Jump to content

Talk:Beijing/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Name

Formerly known as Peking?

I am quite sure that this will already have been done to death but I am equally sure that I have no intention of rifling the archives to find out...

Just because Wikipedia seems to have a policy of deciding for people the name they will use for cities based upon the will of the most vociferous interested party, does not mean that, overnight, the entire English-speaking population of the world has stopped calling the city Peking. Indeed, the article itself mentions that the British Embassy considers itself to be in Peking.

It is therefore misleading in the opening paragraph of the article to say "also formerly known in English as Peking". Regardless of whatever gripe you seem to have with the nomenclature of older generations, I don't think denying its existence will make it go away. I tender some alternatives to the phrase in question:

"also formerly universally known in English as Peking" "also known in English as Peking" "also, though less regularly encountered of late, known as Peking" "sometimes, especially by older people, called Peking" "also, despite Wikipedia's erstwhile insistence to the contrary, known as Peking." —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaFoiblesse (talk • contribs) 18:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not just "formerly Peking"? Colipon+(T) 01:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Because it is still called Peking by some speakers of English. That is: "formerly Peking" is fundamentally incorrect. Did you read my question? Anyway, I am glad to see that it has been corrected. LaFoiblesse 2009-08-28 17h00 (GMT)

Beijing vs. Peking use

At the risk of restarting the Beijing vs. Peking debate, I think the article should address the obvious cultural shift that occurred in the West about 25 years ago, which was around when the name "Beijing" began to be widely disseminated in the media and in everyday use. Before then, in the west it was always Peking, but it seemed almost overnight that general use changed to Beijing (the fact "old timers" still use Peking, as does some institutions, is beside the point). I remember reading an (erroneous) bit of text suggesting that the name of the city was officially changed from Peking to Beijing in the 1980s. Obviously it wasn't but what happened to make Beijing now the nom de guerre worldwide, with Peking declared obsolete? Was there a definite shift or was it a gradual thing? A similar example rests with Mumbai, India, which up until only about 20 or so years ago was known universally as Bombay. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 21:29, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

The reasons for the shift (pinyin reform) and the possible origins of the postcard spelling are given in the "Names" section. Moreover, what cultural shift would there be other than a change in spelling? --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 21:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
Cultural shift? Um, recognition of the PRC (Mandarin, northern and middle varieties of spoken Chinese) by the UN and Western governments instead of the southern varieties spoken in the RoC leadership. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
that wouldn't really suffice...
it's not that southern varieties or Mandarin dialects were not spoken in the then-CCP leadership. In fact, nearly all of the old leaders are not Northern. Only a few, such as 徐向前, 华国锋, are Northern. And the ROC began to adopt Mandarin as its standard before it moved to that island. It's a matter of the romanisation choice at the time.
we're beginning to drip soap droplets here, so let's cut it out... --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 23:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Intro

"An integral part of China’s history for centuries"

Question: What does it mean to say that Beijing has been "an integral part of China’s history for centuries"? 222.129.31.219 (talk) 04:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Economy

The introduction says "Beijing is recognized as the political, educational, and cultural center of the People's Republic of China,[6] while Shanghai and Hong Kong predominate in economic fields."

The Economy part says "Beijing is home to 26 Fortune Global 500 companies, the third most in the world behind Tokyo and Paris."

It seems that Bejing is also dominating the economy of China, the introduction is misleading somehow.

Agree. It is not necessary to mention Shanghai and Hong Kong in the second sentence of an article about Beijing and to cite articles comparing those two other cities. I've pasted the removed language below in case the content or citations are of use to others.
though Hong Kong and Shanghai predominate in economic fields.[1][2][3] ContinentalAve (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Intro changed after population boom

Sorry, I had to edit the intro to reflect Beijing's population on the Municipality level. I had my head handed to me in Talk:List of cities proper by population. I was told that "Beijing’s municipality is listed with a population of 22,000,000 and yet the introduction of the article states that Beijing is China’s second largest city after Shanghai." I tried to explain that this was a compromise. But compromises don't seem to sit well. As this article covers the Municipality of Beijing, and as the common reader usually is not tuned to the fine nuances between "city" and "municipality" (which can assume many meanings anyway), I was forced to change the intro to "After Chongqing and before Shanghai, Beijing is the second largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the PRC." While I was at it I also changed the (for nitpickers) ambiguous "The city is divided into 16 urban and suburban districts and two rural counties" to "Beijing is divided into 16 urban and suburban districts and two rural counties."

That Beijing is the second largest of the four direct-controlled municipalitie is the truth if the sources are not mistaken. I don't maintain Shanghai. I checked the last sources of Shanghai Shanghai's permanent population approaches 20 mln and found "19.21 million at the end of 2009." The article talks about "permanent population", but mentions that the "registered permanent residents" stand at 13.79 million. To the best of my knowledge, the 19.21 million for the Shanghai municipality by the end of 2009 corresponds to the "more than 22 million" (hukou plus non-hukou) residents in Beijing, both in terms of methodology as in terms of timeliness. Shanghai's statistical yearbook as per 2007) says that Shanghai's population is shrinking. Sorry, I did not want to re-open this can of worms, but the tough crowd at Talk:List of cities proper by population forced my hand. I wish they would be as tough on themselves. They have Shanghai at 13,831,900, and Beijing at 10,123,000. Which is clearly off the wall. BsBsBs (talk) 14:25, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The article should do the same as many articles such as Tokyo did. Yes the article is about the municipality, just as the article of London refers to the metropolitan London region and not the City of London. But we should offer statistics about the metropolitan, urban, city proper as well the municipality's population, just like many of these other city articles did. All the published population rankings of the world doesn't use the same population statistics we're using right now, and it causes certain discrepancy between this article and other rankings. I also briefly read the discussion on the talk page of Talk:List of cities proper by population, and it seems like that you have a vastly different view on Beijing's population than the other editors.--TheLeopard (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
As long as the article is about the municipality, we need to talk about the municipality. Anything else defies logic. The published rankings are way off, outdated and fraught with bias, as amply documented in Talk:List of cities proper by population. Primary sources should be used. I don't have a "view" of Beijing's population. I quote primary sources. If others are too lazy, or rather rely on lists compiled 2004, then that's their problem. As far as your edit goes, I can live with it. --BsBsBs (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Audio

From a native speaker's perspective, I think the audio file of "Beijing" in Standard Mandarin is pretty inaccurate. --Choij (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Urban Sprawl?

Urban sprawl in Beijing China, How does it compare to urban sprawl in developed countries?

GDP Figures: RMB or US$?

So it seems like there is some disagreement over whether to put GDP figures in RMB or US$. My rationale for using the US$ is so we have a comparable measure to other places in the world. After all, the US$ is still more-or-less the standard currency in the world. Giving a figure in CNY (yuan) is ambiguous for users who do not know the exchange rate of China's currency, and may give a very skewed view of what Beijing's actual GDP is. This is also the reason to include Purchasing power parity numbers. The RMB has one of the highest purchasing powers in the world. I am fine with including both RMB and US$ figures, but we should not delete the US$ numbers and replace it purely with RMB figures. Notice, for example, that the GDP figures for London is given by US Dollars, not pounds, and that the GDP figures for Paris is given in both Euros and U.S. dollars. Colipon+(T) 01:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Then why change to a version that only has US$ in the template? Also, almost all city infobox templates (New York City, London, Paris, Tokyo, etc.) does not have GDP statistics in them, so why is it included here? It makes very little sense. Population, area, these topics are the common features in the template, but I'm not so sure about GDP. I think there should be a valid reason why the GDP figures are even in this template?--TheLeopard (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That's a good question. It could also be because it's a subnational entity and not just a city that warrants for the inclusion of GDP statistics. All Canadian provinces have GDP in their infobox, but American states don't. But in general the Chinese have always had this obsession with GDP numbers. In any case, I think it's useful information. I don't think it should be taken out. Colipon+(T) 02:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
But none of these capitals, i.e. Tokyo, London, can be called just a city, because they are not. They are municipalities, metropolitan regions, greater areas, etc. What you said above is basically personal commentary, which doesn't have much to do with this article. However, it still doesn't explain the fact why the GDP figures are even in the infobox?--TheLeopard (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You asked me why GDP was included in the infobox at all, and I said "that's a good question", as in, "my guess is as good as yours". I didn't mean that I could answer it. I think you misunderstood me. Colipon+(T) 12:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Images

Photo Montage

Is the image of the National Stadium (Bird's Nest) accurate? I don't believe there's any water around the stadium to produce the reflected image that appears in this montage. Also the source for it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Beijing_montage.png appears to be missing.69.114.23.167 (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Montage [Needed]

I propose a montage (or collage, whatever you call it) for the infobox. Just showing two images of historic monuments is not enough, modern Beijing should be shown. Anyone who can, should.--RM (Be my friend) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

That would be great. A nice photomontage in the top right corner would be excellent--Tian'anmen and Tiantan alone are not representative.--达伟 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

CBD photo in Intro

Please keep it at the darker, more expansive image (CBD1.jpg or whatever the filename is); the other image, though it may be used more often (check the file pages for actual usage data), is dull and blocks the most prominent buildings in the modern portion of the city. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 01:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

(Beijingcbd1.jpg) Agree and the photo fits with that photo of Temple of Heaven, just compare the sky light of the two --LLTimes (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
As someone who can enjoy the breathtaking Beijing skyline, including the scenery depicted at Beijingcbd1.jpg, every night, I also agree. Better picture. Also shows more of the CBD. The CBD is MUCH, MUCH more than Jian Wai SOHO (current picture.) The other one at least shows the CCTV "pants". Stll vacant btw. Drove by there yesterday.

Collage

As most Chinese cities have an infobox collage, the nations capital should have one too. I propose that we create a collage showing modern Beijing (such as the CBD), and older sites (such as the Temple of Heaven). In any event, many of the world's capitals have collages, as well as most Chinese cities, so why not Beijing?--RM (Be my friend) 15:29, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

  • Support:
  • Oppose:
Neither. That topic doesn't appear to get much traction. The statement "As most Chinese cities have an infobox collage" is being debated in Shanghai. But it doesn't matter. There is no hard and fast rule. If you come up with a nice collage that captures the spirit of Beijing, I'm sure it will be appreciated. If the idea is to talk someone else into making a collage, then there don't seem to be too many volunteers. --BsBsBs (talk) 06:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Neither: agreed, for the same reasoning. HXL's Roundtable, and Record 14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Communist Party

I don't think the current entry accurately describes the relationship between the municipal committee of the CCP and the city government. The current entry claims that the local government is regulated by the municipal CCP. The actual relationship is far more fraught with ambiguity, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Monkeyassault (talk • contribs) 08:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The "Weather data for Beijing" section seems to be very outdated??

I studied the weather data table contained in this article. I went to the source given in footnote 51, and I found that the source (http://www.weather.gov.hk/wxinfo/climat/world/eng/asia/china/beijing_e.htm) only included data up to 1990. I am a bit surprised by how outdated these figures represent (even though it says "Source: 2009-07-09" at the bottom of the table here. Can anyone shed some light? I tried to find more recent data but to no avail. Joechu (talk) 09:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)joechu

It's not weather data, it's climatological data. And these datasets are updated every decade at the most. It's only one decade "old". HkCaGu (talk) 10:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
As climate change proceeds to change the planet, much of this weather data will become useless, not only in Beijing, but everywhere. Colipon+(Talk) 12:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
If I may just back to my original question or comment regarding the currency of the data contained in the "Weather data for Beijing" table, regardless of whether you call them "weather" or "climatological" data. The table in the article included data up to 1990 (19 years ago). Are there more up-to-date figures? Only with more current data can people then determine whether they are useful or not.Joechu (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
19 years is very current in climatology. The only possible more current dataset would be 1971-2000. Planetary climate changes don't happen that fast, and is nothing compared to other factors such as urban climate changes and decade-to-decade differences. HkCaGu (talk) 16:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
It seems like this is now becoming a discussion on "how 'current' is 'current'?" or "what factors are more important in examining climate change?" I take it that there is more recent data but for some reason this article is only showing data up until 1990. (I checked in Wikipedea the main article on Shanghai, for instance, and there, they show data as recent as 2000, vs 1990 in this Beijing artcile.) I am not disagreeing with the fact that climate change is a long process. My question was simply: Do we have more current data, especially the temperature averages by month for Beijing? But thanks for taking the time to respond. Joechu (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Architecture Section

Deleted

The following was deleted, as there was no appropriate place to put it.

Three styles of architecture predominate in urban Beijing. First, the traditional architecture of imperial China, perhaps best exemplified by the massive Tian'anmen (Gate of Heavenly Peace), which remains the People's Republic of China's trademark edifice, the Forbidden City, the Imperial Ancestral Temple and the Temple of Heaven. Next there is what is sometimes referred to as the "Sino-Sov" style, built between the 1950s and the 1970s, with structures tending to be boxy, bland, and poorly made.[4] Finally, there are much more modern architectural forms — most noticeably in the area of the Beijing CBD and Beijing Financial Street.
Beijing of the early 21st century has witnessed tremendous growth of new building constructions, showing various modern styles from international designers. A mixture of both old and new styles of architecture can be seen at the 798 Art Zone, which mixes 1950s design with a blend of the new.
I believe that we should create a new section for architecture. Anyone with access to pictures of skyscrapers in Beijing can see the distinctive designs including the Performing Arts Center, the CCTV Building, the National Museum, and plenty more. I am going to go ahead and add that back in, however I hope that we can find more information to expand on that section. Dragoneye776 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not understand the reasons given for these two edits, each of which deleted the "Architecture" section:
  1. diff 02:47, 4 January 2010 TheLeopard (101,639 bytes) (The short architecture section shouldn't be randomly placed following Economy; there's no structure. Since its brief and doesn't contain much information, its not too relevant for the article.)
  2. diff 02:40, 31 December 2009 TheLeopard (101,541 bytes) (It is not appropriate to have a very short "architecture" section following a "media" section. Not even remotely related. If can't find a correct place to put this section, then remove it as of now.)
I'm reverting the deletion, pending some explanation based on Wikipedia policies or common practices. I do not think these reasons qualify:
  • Not placed correctly in the article.
  • Too brief.
And I do not think this reason is accurate:
  • Not relevant enough to the article.
Please comment if you disagree. Thanks! --Colfer2 (talk) 15:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
The above user placed this short "architecture" section behind the article's "Economy", which has no relation with the city's architecture; it makes the article's structure seem random and carelessly sorted. The only place on this article that an "architecture" section belongs to is normally under a main cityscape section. Thus I'm restoring to give this article some cohesion.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
At the point of my edit, there was no place to put architecture. I had placed it after economy as a possible reference to the new building boom and before demographics for roughly the same reason. Although now I agree that Architecture is best placed under Cityscape, the original location was previously the best place for architecture since you added Cityscape after both my edit and that of Colfer2. All the best, Dragoneye776 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving sections

I've probably come too late to the above debate (in the previous Architecture section), but I was part of the reason that section was initially deleted in the first place, when I attempted to rename "Cityscape" to "Administrative divisions" and place Architecture under "Culture." I'd like to raise this proposal again here. The reason is than practically none of the Wikipedia articles of any of the other major cities or provinces in China have a section called Cityscape, and almost all have a prominent, first-level category entitled "Administrative divisions." --达伟 (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked some of the articles for the world's major cities like Berlin, Paris, London. Some have a Cityscape section, but it is always a completely separate heading from Administration/Government. My vote is that Architecture be placed under Culture, and Administrative Divisions revert to being a first-level heading.--71.111.194.50 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2010 (UTC) 达伟
Since no one's objecting, I will make a modification some time soon when I have an opportunity.--达伟 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Population

New Population Data

I have added new population data, reflecting China Daily article of 2010-02-26 "Beijing's population exceeds 22 million." Source is as authoritative as the previous ones from 2007. http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02/26/content_9511839.htm

I kept the 2007 references, which explain the hukou system. However, this should be updated, reflecting the 2010 data. Cited article says "However, the combined population of permanent and non-permanent residents currently already exceeds 22 million, with the latter standing at eight to nine million, the report said." I.e. 13.5 permanent, 8.5 "non-permanent" (I've lived in Beijing for 6 years, still count as non-permanent and always will.) The following needs to be updated: Metro pop (I have no new data), density. http://www.bjstats.gov.cn is no help. I still has 2006 (and sometimes older) data. Please, let's avoid the revert wars of 2008 this time, ok? As the migration from the country to the cities continues unabated, I suggest a critical review of the listed population of all Chinese cities. --BsBsBs (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the 22 million should be in the demographic section, in referencing to the total population; but in the lead and the template, it should still be the statistics of 17.55 (Beijing permanent population is 17.55 mln), because that is about more permenant resident population, while the 22 million seems to be floating. It should be noted that major population statistics such as World Gezetter doesn't take these non-permenant population in Beijing into account.--TheLeopard (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Do we have to go through this again? The source (China Daily, owned by the government) clearly states "However, the combined population of permanent and non-permanent residents currently already exceeds 22 million, with the latter standing at eight to nine million, the report said." China Daily not good enough? How about the National Population and Family Planning Commission of China http://www.npfpc.gov.cn/en/detail.aspx?articleid=100302125224937535 ?
Do you know how it works in Beijing or in any other Chinese city? You either have a Beijing hukou, then you are part of the "permanent" population. Or don't have a Beijing hukou, and you do what you are supposed to do when you want to live legally in Beijing: You go down to your neighborhood police station and register. Then you get a slip that declares you as a "temporary" resident, and you enter the statistics as a "non-permanent" resident. You can live all your life in Beijing as a non-permanent resident. I have lived here for six years as a non-permanent, as part of the eight to nine million. You seem to confuse this with the non-registered, well, illegal population, which does not show up in these statistics at all.
Having 17 million in the lead and the template and 22 million in the demographics is messy, confusing, and wrong. Just because you "think" what "seems" to be the case does not change the facts. If you think that data are wrong, then go to the National Population and Family Planning Commission and state your case.
Also, the 22 million isn't "floating." Nor is a part of the 22 million "floating." The 22 million are the aggregate of the permanent and non-permanent residents as defined and explained above.
Sorry, I don't read Russian. If the Russian version of Xinhua indeed says that "Beijing permanent population is 17.55 mln" then we have two possibilities: Either they are right, then the total registered population would be 27 million (17.5 million permanent plus 8.5 million non-permanent). Or the release is wrong. Would not be the first time in China that someone makes a mistake in translation. Hint: Xinhua already had stated in 2007 that "Beijing's population exceeds 17.4 million" http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-12/04/content_7197045.htm. That also was the sum of permanent and non-permanent (called "transient" in the release, bad translation again.) The official English term for "non-permanent" or "transient" is "temporary" - at least it says so in my passport.
Citing the World Gazetteer takes the cake. The World Gazetteer is consistently wrong. Please, Leopard, change it back. Marek69 did some sensible cleanup-work, and I don't want to destroy his work. --BsBsBs (talk) 22:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
In the absence of any objections, responses, or editing in reference to the above, I have reverted the edits. I added the National Population and Family Planning Commission as a further authoritative source. I kept the removal of "illegal." It's true, unregistered equals illegal, at least in China. But call it redundant. To avoid the edit war of 2008 (see above) please DO NOT revert the 22 million, unless there are more recent data by equally ore more authoritative sources. The edit war of 2008 ended with the 17.5 million prevailing. Metro population and density still needs updating. Metro pop source outdated, there are conflicting numbers in the template and in Demographics. Help in these matters is appreciated. --BsBsBs (talk) 08:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I updated the template, recalculated density, and brought the "urban population" in sync with the source cited in Demographics. I deleted urban population in the lead, it is better explained in Demographics (at least I tried.) The urban core number is based on 2006 data, and is hopelessly overtaken by events. In any case, this is an entry about the municipality of Bejing, the data should reflect that. The way things go, soon the only "rural" parts of the municipality will be the city parks anyway. While I was at it, I also updated List of Chinese administrative divisions by population density. We need to be mindful how data propagates. The Beijing population density on the list was hopelessly outdated (888). I can only assume that the other entries are similarly false.
I did some original research with my contacts in Beijing, and here are the preliminary results:
- The 22m number and the math behind it (permanent plus temporary residents) has been confirmed. (By the way, the National Population and Family Planning Commission is cited for the 2006 urban pop numbers, so we should trust them that they have their current numbers right. There are no more authoritative numbers.)
- The 22m number DOES NOT include the number of unregistered, illegal, whatever you want to call them. To quote my sources: "Honestly, we have no idea what the number is." Any guesses are most likely wrong
- There does not seem to be a detailed count more recent than the 2006 numbers. There will be a big national census by the end of the year (the last one was in the year 2000, and it was never finished) and they are focusing on that.
- If you have better research, by all means, cite it and change the respective entries. Don't revert something because you "think" it "should" be different. I have invested a considerable amount of time, energy, and contacts into this, and I will take a dim view of people who simply push the undo button, but who are too lazy to do their own research.--BsBsBs (talk) 12:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If you want to use China Daily's statistics of permanent and non-permanent population, that's fine, even in the template, but I oppose using the statistics of 22 million in the lead, because that is highly inconsistent with international statistics published on Beijing and with the previous statement. I'm okay with more elaborate explanation of the population statistics (age etc.) in the Demographic section, and not using the other statistics of 17 million from the other source; however I also think the urban population is highly important and should be noted.--TheLeopard (talk) 15:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Also, no original research please. I hope this is good enough of a compromise.--TheLeopard (talk) 15:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
As we all know, the international statistics are hopelessly wrong and behind. If the National Population and Family Planning Commission is not good enough as a source, then who is? It's their country, it's their numbers. If the compromise is to leave out the shocking number from the lead, so be it. I can live with that. The urban population is noted where it belongs, in the demographics section, with the appropriate explanations. The original research will be kept for the discussion page, as background and entertainment for the reader. Thank you. --BsBsBs (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
Someone in List of Cities Proper By Population complained, and I had to declare Beijing China's second largest municipality to reflect the new population count. Please do not revert unless someone finds a Shanghai population in excess of 22 million. Thank you BsBsBs (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Population in infobox

Aside from the population discussions elsewhere here, there seems to be an issue in the infobox which lists the municipality's population as 22 million, and the metro area's as 13 million. Surely the population of the metro area INCLUDES the population of the municipality? Clicking on the wikilink in the box leads to the article on Metropolitan area which states in the lede: "A metropolitan area is a large population center consisting of a large metropolis and its adjacent zone of influence..." I don't want to be overly bold given the extensive amount of text posted above on the topic, but this definition would lead one to conclude that the metro area population should be 35 million. siafu (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed in principle, however, there is no officially agreed-upon definition of the Beijing Metro. Personally, I am against the use (and too often abuse) of "metro" "city proper" etc., because they are vague and invite manipulation. I think we should stick with what we know for sure, and that is the most recently given population number for the Beijing Municipality, eg 22 million. Everything else is speculation. --BsBsBs (talk) 07:49, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
Then perhaps the thing to do would be to simply be stylistically consistent in our speculation? Change the "metro area" statistic to say "~35 million" (i.e., 22 + 13), with a reference note that explains the difficulties or issues involved in defining the metro area. siafu (talk) 15:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd rather not speculate. "Metro" is not defined, at least not in the context of Beijing or the four direct controlled municipalities. ~32 million has no source. There are people who claim that the (undefined) Beijing "Metro" is smaller than what is within the boundaries of the Beijing Municipality. You correctly note that the data presented is conflicting and messy: The 2006 source (http://www.chinapop.gov.cn/wxzl/rkgk/200806/t20080629_157020.htm) is outdated. Also, it cites only the registered population, not the so-called "temporary" residents, see discussion above. It conflicts with http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/esite/bjsq/jbqk/ which says "By the end of year 2005, Beijing has population of 15.38 million, among which permanent registered population measured 11.08 million." I already had removed the metro number, due to the problems mentioned, however, another editor insisted that the number should be kept. If you want, you can edit-out the metro number in the infobox, along with "In 2006, the population of Beijing's urban core ... an urban core population of 18.54 million." I am unhappy with that sentence, it was a compromise, and the 18.54m is unsourced. --BsBsBs (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
We already do speculate; there is a number in the infobox for the metro area. If there's going to be any number, then why not use the appropriate one? siafu (talk) 14:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You'll have my blessing if you remove unsourced speculations. I'm dead set against adding new ones. --BsBsBs (talk) 15:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I think you miss the point; whether or not the metro number is speculation is irrelevant to whether or not it should include the city proper or not. Personally, I would recommend including most of what you just said in a footnote to the metro area population in the infobox, but either way the meaning of the metro area population should be the combination of the two. siafu (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Not to worry, I get your point: You want a Beijing Metro of around 32 million.Trust me, what you propose would incite a major editing riot. I'm glad we have a semblance of peace here. May I offer you two opinions:
Officious opinion: Any information must be verifiable and must come from a reliable source. If you want to enter a metro number, then I see two options:
1.) Find a source that says "The Beijing Metro has a population of XX" The source should give an indication of what the number comprises, i.e. "permanent residents" alone, or "total of permanent and temporary registered residents." The quality of the source should be the same as the one that states the Municipality population number, i.e. published statement by an official statistical entity or press report citing such a statement. The date should be by end of 2009.
2.) Find a source that says "The Beijing Metro consists of (list of administrative areas.)" Quality same as above. Then, add the population numbers of those administrative areas, properly referenced, all by end of 2009, all using the same methodology.
Doing it this way should survive certain challenges. Adding an arbitrary 13 million to an official 22 million is not per WP standards and would most certainly be deleted.
Private opinion: I am against "metro" numbers in city articles, unless the metro is clearly and officially defined, such as in Tokyo Metropolis. The reason is that the definition of "metro" is usually arbitrary and gives cause for discourse. Case in point: Tokyo. Despite the fact that a Tokyo Metropolis is clearly defined (population 13 million,) some people think it should include at least Chiba, Kanagawa, and Saitama, and hence List of metropolitan areas by population arrives at a count of 32 million (!!!) So we have one Tokyo Metro with 13 million, and another Tokyo Metro with more than twice the population. Confusion reigns. In my admittedly rigid opinion, the scope of a city article ends at the boundaries of that city. If we talk about the Beijing Municipality, then this is where we end. If a Beijing Metropolis article is desired, then this article should be created, as a separate article. However it needs to be properly sourced, and it will face the same challenges as outlined if the Officious Opinion. I have a marketing background, and am well versed in the arcana of SMAs, MSAs, CSAs, CBSAs and what have you. I can look at an area through the eyes of the U.S. Census Bureau and through the eyes of Nielsen (their perspectives differ.) However, these have their place in marketing and media plans, not necessarily in an encyclopedia. The matter gets especially treacherous when we compare internationally. Back to Beijing, without an official definition of "Beijing Metro" (which AFAIK does not exist) there will be an endless fight. In the left corner: Those who say that Beijing Metro is only a subset of the obscenely big Beijing Municipality, and that Metro should not count the rural areas, and only half of Chaoyang. In the right corner: Those who say that Beijing Metro consists also of the Hebei province, and while we are at it of Tianjin, after all, it's just a short 30 minute train ride away, faster than by subway from where I live downtown to the Wudaoku computer market. And speaking of the subway, this is what a Parisian thinks of if you mention the "Beijing Metro" to him or her. It's a mess. Let's stick to what we know. Thank you if you did read all the way to here. --BsBsBs (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong source

"For Beijing is one of the Four Great Ancient Capitals of China" I removed "Beijing airport beefs up security for Olympics" - the reasons should be obvious.--BsBsBs (talk) 07:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

frankly, something as obvious as that does not have to be mentioned on the talk page -_- HXL's Roundtable, and Record 13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, just being careful :) --BsBsBs (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Attention railroad buffs: Beijing East?

Beijing East may be inoperable for passenger traffic. It handles freight.

This is all Original Research ...

- I can see BJ East from my window - A few months ago we walked over and checked - No ticket window, a ripped-off timetable - No access to the platform

Someone might look into this and see whether it is still in the timetables. BsBsBs (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Define Romanized

Article uses the word Romanized to decribe why we pronounced it as Peking before Bejing. But the word Romanize doesnt explain why 1982 published year names were Kiah instead of Jia, and Tse instead of Zi, and Kwei instead of Gui, and Ping instead of Bing, and Ting instead of Ding, etc. Is it really Romanized, or the next prestigious scholar to follow his ways to pronounce it? Is it a game of who writes the most, publishes the most, most famous author on a topic? 98.144.71.174 (talk) 23:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

This article is one sided

This article is under tight control to keep only one sided opinions in it. Just look at the history from 11/22/11 to 11/24/11 and how quickly the attempts to add mention of Tienanmen square were censored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodar95 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square 1989

Despite their scope and the fact that they occurred in the city, they have not been included in the history section (i.e. Beijing#History) of this article for many years, for a simple reason: these are not as germane or fundamental to the history of the city alone as the other developments in that section. In addition, the Cultural Revolution, a FAR MORE important event, has not been mentioned for so long, so why should the events of spring 1989 be highlighted? That section is already quite long as it is; there is little room to discuss to even 1/10th of the detail that History of Beijing does.  The Tartanator  00:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Mention of the of the Tiananmen Square event of 1989 complies with V, CITE, and RS. It is directly and obviously apposite, for it concerns a notable event that took place in the city that is the subject of this article. The mention is appropriately concise and bears a properly-formatted link to the main article for more in-depth coverage. Everything about it appears to be in accord with all applicable Wikipedia policy, protocol, and general practice. The reason you are espousing for the exclusion of mention, in contrast, does not appear to have any basis or support in Wikipedia policy, protocol, or general practice. Rather, it looks a lot like you simply don't like it, which does not justify its removal.
The lack of coverage in the article of one relevant thing (e.g., the Cultural Revolution) does not serve as grounds for excluding coverage of another relevant thing (e.g., Tiananmen Square '89). The status of most articles on Wikipedia, including this one, is "incomplete". If you feel mention of the Cultural Revolution would benefit this article, by all means add it. But agitating for the exclusion of relevant material, particularly this material in this context, and especially in light of your stridently fervent opinions on matters related to China, can be seen as giving the appearance of an attempt at censorship, which I'm sure you agree is definitely to be avoided.
Overall, please remember that Wikipedia works on a consensus basis; your unilateral, persistent, repeated removal of material because you don't think it belongs is not kosher. It's also more than a little rich for you to have requested a lockdown of the article with the putative reason that there's an edit war on, given that you appear to be on a mission, making six immediate reversions of four editors in five days ([3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]) to keep the Tiananmen Square material out of this article and only deigning to visit the talk page to assert the rectitude of your unilateral deletion on the last of those five days. That pattern of behaviour makes it very challenging to assume your good faith.
To refresh your recollection, BRDC says if your edit is reverted, you need to discuss it-not re-re-re-re-revert it. That means you stop removing the material from the article immediately. Make your argument here on the talk page, present your thoughts, support them as you can, but unless and until consensus develops to exclude the material, it will need to stay. -Scheinwerfermann T·C01:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
No reasonable person can possibly deduce from my user page alone whether I support the PRC or the Communist Party of China.
Do not give any impression that I am attempting to "censor" anything here or that my reason for non-inclusion simply translates to "I don't like it". Do not lecture me on policies and guidelines that I am quite well aware of. Focus on content, not the contributor.
I have solid, content-based grounds for not including this event here in this article. If you notice, everything else mentioned in the history section involves a military campaign, Beijing gaining or losing capital status, or some drastic physical changes affecting the city. None of this applies to the Red Guard movement or the protests of 1989, which instead had more important effects on the PRC overall. In short, city histories should focus on fundamental developments affecting the city in question.  The Tartanator  02:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
the cultural revolution took place in all of china. The tienamen square protests took place only in beijing. It should 100% be mentioned as one of the few chinese events well known to the average westerner, especially if restricted to events which took place in beijing. However, it does not need to have extensive coverage, as there is an entire article dedicated to it. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the significance of June 4th protests to the city of Beijing lies in the fact that its significance is not permitted to be manifested in ways it otherwise would be. Out of all the major historical events that took lace in the history of the city of Beijing, June 4th is stands apart as one of the very few that cannot be discussed openly in the city today. In Beijing, many books are published about the Cultural Revolution. One can buy a compendium of poems posted in Tiananmen Square during the April 5th Movement. There are markers and memorials to the victims of the March 18th Movement. But there is nary a mention of June 4th 1989 in the public domain in Beijing. Even the official verdict is not discussed. This omission is analomous and runs against the grain of history. We can indirectly discern how significant that event is to the officialdom in China by the shutdowns of Tiananmen Square for "repairs" that coincide with anniversaries of June 4th, by the extra security surveillance assigned to the Tiananmen Mothers during "sensitive times" -- e.g. the death of Zhao Ziyang etc. All of these are clues of the enduring importance of this event to those who prefer to suppress its historical significance. To the millions of residents who lived through June 4th, the protests were no trivial event. That the history section of Beijing omits to mention many other important episodes should not be grounds to exclude this one. This event is arguably more significant owing to the special treatment it receives from the officialdom in China. NumbiGate (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. The June 4th Protests in 1989 did involve a military campaign. The suppression of the protests / restoration of order mobilized one of the largest military forces to be assembled in Beijing in the last 60 years.

The Tartanator, your assertion here I have solid, content-based grounds for not including this event here in this article looks highly problematic. Carefully keep in mind that you do not own this or any other article, please and thank you. -Scheinwerfermann T·C02:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, volleying personal accusations with no commentary on content whatsoever. This makes collaboration or any other engagement with you close to impossible. And how dare you twist my words so they take on meanings that I never intended them to.  The Tartanator  03:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Tartanator, my fairly extensive comments on the content in question are at the top of this thread. Please take a few moments to carefully read back and review this thread so far. Not only will you find the content-related discussion you might have missed before, but you'll also please note there are no personal attacks actually taking place. You will also see, if you're reading thoughtfully, that one of us is shouting and two of us are talking. It will work better when we are all talking; that's how consensus gets developed. Shouting louder will not get anywhere productive, so please lower your voice and bring a civil tone to this discussion. Let's have a cup of tea and try to get this conversation steered toward a more productive direction with fewer how-dare-yous and less hystrionics. Please and thank you. -Scheinwerfermann T·C05:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Then do your best to avoid commenting on the contributor. Your first response was filled mostly with policy explanations (the last 2 paragraphs were all about me—don't deny this). All you said was "...for it concerns a notable event that took place in the city", without explaining any further.
"I have solid, content-based grounds..." means only that—in other words, grounds=reasons. No reasonable interpretation could suggest I am "owning" this article.  The Tartanator  05:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be pleased to discuss the content in question with you as soon as you can provide a cogent reason, based in Wikipedia policy, why it should be excluded.
When a contributor's behaviour and methods are questionable, they'll probably sooner or later be questiond. Editing that looks tendentious or belligerent will tend to raise eyebrows-and voices on the talk page. That's reasonable and proper and utterly normal here; it works that way for me, for you, and for everyone else. There is no exemption for those contributors who don't want their contributions and their manners scrutinised and evaluated. We have community standards here for content and for behaviour. Adhering to them is the best way to avoid uncomfortable conversations. -Scheinwerfermann T·C06:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Neither do you have a cogent reason, based on policy, why it must be included. And there you go again. If you have an issue, then raise it on my talk page, not here where you are wasting everyone else's time.  The Tartanator  06:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The onus is (still) on you to please explain why apposite, well-supported, directly-relevant material of appropriate length ought to be kept out of the article. At least four editors disagree with you and think that it should be included, so you will need to please explain why this apparent consensus is wrong and you are right. -Scheinwerfermann T·C06:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat again...The protests were far more important to the PRC as a whole, and not so much the municipality; the protests merely occurred there, but what long-term effect did they have on the city? This is unlike any of the other events in the history section, all of which reflect some great significance for the city. If I have to repeat this again, I am afraid this will be a case of "I didn't hear that". And consensus is not determined by numbers, you should know this...  The Tartanator  07:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
3O opinion: though the impact on city was minor indeed, this protest is just too notable to be omitted in the article about the place where it happened. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be included as an event of major importance that occurred in Beijing. The effects are just as important for Beijing as they are for the rest of the country. Just because it had greater implications on a larger scale doesn't mean we don't mention it. However, mention should be brief, and perhaps put in context with Tiananmen square as the location of multiple modern political movements. The May Fourth Movement, for example, certainly deserves mention under the Republican era section as Beijing university students played a major role.--Jiang (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Agree, for the same reason that we mention the Xi'an incident in the article on Xi'an, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the article on Sarajevo, despite the broader significance of these events. Kanguole 22:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the significance of June 4th protests to the city of Beijing lies in the fact that its significance is not permitted to be manifested in the way it otherwise would be. Out of all the major historical events in the city of Beijing, June 4th is stands apart as one of the very few that cannot be discussed openly in the city today. In Beijing, many books are published about the Cultural Revolution. One can buy a compendium of poems posted in Tiananmen Square during the April 5th Movement. There are markers and memorials to the victims of the March 18th Movement. But there is nary a mention of June 4th 1989 in the public domain in Beijing. This omission is analomous and runs against the grain of history. We can indirectly tell how significant that event is to the officialdom in China by the shutdowns of Tiananmen Square for "repairs" that coincide with anniversaries of June 4th, by the extra security surveillance assigned to the Tiananmen Mothers during "sensitive times" -- e.g. the death of Zhao Ziyang etc. All of these are clues as to the enduring importance of this event. To the millions of residents who lived through June 4th, the protests were no trivial event. That the history section of Beijing omits to mention many other important episodes should not be grounds to exclude this one. This event is arguably more significant owing to the special treatment it receives from the officialdom in China. NumbiGate (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. June 4th did involve a military campaign; it involved one of the largest military mobilizations on the city in the history of Beijing.


Tartanator, it's not that I don't hear you. I do hear you. It's that the reason you're offering (still) doesn't appear to have a sound basis, and (still) appears to boil down to "I don't want it in the article". As for how consensus works, please keep in mind that it is, in effect, contingent on numbers. Not in terms of a vote, of course, but more loosely in terms of the collective opinion of those who care to participate in the discussion. Consensus does not require unanimity, and if you'll take a step or two back and try to see the big picture of this situation, what you will see is you versus at least four editors of the article who do feel the material merits inclusion, and you versus everyone else who has weighed in so far in this discussion. Sometimes consensus doesn't go in accord with our personal opinions and preferences. This is looking like one of those times. When that is the situation, the grownup thing is to realise it, stand down, and let it go. —Scheinwerfermann T·C19:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for bringing a stop to User_talk:Tartanator deletions, both in the article and discussion sections, and the associated intimidation attempts. It is interesting to read, in the history section of the article under discussion here, a reference to Tienanmen square as the place where the creation of the People's Republic of China was announced in 1949 but that any reference to the protests that took place 50 years later at the same location are not significant enough to be mentioned.Nodar95 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, wow. I was not aware that Tartanator (talk · contribs) had deleted content from this talk page. Having read your comment, I looked at the history and found this, which is definitely not kosher. There was no personal attack as Tartanator claimed. I have restored the material s/he inappropriately removed from this page. —Scheinwerfermann T·C22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, his accusation of censorship was nasty enough (enough for me to consider taking him to WQA and even ANI), and even though he did not explicitly mention me, it should have been obvious. This accusation is just as serious as being called a Wumaodang, which I have been before, and I will not put up with any sort of name-calling, and similar to what Bush II stated, those who provide safe harbour for the name-callers, including you, Scheinwerfermann. And for future reference, I am male.  The Tartanator  01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. Your political preferences and sensitivities have no place here; set them aside while you're contributing. I do not think you would fare too well in an AN/I case, but you're certainly welcome to give it a go if you feel it's warranted. Fact is, numerous editors have the same beef with you: you appear to be trying to own and/or censor this article. Numerous editors. Not just one, not just two. Numerous. If you can't muster the maturity and presence of mind to step back and ponder whether they might be right, if instead you carry on with your present campaign against consensus, sooner or later you may find yourself involuntarily taking some time out to think about the consequences of your behaviour. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Both foolish and false statements. Disagreement does not mean a person is accusing me of ownership and censorship. Only Nodar95 and you, who somehow are pampering his absolutely repulsive behaviour, are the ones who have come out and accused me of censorship. If I were really attempting to censor this article, you would have seen much, much more. You have set yourself on equal footing with Nodar95.
I cannot believe you would say something such as "political...sensitivities have no place here". Being called a "Wumaodang" (Fifty-cent party) or censor is essentially an accusation of conflict of interest, and has every relevance to editing. I have had enough with this sort of nonsense and will not look kindly at all upon those who only know to act like Nodar95 does.  The Tartanator  02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Okeh, you do whatever it is you feel you must. As you do so, bear in mind that all contributions are made in public and everyone can see what everyone else is doing, and how they're doing it. —Scheinwerfermann T·C02:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the Tiananmen square protests are perfectly relevant both to China's and Beijing's history. I don't know if I've ever seen such a desperate attempt to exclude a single, relevant sentence from an article. article. The Tartanator, you do not own this article. So much time and effort wasted over what should be a non-controversial sentence. Alas. Myshka spasayet lva (talk) 02:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed an amazing among of effort to silence one sentence. And it goes beyond this page: if you have any doubt just look at the list of intimidation that got posted on my talk page: User_talk:Nodar95.Nodar95 (talk) 03:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You certainly deserved far worse for accusing an editor of having a conflict of interest by calling his action's "censorship". Not even when they are at their angriest do the vast majority of editors blurt out such accusations. The only game you know how to play is to resort to dirty tactics and telling lies when interacting with others.  The Tartanator  03:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Renaming article to Peking (discussion)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, WP:SNOW closure. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 11:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


Beijing → Peking We should use English names. Peking is still very common in English (Peking Duck, Peking Opera, Peking Man, Pekingese, Peking University). The same way the article for the capital of Russia is Moscow, not Moskva, and the capital of Poland is Warsaw, not Warszawa, this article should be Peking, not Beijing. OttomanJackson (talk)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

edit to the history section

This comment explains the edit to the history section that was reverted wholesale by the Leopard on 27 December 2011.

As most would recognize, the city of Beijing has a longer and richer history than most other cities. Over the past three years, the History of Beijing article has developed and accounted for much of the pre-1949 history of the city, while the history section of the main Beijing article has remained largely unchanged. The history subsection should reflect the content of the main history article, and the edit that I made to the history section was intended to do so. The edit is reproduced further below after these more detailed points of explanation.

  • The historical overview is a fairly concise summary of the long history of the city. Readers of the main Beijing article's history section would benefit from such an overview and that is why it was reproduced in whole. Other editors could certainly feel free to make their edits.
  • The gallery shows the UNESCO heritage sites of the city from the Ming Dynasty and draws the connection between that historical period and the heritage that it bestowed upon Beijing today. The pictures show iconic monuments of Beijing that most descriptions of the city would include. However, this article does not have any pictures of the Great Wall or the Ming Tombs or for that matter, Tiananmen Square (that could be a whole other topic for discussion -- the choice of images for this article). The discussion of UNESCO heritage sites under the Culture section does not refer to the various historical periods in which the sites were created.
  • The text of the history section was edited to provide better flow to the historical narrative. For example, why did Yongle make Beijing the capital of the Ming Dynasty, and demote Nanjing? That was a significant event in the history of the city and the history section. Without adding too much verbiage, the edit provides the answer.
  • The image of Tianning Temple was reduced in size because, due to its vertical orientation, the image at 200px width is rendered to be very large -- unnecessarily so. The point of that photo is that the southwestern part of present-day Beijing is the oldest. The accompanying Niujie Mosque photo shows the oldest mosque in the city, which like the Tianning Temple, is located in southwest Beijing. The oldest part of the mosque from the Liao era still stands.
  • The image of Genghis Khan's seige of Beijing comes from a 14th century Persian manuscript, itself a historical source and draws attention to the role that nomads had on the city's past.
  • The edit also notes that the city hosted the Olympic Games in August 2008. Prior to this edit and after the wholesale reversion, the history section concludes with the International Olympic Committee awarding the summer games to the city in July 2001, with no mention of what happened to those games, which were again, a significant event in the history of the city. Why leave the reader hanging?

ContinentalAve (talk) 12:17, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

"Peking" (again)

OttomanJackson (talk · contribs), it's very clear that you're on a mission to push what you consider to be the correctly anglicised names of places outside the Anglosphere. You've made that mission very clear not only elsewhere on this talk page, but also here in your own userspace and in a great many attempted end-runs around consensus such as [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], and [15]. Each and every one of these unilateral name changes and "other name" paste-ins of yours has been immediately and resoundingly rejected. That doesn't mean you're right and the whole rest of the project is wrong, it means you need to find a new hobby now and let this one drop, or you will likely find yourself faring rather badly in administrative action to control your willful damage to the project. Just stop it now. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Most English language atlases give Beijing as the primary name and have Peking in parenthesis. Therefore it should be given as an alternate name in the info box. OttomanJackson (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
I doubt it. Can you prove it? —Scheinwerfermann T·C20:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I can prove it. Here are links to six maps.
http://www.map-of-china.co.uk/map-of-beijing.htm
http://www.welt-atlas.de/map_of_beijing_6-410
http://www.welt-atlas.de/map_of_asia_map_of_the_world_political_0-9023
http://www.welt-atlas.de/map_of_far_east_(asia)_0-9016
http://www.welt-atlas.de/map_of_china_0-9018 (The description box above the map lists the capital as Peking, the map lists the city as BEIJING (PEKING))\
[16] (Uses only Postal Map and Wade-Giles, I like this map better than the pinyin ones)
OttomanJackson (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)
Your assertion was not "six maps show 'Peking'". It was "most maps show 'Peking'". That's what I asked you to prove. Since it would be impracticable for you to look at or link most maps, proof for your claim would likely take the form of a pointer to some reliable sources making your same claim. Get on it. Oh, and I cleaned up the sloppy formatting of your comment above; you're welcome, but please mind your manners. It's not nice to make messes in public spaces and leave them for others to come clean up.—Scheinwerfermann T·C18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Physical size of Beijing in lede

Beijing Municipality's physical extent is vast and notable for its variation in population density. These are facts relevant to the basic understanding of the city and the municipality. Yet there is no indication of Beijing Municipality's land area in the lede or how big that is. The following sentence was removed as "superfluous".

With land area of 16,801 km2 (6,487 sq mi), Beijing Municipality is slightly larger than the country of Montenegro and the U.S. state of Connecticut, though much of the municipality outside the urban core are sparsely populated mountains and farmland.

The sentence is meant to give the reader both a sense of the scale of the municipality and the variations in population density. The two comparisons, one to the size of a country, and the other to the size of a U.S. state are meant to help English readers understand the physical size of the city. Most English readers reside in the United States and are likely to be more familiar with the size of U.S. states. Readers outside of the United States can draw reference from the size of Montenegro. This does not mean that other comparisons must be added, unless there are better comparisons. But few recognizable geographic entities are comparable in size as Beijing Municipality. I welcome other suggestions. NumbiGate (talk) 20:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Beijing is not that unique among PRC cities for both physical extent and variation in population density. Many other cities have a dense urban core surrounded by outlying towns and then farmland and even mountains, most especially Chongqing.
My tolerance for the consistent comparisons to US states is shrinking, enough to the point that I consider it chauvinism when talking about non-US/Canada subjects; it makes the US look more special than it is. This encyclopaedia is written for all in the world, and Americans' profound ignorance on global (and even domestic) geography is not at all an excuse to resort to such comparisons, especially when Canadian or Australian, for example, examples are not used. GotR Talk 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
GotR aka Guerrilla of the Renmin, well most people's sense of square kilometers and square miles is even more limited than their sense of geography. Just putting the numbers there, which the current article does not, won't give readers much of a sense of scale. It is difficult to understand how a municipality like Chongqing with 28 million people should not be considered one of the largest in the world because 3/4 of its residents are rural, unless one knows that Chongqing is the size of Austria. In the Chongqing article, there happens to be a size reference -- to Taiwan to help readers figure that out. With an area of 82,401 km² (31,800 mi²), [Chongqing] is the largest direct-controlled municipality, larger even than one province and an autonomous region, as well as Taiwan. But even this description falls short of conveying actual size of Chongqing, which is not just bigger than Taiwan, but over three times the size. In the case of Beijing, there isn't a ready comparison, as far as I can tell, of Beijing's size to another entity within the PRC. NumbiGate (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, the inclusion of the comparison to Connecticut in this case is also to complement the relative obscurity of Montenegro. If a comparison to a better known country like Austria could be made, then Connecticut is less necessary. The other comparable comparisons are -- larger than East Timor, the Bahamas; slightly smaller than Swaziland and Kuwait. No offense to Canada or Australia, but the provincial-level units of administration are very large and not readily comparable to Beijing. If you can find a better example, by all means post it here. NumbiGate (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Montenegro is actually less "obscure" in other parts of the world than you may think... not everyone lives in the US (or Australia), you know... -- megA (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
About 2/3 of native English speakers in the world live in the United States and they more likely to identify with the size of Connecticut than Montenegro. Of course, those in other parts of the world may be less familiar with Connecticut and to them, as you suggest, Montenegro may not be as obscure as it is for many Americans. This is why the description includes references to both Montenegro and Connecticut. NumbiGate (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Coincidentally, I was just musing on English being a world language, with similarities to Latin. As such, Wikipedia is read by very many non-native speakers. So Kuwait is probably more relevant to them (1990 Gulf War).85.210.111.240 (talk)

Cityscape

Most other articles of large cities have a cityscape section with panoramas or photo galleries of the city. Beijing does not. Why not? Something like this:

National Museum of ChinaChang'an AvenueMonument to the People's HeroesWest Chang'an AvenueEast Chang'an AvenueMausoleum of Mao ZedongGreat Hall of the PeopleNational Centre for the Performing ArtsTiananmen SquareHuabiaoHuabiaoTiananmen (Gate Tower)
Panorama image map of Tiananmen Square from atop Tiananmen's gate tower, showing the Square beyond Chang'an Avenue, with the Monument to the People's Heroes and Mao Zedong Mausoleum at background center, the National Museum of China to the left and Great Hall of the People to the right. (mouse over for labels)
Central Beijing from the east. Visible from left: Great Hall of the People, Tiananmen Gate, the Forbidden City, the white dagoba of Beihai and the top of Jingshan.
Western Beijing from the Beijing TV Tower, with Yuyuantan Park in the foreground.
Far western Beijing from the Beijing TV Tower, with the Western Hills in the distance and the Summer Palace visible at the right.
File:Beijingcbd1.jpg
Beijing's Central Business District in Chaoyang District.

NumbiGate (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC) NumbiGate (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea, but those are all pretty bad shots.
The direction towards Tiananmen Square is going to be ugly and if you used it, y'should find something with one of the demonstrations (1949 or the other one). The palace would be great to have but I don't see any very good panoramic shots, either overhead or from the Bell Tower hill, in the commons. The others you've got are just kinda meh. — LlywelynII 17:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

File:Beijing montage.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Beijing montage.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 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 Wikipedia (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:Beijing montage.png)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

More fuel for the name controversy

Hi there, i am noticing that the Chinese seem to romanize the name of their city "BeiJing" (notice the upper-case J), as visible on this picture of a train ticket. --Jerome Potts (talk) 10:17, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, there are entire websites devoted to such screw ups. If you hang around long enough, you'll notice other places where it's written Bei Jing, Běi Jīng, Peking, and Pei-ping. You may also find metro stations where the Chinese translate "Handicapped Elevator" as "Disfunctional Lift".
Pinyin romanization of names is standardized not only by English-source style manuals but by the Communist government itself. Per them, the pinyin is Běijīng; per MOS-ZH, the running-text English is detoned Beijing. — LlywelynII 00:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to expand this:

I want it to look like these:

Should a new one be made called City of Beijing?

Also, what's the story with them sometimes referred to in infoboxes/navboxes/ledes as "city" sometimes "municipality". Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I would say just "Beijing" is probably sufficient for that navbox, and I totally agree that a better one needs to be created along the lines of Shanghai/Shenzhen. Although to my knowledge, several Beijing navboxes already exist that may have overlap with the 'comprehensive' navbox, so it would be well-advised to do a perusal on those before digging in. Colipon+(Talk) 02:10, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
As for "City" vs. "Municipality", the key difference is that the "Municipality" incorporates areas around the city, including neighbouring counties, which are not often identified with the city proper - Chongming County would probably be the best example. Or Yanqing County in Beijing. Colipon+(Talk) 02:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick feedback. I checked and found no other serously-overlapping navboxes. I will format the current one so that it's more conducive to expansion, and appears more similar to the other two. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:51, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Okay, I started it. "Areas" group name is not so good. Visitor attractions and Culture groups sort of overlap. I don't know what to do there. We still have an "above" line to use if we want (right under the main bar). Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
"Above" line is generally for the "history" and "culture" articles and such, i'll fix that. Colipon+(Talk) 05:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Please check Template:Old_Beijing, Template:Buildings_and_Structures_in_Beijing, Template:Railway stations in Beijing (which would now be redundant). Colipon+(Talk) 05:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Also, Category:Gates of Beijing. Colipon+(Talk) 05:40, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the "history" and "culture" fix. I'm hoping someone will read this and take it from here. I'll be busy all weekend. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:54, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 July 2012

Under the media section please include the Beijinger, BeijingKids and Agenda in the list of publications aimed at Beijing's expatriate community. The Beijinger magazine and website is currently the most popular English language publication and website of their kind in Beijing.

Jchan53 (talk) 13:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Add current?

99.181.134.146 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Twin towns and partner cities

Aren't they the same thing? should the lists be merged? 91.135.10.170 (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Several points about the Etymology & Names section

  • Since the article is considered over-long (I don't see that myself: it's a major topic), I can see the sense in moving some of the explanations – why it was ever named Nanjing, for instance – to the history section.
    However, it is important to note that the entire reasoning behind the name was distinguishing it from Nanjing when they were dual capitals. It makes little sense in English to call something the "X Capital" since normally there's only one in the first place.
  • Similary, it's simply false to say the capital was moved under the Ming. The Yongle Emperor kept the tax records and major administrative functions in the south. Beijing and Nanjing have their names precisely because they were dual capitals.
  • It's common but entirely misleading to translate Beiping as "Northern Peace" – the name was acquired precisely because the Ming (and later the KMT) had just captured the place and removed the warfare from the area. The English word "peace" has none of the connotations of the Chinese, whereas "pacified" precisely does.
    I can see a cite-needed tags or sourcing the common lazy translation of "Northern Peace" but we shouldn't be keeping bad info out of spite.     [moved to Names of Beijing article.]
  • There's no need at all to make a point of talking about the outdated Wade system. The version with apostrophes in the right place was only ever employed by scholars: the actual common forms were the Postal Map version (e.g., Wade for "Peking" was "Pei-ching" but that's not what showed up in the London or New York Times). Even keeping it, romanizations of Chinese is linked in the section and includes discussion of Wade. [moved to Names of Beijing article.]
  • As far as restoring the 'Briticisation' of romanization, the editor didn't pay attention to the fact his edit used the American version immediately below that.
    I'll look in the history for the first non-stub treatment. The rest of the article is all over the place as well with center, centre, etc., so it'll be nice to get closure anyway.     [See below.]
  • Jing is not a character.
    Normally, yes, we should use the romanization in the running text and put the characters off to the side. "The character for X is..." is precisely when you shouldn't do that. Further, the romanization isn't an English abbreviation in any sense (that would be the amusing "BJ"): it should be italicized and include the tone marks if it's even included. (It doesn't need to be: 京 is explained immediately above in the same section and in a sidebar).
  • Per the MOS/MOSZH, don't remove the {{lang}} tags around the Chinese characters. I don't think it makes any difference to us apart from shifting some people's fonts, but apparently it helps with some bots, functions, etc.

— LlywelynII 00:59, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned that up.
Odd, Leopard complained about a decent treatment of the other names. When I move them to the history section & Names of Beijing article and keep the section as simple etymology, he tries to shoe-horn them back in and complains about their bolded inclusion in the history section where they are completely appropriate. What gives? — LlywelynII 14:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Regarding a side point, yes, official use of "Beijing" absolutely stopped during the Peiping period. Pointedly doing that was the whole point of changing the name in the first place. (And remember, speaking of "Beijing" is another way to discuss Chinese use of 北京, not informal western use of "Peking".) — LlywelynII 14:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)


The name used during the Ming Dynasty, when the Yongle Emperor restored it as a dual capital and distinguished it from Nanjing. …was what? What name was used? This sentence is left hanging without the object. —Chrishelenius (talk) 20:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR: American English

The first edit to the page and the first non-stub version were both in American English. I'll post the banner & we can try to avoid creating messes like the current version where you've got both forms repeatedly within the same sections. — LlywelynII 01:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

WP:ERA

Since was on that anyway, this edit established the use of the page as AD & BC, rather than the clunkier CE & BCE. There are only a few uses anyway (& one's off: CE follows a date; AD precedes it because the Latin is funky), so I'll go ahead and fix that or just try to avoid using either one. — LlywelynII 06:28, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

History section: Ownership issues

Give the troubles expressed by editors above and a particularly lazy paste job (restoring haphazard bolding, bad grammar, removing helpful links) to my own hours' long work on the page, it seems we have a problem with WP:OWNERSHIP going on here. Could we get some more opinions in here to help cool Lep's heels / show he represents a widely-shared consensus? or do we need to ban him from the page?

I'm sure he's mostly a helpful force for good, given how often a page like this must get vandalized, but his bizarre treatment of my edits (keep the etymology short & the history in the history section, followed by i don't like that and here, i'll awkwardly ram in a bunch of historic names ahead of the actual etymology; claiming onetwo red link[s] was an edit "full of dead links") has me doubting his even-handedness and ability to distinguish his pet peeves from actual improvements to the article. — LlywelynII 14:52, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Since the Chinese characters do represent clutter and they're linked and available at the Names of Beijing article, I'll take them out here [all of them, not just some as in the previous version] per making Lep happy and upholding MOSZH. — LlywelynII 15:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
Double-checked the policies. They're somewhat ambiguous, since MOS:BOLDSYN (as is normal practice) advises to bold the first appearance of synonyms (/alternate names) but – on a stringent reading – MOS:BOLD advises to shove all the synonyms into the first paragraph (the first line if possible). Surely that's not optimal. Myself, I don't see the benefit of shoehorning a list of historic names into the etymology just to get their bolding out of the way. Since we don't want to take the time to do a thorough job (that's at a different page), let them show up naturally & bold where appropriate as at Nanjing, Hanoi, Guangzhou... — LlywelynII 15:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Images

The history section could probably use more interesting images than the outside of that museum. Aren't there any for Ji or Peking man? The map is pretty but not sure how helpful it is, really.

We've got an old map with the basic grid and one of the palaces (though not this lovely shot or this one of Cixi). I added photos of the iconic Tiananmen Portrait and from the 2008 Opening Ceremony, but you might disagree with the choices. Similarly I don't particularly like the current shot of the Forbidden City which is lovely work but shows essentially nothing.

Some other options
Forbidden City: Generic, panorama, Boxer Rebellion.
Portrait: guard, close up
Opening Ceremony: globe, fireworks, drums

There's obv the tank man shot or the statue of Freedom, but I didn't see them in the commons under Gate of Heavenly Peace (and am in China, so it mucks up my internet if I search around too much...) Any other ideas? — LlywelynII 17:06, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology & History

I did not know your inputs on the talk page until your last comment in Revision history. Yes in hindsight, I do think adding all these historical names as an overview to the Etymology section is too much without context, and removing them is a good idea. My problem with your massive reworking on the article, is that it doesn't seem to be written for the intent of a summary English article. Keep in mind the "audience" of English Wikipedia. The various name adding and additional explanation is overly complicated, and sometimes quite inconsistent (with previous versions of the article on the same subject) and confusing. It seems it is more fitting for a Chinese audience or a Chinese Wikipedia article than here. Please keep it concise, and easy to read, and remember the content is intended for summarized history and etymology.--TheLeopard (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

[Created new section since wasn't really about the images.]
Regarding your feelings about overview articles, in a sense I do understand. The article on Tokyo, for instance, has a much more concise treatment of the town's history and leaves the rest for its history article. On the other, as should be clear from the fact I'm now the second person commenting at length about your over-protectiveness, I'd say that your feelings on the page might not represent the general consensus.
Simply put, even a summary of Beijing's long history is going to be rather long. You're right that links to redirects ("Peiping", e.g.) are unnecessary and minor names from Beijing's past ("Jingshi", e.g.) can be left to the History of Beijing article. On the other hand, Beijing's history has been much longer and fundamentally more complicated than Tokyo's: it's not the story of an obscure town that rose to greatness, but one that has gone through several cycles of prominence and obscurity in different eras, for different reasons, under different names, and due to different peoples (in fact, typically not Han Chinese).
Thus, my opinion is that Beijing's various names as a capital (Ji, Yanjing, Fangyang, Nanjing, Zhongdu, &c.) should very much be kept and are essential even in a summary. To the extent they need context and explanation, they should get it – even in a summary. Again, there is no question to my mind that the article was improved by reference to the obscurity of the area following the 3 Kingdoms (despite numerous "Yan" kingdoms) and its salvation during the Sui wars against Korea thanks to an expanded canal network. (It is common to see reference to Beijing as a city that grew great away from major waterways; this page should work to combat that misconception.)
There's a strong political component to arguments about how prominent treatment of the Boxers and the '89 Tian'anmen protests should get. I'm ok with providing links to the major articles covering Beijing's history; but we need to at least be providing the links to state of Ji, Yanjing, Youzhou, &c. — LlywelynII 12:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to the Beijing article, LlywelynII. I share your sentiments. The article has the potential to be great. Leo, you have good intentions to safeguard the article from unwarranted edits. The article largely retains its 2008 form [17], but remains well short of what the subject matter requires. For starters, the history section does not even mention the Great Wall. In order for the article to grow (it has a fraction of the content of New York City, London or Paris, many more substantive contributions will need to be made and accepted. NumbiGate (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported, conclusory sentence in the lede

Few cities in the world have been the political and cultural center of an area as immense for so long.

This sentence in the lede, without factual support, leaves the reader wondering -- how long? It is a conclusory sentence in a lede that provides no means to evaluate the conclusion. I am not enamored with conclusory sentences in general (readers should be able to draw their own conclusions from the facts) and this one in particular (which borrows language from another encyclopedia) but TheLeopard is apparently fond of it. So I have revised that paragraph as follows to provide factual support:

The city's history dates back three millenia. As the last of the Four Great Ancient Capitals of China, Beijing has been the political center of the country for much of the past seven centuries. The city is renowned for its opulent palaces, temples, gardens, tombs, walls and gates, and its art treasures and universities have made it a center of culture and art in China. Few cities in the world have been the political and cultural center of an area as immense for so long.

ContinentalAve (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

So TheLeopard says the reformulation I put forth above has "Too much overstating" and changed it to the one below:

As one of the Four Great Ancient Capitals of China, Beijing has been the political center of the country for much of the 2nd millennium. The city is renowned for its opulent palaces, temples, gardens, tombs, walls and gates. . .

My reformulation states three new facts to help readers understand how long Beijing has been around and has been important. Fact 1: The city's history dates back three millenia (3,000 years). Fact 2: the city has been the capital of China for much of the past seven centuries (from 1276 in the late 13th, to the present, in the early 21st with interruptions of 53 years during the Ming Dynasty and 21 years under the Republic of China). Fact 3: Beijing was the last of the so-called Four Ancient Capitals of China to become a capital of China. The other three -- Xian, Luoyang and Nanjing all became capitals of China before Beijing. That Xian and Luoyang became capitals of China before Beijing is well known. One can quibble about Nanjing's status as the capital of the Ming and Republic of China, after Beijing was already the capital during the Yuan. But Nanjing had already been the capital of China well before that in the Eastern Jin (317-420) and the Southern Dynasties (the Song from 420 to 479, the Liang from 502 to 552 and again from 555 to 557, the Chen from 557 to 589). In other words, Nanjing became the capital of China nearly a thousand years (959 years) before Beijing did.
Now take a look what the TheLeopard has in the replacement. Fact 1 is removed altogether. That Beijing's history extends back over 3,000 years is a signficant fact that belongs in the lede. It shows that Beijing is older than Rome (753 BC), Istanbul (671 BC), London and Paris. Fact 2 has been distorted. The second millenium refers to the thousand years from 1000 to 2000. But Beijing was not the capital of China for the first 276 years of that timespan. Add on the 74 years from the Ming and ROC eras and we have 350. Compared to 650 out of 1000 years, 626 out of 700 years is more accurate and overstates much less. Furthermore, the second millennium also does not cover any years in the current, third millennium. The replacement manages to overstate to a greater degree and underinclude. Fact 3 has also been removed, which makes the lede less informative. For all these reasons, I am reverting TheLeopard's changes back to the original formulation. ContinentalAve (talk) 23:31, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Eight months later . . .

Eight months later, TheLeopard made the following change with this explanation: Re-arranged the last paragraph in the lede. Not sure why this sentence is at the end. Makes little sense.

Few cities in the world have been the political and cultural center of an area as immense for so long.[38] The city's history dates back three millennia, and as the last of the Four Great Ancient Capitals of China, Beijing has been the political center of the country for the past Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties.[39] The city is renowned for its opulent palaces, temples, gardens, tombs, walls and gates,[40] and its art treasures and universities have made it a center of culture and art in China.[40]

Here's why (for the second time): the sentence makes a conclusory claim that leaves the reader hanging -- what political center? what cultural center? and for how long? The replacement of how long (seven centuries) with Yuan, Ming and Qing dynasties in the subsequent sentence further obscures the how long -- since one who is unfamiliar with precise dates of Chinese history would have to look up the those dynasties to determine, for example, how Beijing compares to Moscow, which first became the capital of Russia in 1340. For the record, Beijing became the capital of the Yuan Dynasty in 1271 or 1272 before the Yuan completed the conquest of the Southern Song in 1279. Furthermore, TheLeopard's revision leaves out the fact that Beijing was also the capital of the Republic of China from 1912 to 1928. If this conclusory sentence must be included in the lede, it should go in the concluding position -- after political and cultural influence has already been discussed, not before. For all those reasons and those provided back in January, I am reverting the lede to the following:

The city's history dates back three millennia. As the last of the Four Great Ancient Capitals of China, Beijing has been the political center of the country for much of the past 750 years.[41] The city is renowned for its opulent palaces, temples, gardens, tombs, walls and gates,[40] and its art treasures and universities have made it a center of culture and art in China.[40] Few cities in the world have been the political and cultural center of an area as immense for so long.[38]

ContinentalAve (talk) 04:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Pronounciation

The original "Peking" as transliterated via Wade-Giles was "Bay-jing".

If this is too complicated, let's take out the pronounciation all together and reference the Names of Beijing article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriksq (talk • contribs) 16:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The original "Peking" as transliterated via Wade-Giles was still "Bay-jing".

If this is too complicated, let's take out the pronunciation all together and reference the Names of Beijing article instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriksq (talk • contribs) 16:06, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Sound file

The man pronouncing the name of the city is not standard Chinese. Perhaps, he isn't even a native speaker.--77.1.136.155 (talk) 23:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Revisions to the Air quality section

Leopard, you say The whole section should not be modified to revolve around the Olympics, as this is not a wikinews. Content largely revolving around a single current event is often undue weight. Further, some of the research have nothing to do with the Olympics. More than half of the preexisting text is about measures to improve air quality in the run-up to the Olympics, which was a primary impetus for the improvement of air quality in Beijing. If you did not notice that, I've highlighted that text in yellow for you.

Preexisting Text

Joint research between American and Chinese researchers in 2006 concluded that much of the city's pollution comes from surrounding cities and provinces. On average 35–60% of the ozone can be traced to sources outside the city. Shandong Province and Tianjin Municipality have a "significant influence on Beijing's air quality",[Citing Study of Air Quality during the Olympic Games][42] partly due to the prevailing south/southeasterly flow during the summer and the mountains to the north and northwest.
Heavy air pollution has resulted in widespread smog. These photographs, taken in August 2005, show the variations in Beijing's air quality.
In preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics and to fulfill promises to clean up the city's air, nearly 17 billion USD was spent. Beijing also implemented a number of air improvement schemes for the duration of the Games, including stopping work on all construction sites, closing many factories in and around Beijing, closing some gas stations,[43] and cutting motor traffic by half by limiting drivers to odd or even days (based on their license plate numbers)[44]
Two new subway lines were opened and thousands of old taxis and buses were replaced to encourage residents to use public transport. The Beijing government encouraged a discussion to keep the odd-even scheme in place after the Olympics,[45] and although the scheme was eventually lifted on 21 September 2008, it was replaced by new restrictions on government vehicles[46] and a new restriction that does not allow the use of a car once a week.[47][48] In addition, staggered office hours and retail opening times have been encouraged to avoid the rush hour, and parking fees were increased.
Beijing became the first city in China to require the Chinese equivalent to the Euro 4 emission standard.[49] Some 357,000 "yellow label" vehicles (whose emission levels are too high) have been banned from Beijing altogether.[47][50]
The government regularly uses cloud-seeding measures to increase the likelihood of rain showers in the region to clear the air prior to large events[51] as well as to combat drought conditions in the area.
According to the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP), China has spent $17 billion over the last three years on a large-scale green drive.[52] Beijing has added 3,800 natural gas buses, one of the largest fleets in the world.[52] Twenty percent of the Olympic venues' electricity comes from renewable energy sources.[53] The city has also planted hundreds of thousands of trees and increased green space in an effort to make the city more livable.[54]
One year after the 2008 Olympics, Beijing's officials reported that the city was enjoying the best air quality this decade because of the measures taken during the Games. Nonetheless, Beijing still faces air pollution problems.[55][56] The US embassy recorded levels of pollution beyond measurable levels on 21 February 2011, and advised people to stay indoors as a thick smog was covering the city.[57] Measurements in January 2013 showed levels of air pollution, as measured by the density of particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometres in size – higher than the maximum 755mcg the US Embassy's equipment can measure.[58]
Daily pollution readings at 27 monitoring stations around the city are reported on the website of the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau (BJEPB).[59] The United States Embassy in Beijing also reports hourly fine particulate (PM2.5) and ozone levels on Twitter.[60] Although the BJEPB and US Embassy measure different pollutants according to different criteria the media has noted that pollution levels and the impact to human health reported by the BJEPB are often lower than that reported by the US Embassy.[60]

Reorganized section

The preexisting text was a mess. I've merely reorganized the preexisting information and added information about the burning of coal in Beijing and surrounding regions, which help explain the perennial pollution.

Over the past decade, Beijing has consistently ranked among the most air polluted cities in China and the world.[61][62] Daily pollution readings at 27 monitoring stations around the city are reported on the website of the Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau (BJEPB).[63] The United States Embassy in Beijing also reports hourly fine particulate (PM2.5) and ozone levels on Twitter.[60] Although the BJEPB and US Embassy measure different pollutants according to different criteria the media has noted that pollution levels and the impact to human health reported by the BJEPB are often lower than that reported by the US Embassy.[60]
====Remedies for the Olympics====
Joint research between American and Chinese researchers in 2006 concluded that much of the city's pollution comes from surrounding cities and provinces. On average 35–60% of the ozone can be traced to sources outside the city. Shandong Province and Tianjin Municipality have a "significant influence on Beijing's air quality",[64] partly due to the prevailing south/southeasterly flow during the summer and the mountains to the north and northwest.
Heavy air pollution has resulted in widespread smog. These photographs, taken in August 2005, show the variations in Beijing's air quality.
In preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics and to fulfill promises to clean up the city's air, nearly 17 billion USD was spent.[52] Beijing implemented a number of air improvement schemes for the duration of the Games, including halting work at all construction sites, closing many factories in Beijing permanently, temporarily shutting industry in neighboring regions, closing some gas stations,[65] and cutting motor traffic by half by limiting drivers to odd or even days (based on their license plate numbers),[66] reducing bus and subway fares, opening new subway lines, banning high-emission vehicles,[47][50] assembling one of the largest fleets of natural-gas powered buses in the world,[52] Beijing became the first city in China to require the Chinese equivalent to the Euro 4 emission standard.[67]
Twenty percent of the Olympic venues' electricity came from renewable energy sources.[68] The city planted hundreds of thousands of trees and increased green space in an effort to make the city more livable.[69] After the Olympics, a modified version of the road-rationing scheme was retained.[70] and a new restriction that does not allow the use of a car once a week.[47][48]
====Status since the Olympics====
One year after the 2008 Olympics, Beijing's officials reported that the city was enjoying the best air quality this decade because of the measures taken during the Games.[71][72] On February 21, 2011, the US Embassy was reported air pollution beyond measurable levels, and advised people to stay indoors as a thick smog was covering the city.[73] Measurements in January 2013 showed levels of air pollution, as measured by the density of particulate matter smaller than 2.5 micrometres in size – higher than the maximum 755mcg the US Embassy's equipment can measure.[74]
Coal burning accounts for about 40% of the PM 2.5 in Beijing and is also the chief source of nitrogen and sulfur dioxide.[75] Since 2012, the city has been converting coal-fired power stations to burn natural gas[76] and aims to cap annual coal consumption at 20 million tons. In 2011, the city burned 26.3 million tons of coal, 73% of which for heating and power generation and the remainder for industry.[76] Much of the city’s air pollutants are emitted by neighboring regions.[75] Coal consumption in neighboring Tianjin is expected to increase from 48 to 63 million tons from 2011 to 2015.[77] Hebei Province burned over 300 million tons of coal in 2011, more than all of Germany, of which only 30% were used for power generation and a considerable portion for steel and cement making.[78] Power plants in the coal-mining regions of Shanxi, Inner Mongolia and Shaanxi, where coal consumption has tripled since 2000, and Shandong also contribute to air pollution in Beijing.[75] Shandong, Shanxi, Hebei and Inner Mongolia, respectively rank from first to fourth, among Chinese provinces by coal consumption.[77]
The government regularly uses cloud-seeding measures to increase the likelihood of rain showers in the region to clear the air prior to large events[79] as well as to combat drought conditions in the area.

Leopard, if you have a problem with the revision, you should do what you can to improve it because reverting to what was there before is not an improvement. ContinentalAve (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The content is fine, but the new headers you created screams "Olympics" and only that, and that is way too much, considering the section is about air quality of city as a whole, not just for the Olympics. I would say the first header should go, while the second header remains as it also gives a time frame (after the Olympics) on the subject.--TheLeopard (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Beijingren

Ok, I know I'm biased because I've had better experiences in Shanghai, but we should say something about the people of the city. Right now Pekingese's hatnote points here, where there is currently more about migrants and laowais than there is about the natives. Could someone with some grounding in and sources on the local culture please punch something up at Beijinger, Beijingese, or Beijing people with redirects from the others, along with Beijingren and 北京人 and a new hatnote at Pekingese?

Thanks. — LlywelynII 16:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's amusing. (A) Apparently, someone thinks that "Beijinger" is standard enough to not need a cite. (It's not and it does: it's more common to describe expats than locals, like the old "Shanghailander", so if that's changing let's get a source for it.) Wiki won't let me remove the info, though: I keep getting error messages (presumably because "Beijing" article + Chinese IP address?)
(B) I do a batch of cursory googling and the first page helpfully returns that a "person from Beijing" is either "Peking man" or "Pekinois". Might could be we just don't have a good term here, now that the dogs took over "Pekingese"... — LlywelynII 16:40, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
(C) The ngram. I wonder if there's any way to filter out the dog results. Ngram always seems to freak out when I use the normal hyphen 'not' marker. — LlywelynII 16:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Geography Section

The article doesn't seem to mention Beijing's relation to the East China Sea. Some basic information such as distance and principal routes to the sea would be welcome and might give insight into the local economy.CountMacula (talk) 14:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Mosques in Beijing

  • Gladney, Dru C. Muslim Chinese: Ethnic Nationalism in the People's Republic (Volume 149, Issue 149 of Harvard East Asian monographs, ISSN 0073-0483). Harvard University Asia Center, 1996. ISBN 0674594975, 9780674594975.

This book has a list of mosques on p. 178-179. Could be helpful for photo requests or article requests. The name of the mosque is "Qing Zhen Si" unless otherwise noted. Each entry starts with the neighborhood name, then if different from "Qing Zhen Si", the mosque name, then the founding date

Men's mosques with attached women's mosque

  • Niujie (Oxen Street) - Mosque name: Libaisi, founded 916-1125 -- Niujie Mosque
  • Fuwai Sanlihe, founded 1794

Women's mosques

  • Niujie Shouliu Hutong - Mosque name: Qingzhen Nusi, founded 1926
  • Chongmenwai Liujia Hutong, mosque name: Qingzhen Nusi, founding date blank
  • Chaoyangmenwai Xianpu si, mosque name Qingzhen Nusi, founding date blank
  • Deshengmenwai Xicun, mosque name Qingzhen Nusi, founding date blank

Men's mosques with no women's mosques attached

  • Dongsi (neighborhood name: East Mosque), founded 1271-1368
  • Funei Jinshi Fangjie, Mosque name: Pushou Si, founded 1271-1368
  • Andingmennei Ertiao Hutong, Mosque name: Faming Si, founded 1271-1368
  • Andingmen Guan (founding date blank)
  • Jiaozi Hutong, mosque name: Yongshou Si, founded 1662-1722
  • Qianmenwai Guanzhou Hutong, founded 1368-1644
  • Tianqiao Fuchangjie, founded 1926
  • Huashi (Flower Street), founded 1368
  • Chongwenmenwai Tangzi Hutong, founded 1821-1850
  • Tangdao Hutong, founded 1883
  • Suzhou Hutong, founded 1796-1820
  • Lumicang, founded 1644
  • Douyacai Hutong, founded 1796-1820
  • Wangfujing, founded 1875-1908
  • Chaoyangmenwai Nanzhongjie, founded 1662-1722
  • Chaoyangmenwai Xiapo, founding date 1662-1722
  • Chaoyangmenwai Balizhuang, founding date 1736-1795
  • Zhongjian Zixiang, founding date 1862-1874
  • Dongzhimennei Nanxiaojie, founding date 1821-1850
  • Gulou hou, founding date 1911
  • Shishahai, founding date 1644
  • Nanfan Xihongmen, founding date 1368
  • Dongzhimenwai Erlizhuang, founding date 1271-1368
  • Anyongwai Daguan, founding date 1796-1820
  • Deshengmenwai Daguan, founding date 1662-1722
  • Deshengmenwai Ma Dian, founding date 1662-1722
  • Xizhimenwai Nanguan, founding date 1736-1795
  • Xizhimennei Gouyan, founding date 1821-1850
  • Xisi Fenzi Hutong, founding date 1821-1850
  • Xi Dan, founding date 1875-1908
  • Xuanwumennei Shoupa Hutong, founding date 1821-1850
  • Xuanwumennei Niurouwan, founding date 1875-1908
  • Hepingmennei Huihuiying, mosque name Puning Si, founding date 1765
  • Haidian, founded 1662-1722
  • Xijiao Siwangfu, founded 1662-1722
  • Xijiao Landingchang, founded 1662-1722
  • Xijiao Anheqiao, founded 1662-1722
  • Xijiao Shucun, founded 1662-1722
  • Beijing Qing He, founded 1662-1722

WhisperToMe (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Clean up the opening sentence

The opening sentence of this article contains two English names, three competing IPA pronunciations, pinyin, simplified Chinese script and a link to "listen". In addition, we also have the Chinese script twice in the Infobox settlement template, again in the Infobox Chinese template, and yet again in the article's etymology section.

Can we follow the WP:MOS-ZH and clean up the opening sentence to just give the two English names and let the Infobox Chinese list the various IPA, pinyin, Chinese scripts and so on.

Also can we drop the duplication in the Infobox settlement template and accept that "official_name = 北京市}} · Municipality of Beijing" is the same as "native_name = 北京" since the native name should really also have the 市 on the end too. We should change it to "official_name = Municipality of Beijing" and "native_name = 北京市"

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 14:47, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

>"Can we follow the WP:MOS-ZH and clean up the opening sentence to just give the two English names and let the Infobox Chinese list the various IPA, pinyin, Chinese scripts and so on."< Acceptable given it's been done in other places. I cannot do so though because I do not know whether the IPA in that sentence is Mandarin or English IPA.
>Also can we drop the duplication in the Infobox settlement template and accept that "official_name = 北京市}} · Municipality of Beijing" is the same as "native_name = 北京" since the native name should really also have the 市 on the end too. We should change it to "official_name = Municipality of Beijing" and "native_name = 北京市"< That's the case for all the other cities (municipality, prefecture- and county-level). I would be open to that option, but if we are going to do this it needs to be done for ALL the other cities. GotR Talk 15:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It seems to my eye that /beɪˈdʒɪŋ/ is the English IPA for Beijing (the source code has IPAc-en in the template) and [peɪ˨˩ t͡ɕiŋ˥] is tagged as Mandarin IPS. Later /piːˈkɪŋ/ and /peɪˈkɪŋ/ are both English IPA.
As for the duplication in the info box and 市 being tagged as "official" when it isn't, it's just common usage, I would be content to go through every city articles (there's about 300 to 350 of the I think) and apply the same changes. I would take a while but if something needs done then it is worth doing. However, I don't want to be bold and do that change on 300 articles just for someone to not like it and revert them all. Rincewind42 (talk) 16:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
As to whether it's official, can talk about that another day. As long as people such as ASDFGH (he and I are probably the only editors who care) do not object, it's fine. FWIW, I have an AWB (I don't know if you do) that can deal with all 600+ cities in one day. This fix will not be simple in areas with minority scripts (apart from Zhuang).
>We should change it to "official_name = Municipality of Beijing" and "native_name = 北京市"<. I prefer the "official_name" remain as it is; it's counterintuitive for a country where English is not a native/official language to have that parameter set to only English. GotR Talk 17:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm a linux user, so I don't have AWB. It can certainly fix the infobox for most cities but as you say, those with minority scripts might cause an issue and need done manually but if we did them first then AWB can fix the remainder.
As for, "it's counterintuitive for a country where English is not a native/official language to have that parameter set to only English", please look at some FA articles and GA articles such as:
  • Belgrade |name = Belgrade |official_name = City of Belgrade |native_name = Београд / Beograd
  • Mysore |official_name = Mysore/Mysuru |native_name = ಮೈಸೂರು
  • Dhaka |official_name = Dhaka |native_name = {{lang|bn|ঢাকা}}
  • Kolkata |official_name = Kolkata |native_name = কলকাতা |other_name = Calcutta
  • Tiruchirappalli | name = Tiruchirappalli | native_name = திருச்சிராப்பள்ளி
  • Hong Kong | conventional_long_name = Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China| native_name ={{nobold|{{lang|zh-hk|中華人民共和國香港特別行政區}}}}| common_name = Hong Kong
  • Copenhagen | official_name = Copenhagen | native_name = {{lang|da|''København''}}
  • Dubai |name=Dubai |official_name=Emirate of Dubai |native_name=<span style="line-height:150%">{{lang|ar|دبي}}</span>
None of these featured articles puts anything into the official name field other than the English translations/transliteration. The only place that non-latin script appears is in the native name section.
Another related point. Currently the infobox says "Municipality of Beijing" but searching [www.ebeijing.gov.cn ebeijing.gov.cn] I find only one page containing that phrase and it is just in a comment, not the main text. Where as "Beijing Municipality" appears over four thousand times and "Beijing City" over five thousand times. I think we need a proper reference as to what is really the "official" name.
-- Rincewind42 (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
"Municipality" gives added distinction to Beijing's special status, while "City" alone can be said of the 600+ prefecture- and county- level cities. Since this is not an overwhelming ratio, we can safely disregard the "sources", many of them which do not exhibit good English or offer inappropriate literal translations, and rely on our own judgment. GotR Talk 06:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
We shouldn't list something as an "official name" if it is just our own judgement. The word "official" means that there is a statement from the city or national government or similar authority saying what correct name is. Or at the very least we should use the same name as official documents issued by the city or national government use. Beijing almost certainly has an official name in English as they must have chosen and used one when applying for the Olympics and other such events. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I am not suggesting we go that far, merely suggesting that if no government organ quoting an official name for Beijing can be found, the non-governmental sources are using their "own judgment" as well. Setting the parameter to 北京市 or leaving it blank entirely is the lesser of the evils here. GotR Talk 16:18, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I made the changes discussed above last night. This morning user:TheLeopard added back in the text "Chinese: 北京" to the beginning sentence with comment, "I agree that the duplicated various names and transliteration should go to the templates, but I think at least the most basic name should be kept. Most cities (Paris, Rome, etc.) articles on Wikipedia has native name in the opening sentence."

There are a few points I would like to make in response to this. Firstly, Paris and Rome do not have any equivalent of Infobox Chinese which can hold all this information. Second, the city Shanghai was cleaned up on May 17, 2012 by User:Ohconfucius and has remained without Chinese text in the opening sentence since then with no complaints and no reverts. Third, if there was to be something in addition to English it should not be Chinese. Though this is a Chinese city, the typical reader cannot read Chinese. Anyone who has learned to read Chinese will already know the word for Beijing. If something else was needed it would the the English IPA (same as Paris and Rome). That would assist some readers who may know some IPA. Having the Chinese script at the top of the Infobox settlement template and in the Infobox Chinese template is quite sufficient. Lastly, WP:MOS-ZH clearly says that if you use the Infobox Chinese template, then you should remove all scripts from the opening sentence. There are a ton of other Chinese (non-city) articles that demonstrate this practice: e.g. Acupuncture, Bank of China Tower (Hong Kong), Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Confucianism, Chinese philosophy, Cantonese cuisine, Teochew cuisine, Buddhist cuisine, Yangtze River, Chiang Kai-shek, ... A very long list.

-- Rincewind42 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

After giving it a thought, I think Option 1 (no need for vertical separation) is cleaner code-wise than Option 2. The official website begs to differ that the "市" variation is not "official", so it is equally "native" as it is "official".
  1. |name = Beijing |official_name = {{longitem|style=font-size:105%;|{{nobold|{{lang|zh-cn|北京市}}}} · Beijing Municipality}}
  2. |name = {{raise|0.2em|Beijing}} |official_name = Beijing Municipality |native_name = {{lower|0.1em|{{nobold|北京市}}}} |native_name_lang = zh
GotR Talk 02:06, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
It is not about cleaner code. Wikipedia should be written for the reader not for the editors convenience. It is about labelling the information correctly such that the underlying hcard format and the semantics of the template are preserved. Template:Infobox_settlement says official_name: "The official name in English if different from name" (emphasis mine).
-- Rincewind42 (talk) 16:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, Template:Infobox settlement#Complete empty syntax, with comments is not in agreement with that. You haven't shown it makes any intelligible difference to the reader, especially as these the "name" parameters are all unlabelled in their final presentation. In light of that, cleaner code is the priority. GotR Talk 17:31, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Template:Infobox settlement#Complete empty syntax, with comments says nothing at all on the subject. look at Template:Infobox settlement#Parameter names and descriptions which is where my quote above comes from.
The reader might not be human. Infoboxes are designed to be part of the semantic web. They are computer readable such that automated systems can read and display the data correct. That is the underlying hcard that is invisible to humans but readable to computers. In the hcard, the fields are named. Putting the wrong information in the wrong field breaks the hcard format. In addition, some future editor of the template might decide to label those fields and then we would end up with a mess. Rincewind42 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
You have still not offered evidence showing Option 1 above is "wrong information", namely that "北京市" is not official parlance. I glean from your words that that should be the primary standard as to how each field should be filled. Anything else is matter of mere preference or should be addressed at {{Infobox settlement}} (and not by the two of us). Also I haven't mentioned that I think the principles in this discussion may (and should!) be applied to the DPRK, ROK and Japan. GotR Talk 02:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I have offered evidence showing Option 1 above is wrong. It quite clearly says on Template:Infobox settlement#Parameter names and descriptions that official name is, "The official name in English if different from name". If you want more proof, look in the archives of Template_talk:Infobox_settlement and you will find the discussion where they created the native name field for the very purpose of excluding non-English script from the Template_talk:Infobox_settlement/Archive_3#Handling_city_names_in_other_languages. Prior to that discussion, what you list as Option 1 was the norm. After that discussion, the native_name field was created and the non-English name moved there so that the official_name contains only English script. In addition, the infobox template is coded such that the Official_name can act as a replacement for the name field. For many cases, where the official name just means adding the words "City of..." to the common name, it is superfluous to list the name twice. Many cities have no name field but only the official_name field in the English language and a native_name field in the local language/script.
On the counter, you have offered no evidence that Option 1 above is correct. The burden of proof lies on you to show that there is a consensus for your version. Rincewind42 (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Beijing/Archive_3&oldid=1255420071"