Talk:Beijing

Attention railroad buffs: Beijing East?

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

This is all Original Research ...

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

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

This article is one sided

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

Tiananmen Square 1989

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

Mention of the of the Tiananmen Square event of 1989 complies with V, CITE, and RS. It is directly and obviously apposite, for it concerns a notable event that took place in the city that is the subject of this article. The mention is appropriately concise and bears a properly-formatted link to the main article for more in-depth coverage. Everything about it appears to be in accord with all applicable Wikipedia policy, protocol, and general practice. The reason you are espousing for the exclusion of mention, in contrast, does not appear to have any basis or support in Wikipedia policy, protocol, or general practice. Rather, it looks a lot like you simply don't like it, which does not justify its removal.

The lack of coverage in the article of one relevant thing (e.g., the Cultural Revolution) does not serve as grounds for excluding coverage of another relevant thing (e.g., Tiananmen Square '89). The status of most articles on Wikipedia, including this one, is "incomplete". If you feel mention of the Cultural Revolution would benefit this article, by all means add it. But agitating for the exclusion of relevant material, particularly this material in this context, and especially in light of your stridently fervent opinions on matters related to China, can be seen as giving the appearance of an attempt at censorship, which I'm sure you agree is definitely to be avoided.

Overall, please remember that Wikipedia works on a consensus basis; your unilateral, persistent, repeated removal of material because you don't think it belongs is not kosher. It's also more than a little rich for you to have requested a lockdown of the article with the putative reason that there's an edit war on, given that you appear to be on a mission, making six immediate reversions of four editors in five days ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]) to keep the Tiananmen Square material out of this article and only deigning to visit the talk page to assert the rectitude of your unilateral deletion on the last of those five days. That pattern of behaviour makes it very challenging to assume your good faith.

To refresh your recollection, BRDC says if your edit is reverted, you need to discuss it-not re-re-re-re-revert it. That means you stop removing the material from the article immediately. Make your argument here on the talk page, present your thoughts, support them as you can, but unless and until consensus develops to exclude the material, it will need to stay. -Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

No reasonable person can possibly deduce from my user page alone whether I support the PRC or the Communist Party of China.

Do not give any impression that I am attempting to "censor" anything here or that my reason for non-inclusion simply translates to "I don't like it". Do not lecture me on policies and guidelines that I am quite well aware of. Focus on content, not the contributor.

I have solid, content-based grounds for not including this event here in this article. If you notice, everything else mentioned in the history section involves a military campaign, Beijing gaining or losing capital status, or some drastic physical changes affecting the city. None of this applies to the Red Guard movement or the protests of 1989, which instead had more important effects on the PRC overall. In short, city histories should focus on fundamental developments affecting the city in question.  The Tartanator  02:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

the cultural revolution took place in all of china. The tienamen square protests took place only in beijing. It should 100% be mentioned as one of the few chinese events well known to the average westerner, especially if restricted to events which took place in beijing. However, it does not need to have extensive coverage, as there is an entire article dedicated to it. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the significance of June 4th protests to the city of Beijing lies in the fact that its significance is not permitted to be manifested in ways it otherwise would be. Out of all the major historical events that took lace in the history of the city of Beijing, June 4th is stands apart as one of the very few that cannot be discussed openly in the city today. In Beijing, many books are published about the Cultural Revolution. One can buy a compendium of poems posted in Tiananmen Square during the April 5th Movement. There are markers and memorials to the victims of the March 18th Movement. But there is nary a mention of June 4th 1989 in the public domain in Beijing. Even the official verdict is not discussed. This omission is analomous and runs against the grain of history. We can indirectly discern how significant that event is to the officialdom in China by the shutdowns of Tiananmen Square for "repairs" that coincide with anniversaries of June 4th, by the extra security surveillance assigned to the Tiananmen Mothers during "sensitive times" -- e.g. the death of Zhao Ziyang etc. All of these are clues of the enduring importance of this event to those who prefer to suppress its historical significance. To the millions of residents who lived through June 4th, the protests were no trivial event. That the history section of Beijing omits to mention many other important episodes should not be grounds to exclude this one. This event is arguably more significant owing to the special treatment it receives from the officialdom in China. NumbiGate (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. The June 4th Protests in 1989 did involve a military campaign. The suppression of the protests / restoration of order mobilized one of the largest military forces to be assembled in Beijing in the last 60 years.

The Tartanator, your assertion here I have solid, content-based grounds for not including this event here in this article looks highly problematic. Carefully keep in mind that you do not own this or any other article, please and thank you. -Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, volleying personal accusations with no commentary on content whatsoever. This makes collaboration or any other engagement with you close to impossible. And how dare you twist my words so they take on meanings that I never intended them to.  The Tartanator  03:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Tartanator, my fairly extensive comments on the content in question are at the top of this thread. Please take a few moments to carefully read back and review this thread so far. Not only will you find the content-related discussion you might have missed before, but you'll also please note there are no personal attacks actually taking place. You will also see, if you're reading thoughtfully, that one of us is shouting and two of us are talking. It will work better when we are all talking; that's how consensus gets developed. Shouting louder will not get anywhere productive, so please lower your voice and bring a civil tone to this discussion. Let's have a cup of tea and try to get this conversation steered toward a more productive direction with fewer how-dare-yous and less hystrionics. Please and thank you. -Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Then do your best to avoid commenting on the contributor. Your first response was filled mostly with policy explanations (the last 2 paragraphs were all about me—don't deny this). All you said was "...for it concerns a notable event that took place in the city", without explaining any further.

"I have solid, content-based grounds..." means only that—in other words, grounds=reasons. No reasonable interpretation could suggest I am "owning" this article.  The Tartanator  05:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only one who will be pleased to discuss the content in question with you as soon as you can provide a cogent reason, based in Wikipedia policy, why it should be excluded.

When a contributor's behaviour and methods are questionable, they'll probably sooner or later be questiond. Editing that looks tendentious or belligerent will tend to raise eyebrows-and voices on the talk page. That's reasonable and proper and utterly normal here; it works that way for me, for you, and for everyone else. There is no exemption for those contributors who don't want their contributions and their manners scrutinised and evaluated. We have community standards here for content and for behaviour. Adhering to them is the best way to avoid uncomfortable conversations. -Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Neither do you have a cogent reason, based on policy, why it must be included. And there you go again. If you have an issue, then raise it on my talk page, not here where you are wasting everyone else's time.  The Tartanator  06:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The onus is (still) on you to please explain why apposite, well-supported, directly-relevant material of appropriate length ought to be kept out of the article. At least four editors disagree with you and think that it should be included, so you will need to please explain why this apparent consensus is wrong and you are right. -Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:58, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I will repeat again...The protests were far more important to the PRC as a whole, and not so much the municipality; the protests merely occurred there, but what long-term effect did they have on the city? This is unlike any of the other events in the history section, all of which reflect some great significance for the city. If I have to repeat this again, I am afraid this will be a case of "I didn't hear that". And consensus is not determined by numbers, you should know this...  The Tartanator  07:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

3O opinion: though the impact on city was minor indeed, this protest is just too notable to be omitted in the article about the place where it happened. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be included as an event of major importance that occurred in Beijing. The effects are just as important for Beijing as they are for the rest of the country. Just because it had greater implications on a larger scale doesn't mean we don't mention it. However, mention should be brief, and perhaps put in context with Tiananmen square as the location of multiple modern political movements. The May Fourth Movement, for example, certainly deserves mention under the Republican era section as Beijing university students played a major role.--Jiang (talk) 09:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree, for the same reason that we mention the Xi'an incident in the article on Xi'an, and the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in the article on Sarajevo, despite the broader significance of these events. Kanguole 22:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the significance of June 4th protests to the city of Beijing lies in the fact that its significance is not permitted to be manifested in the way it otherwise would be. Out of all the major historical events in the city of Beijing, June 4th is stands apart as one of the very few that cannot be discussed openly in the city today. In Beijing, many books are published about the Cultural Revolution. One can buy a compendium of poems posted in Tiananmen Square during the April 5th Movement. There are markers and memorials to the victims of the March 18th Movement. But there is nary a mention of June 4th 1989 in the public domain in Beijing. This omission is analomous and runs against the grain of history. We can indirectly tell how significant that event is to the officialdom in China by the shutdowns of Tiananmen Square for "repairs" that coincide with anniversaries of June 4th, by the extra security surveillance assigned to the Tiananmen Mothers during "sensitive times" -- e.g. the death of Zhao Ziyang etc. All of these are clues as to the enduring importance of this event. To the millions of residents who lived through June 4th, the protests were no trivial event. That the history section of Beijing omits to mention many other important episodes should not be grounds to exclude this one. This event is arguably more significant owing to the special treatment it receives from the officialdom in China. NumbiGate (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC) P.S. June 4th did involve a military campaign; it involved one of the largest military mobilizations on the city in the history of Beijing.

Tartanator, it's not that I don't hear you. I do hear you. It's that the reason you're offering (still) doesn't appear to have a sound basis, and (still) appears to boil down to "I don't want it in the article". As for how consensus works, please keep in mind that it is, in effect, contingent on numbers. Not in terms of a vote, of course, but more loosely in terms of the collective opinion of those who care to participate in the discussion. Consensus does not require unanimity, and if you'll take a step or two back and try to see the big picture of this situation, what you will see is you versus at least four editors of the article who do feel the material merits inclusion, and you versus everyone else who has weighed in so far in this discussion. Sometimes consensus doesn't go in accord with our personal opinions and preferences. This is looking like one of those times. When that is the situation, the grownup thing is to realise it, stand down, and let it go. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you all for bringing a stop to User_talk:Tartanator deletions, both in the article and discussion sections, and the associated intimidation attempts. It is interesting to read, in the history section of the article under discussion here, a reference to Tienanmen square as the place where the creation of the People's Republic of China was announced in 1949 but that any reference to the protests that took place 50 years later at the same location are not significant enough to be mentioned.Nodar95 (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, wow. I was not aware that Tartanator (talk · contribs) had deleted content from this talk page. Having read your comment, I looked at the history and found this, which is definitely not kosher. There was no personal attack as Tartanator claimed. I have restored the material s/he inappropriately removed from this page. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, his accusation of censorship was nasty enough (enough for me to consider taking him to WQA and even ANI), and even though he did not explicitly mention me, it should have been obvious. This accusation is just as serious as being called a Wumaodang, which I have been before, and I will not put up with any sort of name-calling, and similar to what Bush II stated, those who provide safe harbour for the name-callers, including you, Scheinwerfermann. And for future reference, I am male.  The Tartanator  01:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia. Your political preferences and sensitivities have no place here; set them aside while you're contributing. I do not think you would fare too well in an AN/I case, but you're certainly welcome to give it a go if you feel it's warranted. Fact is, numerous editors have the same beef with you: you appear to be trying to own and/or censor this article. Numerous editors. Not just one, not just two. Numerous. If you can't muster the maturity and presence of mind to step back and ponder whether they might be right, if instead you carry on with your present campaign against consensus, sooner or later you may find yourself involuntarily taking some time out to think about the consequences of your behaviour. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Both foolish and false statements. Disagreement does not mean a person is accusing me of ownership and censorship. Only Nodar95 and you, who somehow are pampering his absolutely repulsive behaviour, are the ones who have come out and accused me of censorship. If I were really attempting to censor this article, you would have seen much, much more. You have set yourself on equal footing with Nodar95.

I cannot believe you would say something such as "political...sensitivities have no place here". Being called a "Wumaodang" (Fifty-cent party) or censor is essentially an accusation of conflict of interest, and has every relevance to editing. I have had enough with this sort of nonsense and will not look kindly at all upon those who only know to act like Nodar95 does.  The Tartanator  02:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Okeh, you do whatever it is you feel you must. As you do so, bear in mind that all contributions are made in public and everyone can see what everyone else is doing, and how they're doing it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Renaming article to Peking (discussion)

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

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

---

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

• Strong oppose. OttomanJackson, you seem to be on a mission to apply what you consider "English names" to various articles I don't think you'll gain much traction, because your preference appears to run counter to WP:NAME, this encyclopædia's article-title policy. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:03, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Inaccurate, and not in common use, with the exceptions stated by OttomanJackson, which are all specific names of other things that have been "grandfathered" into modern usage. This move request is, moreover, a blatant waste of time, as a short investigation into the likelihood and potential support (e.g. by reviewing policies and previous discussions) of such a move would quickly reveal that it would not succeed. siafu (talk) 18:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose really bad examples. Beijing is commonly used by English language sources and English language media. Moskva and Warszawa are not so they are not valid comparesions. Also if in the future English language sources as well as the media start using Moskva over Mosocw on a regular basis we would most likely more Moscow to Moskva for the same reason we use Beijing.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose and I'd suggest it be summary closed via WP:SNOW. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
• Oppose and immediately close per WP:JOKE/TROLL/THISISNOT1965 etc etc. Jeez. N-HH talk/edits 22:58, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Beijing is an English name and is commonly used in English by the United Nations, and various other organizations or media. Those examples has nothing to do with the naming of the city itself and — like stated above — are grandfathered (there's countless examples with "Beijing"). "Peking" is an archaic transcription, versus the widely used "Beijing". -- Cold Season (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose -- This is the usual name today. Speedy close --- Note this is listed at WP:RM as a move to Leghorn (city), which is a redirect to Livorno. This suggests that the whole thing is a case of vandalism: Admin action against the culprit? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Agree with speedy close and administrative report on the instigator. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - It should be renamed Pékin because I believe that since my first language is French, names "à la française" should be used. </sarcasm>. Salvidrim! 05:18, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Disagree violently and challenge you to a duel — it should be renamed Th'poqqolgh-Thpth because that's what it's called in Klingon and Klingons are badass. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C06:30, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Follow tradition - As a man of French origin, I must surrender, admit you're right, and coöperate with you. Salvidrim! 06:48, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
      • Reject surrender and challenge you to two duels. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:02, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
        • Whimpers and put on glasses - Surely you would not attack a man wearing glasses? Salvidrim! 07:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
          • Removes your glasses, fills them with various amounts of water, and proceeds to play them —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C07:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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

edit to the history section

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

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

• The historical overview is a fairly concise summary of the long history of the city. Readers of the main Beijing article's history section would benefit from such an overview and that is why it was reproduced in whole. Other editors could certainly feel free to make their edits.
• The gallery shows the UNESCO heritage sites of the city from the Ming Dynasty and draws the connection between that historical period and the heritage that it bestowed upon Beijing today. The pictures show iconic monuments of Beijing that most descriptions of the city would include. However, this article does not have any pictures of the Great Wall or the Ming Tombs or for that matter, Tiananmen Square (that could be a whole other topic for discussion -- the choice of images for this article). The discussion of UNESCO heritage sites under the Culture section does not refer to the various historical periods in which the sites were created.

• The text of the history section was edited to provide better flow to the historical narrative. For example, why did Yongle make Beijing the capital of the Ming Dynasty, and demote Nanjing? That was a significant event in the history of the city and the history section. Without adding too much verbiage, the edit provides the answer.
• The image of Tianning Temple was reduced in size because, due to its vertical orientation, the image at 200px width is rendered to be very large -- unnecessarily so. The point of that photo is that the southwestern part of present-day Beijing is the oldest. The accompanying Niujie Mosque photo shows the oldest mosque in the city, which like the Tianning Temple, is located in southwest Beijing. The oldest part of the mosque from the Liao era still stands.
• The image of Genghis Khan's seige of Beijing comes from a 14th century Persian manuscript, itself a historical source and draws attention to the role that nomads had on the city's past.
• The edit also notes that the city hosted the Olympic Games in August 2008. Prior to this edit and after the wholesale reversion, the history section concludes with the International Olympic Committee awarding the summer games to the city in July 2001, with no mention of what happened to those games, which were again, a significant event in the history of the city. Why leave the reader hanging?

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

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. Prior to the unification of China by the First Emperor in 221 BC, Beijing was for centuries the capital of the ancient state of Yan. During the first millennia of imperial rule, Beijing was a provincial city in northern China. Its stature grew in the 10th to the 13th centuries when the nomadic Khitan and Jurchen peoples from the steppes expanded southward, and made the city a capital of their dynasties, the Liao and Jin. When Kublai Khan made Dadu the capital of the Mongol-led Yuan Dynasty (1279–1368), all of China was ruled from Beijing for the first time. From this time onward, with the exception of two interludes from 1368 to 1421 and 1928 to 1949, Beijing would remain as China's capital, serving as the seat of power for the Ming Dynasty (1421–1644), the Manchu-led Qing Dynasty (1644–1912), the early Republic of China (1912–1928) and now the People's Republic of China (1949–present). Prehistory and early history Zhoukoudian, a 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 Zhoukoudian in Fangshan District, where Peking Man lived. Homo erectus fossils from the caves date to 230,000 to 250,000 years ago. Paleolithic homo sapiens lived in the same caves about 27,000 years ago. 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 Zhou Dynasty, and later the capital of the state of Yan, one of the seven powers of the Warring States Period (473–221 BC). The City of Ji was located in the southwest of modern-day Beijing, to the south of Beijing West Railway Station. After the State of Qin conquered Yan and unified China for the first time in 221 B.C., the City of Ji remained a prefectural center in the northern periphery of the Qin, Han, and Jìn Dynasty (265-420) Dynasties. During the Tang Dynasty, the City of Ji, by then renamed Youzhou, was the headquarters for Fanyang Jiedushi, a frontier military commandary where An Lushan launched the An Shi Rebellion in AD 755. Liao, Jin and Yuan Dynasties Niujie Mosque, the oldest mosque in Beijing, was founded in 996. The Pagoda of Tianning Temple was built in 1120. Genghis Khan's seige of Beijing in 1214. 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 Later Jin Dynasty (936–947) of northern China ceded a large part of its northern frontier, including the site of modern Beijing, to the Khitan. The Khitans founded the Liao Dynasty and in 938 made Beijing one of its secondary capitals. Beijing was called Nanjing or the "Southern Capital". Beijing's oldest mosque, the Niujie was founded in 996 and the Tianning Temple was built in 1120. Both are located in the southwestern part of the modern Beijing. In 1125, the Jurchen 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". 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. In 1264, as Kublai Khan the grandson of Genghis Khan, prepared to pacify rivals in Mongolia and complete the conquest of China, he chose Beijing as the capital for his new empire. Dadu meaning "Great Capital" or "Grand Capital" in Chinese and Khanbaliq in Turkic languages, was built around the Beihai and Zhongnanhai lakes in the center of modern Beijing where the Jurchens had their country palaces north of Zhongdu. Modern Beijing is largely centered on the foundation of Kublai's Dadu. The geographic center of Dadu was the Drum Tower, which remains aligned with the modern city's north-south axis. Kublai Khan took the throne in Dadu in 1272 and the imperial city was completed in 1293. During the Mongol Yuan Dynasty, all of China was ruled from Beijing for the time. Dadu was a cosmopolitan city. A number of foreign travelers including 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. Ming and Qing Dynasties UNESCO World Heritage Sites of Beijing from the Ming Dynasty The Great Wall of China in the northern part of Beijing Municipality The Hall of Supreme Harmony of the Forbidden City Temple of Heaven Ming Dynasty Tombs An Italian map applying both the names of "Peking" (Beijing) and "Xuntieu" (Shuntian) to the city, published in 1682 In 1368, Zhu Yuanzhang, declared himself the first emperor of the 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. 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 Jingnan Campaign, seized control of Nanjing and became the Yongle Emperor. In 1403, he renamed Beiping, his home base, Beijing, and elevated the city as a co-capital to Nanjing. For the first time, Beijing acquired its modern name. From 1406 to 1420, he launched a series of construction projects in Beijing, and built what has become the iconic symbols of China's imperial past – the Forbidden City, Tiananmen, Temple of Heaven, Ming Dynasty Tombs and the Ming Great Wall. When the imperial palace was finished, the Yongle Emperor ceremoniously took up residence. From 1421 onwards, Beijing, also known as Jingshi (京师), was the "official" capital of the Ming Dynasty, while Nanjing was demoted to the status of "secondary" capital. This system of dual capitals (with Beijing being vastly more important) continued for the duration of the Ming Dynasty. Thirteen of the sixteen Ming Emperors are buried in 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. UNESCO World Heritage Site of Beijing from the 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. Tiananmen, now a state symbol of the People's Republic of China and featured on its emblem, was first built in 1420, and rebuilt several times later. Tiananmen Square was built in 1651 and enlarged in 1958. Jesuits finished building the first Beijing-area Roman Catholic church in 1652 at the Xuanwu Gate, where Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci (1552–1610) had lived; the modern Nantang Cathedral was built over the original cathedral. In 1644, Beijing was captured by yet another semi-nomadic ethnic group from the north, the Manchus. In the spring of that year, a peasant rebellion led by Li Zicheng briefly captured Beijing and deposed the Ming court. A Ming general opened the gates to the Great Wall at Shanhaiguan and allowed the Manchus under Prince Dorgon to sweep into China. Li and his followers abandoned the city, allowing the Manchus to capture Beijing without a fight. Dorgon established the Qing Dynasty as the direct successor of the Ming, Beijing remained China's capital. The Qing emperors made some modifications to the Imperial residence, but in large part, the Ming buildings and the general layout remained unchanged. Beijing at this time was also known as Jingshi. 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. A German postcard of Beijing from 1900 During the Second Opium War, Anglo-French forces captured the city, and looted and burned the Summer Palace and the Old Summer Palace in 1860. Under the Convention of Peking that ended the war, Western powers secured the right to establish permanent diplomatic presences in the Beijing Legation Quarter. In 1900, Beijing was again invaded by foreign powers, this time to quell the Boxer Rebellion. 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. China then fell under the control of regional warlords. The most powerful factions fought frequent wars (the Zhili-Anhui War, the First Zhili-Fengtian War, and the Second Zhili-Fengtian War) to take control of the capital. Following the success of the Kuomintang (KMT)'s 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), meaning "northern peace" or "north pacified". During the Second Sino-Japanese War, Beiping fell to Japan on 29 July 1937, and was made the seat of the Provisional Government of the Republic of China, a puppet state that ruled the ethnic Chinese portions of Japanese-occupied northern China; the government was later merged into the larger Wang Jingwei government based in Nanjing. People's Republic Mao Zedong proclaiming the establishment of the People's Republic of China in 1949 On 31 January 1949, during the Chinese Civil War, Communist forces entered Beijing without opposition. On 1 October of the same year, 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. 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. Following the economic reforms of Deng Xiaoping, the urban area of Beijing has expanded greatly. Formerly within the confines of the 2nd and 3rd Ring Roads, the urban area of Beijing is now pushing at the limits of the recently constructed 5th and 6th Ring Roads, with many areas that were formerly farmland now developed residential or commercial districts. According to a 2005 newspaper report, the size of the newly developed Beijing was one and a half times larger than that of old Beijing within the 2nd Ring Road. Wangfujing and Xidan have developed into flourishing shopping districts, while Zhongguancun has become a major centre of electronics in China. In recent years, the expansion of Beijing has also brought to the forefront some problems of urbanization, such as heavy traffic, poor air quality, the loss of historic neighbourhoods, and a significant influx of migrants from various regions of the country, especially rural areas. Beijing was also the location of many significant events in recent Chinese political history such as the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. On July 13, 2001, the International Olympic Committee selected Beijing as the host for the 2008 Summer Olympics. In August 2008, Beijing hosted the Games of the XXIX Olympiad.

"Peking" (again)

OttomanJackson (talk · contribs), it's very clear that you're on a mission to push what you consider to be the correctly anglicised names of places outside the Anglosphere. You've made that mission very clear not only elsewhere on this talk page, but also here in your own userspace and in a great many attempted end-runs around consensus such as [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Each and every one of these unilateral name changes and "other name" paste-ins of yours has been immediately and resoundingly rejected. That doesn't mean you're right and the whole rest of the project is wrong, it means you need to find a new hobby now and let this one drop, or you will likely find yourself faring rather badly in administrative action to control your willful damage to the project. Just stop it now. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:33, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Most English language atlases give Beijing as the primary name and have Peking in parenthesis. Therefore it should be given as an alternate name in the info box. OttomanJackson (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I doubt it. Can you prove it? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I can prove it. Here are links to six maps.

http://www.map-of-china.co.uk/map-of-beijing.htm

http://www.welt-atlas.de/map_of_beijing_6-410

http://www.welt-atlas.de/map_of_asia_map_of_the_world_political_0-9023

http://www.welt-atlas.de/map_of_far_east_(asia)_0-9016

http://www.welt-atlas.de/map_of_china_0-9018 (The description box above the map lists the capital as Peking, the map lists the city as BEIJING (PEKING))\

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=beijing+atlas&start=686&hl=en&safe=active&client=safari&sa=X&rls=en&biw=1679&bih=858&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=Vdhef9Dvq6Vx7M:&imgrefurl=http://dir.yahoo.com/Regional/Countries/China/Science/Geography/Cartography/Maps/%3Fo%3Da&docid=ziU2DyTxCSPU-M&imgurl=http://acc6.its.brooklyn.cuny.edu/~phalsall/images/chnmapeb.gif&w=630&h=494&ei=Sz0DT9PwH8js2QWrz4SQAg&zoom=1&chk=sbg&iact=hc&vpx=342&vpy=582&dur=390&hovh=199&hovw=254&tx=126&ty=95&sig=115493256276049560820&page=23&tbnh=149&tbnw=190&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:24,s:686&surl=1 (Uses only Postal Map and Wade-Giles, I like this map better than the pinyin ones)

OttomanJackson (talk) 17:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Your assertion was not "six maps show 'Peking'". It was "most maps show 'Peking'". That's what I asked you to prove. Since it would be impracticable for you to look at or link most maps, proof for your claim would likely take the form of a pointer to some reliable sources making your same claim. Get on it. Oh, and I cleaned up the sloppy formatting of your comment above; you're welcome, but please mind your manners. It's not nice to make messes in public spaces and leave them for others to come clean up.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Physical size of Beijing in lede

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

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

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

Beijing is not that unique among PRC cities for both physical extent and variation in population density. Many other cities have a dense urban core surrounded by outlying towns and then farmland and even mountains, most especially Chongqing.

My tolerance for the consistent comparisons to US states is shrinking, enough to the point that I consider it chauvinism when talking about non-US/Canada subjects; it makes the US look more special than it is. This encyclopaedia is written for all in the world, and Americans' profound ignorance on global (and even domestic) geography is not at all an excuse to resort to such comparisons, especially when Canadian or Australian, for example, examples are not used. GotR ^Talk 20:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

GotR aka Guerrilla of the Renmin, well most people's sense of square kilometers and square miles is even more limited than their sense of geography. Just putting the numbers there, which the current article does not, won't give readers much of a sense of scale. It is difficult to understand how a municipality like Chongqing with 28 million people should not be considered one of the largest in the world because 3/4 of its residents are rural, unless one knows that Chongqing is the size of Austria. In the Chongqing article, there happens to be a size reference -- to Taiwan to help readers figure that out. With an area of 82,401 km² (31,800 mi²), [Chongqing] is the largest direct-controlled municipality, larger even than one province and an autonomous region, as well as Taiwan. But even this description falls short of conveying actual size of Chongqing, which is not just bigger than Taiwan, but over three times the size. In the case of Beijing, there isn't a ready comparison, as far as I can tell, of Beijing's size to another entity within the PRC. NumbiGate (talk) 20:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the inclusion of the comparison to Connecticut in this case is also to complement the relative obscurity of Montenegro. If a comparison to a better known country like Austria could be made, then Connecticut is less necessary. The other comparable comparisons are -- larger than East Timor, the Bahamas; slightly smaller than Swaziland and Kuwait. No offense to Canada or Australia, but the provincial-level units of administration are very large and not readily comparable to Beijing. If you can find a better example, by all means post it here. NumbiGate (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Montenegro is actually less "obscure" in other parts of the world than you may think... not everyone lives in the US (or Australia), you know... -- megA (talk) 12:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

About 2/3 of native English speakers in the world live in the United States and they more likely to identify with the size of Connecticut than Montenegro. Of course, those in other parts of the world may be less familiar with Connecticut and to them, as you suggest, Montenegro may not be as obscure as it is for many Americans. This is why the description includes references to both Montenegro and Connecticut. NumbiGate (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Cityscape

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

Panorama image map of Tiananmen Square from atop Tiananmen's gate tower, showing the Square beyond Chang'an Avenue, with the Monument to the People's Heroes and Mao Zedong Mausoleum at background center, the National Museum of China to the left and Great Hall of the People to the right. (mouse over for labels)

Central Beijing from the east. Visible from left: Great Hall of the People, Tiananmen Gate, the Forbidden City, the white dagoba of Beihai and the top of Jingshan.

Western Beijing from the Beijing TV Tower, with Yuyuantan Park in the foreground.

Far western Beijing from the Beijing TV Tower, with the Western Hills in the distance and the Summer Palace visible at the right.

Beijing's Central Business District in Chaoyang District.

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