Talk:Beijing

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2014

I am sorry for my written English. But I want change Text under one photography, about huge air pollution. "Heavy air pollution has resulted in widespread smog. These photographs, taken in August 2005, show the variations in Beijing's air quality." On that photo it is shown not pollution air, but also simple fog. In Beijing it is very often fog. But you can see very often the same picture in the villages and mountains around Beijing. IVDmitriy (talk) 15:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that its not smog?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I just return from Beijing. I spent 8 days in there and 7 days it was fog. Also I visited village (6 hours from Beijing), Beidaihe (4 hours from Beijing) and Mountains (2 hours from Beijing). Everywhere it was fog. I can sent photo. That photos in Wikipedia definitely can't be used for describe pollution in Beijing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by IVDmitriy (talk • contribs)

Simply because you had an experience with fog does not mean that the city is not beseiged with smog.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but people who live in Beijing say, that it is typical whether (fog and white sky). On that pictures definetly is fog (may be with pollution). And we can ask people from Chinesse Wikipedia, people who live in Beijing all time, Ok?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.55.156.146 (talk • contribs)

There is simply no evidence that this information needs to be changed at this time. This request has been declined.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Air Pollution

This section including a lot without a fair data to show us the exact air quality level. Some harzardous days and some doubtful reports were listed to "describe" how terrible Beijing is. All of these are not scientific attitudes. Just as I said in the article, compared to other cities in east China, Beijing's air quality is more changeable and polarized, and very sensitive to the wind direction, so both very good days and very bad days of Beijing are much more then such as Nanjing, Xi'An and even if Guangzhou(Canton). Due to the mountain-valley breeze, each level's percentage measured by hours can bestly show us this characters. However, nearly all the official statistics are measured by days or average, so I had to publish my personal calculation using the official initial data. BeijingCup (talk) 06:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The content you are adding is not reliably sourced and therefore cannot be used on Wikipedia. It just appears you want to debunk the claims that Beijing's air pollution has been bad. Wikipedia is not here to post annual reports. It's for general facts. Do not add the content, again, because you are using pages that do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable sources.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's ridiculous to refuse my post just because it's not "general"(if you are not just for the content). In this items, I can see just "in 2011,""In January" etc, if you say my post is "annual" but not "general", why these examples for just a few specially chosen bad days (such as 886 micrograms per cubic meter, even it's not a day but an hours in a chosen area, neither "time" or "space" are general) are "genaral"?

About the source, if you refuse the second for it's my personal calculation, but the first one that show the annual mean value of the concentration (89.5 micrograms per cubic meter) is official doubtless, you should admit it.

I'm not here to say Beijing's air quaility is not bad——absolutly it's much worse than cities like Tokyo, New York, Sydney etc, I just want you to stop giving reader's impression that most days are "hazardous" or "beyond index". air qualities of New Delhi, south of Hebei Province,part of Henan, Shandong, Anhui and Hubei Province etc has been also much worse than Beijing, especially New Delhi.

BeijingCup (talk) 02:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Simply do not add the section to the article again. You cannot use your own personal calculations for Wikipedia. There is no need to report on an annual pollution report on this project. If you add it without a consensus again, you may be blocked for edit warring.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I had ALREADY ABANDONED to post my personal calculations, and please note that the density of 89.5 micrograms and that of 70-100 for last ten years are all OFFICIAL and I had already posted the doubtless reliable links from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau. why some special bad hours can be listed and even misinterpreted into all "mid-January"(about ten days), but the annual/decade mean level or even just my correction for the obviously mistake to be refused ? There is also some qualitative description such us "often bad especially winter", how can you see these and the above-mentioned mistakes are"reliably sourced"?BeijingCup (talk) 06:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

simply do not post the content again until there is someone established here who agrees with your proposed changes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm NOT posting the content a gain(though I wouldn't break the Three-revert rule as I would change my post everytime), but you didn't answer my question in the last post at all, you just use the word "simply" to block me. I'm wondering if there will be other editor visit this talk. I can hardly accept your attitude, if you refuse to give me a persuasive reply, I may lose some respect to the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeijingCup (talk • contribs) 07:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't get out of WP:3RR by slightly changing what you added each time. And the article just does not need this extra paragraph to attempt to debunk the previous statement that the air quality has been poor.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)\

I didn't just slighty change it but completely give up the data based on my personal calculation. I have emphasized that I was just to correct the wrong data but not to debunk any so-called "statement"（exactly on the opposite, on the last post i said the air quality "continue to deteriorate", "changeable, and often bad"), you are not reading what I said. By the way, it will be you to first break the 3RR(if you are not the official editor), the wiki never suggested editor to remove other's post rudely. Please note again that the density of 89.5 micrograms and that of 70-100 for last ten years are all OFFICIAL and I had already posted the doubtless reliable links from Beijing Environmental Protection Bureau, you have no right to judge whether these sources are "needed", an average data is much worthy than that of the special chosen bad hours(and even be misinterpreted). BeijingCup (talk) 15:24, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if you completely changed it. You are still attempting to restore content that another editor has removed. And I do not know if the websites that you are providing qualify as reliable souces under Wikipedia's rules as I cannot personally read Chinese. Not to mention that this website seems to suggest that right now the air quality is "unhealthy". Your contributions do not belong on this page.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You said I'm attempting to restore content that you has removed, but in other word, you are doing the same things——remove content that I has posted. So if it's me to break the rules but not you, is it the correct understanding that it's because you have more permission or administration privilege? At least I tried to change my word to mee the requirement, while you were just removing them.

My English is poor so that I cannot understand what's your meaning by mentioning the right now air quality(for just one hours). Chinese resources have already been cited in this topic for many places, while there is one page for English: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-01/03/content_17212783.htm that also mentioned the data of 89.5 micrograms per cubic meter, shall I use it? BeijingCup (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You added the content first. It was removed. At that point you should not have put it back in any form and began the discussion here to advocate for its inclusion. It does not matter if you changed anything. You were still edit warring. And we do not need to give such exact measurements. It is not relevant for a general article.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the rule says "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert.", so why it was not you who did the first reversion? You undid my actions.I just added the content and that may not be called an "undo". BeijingCup (talk) 17:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Your constant re-insertions of the contested content, despite it being in a new form subsequent times, still counts as undoing another editor's actions. But this is not relevant. Read WP:BRD: you made a bold edit to add the information, I reverted you, that means a discussion begins instead of you trying to add the same information back, but in a slightly different way.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. But if both you and me do not invite other person to join the discuss, there won't be a consensus version. Therefore, could you read the page for English: http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-01/03/content_17212783.htm or invite some volunteers that can read Chinese and then re-evaluate my post? BeijingCup (talk) 03:04, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Another editor addressed your concerns in a manner that is allowed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Does it mean that it is my responsibility(but not yours) to invite another editor to join the discuss? BeijingCup (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You can request such a third person at WP:3O.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

@Ryulong and BeijingCup: Reading the above discussion and if I understand it correctly, I agree that para should be removed. Though there seems to be weakly sourced content there I don't see how a specific instance warrants adding "changeable" to the first para. This seems like original research to me and I don't feel that specific instance example warrants inclusion here too. What is needed is valid reliable sources specifically refuting the statement, "Beijing air quality is often poor...". Hope this helps and watching this page, Ugog Nizdast (talk) 10:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I wonder why you just mentioned a single word. The whole section should not have been removed just for the dispute of a single word. The other parts of my post has been reliably resourced, including the annual(and decade) mean value and the trend of air quaility in last 14 years (ex. http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2014-01/03/content_17212783.htm ).

The conclusion of "changeable" can also be drawed from one website of Chinese http://bjwb.bjd.com.cn/html/2014-01/02/content_139456.htm which I posted before, where the number of good days (daily mean value, moderate for US standard) was published. Although it was not a strong evidence compared with the calculation of hourly mean. Though won't be accepted as an evidence, I would also like to show you my personal research as I'm a Beijinger: Among 2013, the daily highest visibility reached above 50 km in about 60 days , above 80 km in about 24 days, above 100 km in about 10 days. We have north wind normally once three days at winter, which can quickly reduce the air pollution index in 1-2 hours (then usually mentained for 1-2 days) as Beijing located very near the little pollution area of Mongolia Plateau. In Feb 28, 2013 and Jan 18, 2014, I was surprised to saw that a clear bound over the sky seperating it into 2 parts with yellow color and blue color, with the air quality index jumped up and down in several hours.

Please attentioned that my post was NOT for refuting the statement "Beijing air quality is often poor...".On the cantrary, it was quite neccessary for describing how poor it was exactly and showing us the trend in last 14 years（released first but detoriorated again in recent 4 years). BeijingCup (talk) 08:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you thought about creating a separate article on Beijing air quality? You could then present more of the details found in the references.--Nowa (talk) 10:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Does it really deserve a main topic? Anyway a good advice despite my poor English. BeijingCup (talk) 10:58, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nowa, do not encourage this. BeijingCup, you've been told that your proposed addition does not work here. Xinhua and Chinese media, which have very little freedom of the press, can say one thing about air quality, while we have evidence of the contrary. It is not necessary to provide an "annual report" or anything beyond what the article already says about the quality of the air.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Shall I remind you to be neutrality ? There are even no so-called "contrary" at all. Yes, Xinhua gives an average value of 89.5 from BJEPB, but please tell me what it cantrary to? Do you consider it too low? You have no idea of what this value mean at all for you are not really concerned about Beijing's air quality. You are just a volunteer of Wikipedia with too much confidence to edit every page you see regardless of the lack of your knowledge. The title of the website I sited said "Beijing sees LITTLE improvement in air quality in 2013", which is a negative evaluation and didn't contradict to anything "you" know. What I have posted was not just an annual report, it also included the decade trend of the air quality. I repeat that it was quite neccessary for describing how poor the air quality was exactly and showing us the trend in last 14 years（released first but detoriorated again in recent 4 years). BeijingCup (talk) 13:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There's just no need to expand or add onto what's here if it's nothing new.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 13:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please show me what is "of contrary" with my post by give an assertion. You don't have to show the evidence, BeijingCup (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Peking in table

The table on the right side has three names for this city: Beijing, 北京市 and smaller font size "Peking". I don't understand why "Peking" is listed there too. Mentioning the old transcription in the introduction is enough. Look at articles like Inner Mongolia. Every spelling is official. Beijing is Pinyin, 北京市 are the Chinese characters and "Peking" has no status at all. It should be removed from that table. If you want to list older transcriptions, you should add them to Nanjing and many other cities as well. --2.245.115.194 (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)