This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
I've reverted some of text to add back my additions (this time with references). The Hutong need to be looked at in the complete social context and the issues that arise out of the push to modernize. Criticisms, right or not, of the Hutong recreations should be included as well as the difficulties of preservation in the growing economy. This isn't a travel brochure. Dionix (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The way you cited these references is definitely not how the way it is suppose to be done (nor is it proper citation format). You can't just lump a bunch of articles to the statements you wrote and call it cited. Many of them are simply the same repeated references and the same statements are placed over and over again in the article. And if you already cited the article, don't put them in the external links. Please use statements that actually reflects what it is said in the content of the article.
BTW, this article, along with other similar ones, should maintain the basic outlook of an "architectural" article, which means, analysis of format, layout, location and structure are the most important.--TheLeopard (talk) 05:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leopard, I have no interest in starting an edit war with you, and I'm not intending to contribute to this article any longer, BUT I feel you are making some unilateral assumptions and "appear" to be bent on keeping this article somewhat sterilized. First, the hutongs are NOT only about urban form and this article does not need to maintain an "architectural" outlook (whatever that is). Hutongs are just as much about social, economic and cultural aspects. Second, I don't think you read the articles I cited or you would not have made the ridiculous claim you did. They do, in fact, support what I said and a couple are virtually ad verbatim quotations. I may have added them incorrectly or used the wrong format, but please correct them- do not eliminate them and revert. Third, why do you insist on featuring- front and centre- the picture of the recreated, 20th C. buildings and pass them off as a "typical" hutong scene? Typical hutong buildings were one-storey residential courtyard buildings; not three storey commercial structures covered with "pretty" chinese ornamentation and filled with Fendi stores and western-style restaurants. Have you actually been there?? It is imperative that we clarify what a hutong is, in the traditional sense, before we write about what is becoming or what the China tourist bureau would like us to believe it is. That is for teh bottom of the article. The traditional hutongs are the real "Old Beijing" and, as I said above, this is not a travel brochure. Dionix (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
