Talk:Beijing/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

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? --

'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... --

's Roundtable, and Record

23:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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.

(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.

Roundtable, and Record

14:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: see my comments at
  Roundtable, and Record
  14:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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.

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?

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.

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

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)

"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 -_-

Roundtable, and Record

13:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, just being careful :) --BsBsBs (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

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 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)

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

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.

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·_C

01:23, 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

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

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·_C

05:15, 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

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

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·_C

02:09, 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)

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)

history section

History Main article: History of Beijing The city of Beijing has a long and rich history that dates back over 3,000 years. People's Republic of China (1949–present). Prehistory and early history UNESCO World Heritage Site . The earliest traces of human habitation in the Beijing municipality were found in the caves of Dragon Bone Hill near the village of homo sapiens lived in the same caves about 27,000 years ago.[7] Archaelogists have found neolithic settlements throughout the municipality, including at Wangfujing , the commercial center of modern downtown Beijing. The first walled city to be built within the confines present-day Beijing was the City of Ji (薊/蓟), the capital of the small kingdom of Ji in the An Shi Rebellion in AD 755. Liao, Jin and Yuan Dynasties Pagoda of Tianning Temple was built in 1120. Beijing's political stature began to rise with the expansion into northern China by nomadic peoples from the steppes. For the Khitans, Jurchens and Mongols, the city was an ideal midway point between the steppes to the north and the plains to the south. In 936, during the political turmoil following the collapse of the Tang Dynasty, the Tianning Temple was built in 1120. Both are located in the southwestern part of the modern Beijing. In 1125, the Jin Dynasty conquered the Liao, and in 1153 moved its capital to the Nanjing of the Liao, which was renamed Zhongdu (中都) or "Central Capital".[9] For the first time, Beijing became the political capital of a major dynasty. In 1214, Genghis Khan and the Mongols swept south from the steppes and besieged the city. In the Battle of Zhongdu of 1215, the Mongols destroyed much of the city.[10] In 1264, as Giovanni di Monte Corvino, Odoric of Pordenone, Marco Polo and Ibn Battuta left written accounts of visits to the city. Dadu was centered slightly north of modern central Beijing, on what is now the northern stretch of the 2nd Ring Road, and stretched northwards to between the 3rd and 4th Ring Roads. Remnants of the Yuan-era earthen walls, known as Tucheng still stand.[12] Ming and Qing Dynasties Ming Dynasty Tombs In 1368, Ming Dynasty in Nanjing, and his army drove the Yuan Dynasty from Dadu and burned down the imperial palaces. With the restoration of Chinese rule and the Ming court based in Nanjing, Dadu was renamed "Beiping" or "Northern Peace" and again became a regional city along the northern frontiers.[13][14][15] Zhu Yuanzhang granted Beiping, also known as Shuntianfu, to his fourth son, Zhu Di, the Prince of Yan. Under Zhu Di, Beijing soon returned to national prominence. In 1402, Zhu Di won a succession struggle in the elaborate tombs near Beijing. The Ming city reused the eastern and western walls of Dadu and shifted the northern and southern walls slightly to the south. The Ming-era city wall served as the Beijing city wall until modern times, when it was pulled down and the 2nd Ring Road was built in its place.[16] Qing Dynasty The Summer Palace . It is believed that Beijing was the largest city in the world from 1425 to 1650 and from 1710 to 1825. Nantang Cathedral was built over the original cathedral.[19] In 1644, Beijing was captured by yet another semi-nomadic ethnic group from the north, the classic Chinese novel Dream of the Red Chamber is set in Beijing during the early years of Qing rule at the end of the 17th century. During the Beijing Legation Quarter. In 1900, Beijing was again invaded by foreign powers, this time to quell the Boxer Rebellion.[22] Some important Imperial structures in the city were destroyed during the fighting, including the Hanlin Academy and the Summer Palace. Republican era The fomenters of the Xinhai Revolution of 1911 sought to replace Qing rule with a republic, and originally intended to establish the capital at Nanjing. After high-ranking Qing official Yuan Shikai forced the abdication of the Qing emperor in Beijing and ensured the success of the revolution, the revolutionaries in Nanjing accepted Yuan as the president of the new Republic of China, and the capital remained at Beijing. Yuan gradually consolidated power and became by 1915 the new emperor of China, but died less than a year into his reign.[23] China then fell under the control of regional warlords. The most powerful factions fought frequent wars (the Northern Expedition, which pacified the warlords of the north, Nanjing was officially made the capital of the Republic of China in 1928, and on 28 June of that year, Beijing was renamed Beiping (Peip'ing) (北平),[24] meaning "northern peace" or "north pacified".[25] During the Wang Jingwei government based in Nanjing.[28] People's Republic File:PRCFounding.jpg On 31 January 1949, during the Communist Party of China, under the leadership of Mao Zedong, announced in Tiananmen the creation of the People's Republic of China and renamed the city back to Beijing.[29] Just a few days earlier, the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference had decided that Beijing would be the capital of the new government. At the time of the founding of the People's Republic, Beijing Municipality consisted of just its urban area and its immediate suburbs. The urban area was divided into many small districts inside what is now the 2nd Ring Road. The Beijing city wall was torn down to make way for the construction of the 2nd Ring Road, which was finished by 1981 in accordance with the 1982 city plan. That road was the first of a series of new ring roads intended for motor vehicles rather than bicycles.[30] Following the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.[36] On July 13, 2001, the Games of the XXIX Olympiad .

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·_C

18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

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)

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:

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.

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)

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 -- talk ) 02:22, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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: