Talk:History of Beijing

The article contained several paragraphs of narrative about certain aspects of education reform in the late Qing Dynasty. The content, though informative, is too long for this article, and too analytical of topics other than the history of Beijing. The material may be suitable for articles -- e.g. the history of women's education in China. I have condensed that content in the article, preserving the key facts and references. I've pasted below the uncondensed content in case anyone could make use of it elsewhere. ContinentalAve (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

===Modernization===

In late Qing China girls' schools were supported by reformers and the reactionary government alike. In post-Boxer China the necessity of change was accepted by the central government and even Cixi, the dowager empress, called for the education of women. But while the government sought educated women who could be "good wives and wise mothers," activists called for varying degrees of female independence and integration in society at large. Many political reformers favored female education as a form of national self-strengthening but all efforts were haunted by concerns over threats to morality. Confucian roots could be found for opposition to footbinding (Beijing girls' schools made unbound feet an entrance requirement) but not for the greater freedom and end to gender segregation called for by some feminists. Generally, female educational reformers in Beijing sought evolutionary changes due to their own links with the current elite.^[1]

The Peking Union Medical College, founded by missionaries in 1906 and funded by the Rockefeller Foundation from 1915, set the standard in prewar and wartime China for the training of nurses, but it had a mixed legacy. Its high training standards earned the college a reputation for elitism and inflexibility. Moreover, maintaining strict high standards did little to meet China's acute need for nurses. On the other hand, the college made major inroads into pre- and postnatal nursing, public health nursing, and rural nursing. Moreover, the college played an instrumental role in transforming nursing from a foreign and male-dominated profession into one dominated by female, Chinese nurses.^[2]

The Beijing Police Academy, founded in 1901, was China's first modern institution of police training and also the largest police training center in the late Qing period. The school hired Japanese teachers to undertake most of the teaching and administrative work. The school provided a national useful model for police academies in other major cities and exerted great influence on the development of China's modern police forces.

From early antiquity through the end of the 19th century, the primary missions of Chinese imperial and private libraries were to collect and preserve books and documents. Except for a few isolated historical periods, these libraries rendered no services at all to the public. The Metropolitan University Library in Beijing, founded in 1898, was China's first modern academic library with a clear goal of serving a burgeoning program of public higher education. The library's founding reveals an intriguing story of tension between the modern Western and traditional Chinese concepts of what a library should be.^[3]

I added back the references to Mongol and Manchu, which are used modify the Yuan and Qing Dynasties in the introductory paragraph, because their inclusion continues the theme begun earlier in the paragraph of the role of steppe peoples in the history of Beijing. We refer to the Jurchens and Khitans and therefore should also note the Mongols and Manchus. A reader otherwise unfamiliar with the history of China may not know that the Yuan Dynasty is Mongol and the Qing is Manchu. These references highlight that for them. ContinentalAve (talk) 19:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Are there any estimates on the different numbers of people living in the city during the centuries? 87.164.123.71 (talk) 07:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=uhtLAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=thousand+character+classic+manchu&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RhCoUOSZGunm0gHZhYGgBQ&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAzgK#v=onepage&q&f=false

Jerezembel (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Genghis Khan at Zhongdu

The first Mongol siege of Beijing in 1213-1214. The city fell in the second siege of 1214-1215.

Genghis Khan receiving Jin envoys and the Qiguo Princess.

Illustrations from the Jami' al-tawarikh by Rashid-al-Din Hamadani Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Département des Manuscrits, Division Orientale.

As to why the second image was restored. Both images grouped in this multi-image set are historically significant, relevant to the article and artistically interesting. The second image shows the marriage of Genghis Khan to his second wife. The marriage occurred in Beijing and resolved the first siege. The images are supported by description of the events in the text of the article. The multi-image may extend to the following section, depending on the resolution setting on the reader's computer, but any extension would not be out of place as the following section is about how Genghis Khan's grandson expanded the city after the Mongol conquest and founded the Yuan Dynasty. ContinentalAve (talk) 06:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

These two photos of protests in Beijing in the spring of 1999 document important events that occurred in the city and correspond to text in the article. They were removed by TheLeopard because a less historically significant photo was pushed into the next section. I have rearranged the photos so that they all fit into the 1990s section. If there is spillage and the spillage is intolerable, the less important photo should be the one to go. NumbiGate (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Demonstrations in Spring 1999

On April 25, 1999, Falun Gong practitioners assembled outside the Zhongnanhai compound on to protest criticism of the sect in the state media.

File:Anti-American Protests Liu Kai b3.jpg

On May 8, 1999, students and residents marched in protest of NATO's bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia outside the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.

In the spring of 1999, two large public demonstrations took place in Beijing. On April 25, over 10,000 Falun Gong practitioners assembled outside Zhongnanhai to protest criticism of the sect in the state media. The gathering resulted in the government's prohibition of Falun Gong in China.

On May 8, following NATO's bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia, which killed three Chinese nationals, thousands of students and residents marched on the U.S. Embassy in Beijing to protest U.S. military aggression. Some of the protesters pelted the embassy compound with stones and smashed cars, keeping the U.S. ambassador and staff confined in the compound for several days. Then vice-president Hu Jintao declared the government's support for the demonstrations, which reflected the anger and patriotism of the Chinese people, but urged against extreme and illegal conduct.^[1] The crisis was diffused after U.S. President Bill Clinton issued an apology for the airstrike, which the Pentagon blamed on outdated maps, and agreed to pay $32.5 million to the victims of the bombing and to compensate for the damage to the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade.^[2] The Chinese government agreed to pay $2.87 million to compensate the U.S. for damage to its embassy and consulates in China.^[2]

On October 1, 1999, the city celebrated the 50th Anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic with a parade, the first since 1984.

Although the article mentions Peking Duck, the Peking Opera and other institutions in the city that us "Peking" as the spelling of the city's name, there is no discussion about why the change in accepted English spelling occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.69.41.215 (talk) 14:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. Since the change in the English spelling of the city's name from Peking to Beijing was not occasioned by a change in the underlying Chinese name of the city, the change in the accepted English spelling is not considered part of the city's history and thus not mentioned in this article. (Nor are alternate English spellings of the city's other historical names included -- e.g. P'eip'ing, Youchou, Yenching, etc.) A hatnote has been added with a link to another article that describes the English spelling change. In this article, Peking only appears as part of compound proper nouns whose own articles retain Peking in their titles. ContinentalAve (talk) 22:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Map of Beijing's previous cities overlaid each other from the Jin, Yuan, Ming, and Qing dynasties

http://pages.uoregon.edu/inaasim/Mingqing04/Qing3.htm

Plan of Peking : vol.1

http://dsr.nii.ac.jp/toyobunko/III-2-C-a-146/V-1/

06:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the changes to the article titles of the Five Dynasties, e.g. Later Jin Dynasty --> Later Jin (Five Dynasties), and take no issue with those changes, which has only changed the titles of those articles, not the way those dynasties are referred to in the text of other articles. The History of Beijing mentions many periods of Chinese history and the reader is unlikely to be familiar with the multitude of period names used. For the sake of clarity, dynasty names are always followed by the word "Dynasty" no matter how insignificant the dynasty, e.g. Yan Dynasty, unless it is clear from the text that the term is referring to a dynasty. This helps the reader differentiate between kingdoms and states from dynasties. For this reason, I've restored the word Dynasty to the Later Liang Dynasty and Later Tang Dynasty -- to distinguish them from the Later Zhao, Later Yan and Later Qin Kingdoms from the Sixteen Kingdoms period. ContinentalAve (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about the pages so I won't re-edit the pages, but I hope that you understand the word "dynasties" in Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms period is just an arbitrary word chosen in the Song Dynasty to better justify Song Dynasty's legitimacy on the grounds of a passing Mandate of Heaven. Later Jin, Later Tang etc. are in reality not much different than Later Yan or Later Zhao etc. Timmyshin (talk) 22:00, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Runaway Wives, Urban Crimes, and Survival Tactics in Wartime Beijing, 1937-1949 by Zhao Ma, Harvard University Asia Center, distributed by Harvard University Press. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 21:16, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Heart ^(talk) 18:43, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The Tang dynasty Goguryeo general Gao Juren ordered a mass slaughter of Sogdian Caucasians from West and Central Asia, identifying them through their big noses and lances were used to impale Caucasian children when he stormed Beijing (Jicheng (Beijing)) from An Lushan when he defeated An Lushan's rebels.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Hansen |first1=Valerie |date=2003 |title=New Work on the Sogdians, the Most Important Traders on the Silk Road, A.D. 500-1000 |jstor=4528925|journal=T'oung Pao |volume=89 |issue=1/3 |pages=158 |doi= 10.1163/156853203322691347}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Hansen |first1=Valerie |title=The Silk Road: A New History |date=2015 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0190218423 |pages=157–158 |edition=illustrated, reprint |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=FDdRDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA157 |chapter=CHAPTER 5 The Cosmopolitan Terminus of the Silk Road}}</ref>

The episode of inter-ethnic clashes within Fanyang (seat of Youzhou), known as the "Disorder within Jimen" （蓟门内乱）, that occurred in the spring and summer of 761, was an incident of infighting within the rebel camp, not one of retribution by the Tang court against ethnic minorities. In early 761, rebel Yan emperor Shi Siming who favored his younger son (Shi Chaoqing 史朝清) over eldest son (Shi Chaoyi 史朝义) was killed by supporters of Shi Chaoyi near Luoyang. Shi Chaoyi then sent minister Zhang Tongru (张通儒) to Fanyang to eliminate his brother Shi Chaoqing. Zhang Tongru put both Crown Prince Shi Chaoqing and Shi Chaoqing's mother Empress Xin to death. He then directed rebel generals Gao Juren (高鞠仁) and Gao Ruzhen (高如震) to execute the Empress' brother, Xin Wannian (辛万年). The two Gaos spared Xin and killed Zhang Tongru. They reported to Shi Chaoyi in Luoyang that Zhang Tongru was planning to surrender Fanyang to the Tang court. They sought to recruit another rebel general Ashina Chengqing to lead their faction. Ashina Chengqing refused and killed Gao Ruzhen. Gao Juren then turned against Ashina Chengqing. These two rebel generals fought for control of Fanyang (also known as Jimen). Within the ethnically diverse rebel army in Fanyang, Gao Juren, who was Korean (Goguryeo), led fighters from beyond the northeastern frontier, such as Koreans, Khitan, Xi, and Mohe, while Ashina Chengqing (阿史那承庆), a Turk, drew support from fighters from the northwestern frontier, collectively known as hu and included Turks, Sogdians, Tongluo and Tiele. After Gao Juren drove Ashina Chengqing out of Fanyang, he ordered the killing of hu in the city to eliminate Ashina Chengqing's supporters. Shi Chaoyi recognized Gao Juren as the ruler of Fanyang, but also directed Li Huaixian (李怀仙), another rebel general, to a more senior post in the city. Li Huaixian , who was an ethnic hu, pretended to respect Gao Juren's authority before killing Gao at a meal banquet and taking over Fanyang (Youzhou). The infighting severely weakened the rebel Yan regime. In 763, Li Huaixian surrendered to the Tang court and drove Shi Chaoyi to commit suicide, ending the An-Shi Rebellion.

Hence, the removed sentence is misleading in that:

1. Gao Juren was not a general who was fighting on the side of the Tang court as the sentence implies.
2. Gao did not storm Jicheng; he was already based in Jicheng during the in-fighting among rebels.
3. The rebel faction he defeated was not led by An Lushan.
4. The inter-ethnic killings in Jicheng was waged between different factions of ethnic minority fighters within the rebel camp.
5. Order in Jicheng was restored by another ethnic Hu rebel general who surrendered to the Tang court in 763.

Sources: <ref>"成德军的诞生：为什么说成德军继承了安史集团的主要遗产" in 时拾史事 2020-02-08 [https://www.163.com/dy/article/F4S4NUB7052384UI.html]</ref> <ref> 李碧妍, 《危机与重构：唐帝国及其地方诸侯》2015-08-01 [https://books.google.com/books?id=AdjzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT423&lpg=PT423&dq=%E8%BE%9B%E4%B8%87%E5%B9%B4+%E9%AB%98%E9%9E%AB%E4%BB%81&source=bl]</ref> ContinentalAve (talk) 01:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

In the table of Beijing's history, the distinction between periods when Beijing was a regional capital (yellow) and national capital (red) was removed by a user who said "seems a useless distinction to make". This distinction is very significant as only a handful of cities have served as the national capital in Chinese history. Beijing's emergence as the national capital since the 13th century reflects the city's growth in size and importance. ContinentalAve (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Yep, they're just wrong. It's a useful distinction. — LlywelynII 09:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's highly dubious. Bei/Nanjing was originally an informal designation, not a secret true name while all the official documents and maps involved 'capital' or with the prefecture name as the city's name. There was a cite for the claim otherwise which looked valid on its face but (a) there was no location in the work specified, just the gloss provided by the LOC website; (b) the linked webpage was dead; and (c) the archived forms of the page don't include anything that could remotely be read as verifying the claim. Yes, there are lots of 'sources' who will talk about the city 'becoming' Beijing as soon as the capital moved but they're speaking loosely. You'd need something from the period or (better) authoritative sourcing specifically addressing the confusion about names. — LlywelynII 09:28, 9 September 2025 (UTC)