Talk:Ordos City

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ordosnb.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

GDP per capita

Is it true that Ordos has a high GDP per capita compared to most other PRC cities? (70000+ RMB) Hanjoen55155 (talk) 04:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Solar Plant

First Solar just signed a major agreement with Ordos City to build a huge solar plant there, I think it should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.232.238 (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The "new" Ordos is empty

Interesting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0h7V3Twb-Qk

• Inserted parts of it into article. Colipon+(Talk) 13:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

how many km² has new Ordos ? how many people could live there ? --91.15.236.147 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

the video says > 1 million. ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Population

I do believe the claim on the main article of having a million or so people is wrong. There is no reference so I've replaced it with one. [1] Mathmo ^Talk 10:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confusing the English and the PRC concept of a city. In the PRC a "city" is simply an administrative unit below provincial level, not necessarily a an urban area. For an area of 87,000 sq.km like Ordos (roughly twice as large as the Netherlands), more than 1.5 million inhabitants is absolutely plausible.

What your link deals with seems to be the lack of inhabitants in the administrative center of Ordos (=Dongsheng?). This issue is interesting, but it does not mean that elsewhere in Ordos there can't be more than a million inhabitants. Yaan (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point, I'll slightly modify it so that it is clear what is meant :) Mathmo ^Talk 15:19, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The discussion about population density seems still quite irrelevant. It is completely normal for Chinese "cities" to have a rather low population density, and Ordos is not even the most extreme example. E.g. Chongqing certainly does not have a very high population density, either.

It is not always the best idea to compare administrative divisions with each other, because you might end up with data that makes Paris or London look like somewhat modest settlements. That is why people have come up with terms like urban area or agglomeration.

Also, there seemed to be some redundancy in your edit, and in any case the lead section does not seem the best place for an in-depth discussion of Ordos' cityhood or urban planning failures. Yaan (talk) 14:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed

Ordos City seems to mean both a town and a region. The same applies to Dongsheng. The use of 'City' to mean region (prefecture-level city) would not be understood by 99% of English-speakers and needs to be clarified for their benefit. Benjamin Trovato (talk) 02:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've gone a crusade to get rid of lousy and pedantic "prefecture-level" descriptions in the lede, and have tried bringing this up with fellow editors here. But if you read that discussion thread you'll see I've run into a lot of hurdles. Colipon+(Talk) 03:15, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for another clarification, the approach you took at Hulunbuir looks quite OK to me. At least I cannot really think of a better phrasing. Yaan (talk) 09:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Rename?

Although this is not my area, I am tempted to rename this as Ordos Shi and explain what a shi is. In English 'city' always means a large urban area and never means a region or district. Does someone else have a better idea?Benjamin Trovato (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ordos Shi" is not English, but I understand your concern. Perhaps a good middle-ground way of going about this is naming it "Ordos, Inner Mongolia". Colipon+(Talk) 16:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

"Ordos, Inner Mongolia" would be somewhat ambigous, see Ordos (disambiguation). Maybe "Ordos (city)" or "Ordos (prefecture-level city)" would be the way to go? Or just "Ordos"? Yaan (talk) 11:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

just "Ordos" is okay with me. Describing Ordos as a City where only a few percentage of the land is actually Urban is really misleading.--LLTimes (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Political Taint, Stilted Language, Gaming the Article

This discussion and the article skirt the VERY LARGE issue of the very large and almost empty real estate development project in the "Kangbashi New Area" of a city called Ordos. A great deal of the above nomenclature discussion appears to be an attempt to ward off or obfuscate the political, economic, and social implications of this large, geographically isolated, possibly non-rational urban project, possibly by shills of the PRC. A significant edit to the article will appear in a day or two. Tapered (talk) 09:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyone who has seen the actual city with so many empty buildings and streets is bamboozled what the purpose of building this and even adding on might be. I usually look at things like that under the angle 'one link in the chain of information is missing'. It would appear to me that the Ordos project looks like the beginning of something, possibly a hub in a future energy corridor. 58.174.224.11 (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

And assume bad faith without citing proof to back up the "shills of the PRC" claim isn't gaming the article? Here're a few links to check out wrt ghosts in Kanbashi New Area:

http://life.jschina.com.cn/system/2012/02/09/012678379.shtml

http://jswm.nmgnews.com.cn/system/2011/04/23/010583620.shtml

http://www.erdosedu.com/jwdh/showarticle.asp?articleid=1958

http://www.northnews.cn/2011/0408/314161.shtml

http://news.workercn.cn/rollnews/c2/2011/0525/1966281503.shtml

http://www.nmgkjg.com/benguanzixun/xinwenbaodao/499.html

http://www.ordos.gov.cn/xxgk/dtxx/tpxw/201107/t20110725_371039.html

Bobby fletcher (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

=No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ordos City → Ordos – Ordos, like many other Chinese "prefecture-level cities", is not a city in the traditional sense of the word, i.e. not an urban area. Most of it is rural, and the average population density, at roughly 18 people/square, is very low even for a rural area. So the current name is quite misleading. Yaan (talk) 21:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree with your rationale in general (and would support other similar moves) but "Ordos" is an ambiguous term. The Ordos Desert/Ordos Loop, Ordos Mongols/Ordos dialect, and maybe the Ordos culture are each at least as important as a ten-year-old administrative unit. "Ordos" was formerly a disambiguation page that was moved to Ordos (disambiguation) a couple of years ago without discussion. It should be moved back to Ordos. —  AjaxSmack  00:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

But going by that logic, wouldn't the article about Rome not be misplaced as well - dealing with a relatively recent administrative unit, when in fact the name has been used for an entire empire? Yaan (talk) 19:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose The ghost town section "Kangbashi New Area" is known world wide as "Ordos" or "Ordos City." Whatever the legal designations for cities and other large entities in China, the term is associated with the empty real estate development. Here's page one of a google search, "ordos city."

pg one google search "ordos city" 16 Sept. 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tapered (talk • contribs) 07:22, 16 September 2011

I am afraid I don't really understand your argument, or you don't really understand the point of the requested move. You seem to say that "Ordos" and "Ordos city" are basically synonyms, which is hardly a reason to oppose the move. You go on with suggesting that you don't really care about Chinese administrative designation - yet these designations are the only justification for this article having a "city" in its title at the first place.

Your example of failed real state development IMHO has little relation to the title of this article as well. Even if all real estate projects in Ordos would be complete successes, this "city" would still be a huge chunk of Inner Mongolian countryside, about as large as Scotland, but with only a fraction of the Scottish population. I hope you'd agree that if the British government decided to refer to the whole of Scotland as "Scotland City" from tomorrow on, this "City" thing would still be a terrible misnomer?Yaan (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "Scotland City" would be a misnomer but it's not for me to decide what Scotland or the British want to call their administrative units. I generally oppose using the "XXXX City" format for Chinese cities unless it is needed for disambiguation, as it is in this case. Overall, I don't see a big problem with the current title. Many Wikipedia articles include the word "city" in the title even if they entities aren't particularly large or densely populated (e.g. Altai City, Labrador City).

I agree that the comment by User:Tapered is not fully comprehensible and seems to be irrelevant to the question of whether or not the current title is appropriate.

In regard to a user page question from the nominator about the possibility of a move to" 'Ordos (city) or, even better, Ordos (prefecture level city)'", I am not opposed to either although they are not congruent with WP:NC-CHINA: Place names (which calls for "Ordos City" or "Ordos, Inner Mongolia", the latter of which does not adequately disambiguate in this case). My concern is that a ten-year-old administrative unit not be considered the primary topic vis-à-vis the geographical region, the people and language, and the culture of the same name. All of those together are more likely to be the "Ordos" of English sources than this new construct. —  AjaxSmack  15:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think wp normally distinguishes between administrative units and the area they cover. It is sometimes done if administrative details are notable in themselves (Taiwan, Republic of China, Taiwan Province, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China), but not generally (Hainan, Hainan Province). Even in cases like Beijing and Chongqing, no difference is made between the urbanized areas (which, one might suspect, are the primary topics of said articles) and their respective administrative units, even if the former are only a small part of the latter. Yaan (talk) 18:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree but I don't understand your point as it relates to this move discussion. —  AjaxSmack  20:51, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The relation to the move discussion is that one of your reasons for opposing the move seems to be that you want separate articles for Ordos (the area inside the Yellow River loop, north of the Great Wall) and Ordos (the administrative unit that covers the area inside the Yellow River loop, north of the Great Wall). While I can see why such a treatment might make sense theoretically, I think it would be inconsistent with what is done elsewhere on wp (e.g. Saxony, Corinth). Yaan (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I see what you mean. There is some congruence between Ordos city and the geographic meanings but, even so, the geographical meanings of Ordos are far more notable. In addition to these are the language, the people, and the culture. Check out the Google Books results here. In the first page of results, there isn't a single mention of the city and many of the sources are about the language and/or people. Same thing with Google Scholar. —  AjaxSmack  23:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lhasa which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Kangbashi New Area

Is Kangbashi New Area its own district, or is it simply an urban settlement divided between the two existing administrative districts of Ejin Horo Banner and Dongsheng District? I've seen it both mentioned as a settlement without a status and thus split between the banner and district, and also as a new administrative district in and of itself. I need this information to clarify it on Kangbashi's article, here. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It is merely an "administrative area" that has some powers to regulate projects and real estate development in the area, as mandated by the local government. Economic activities in these areas are usually not under the oversight of the urban districts to which they belong, but (I believe) it answers to the Ordos municipality more generally; however schools and hospitals located in this area may still be administered by the districts. Colipon+(Talk) 19:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I honestly don't get what you mean. Is it a district equal to that of say Dongsheng District or not? The map showing the subdivisions of Ordos City don't show it as a district. In the hierarchy of Chinese administrative divisions, what level would Kangbashi New Area be, or is it not an administrative division? --Criticalthinker (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry - perhaps I was not totally clear. It is not a district equal to Dongsheng - it is strictly speaking an executive arm of the Ordos prefecture government whose job is to spur development and oversee economic activities in an area defined by the prefecture government (which usually overlaps with the geographical area of more than one administrative "district"). Administratively, the leaders of such a "New Area" is considered a county-level official (i.e. district-level), but since they are commissioned by the Ordos prefecture government, their powers are defined and limited by the prefecture government (for instance, it likely oversees approval of development projects and real estate zoning, but not schools and hospitals, which is still under the jurisdiction of the respective "districts"). Colipon+(Talk) 14:20, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so it's not an administrative division, then. That makes since. So, Kangbashi New Area is actually just a development split between the county-level administrative divisions of Dongsheng and Ejin Horo. --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Yea, it is somewhat more nuanced - I think comparing Kangbashi to Dongsheng is a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison. Anyway feel free to just write the article and I will edit it if need be. Colipon+(Talk) 15:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

To be clear, I was using the two as an example to make sure it was an apples-to-oranges comparison. My point was to make sure and clear that Kangbashi is not an administrative district like Dongsheng (or any of the banners) is. My only point is that this needed to be made clear on the pages of both Ordos City and Kangbashi. --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --Ordosnb (talk) 23:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC) This article was translated from Wikipedia Chinese.

Article severe issues

This is not a bad article but has been tagged concerning a lack of unsourced material that has not been addressed. I read the History of Ordos City section and nine subsections that has zero sources. I could not find a source so this next step is an attempt to see if someone with interest has the ability to source this before it gets deleted. Deleting the section may result in possibly interesting material being removed unless someone inappropriately reverts the edit that will be against several policies and guidelines that are considered core content policies.

Note: The article "citation needed" tag, as well as the section "unsourced" tag (evidence of challenge), both from December 2018, state: Unsourced material may be challenged and removed..

If this notice does not generate positive results, being sourcing, I may delete this entire section.

• Wikipedia:Verifiability (policy): All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.

• WP:OR (policy): The prohibition against OR means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source, even if not actually attributed. The verifiability policy says that an inline citation to a reliable source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged..
• Five pillars (Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view): Includes, All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, and Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong..

This content was translated from the Chinese Wikipedia (pinged editor) so hopefully there are sources that can be added. Otr500 (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wade quote (did not say that)

I read the Forbes article.[2] And Wade is quoted to have said, However, in 2017, the ghost city label is getting more than a little difficult to hang on Ordos Kangbashi. ...Of the 40,000 apartments that had been built in the new district since 2004, only 500 are still on the market.. However nowhere in the article does he also say - but it is not known if the apartments have been sold or just withdrawn from the market to bolster sagging prices. I don't know if it's vandalism but I have removed that unsourced false quotation because it's not found anywhere in the Forbes article.49.180.123.43 (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, looking at the history. I can see that the OP edit was originally correct a year ago. [3] But then an anonymous user had later vandalised and added in a false Quotation.[4]. I have since undone that vandalism today [5] and hope that others will ensure such vandalism - (adding unsourced false quotation) won't happen again. 49.180.123.43 (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Revertion

@Tetrainn: Hello, I do not believe you have read the source yourself. You claimed my edits had promoted something and reverted all my edits.[6] I do not understand in what way it can be seen as promotional. Also my edit was undoing vandalism by another. Please explain here on what part of my edit was promotional? I tried to discuss on your talk but then you blanked it before I had a chance to respond. But if you think I added in "number one school", I think you are very mistaken as that's not the rank but merely the literal name of the school as written by Nikkei Asia.[7] I know it's strange but they literally call themselves that and here is their website to prove it. [8] 49.180.123.43 (talk) 07:54, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Tetrainn (talk) 09:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)