Talk:Beijing/Archive 2

Languages in which Beijing is pronounced Peking
I have a few comments about the list of languages that call Beijing Peking.

First, add Japanese to the list of languages which preserve the Peking pronunciation.

Second, this list could likely grow very large without adding much to the content of the article. Perhaps it would be better to say simply, "Many languages preserve the older "Peking" pronunciation."

Third, if kept in the article, this list should be alphabetized.

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.167.26 (talk) 06:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done, I have removed the list altogether. --Joowwww (talk) 19:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation - Bay-Zhing or Bay-Jing?
There is a news story circulating regarding the correct pronunciation of Beijing. Many (including Wikipedia) indicate that it is Bay-Zhing. The AP has a story regarding the pronunciation being Bay-Jing. AP news article. Thoughts? Chasingsol (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Without going in to the atrocities that the English language has committed against other languages upon adopting certain words, there are two ways to pronounce this word. The "correct" way, i.e. the way a native of Beijing would say it (Bay-jing), and the way people who just never bother to really find out pronounce it (Bay-zhing). - MGoho  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgoho (talk • contribs) 03:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is hardly a matter limited to English. True, you didn't explicitly say this is especially or uniquely true of English, but there is that strong implication. These aren't as much as atrocities as they are the universal process of adapting foreign phonemes to those of the destination language. In general, all languages, when borrowing words from other languages will adapt them to the sounds rules (phonology and phonotactics) of the host language. English is no different. English does not have unaspirated /p/ in initial position, so the /p/ of Mandarian becomes a /b/ in English. The sound /dʒ/ ("j") most certainly does exist in English, however, that's not actually the sound represented by the "j" in Beijing. Moreover, there's a tendency in English to change /dʒ/ to /ʒ/ (or from "j" to "zh") in clearly foreign words, and this is due to the influence of French on English. The phoneme /ʒ/ in English is generally found in words borrowed from French: leisure, Asia, measure, rouge, beige. Because of this, there's a tendency to hypercorrect and turn all /dʒ/ sounds in foreign words into /ʒ/. I find this annoying when I wear my prescriptivist hat but accept it when I'm in a descriptivist  mode.  Inter lingua  00:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's pronounced Bay-djing like at the start of "Jingle bells". More and more news journalists are pronouncing it correctly now, I think there's a memo going around. --Joowwww (talk) 10:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I added a comment to clarify, which one is the common mispronunciation. It's a case of overcorrection, like the case with Pinochet, which should pronounced the way it's spelled, not Pinoshay. --Atitarev (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OMG!! It's BAY-JING, and then it's not even exactly an English "J" sound, it's a lighter "J" sound, with the tongue behind the front teeth, as opposed to up against the palate in the English "J".... (the Chinese "X" and "Q" have the same tongue position, as opposed to the harder "SH" and "CH") I am an American living in Big Beijing, and when go to other cities within the country, get told I have a Beijing "qiang" (accent) Spettro9 (talk) 16:05, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the tongue is pressed behind the lower front teeth. :) If the tongue is pressed behind the upper front teeth, it sounds like you have a lisp. Dragoneye776 (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes it IS Bay-JING. That's why the Pinyin system revised it from Peking. I'm a native Mandarin speaker and can attest to that. Also it was annoying when many journalists mispronounce it. Maybe the State Department or the FCC can give a course on correct foreign city pronunciations. --Mistakefinder (talk) 10:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Was it really sound 'k' in Beijing before?
Article mentions that it was "sound change in Mandarin from [kʲ] to [tɕ]". But I am hearing that people who's native language is Mandarin say that before Beijing was named Beiping and sound 'k' has never been there. So is this reference in the article wrong? Or was it really the sound 'k' in Beijing before? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yurivict (talk • contribs) 22:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In some dialects of Mandarin it still is [k], or something like it. Beiping is a different name, 北平. kwami (talk) 23:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. It's also worth noting that it's the unaspirated [k], which sounds voiced to the English ear (in the same way that the [p] in Beijing sounds voiced to us).  If the old name were rendered in Pinyin today, it would be Beiging.  King would be used for words like 清.
 * Some trivial info: there is a Chinese restaurant near my home, with its name painted on the front as "GING" and "京". — Chameleon 09:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One of Chao's romanizations does that as well, since it's easy to convert from ging to jing, but once you do you can't recover the original form. kwami (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as I know... The "K" comes from the Cantonese pronunciation of Beijing. and I have never heard any Mandarin speakers (from anywhere in it's home range of Northern(ish) China) saying anything like a "k" sound in beijing..... it's from Cantonese, and yes BeiPing was just a temporary name of different meaning, in the early 1900s I think (the article says, I assume) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spettro9 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree the "Peking" was from south China. As I know, Japanese, whose sound is heavily impacted by south China pronunciation, now retain a 'きょう'(kyō) sound for "京" (e.g. 東京：Tōkyō), which contains a 'k'.
 * As the article mentions, there was a sound change in Mandarin several hundred years ago, in which [kʲ] became [tɕ]; the [k] sound was preserved in dialects like Cantonese. Presumably, none of the Mandarin speakers you talk to are hundreds of years old, so it is unsurprising that none of them should retain the old pronunciation. :) Philosofinch (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Beijing vs Peking
User 8.7.69.230 attempt to switch Beijing to Peking as the main page. — ■ ~∀SÐFﾑｻ~ ■ =]  Babashi? antenna? 05:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I know that this subject was discussed at nauseam but I noticed that in many European language Wikipedias the name used is Peking or its variants like Pekin, Pequin, eventually in Cyrillic. Tsf (talk) 17:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation change for the Olympics
It is very noticeable that the pronunciation of "Beijing" has changed overnight here in Australia. Everyone, including all TV presenters and newsreaders, used to mispronounce it, no doubt with the conviction that a French pronunciation sounds more correct and authentic for foreign names. Since the Olympics started (I think I noticed this a few days before the opening ceremony), everyone on TV has suddenly started saying, which is the best and closest approximation to the Standard Mandarin pronunciation that you can achieve with English phonemes. I can only presume that a memo went around with this correction. Have people in other countries noticed this? If it is a widespread phenomenon, we may be able to track down the memo and cite it.

(P.S. This being Australia, they actually pronounce it, of course.) — Chameleon 09:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it's happened here in the UK too. Up until the games started it was mostly mispronounced, but once they started a majority of the presenters started saying it correctly. (There are still a few that haven't got the memo though) :-) --Joowwww (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I still hear Bob Costas of NBC saying, "Bay-zhing," not, "Bay-jing." I think, though, that "Pay-ching" would be even closer to the Chinese pronunciation (at least that used by the most prominent dialects). 76.21.8.213 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble with that is standard Mandarin speakers don't have a puff of air come out when they make the p sound, which makes it sound like a b to English speakers. --Joowwww (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, pronouncing it with a "p" would be way off. In both English and Hanyu Pinyin, the letter "p" represents the sound [ph].  If you said that, it would sound like you were trying to say something like 陪京.  It is far better to make an English "b" sound, which will always be interpreted as a Hanyu Pinyin "b".  Technically, the Hanyu Pinyin "b" is unvoiced, but in many Chinese accents it is slightly voiced, and the most important thing is to get the (lack of) aspiration right.  — Chameleon 00:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest to remove from the article as incorrect, although it's a common mistake. Anatoli (talk) 21:10, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Cantonese
Added a small note about the Peking being closer to the Cantonese pronunciation. Figured this was relevant since this is the major 'dialect' in Southern China, and the one most widely spoken overseas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MiguelJoseErnst (talk • contribs) 17:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

When was the first time it was called Beiping?
Was it, as the Names section tells us: "This occurred first under the Hongwu Emperor of the Ming Dynasty", or was it "In 1403, the new (and third) Ming emperor - the Yongle Emperor - designated Beijing to be the co-capital alongside the (then) current capital of Nanjing. The new capital was renamed Beiping (北平), or "northern peace", as the Ming and Qing period section tells us? Avihu (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well it seems that User:Choulin has seen my remark and fixed the error. It would have been also nice if he wrote something here. Avihu (talk) 04:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"One of the world's great cities"
The second paragraph of the lead states "One of the world's great cities, Beijing..." Is this worth saying? What does that even mean? I guess it just means classically "great", a vague combination of "historic", "important", "large", "splendid", etc. (i.e. I am assuming that the original context wasn't more specific, as to mean "one of the largest by population" or other such measure that was simply worded ambiguously). The citation given is Encyclopaedia Britannica, a publication in which it may be appropriate to make value judgments like that, but it seems inappropriate (and, generally, just pointless: what does that add to the article?) for Wikipedia.

At the very least, it requires attribution. That statement is not a fact but an outside opinion, so it should at least read "Called one of the world's great cities by Encyclopaedia Britannica, Beijing..." I don't want to take unilateral action in changing it because I was not party to its insertion and whatever discussions may have gone along with it, but I'm going to comment out that part of the phrase so that it won't appear until it is appropriately remedied. Dylan (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see it. Maybe it has been deleted. --Joowwww (talk) 19:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's there in the code, but I commented it out -- you have to click Edit to see it. Dylan (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay guys. The Encyclopædia Britannica's Macropædia states "Peking, the capital of the People's Republic of China, is one of the world's great cities," in the first sentence of its 14 pages print article about Peking (Beijing). I think it is notable concerning the Britannica does not make the same statement in other city articles (read the 17 volume Macropædia). I attributed the quote like you said. Any other suggestions about this paragraph (where should it be? how to phrase it?)?--TheLeopard (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern was not that it lacked proper sourcing, but more one of style. What does saying that it is a "great" city add to the article? It's a bland and virtually meaningless word in this context. Lots of cities have been called "great", and it doesn't really matter that someone particularly prestigious is saying it this time: the inclusion of the sentence still doesn't convey any useful information. On the other hand, I quite liked the rest of the quotes from Britannica that you mention just below because they do give the reasons and context for the article -- explaining Beijing's outstandingly long historical importance, etc. But just saying "it's a great city" is just a throwaway. Show, don't tell: let's get to the facts. Dylan (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As for User:Nikkul and his relentless and mostly baseless revertion of the paragraph; remember it violated no Wikipedia guidelines or conventions and not all articles has to be the same, why shouldn't the Britannica statement be there? If you have a problem with the content being at the lead, gave your input and we'll talk about other appropriate placing for this paragraph.  Otherwise, blind revertion without discussing it on the talk page is uncivil and borders on being vandals.


 * Other editors' comments would be welcome.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The last sentence, Without a knowlegdge of this city, the importance of Beijing makes it impossible to understand China as well, has a similar problem: that's Britannica's opinion, but you're citing it as a fact. Like calling it "great", this sentence doesn't add much meaningful to the article or to the reader's understanding. We should glean from the facts that come before this statement that understanding Beijing is vital to understanding China; that should come across, not be literally stated. But like I said, I support the retention of the other quotes from Britannica in the lead. Dylan (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Many city articles contains statements of questionable quality (one of the most dynamic... one of the most cosmopolitan, a leading center...) whilst citing much less notable and scholarly sources (online newspapers, sometimes even publication data from the city government, whereas considering Britannica holds paramount authority over other general English enyclopedias). It may not be a perfect lead, but I think it has its merit.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because other articles have failings is no reason to excuse this one. WP:NPOV is not a sliding rule, it is a policy, and that last statement violates it by prioritizing one particular point of view -- that Beijing is vital to understanding China. Dylan (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * One way to solve this would be if you can find a source that attributes that belief to scholars in general, then we could neutrally say that "Scholars of Chinese culture agree that the history and culture of Beijing is vital for understanding the history and culture of China", or whatever. Dylan (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The statement by Britannica isn't vague in anyway and it is pretty clear and concise by what the encyclopedia meant ("The importance of Beijing thus makes it impossible to understand China without a knowledge of this city"). The Wikipedia:NPOV defines: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources."  This source more than qualifies.  The statement was paraphrased from the Encyclopædia Britannica source.  It you want, there could be more attributions.--TheLeopard (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Here's an example: Suppose I cite a New York Times album review calling The White Album "the best album in the history." I can add that to the article with the proper attribution and explanation that it is simply this one paper's opinion, but I can't change the lead to The White Album to say "The White Album by the Beatles is the best album in history." Just like that, this article on Beijing claims as a fact another's opinion. This is against WP:NPOV. Of course it is clear what Britannica means, but it's just an editorial/literary judgment on their part. Britannica's encyclopedic standards may permit that, but on Wikipedia we don't make editorial claims.
 * Thinking about it more literally, this sentence makes a claim on what is necessary for it to be "possible" to understand China. This is simply not a factual statement; it's an unprovable, subjective claim. The underlying point that the statement drives at is what we should be focusing on, and that is simply that Beijing is an important historical city -- which has already been established in the lead in more direct terms. Dylan (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand your meaning, although the Britannica and New York Times is an ill-comparison. It would be like the if MSNBC said Beijing is a great city and I inserted that claim.  Seldom would users insert reviews by individual publications and proclaims it such (The Village Voice, Pitchfork, Los Angeles Times...).  The Britannica is quite different though, it would be more like the Encyclopedia of Rock claimed (although there is no such thing).  But I do get your meaning.--TheLeopard (talk) 04:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm thinking about possibly removing the last statement (that you found problematic, Without a knowlegdge of this city, the importance of Beijing makes it impossible to understand China as well) and adding information with citation from the World Book Encyclopedia to the paragraph's end, how is this?

"Few cities in the world besides Beijing have served as the political and cultural centre of an area as immense as China for so long. The Encyclopædia Britannica describes it as "One of the world's great cities," and declares "Beijing has been an integral part of China’s history over the past eight centuries, and nearly every major building of any age in Beijing has at least some national historical significance." Beijing is renowned for its opulent palaces, temples, and huge stone walls and gates. Its art treasures and universities have long made the city a centre of culture and art in China." --TheLeopard (talk) 04:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, could you and other editors keep an eye on the article too, to make sure editors won't randomly remove a large chunk of paragraph from the article without thoroughly discussing it.--TheLeopard (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Some users need to understand that believe it or not, major English-language encyclopedias often do gave this kind of lauded statements to article of "Beijing", such as Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopedia Americana, Collier's Encyclopedia, World Book Encyclopedia ("Beijing is renowned for its beautiful palaces, temples, and huge stone walls and gates. Its art treasures and universities have long made the city China's cultural center... Beijing has been a center of government in China off and on for more than 2,000 years..."), while often these kind of comments are rarely to be found in other city articles of these encyclopedias. It maybe "ridiculous" to some editors, but its definitely not unique, except in Wikipedia, where I found some aspect of this article's quality to be seriously lacking and the cultural and historical aspect is constantly and ridiculously being "challenged" by some editors.  For example, the Citizendium's article of Beijing, in which I presume that it follows a familiar tone to other prominent encyclopedias, basically described Beijing in a vastly different manner than this Wikipedia article.  --TheLeopard (talk) 21:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, I think the idea it conveys is fine, even desirable, but it remains that this is an opinion that is being stated as a fact. It is not objectively and unarguably true that you need to know Beijing to know China; it is just an assertion of Britannica's. And this article isn't about what Britannica thinks, it's about the verifiable, neutral, agreed-upon facts about Beijing. Particularly in the lead, we should focus on a concise, organized summary of the article's facts; it is not the place to inject editorial opinion -- Wikipedia's, Britannica's, or anyone else's. Dylan (talk) 21:33, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Nikkul's argument against the lead section is baseless. I viewed the criteria of the Lead section, and there is nothing in it that is said against having quotes and mulitiple citations from reputed encyclopedic sources.  Similarily, the Summary style, also mentioned nothing about not having quotes, not to mention the quotes on this article came from the most prestigious non-profit organization in the world.--TheLeopard (talk) 19:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image of the Temple of Heaven
Please put a picture of the Temple of Heaven at least somewhere, it is one of Beijing's most recognisable landmarks and is becoming a symbol of Beijing, akin to the Statue of Liberty, Big Ben and the Eiffel Tower. --Joowwww (talk) 20:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think User:Nikkul removed it. His reason was, "it was nothing to do with Beijing's name."--TheLeopard (talk) 20:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Montage
Hi, someone said the montage could do with a picture of the Forbidden City. Nggsc's montage is good but it has a disputed image source. Perhaps we can discuss images to go in it and decide on a consensus that looks great, fitting the great city of Beijing? :-) --Joowwww (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the montage is a problem. Edit warring isn't the way to solve this issue. And CaspianBlue, I made it because I thought it would benefit the article, not for personal glory. --Joowwww (talk) 12:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your image is not as good as that of New York City, London. The bottom one in the picture is not recognizable to people. The Chicago article also has the montage of collecting poorly cropped images. Besides, you accused Nikkul of showing nonsensus in support of your own edited image, that looks to me offensive.--Caspian blue (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Nonsense" didn't refer to Nikkul's removal of the montage, but his claim that all other city articles don't have them. If you look above you'll see that I requested a discussion on better images for the montage. --Joowwww (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * However, I don't generally support for montage in the lead unless the quality of it is exceptionally excellent.--Caspian blue (talk) 13:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that the CBD image is poor quality. However it was the best I could find after trawling through Commons and Flickr. Which is why I asked for other editors' opinions on better images. --Joowwww (talk) 13:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a tourist brochure. The skyline image should be ONE image of a skyline or one famous landmark which identifies the city. Almost all other city articles have one image or none at all. This montage belongs on Wikicommons or Wikitravel, but not on Wikipedia. How is such a montage encyclopedic? This is just blatant advertising! Nikkul (talk) 13:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * These are all your conclusions, not mine. New York City, London, Chicago and Washington DC have them. I don't see any rule saying that an article can't have a montage, perhaps you could take up this discussion with them too? And how is it advertising? --Joowwww (talk) 13:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are no Wikipedia conventions set against using montage photos. So there is no actual valid reason for why the photo isn't elligible here.  True, the montage photo is not perfect, and one of them is a bit hard to see, that is why editors can improve them with other editors help.  More over, the talk of "exceptional quality" also largely depends upon persepectives and personal bias.--TheLeopard (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is merely my opinion in aesthetical aspect, so if you do not want to provoke people who do not agree with your POV, do not level my opinion as "personal bias". By your logic, insisting montage photo is purely your preference over conventional image usages in the lead and personal bias. Since I state that using one image is conventional and poweful in presentation, I have no intention to "help you implement the montage and to use it. So seeking a consensus is your job after presenting better one. Not my concern. --Caspian blue (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Montage pic looks beautiful; "I'M BRINGIN IT BACK!" - Randall Spettro9 (talk) 16:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought so too :-) I've put a new CBD image on it. Some people had an issue with it, but montages have become quite widely used now. --Joowwww (talk) 17:18, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not against the montage photo at all, but how about include some other images? Like a photo of the Forbidden City (that's kind of obvious...) or the Summer Palace, or the Confucius Temple, Imperial Ancestral Temple, Guozijian, etc.  Beijing has many noted historical sites, I don't understand why repetitively using those photos in the montage?--TheLeopard (talk) 23:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just used what I think is Beijing's most recognisable landmarks. If everyone thinks a change is needed then of course we can get some new images. --Joowwww (talk) 11:52, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

For the last time, what is the population of what is considered the city of Beijing?
A better title for this section would be, "For the only time since 2005, what is the population of what is considered the city of Beijing?" Anyway, nobody has really discussed this issue, and I think it is important, for example, in a list of the world's largest cities. The list of cities by population uses the figure of "core districts + inner suburbs" for municipalities like Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin, etc. and I would recommend using those population figures in the articles on those cities, in addition to the municipality figure. Someone the Person (talk) 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey I've been wondering the same thing and on this site http://world-gazetteer.com/wg.php?x=&men=gcis&lng=en&des=wg&srt=npan&col=abcdefghinoq&msz=1500&pt=c&va=&srt=pnan

It says 7 712 104 and is under the other name it goes by Peking and is number 21. Cedarpointohio2 (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would come under "urban area" when dealing with Beijing city proper, rather than the whole municipality. --Joowwww (talk) 12:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Beijing's total polulation (permanant residents) reached 16.33 million by the end of year 2007, according to both Beijing Statistics Bureau and Nation Statistics Bureau. --PoZoPOCO (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Beijing's total polulation (all residents) reached 17.40 million by the end of year 2007, according to Beijing Municipal Commission of Population and Family Planning. --PoZoPOCO (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Beijing (I live here) has officially topped 17 Million, according to very educated guesses, the actual numbers are more than 20 Million. Also, the article overlooks Chongqing.

editsemiprotected


 * After Chongqing and Shanghai, Beijing is the third largest  of the four municipalities of the PRC, which are equivalent to provinces in China's administrative structure.
 * This is simply not true: Beijing is the 2nd largest city in the PRC by population.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 04:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you say so. Wikipedia and the official data say otherwise, but who cares? Also, the world is flat, and babies are made in cabbage patches ... --BsBsBs (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * On a more serious note, the statement "Beijing is China's second largest city, after Shanghai" is in conflict with the data box, which refers to the Municipality of Beijing, and also with the first sentence of the "Demographics" section, which reads: "The population of Beijing Municipality, defined as the total number of people who reside in Beijing for 6 months or more per year, was 17.43 million in 2007." Beijing is an independent municipality, and Beijing is proud of that. Whether you live on this side of 5th Ring Road, or on the other side doesn't make a difference. You either live in Beijing, or you live in Hebei Province ... For the sake of consistency, we need to decide whether we talk about clearly defined municipalities, or about inner core cities with vague boundaries and no official data. --BsBsBs (talk) 07:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Population of Beijing
It is amply evidenced that the population of Beijing has exceeded 17 Million. China Daily reported it in August 2007, and China Daily prints only what the government says. Radio86 said the same, citing Xinhua. Xinhua is the official China government news agency. Xinhua reiterated the message in December 07. How much proof do you want? Ok, one more. There aren't less people in Beijing, just because the folks who do the statistics website didn't get around to translating already old 2007 data into English ... (Once I will get back to BJ, I will attempt to find an even more official source - will Chinese be acceptable?)

Apropos the same: This article refers to the Municipality of Beijing. If so, then we must use municipality data, if we like it or not. Beijing is #3 on that scale. Those who want to change it must enter Beijing politics and annex Tianjin. --BsBsBs (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The Municipality and the City are the same thing. A good idea would be to list population in the infobox as "municipality" for the municipality and "urban area" for the city proper. Please try not to edit war over such a trivial matter. --Joowwww (talk) 09:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Beijing = Beijing. It officially expands far beyond 5th ringroad. It officially has more than 17 million people, and it officially is China's 3rd largest municipality. --BsBsBs (talk) 10:42, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think 12 mln have permanent registration, next 5 mln registration of 6 months and more. Usually these two groups are included in the official figures Bogomolov.PL (talk) 12:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are the numbers as of 2007. I don't know off-hand since when the "temporary" residents were included in the tally, but they are now. I've lived in Beijing for 4 years, I have been, and I always will be a temporary resident. It takes intimate knowledge of the system to understand it. Also, the registration system wasn't really enforced, so many didn't bother to. Before the Olympics, police came knocking at doors, checking registrations: Expect a big jump in temporary BJ residents for 2008. --BsBsBs (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, somebody can spend a life in BJ being temporary registration owner. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 17:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My Beijing office checked the Chinese version of http://www.bjstats.gov.cn . They only have stale 2006  numbers as well. No surprise to someone who lives there. Xinhua is as official as it gets. It's the government news agency. Two reports, 6 months apart, should be ample evidence. Insisting on more is unreasonable. In a land of rapid growth, 2 years are an eternity. --BsBsBs (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Xinhua's 17.42M figure report I've posted when it was issued, next my post was reverted. A lot of people never understand HOW official is Xinhua.Bogomolov.PL (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Same happened to me, and to various other people with notoriety. The charitable assumption is that some people may not know that Xinhua = Chinese government. The not so charitable version would be that someone has an agenda. Those who know China (and you seem to know them very well) knowns that the Chinese usually low-ball numbers instead of exaggerating them. --BsBsBs (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Please keep the population section concise and informative. This is supposed to be a section about the facts on Beijing's population.  Inserting a bunch of articles of the different data and analysis of Beijing's population growth is interesting, but it makes it messy to read and not to mention kind of contradictory (concerning the variety of "facts" presented).  The section could also do without opinion and other superfluous statements.  If you want to, open a new article specifically about Beijing's population, but don't turn the section into an essay.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If the thoroughly documented 17.4 million number wouldn't have been mercilessly reverted, no essay would have been necessary. I know it's confusing and messy. Understanding Chinese numbers is confusing and messy. If you think that a couple of millions here or there are superfluous, so be it. If you think the year of the pig or the significance of the number 8 is just a funny essay, think again. The Olympics started on 8.8.2008 at 8:08 for a reason. What I don't understand is why millions of Beijingers are being swept under the carpet for the sake of a better read, while essays about the inner workings of Beijing's taxi meters don't bother anybody. That Beijing is bursting at the seams population-wise is a significant fact. That there is a ceiling of 18 million for 2020, which is already shattered, is significant. At least more significant than a taxi meter. The facts that there is a baby boom, that each year more than half a million people OFFICIALLY move to Beijing, the fact that there were 5 million undocumented workers in Beijing (most have been kicked out before the games...), those facts are significant for a demograpghics section. --BsBsBs (talk) 18:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A Demographics of Beijing article would be ideal. It can give detailed population info, along with ethnicity, employment, religion, etc. Please try to keep the Beijing article a summary article. --Joowwww (talk) 12:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

[Article Size:] Beijing sub-articles
I think the Beijing article is getting a bit large, it's bursting with info and it's affecting its readability. I've identified both existing sub-articles and new ones that can go into greater depth of information, let's see if we can get them all filled and linked to on the main page. I think these sub-articles are fine for now, but if anything does into even more detail then it can of course be split off further. --Joowwww (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * History of Beijing - It says Beijing's history can be traced back 3000 years, but I can only see about 1000 of it.
 * Geography of Beijing - Needs info on climate, waterways, ecology, geology, greenery, environmental issues.
 * Architecture of Beijing - Temples, hutongs, skyscrapers, architectural styles, parks, development.
 * Politics of Beijing - It's the capital, there must be more to say more than this.
 * List of towns and villages of Beijing - A list of places inside Beijing Municipality but not part of the city proper.
 * Economy of Beijing - Financial district, major companies, entrepreneurial attraction, relationship with SH and HK, high-tech industries.
 * Demographics of Beijing - Population, languages/dialects, ethnicities, expatriates, religion, education.
 * Culture of Beijing - Arts, museums, fashion, cuisine, nightlife, sports.
 * Transportation in Beijing - Could do with lists being turned intro prose.

Schools
Do we really need an apparently randomly selected list of primary and middle schools, most of which will never be worthy of articles? --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 21:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, at the very least the lists could be moved to (the as of yet non-existant) Education in Beijing. --Joowwww (talk) 22:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

About The Beijing Olympic Games
hey everyone i would like to know heaps more about the olympics. anyone who know things that others don't please speck up. i am doing a essay on the Olympics. my big question is What did China do to prepare for the Olympic Games? but i have lots of sub questions so please reply.

Dollygal

People's Republic?
A lot in the "People's Republic" section is redundant and outdated. The Ring Roads are better explained in "Roads and Expressways," air quality in "Air Quality," the urban sprawl part is better described under "Economy," and so forth. "On July 13, 2001, the International Olympic Committee selected Beijing as the host for the 2008 Summer Olympics" could serve as a first sentence of "Sports." With all that removed, the section will look rather short. The picture of the man standing in front of the tank may be readily available, but has not connection to any content. The SARS crisis, just a a for instance, is missing. This section needs a clean-up and an update. Comments?--BsBsBs (talk) 09:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Travel guide
A lot of content and quotes in this article seems more suited to a travel guide. It doesn't matter that the quote came from National Geographic, it still sounds like it could also come from Lonely Planet. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If you want to write an interesting travel piece then Wikitravel awaits you. But touristy sounding blurbs will need to be got rid of before this article could even hope of getting GA or FA status. --Joowwww (talk) 19:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

There is only one section that sounds like a travel guide: the Places of Interest section. The first, third, and fourth paragraph are tourist blurb free, however, the second and the fifth paragraphs contain some touristy descriptions. Dragoneye776 (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Square Enix Nixed
I took the liberty of removing Square Enix from the Economy section. The largest companies in Beijing are not mentioned, and I see no major impact of a video game company on Beijing's economy. --BsBsBs (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Subway stations
Subway stations are now starting to have articles created, starting with Line 1 and Line 2. Please expand them if you know more about them. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 09:54, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a huge and detailled Wiki about the Beijing Subway. It's licensed under Creative Commons and very complete. I looked at the entry for the station in front of my house and found nothing worthy of me to add. The site is very detailled.--BsBsBs (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Stations on Line 5 now all have articles. --Joowwww (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Air quality
Please allow me to counsel against too much breathless reporting regarding the post-Olympics measures to improve air quality. There are all kinds of measures under discussion, but what will finally be implemented - and most importantly, enforced - is anybody's guess. Measures range from limiting new license plates issued per year to a mere 100,000 to taking (yeah, sure) 30% of the government cars off the road and to declare a car-free day a week depending on the last number of the license plate. There are pretty much daily announcements of differing schemes. Give it a while to find out what really will happen. While the car stories get the most attention, it actually were different measures that cleared the air during the Olympics: Power plants around Beijing and in nearby provinces such as Shanddong were turned off, leaving people there literally in the dark and impacting industry.

After several clear days, smog has returned to Beijing today. --BsBsBs (talk) 10:05, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Directory
A directory is usually a complete list with addresses and other contact details. If that qualifies as a directory then so do the Universities and sister cities sections. Thank you.--40fifw0 (talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

About Reference[s in Chinese: Is Beijing China's Financial Center?]
It is understandable that references in English is prefered but it think it shouldn't be the only choice allowed, especially for articles like Beijing, China. Chinese is the only official language is China, i.e., all the official stats, data, and statements are in Chinese. If Chinese references are exclued, probably 90% of up-to-date and comprehensive info cannot be used. Many articles about China in Wiki is actually the English translation of the Chinese ones, i.e., the source/reference is still Chinese. I suggest we should come up a way to allow references in Chinese to be used. Google translation seems to be a good choice. Whenever refering to an original Chinese article, attach its google translation. In the way, we have a credible source and many people can verify it. What do you guys think? Here is an example.

Beijing is the financial center of China

-CobbleCC (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I never said that we should only use English-language references, but for a statement such as "Beijing is the financial center of China", there are thousands of English-language references that contradict that. It even says at the top of the article that "Shanghai and Hong Kong predominate in economic fields". Furthermore, the reference you gave doesn't even mention Beijing as China's financial centre, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. --Joowwww (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In the reference, it clears says both revenue and percentage to GDP of Beijing's financial industry rank number 1 in China - highest in the country. If #1 is not called center, what's qualified as center? As a matter of fact, the statement "Shanghai and Hong Kong predominate in economic fields" is very inaccurate, if not wrong. Where is the reference for that? Where is the data backing this statement? First, HK is rather a very independent economic entity to China. It has its own money. It doesn't pay a penny of the federal tax. It is not even counted in China's GDP. Its economy has very little effect on China. Also China has very large GDP and no city is really predominant. Guangdong province accounts for 12.44% of China's GDP - the largest percentage among all provinces and municipalities. (Shanghai and Beijing are only 4.86% and 3.65% respectively - ranked 7th and 10 th, hard to call either "predominant"). I know this is very different compared with London to UK or Tokyo to Japan. Whoever put that statement there apparently doesn't know China's economy. --CobbleCC (talk) 18:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding the term "financial centre". A high GDP doesn't mean it's the financial centre. The term refers to stock exchanges, financial clout on the world stage, business, banking, monetary assets, insurance, investment, etc. See International financial centre, and List of cities by GDP. Los Angeles has a higher GDP than Chicago, but Chicago is a larger financial centre, due to its financial infrastructure. --Joowwww (talk) 18:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the reference? I was not talking the total GDP at all. Working in the economy field myself, I clearly know the difference. I was talking about the financial sector itself. Beijing's financial sector generated 128.6 billion RMB in 2007 - the highest in China (followed by Shanghai 119.6 billion RMB). That accounts for 13.8% of Beijing's total GDP - also the highest in China. All these are exactly what is said in the reference. Both Beijing and Shanghai are not international financial center yet, I agree. But saying Beijing is the financial center of China is simply the fact.--CobbleCC (talk) 18:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This report would disagree with you. So would the world's major financial institutions. Hong Kong and Shanghai are larger financial centres than Beijing. THAT is a fact. I honestly don't know how else I can explain this to you, you really seem not to grasp the concept of a "financial centre". Beijing's GDP is not what makes it a financial centre, and the reference you give is clearly not making that claim. --Joowwww (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I only make statements based on facts and solid numbers. I laid them clearly out there, but it seems you don't care about facts and numbers at all. As to your grasp of the concept of financial center, no comments. But it appears you simply don't even get I am talking about the financial sector itself here. Since you made, yet, another statement without backing data, here is the official data I can share. In 2007, Beijing's "financial" sector generated 128.6 billion RMB, while Shanghai's financial sector generated 119.6 billion RMB  . If you care to read, you should be able to find the numbers and figure out which is "larger". Enough said. EOM.--CobbleCC (talk) 13:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand perfectly what you are saying. I can read statistics fine. I recognise that Beijing's financial industry generates more money, and that Beijing has a higher GDP. But none of this means Beijing is China's financial centre. I don't know whether you are a native speaker of English or not, but you clearly do not understand the meaning of "financial centre". Please re-read the reference I gave above, and re-read the other references I posted on the article that you deleted, if you have at all. Every major financial institution around the world would disagree with your unfounded assertion that Beijing is China's financial capital. The Chinese government even promotes Shanghai as China's financial centre. --Joowwww (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * CobbleCC, you need to provide concrete sources to prove that Beijing is more of China's economic centre than either Shanghai or Hong Kong. It is almost universally acknowledged in the press (or at least in the West) that Shanghai and Hong Kong are China's financial and economic hub. I'm sure Beijing is a very well developed city with a high level of revenue, but even with the sources you provided, it did not precisely say that it is China's economic centre, but rather reporting on its financial sectors' rankings.  Now, the statement has been fixed to include sources from the New York Times, International Herald Tribune and the Hong Kong Trade Development Council, which all states Hong Kong and Shanghai are China's financial centres.  CobbleCC, you might disagree, and perhaps for good reasons, but the references should be to be coming from well-established and prominent sources, and we shouldn't do original research here.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Joowwww that the meaning of "financial centre" is a much broader term than just how much money its industry and sectors generates. It means stock exchanges (both the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the Hong Kong Stock Exchange are two of the biggest in Asia), trading and investments, international bankings, monetary transfers, etc.--TheLeopard (talk) 06:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * While I agree with CobbleCC. Beijing, whether or not is China's financial center should be decided by the market, rather than medias, experts, guess, impressions, buildings, .... The output of Beijing's financial sector is unquestionable no.1 in the nation. This fact is stronger than references backing Shanghai. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.55.181 (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)