Talk:Xiong'an

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

China Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article contains a translation of Tân khu Hùng An from vi.wikipedia.

This article contains a translation of 雄安新区 from zh.wikipedia.

Name should be Xiongan, as "xion" does not exist in Chinese, so confusion about the pronunciation is not possible. De wafelenbak (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Although the point of the apostrophe is to reduce misunderstandings, the rules don't revolve around if there could be misunderstandings or not. The apostrophe is consistently placed before A, E, and O. --2001:16B8:3111:7000:51F7:B05A:6625:BB00 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Activists open letter as it's both using an unreliable biased source claiming that the city is an instance of Government incompetence, and is against neutral pov to use a biased source instead of real scholars with expertise about such complex urban planning matters. You minimally need to use a real authority who did peer reviewed research to reach that conclusion. Not some unprofessional activist who doesn't show any evidence yet just pushing propaganda. Also the city is still under construction and is expected to be completed in 2035. So it's far too premature to make any speculations when it hasn't even been fully constructed yet.[1] 49.186.95.207 (talk) 07:34, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone edit “Xiong'an is the product of strong political will and is intended to demonstrate a paradigm shift in China's approach to urban development” into something intelligible? Frankly the whole Politics section needs rewriting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:55F2:4C00:44AD:DE28:BA1D:E5A9 (talk) 22:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]