Talk:Hutong

China High‑importance

	China portal 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 articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Urban studies and planning Low‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Urban studies and planning, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Urban studies and planning 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.Urban studies and planningWikipedia:WikiProject Urban studies and planningTemplate:WikiProject Urban studies and planningUrban studies and planning articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Architecture

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Issues[edit]

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'm not intending to contribute further to this article, 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. The cluster in the photograph is one of these modern recreations, in spite of the author's misrepresentation. 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]

The sections on hutongs in the Republic and People's Republic eras show a very strong bias, through the use of entirely subjective descriptors such as "haphazardly" and "neat appearance". Additionally, there's some seemingly irrelevant social/political commentary thrown in these sections that is obviously coming from a pro-CCP standpoint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.227.64.119 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bathrooms?[edit]

Do hutongs often feature communal (shared) bathrooms? When I was walking around them I had that impression. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.81.167.160 (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Colin McLarty (talk) 07:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hutong. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050611084121/http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/oldbeijing.htm to http://www.socialcapitalgateway.org/oldbeijing.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]