Talk:Beijing

Status of Peking in 1989
According the ngram diagram, yes, the printed soures are like that. By why mention only printed sources? BBC News was using the word Peking during the June 4, 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre. Is "printed sources" the end all be all of the English language? Mentioning only printed sources in that usage note is BIASED. Fix it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Provide evidence of your claims. I don't need to fix anything. You accuse everyone of a bias but you're biased yourself. Without the evidence, it's just your biased opinion. Of course "Peking" was used and is used and will be used. N-gram shows percentage and obvious trends. I don't need to discuss anything with you. You need to edit based on evidence. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sake of setting an example of harmonious interaction on Wiktionary, I have to exit this conversation. This is because based on what has been said, I can't believe further discussion at this moment will be productive to the building of the dictionary. But I recognize your points and take them in. Thanks for your work over the years. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

1958-1978: "Semi-Implementation" Period
I recently removed from the usage notes the statement that: "Beijing has been the official romanization of the name within China since the publication of the pinyin system in 1958 but was long avoided in the Anglosphere in favor of, at the government level a political choice implying dismissal of the Communist government of the People's Republic of China." Here's where I removed it: Now that I have found several uses/mentions from the 1958-1978 period, I would like to readdress the content of this sentence with some preliminary views. I may change this opinion as time goes on; this is just my current view. The first clause (up to "but") seems likely to be accurate on some level, based on the Wenzi Gaige draft proposal and article from 1958- see Citations:Beijing. However, English world-facing propaganda outlets of the CCP (Xinhua (Hsinhua),, etc) were using Peking up to January 1 1979, hence the true nature of the "official romanization" status of 'Beijing' (especially with respect to English itself) is clouded in my mind. To draw a parallel to other language reforms during this period, the three draft 审音表 for Mandarin from the exact same period (1957, 1959 & 1962) were eventually adopted in the 1980s, but they were kind of "hanging" out there for a while, of semi-implemented status. So all these drafts were perhaps "official" on some level, but they weren't necessarily "implemented" yet. Same with the now-authoritative, which was going through a series of reprints of a pre-first edition "试用本" (Trial Edition) until 1978. These are changes secondary (a sideshow) to "the big change" that was going on- the changes (as well as the Communist revolutionary project itself), the whole project of which was in flux throughout the period, concluding with the rescinding of the second round and the locking in of the original simplifications in the 1980s (and Gaige Kaifang). 'Beijing' has to be viewed in the light of all the various proposals and changes for Mandarin that were being made in this period and only later fully confirmed or implemented. Hence I am thinking of 1958 to 1978 as the "Semi-Implementation" Period- official, perhaps, but implemented? Only partially at best. As for the second clause (after "but"), because of the uncertainty I perceive in the "official status" question, I really have to question whether "the Anglosphere" was consciously "avoiding" anything by merely not using language reforms of uncertain implementation status from an only partially recognized regime. If the state media of the CCP regime was not even using the word 'Beijing' in its English world-facing media like Xinhua, etc., then what is there to avoid? Communist publications in China from 1973 ( Travels in China) and in the USA from 1975 (Goldwasser, Huan-Ying, Appendix A) were using 'Peking', albeit in the case of Goldwasser with the caveat that 'Beijing' might be better. A book from 1970 uses Hanyu Pinyin-derived words with postal romanzation in parentheses, yet totally avoids 'Beijing', using Peking:. This "avoidance" interpretation seems like a caricature, especially for the 1958-1968 decade. And hence in my current view, the alleged "political choice implying dismissal" seems anachronistic or revisionist on some level. The actual choice was non or partial recognition of the PRC; naturally you don't concern yourself too much with the sideshow elements of a larger scheme of semi-implemented linguistic reforms- the people of mainland China don't fully accept Simplified Chinese to this day. I don't speak to the motives of the editors involved, because I too had held a similar viewpoint. The wording "long avoided" may be seen to have a political analogy to the "inexorable" (Renlei lishi bu hui daotui) acceptance by the world of the PRC view of Taiwan's status. Again I emphasize this is a preliminary view. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)