm and civil (WP:CIVIL). I will explain again: Apulum is the name of the ancient city in Roman Dacia, while Alba Iulia / Gyulafehérvár / Weißenburg was first mentioned in the 9th century. There are 2 different towns that existed in 2 different ages on close sites(Iaaasi (talk))

Close sites?! They are in DOWNTOWN! Unlike others cities, where the medieval and the ancient cities are 50 km away. All you are trying to do here is impose your WP:POV about the theory that Dacia was empty, a barren land, no people or animals, ready for the migratory invaders to settle in without encountering any human beings. And that is WP:FRINGE. You are trying to combat the continuity theory (disputed but main stream) with nonsense. You are giving WP:UNDUE weight to medieval times trying to eliminate the ancient times from the equation and severing the links. The name and origin of Napoca is already described in the etymology section. As is Apulum in the corresponding article. I will bring more content and verified sources. I will not let your revisionism or WP:FRINGE succeed. I promise. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It is ironical how some users accuse me of being anti-Hungarian while you accuse me to be a Hungarian revisionist (Iaaasi (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

I don't what and who you are, what you do, what conflicts you have with others, but you are obviously looking for conflict with your changes. I hope you realize at least that part. If too many people tell you that you are drunk, then go to sleep. Take a good look at Istanbul and Paris, how they mention the historic names, ancient history, medieval history. They have been destroyed, conquered, changed hands forever, yet no one is making nonsense claims that the ruins in downtown and the historic names, belong to ANOTHER city. It is preposterous and way beyond WP:FRINGE. Those articles are the model to follow. Period. --Codrin.B (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

How would be for example to add the greek name Tomis in the lead of Constanta and the name Pelendava in the lead of Craiova? I am not looking for conflicts, I've brought a source (Brubaker et al. 2006, p.89) for my assertion, while you bring only accusations (Iaaasi (talk) 16:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Great examples. Look at this intro: "Constanţa (Romanian pronunciation: ; historical names: Tomis, Greek: Κωνστάντια or Konstantia, Turkish: Köstence, Bulgarian: Кюстенджа or Kyustendzha) is the oldest living city in Romania, founded around 600 BC." Similar to the intro for Istanbul: "Istanbul (Turkish: İstanbul), historically known as Byzantium and Constantinople (see Names of Istanbul for further information)." Cluj-Napoca and Alba-Iulia need a similar intro, and I'll make sure is there.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, I hadn't seen the Greek name Tomis in the lead, but in these case the continuity is widely accepted. In case of Cluj the continuity is disputed, so my personal opinion is that the name Napoca should not be included in the first sentence (Iaaasi (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC))

Again the economy section

The city also houses regional or national headquarters of Groupama .

It seems the website says that their headquarters is in Bucharest:

Groupama Asigurări SA; J40/2857/2010; CUI 6291812; Bucureşti, Str. Mihai Eminescu nr. 45, sector 1, 010513;

bogdan (talk) 09:10, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, about Nokia:

• they closed down their research center in Cluj, firing all 120 employees in April 2011
• they're closing their factory near Cluj, firing all 2000 employees in December 2011

The article should reflect these developments. bogdan (talk) 09:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Irisbus-Cluj3.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Irisbus-Cluj3.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Misplaced Pages (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Irisbus-Cluj3.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:40, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

other names

Quality wiki pages need Other names section Readder (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. The alternative names should be moved, per Misplaced Pages:Naming_conventions_(geographic_names)#General_guidelines, to the names section:

1. • Alternatively, all alternative names can be moved to and explained in a "Names" or "Etymology" section immediately following the lead, or a special paragraph of the lead; we recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves.
     • In this case, the redundant list of the names in the article's first line should be replaced by a link to the section phrased, for example: "(known also by several ])". When there are several significant alternate names, the case for mentioning the names prominently is at least as strong as with two.
       
     • Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. As an exception, a local official name different from a widely accepted English name should be retained in the lead "(Foreign language: Local name; known also by several alternative names)".129.110.5.90 (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

That's just an option, that part starts with the word "alternatively". The main guideline states:

• The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Template:Lang-et; Template:Lang-fi; Template:Lang-ru; Template:Lang-sv) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea.

Thus, the original lead is fine. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. The condition is accomplished, so the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line 129.110.5.90 (talk) 08:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, read the guide again. It's only an alternative possibility, it should not be taken as the main rule. KœrteFa {ταλκ} 09:09, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

We recommend that this be done if there are at least three alternate names, or there is something notable about the names themselves - both of these conditions are accomplished, so we must respect the recommendation 129.110.5.90 (talk) 09:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is just an option, a possibility, these statements are in a section starting with the word "alternatively". The main guideline actually supports the original lead, which contains the other name variants. Please, read this again (quote from the second point of the guideline):

• The lead: The title can be followed in the first line by a list of alternative names in parentheses, e.g.: Gulf of Finland (Template:Lang-et; Template:Lang-fi; Template:Lang-ru; Template:Lang-sv) is a large bay in the easternmost arm of the Baltic Sea.

Please, also observe how many alternative variants are displayed. Four, yet, this is in the main guideline (and the version that you cherry-picked is in the last section of this point which discusses an alternative possibility). Moreover, the original lead is in line with the convention and consensus of similar articles. Please, leave this part of the lead as it was for years. Thanks, KœrteFa {ταλκ} 08:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

It is more than an alternative possibility, it is a recommendation. Also please acknowledge that once such a section or paragraph is created, the alternative English or foreign names should not be moved back to the first line. Compared with Gulf of Finland, an additional element here, besides the >3 no of names, is the description of the etymology and the history of the names. I will ask right now for a neutral opinion. 202.137.28.114 (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 202.137.28.114 - Naming conventions are clearly stating that if there are more than 3 alternative names they should be moved to "Name" section and should not be moved back. I do not see why naming conventions should not be respected here. PANONIAN 19:37, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Geography and places good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class WikiProject Cities articles
• All WikiProject Cities pages
• GA-Class Romania articles
• High-importance Romania articles
• All WikiProject Romania pages
• Unassessed history articles
• Mid-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists