Jump to content

Talk:List of cities proper by population/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 9

Proposal for single sourcing

Perhaps to avoid all these discussions that seem to be going nowhere, we should use one of the published lists of cities without suburbs. The one that so far seems to ahave some reasonable chance of being accepted is the UN Demographic Yearbook. Let's use the city proper figure in the Demographic Yearbook where available. For cities that do not have city proper figures (London, Dhaka, Bogota, Istanbul, Bangkok), there seems to be sufficient data available for an administrative division that is consistent with the city proper. We can use national census authority data for these cities then. --Polaron | Talk 22:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

In situations like these single source is always the solution. UN Yearbook, fine. But no compromises. If it's not in the Yearbook, it's not in the list. -- BsBsBs (talk) 23:44, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
That's just silly. It is quite obvious that certain groupings of local government areas are identified as an urban agglomeration (e.g. Bangkok Metropolis is listed as an agglomeration). Having no figure in the DYB does not mean there is none that can be used. --Polaron | Talk 23:54, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Single source should be used if possible, roughly how many exceptions to the rule would there have to be? where alternative sources are used. Is it just those 5? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Assuming we're going to use a lower limit of 3 million as is currently the case, it will be just those five. Administrative area figures are easy enough to find for those five. --Polaron | Talk 00:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Once you make exceptions,you are right where you are now. If the UN can't put a city in a list, who are we to decide? Without exceptions, you can say what's not in the source is not in the list. With exceptions, people will point at them, and it's edit war III. BsBsBs (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
They are not completely without figures. It's just that the UN lists them as urban agglomerations. I think it should be ok to use city proper figures where it is available and urban agglomeration when it is the only one available. --Polaron | Talk 00:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Each with a Note linking to the notes section explaining about the figure used. How big is the difference between the population numbers? BritishWatcher (talk) 00:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
5 exceptions is pretty reasonable, if it is simply because the DYB does not provide the accurate figures as long as there is a detailed note about it in the notes section. And some of those hidden notes asking people not to update an individual population figure which uses the DYB. BritishWatcher (talk) 00:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A comparison of the current list with the UN list yields one more city that might need to be an exception: Kinshasa. The D.R. Congo did not report any city population data at all. The UN World Urbanization Prospects has an estimate using the city proper concept though. --Polaron | Talk 00:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth mentioning that the UN Demographic Yearbook asks for two distinctly different sets of numbers, City Proper and Agglomeration. They are there, because they are fundamentally different in scope and definition. The UNDY provides definitions for both, but also allows respondent countries to provide their own definitions - if they answer at all. Some countries do not answer, some report both sets, some only one set, some a mix. The 2007 table is here.
  • UK, Thailand, Qatar, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Suriname, Colombia, Nicaragua, Canada do not report City Proper data, agglomeration only. (London, Bangkok, Toronto, Montreal, Dhaka, Bogota will not be on the list for that reason alone)
  • Turkey provides City Proper data for most cities, for some, it provides Agglomeration data only. Istanbul, Ankara will not be on the list.
  • Same in Mexico. Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterey will not be on the list.
  • Australia says: "For all regions it is not possible to distinguish between 'city proper' and 'urban agglomeration' areas, therefore data has been included under 'city proper'." (That will keep the discussion interesting, but with a single source, it is easily defensible: If Australia and the UN say so, what's there to complain?)
  • Japan provides City Proper data only, except for Tokyo, where it reports both City Proper and Agglomeration. In Tokyo, "data for city proper refer to 23 wards (ku) of the old city" according to the definition provided. (Again, if they say so. Their country.)
The single source solve a lot of nagging problems (no more Special Wards discussion, Sidney and Lagos exist again.)
However, a very cursory review finds many more cities excluded than disclosed. Someone has been less than forthcoming.
Editors should consult the table themselves (carefully,) before coming to a conclusion.
If a single source is used, it must be reflected faithfully. Calling something "silly" does not help. Fudging data does not stand up to scrutiny. Changes or additions to a single sourced list are not allowed, they can and will be challenged as unreferenced and/or original research.
Editors should think this through carefully. If one is faced with too many problems in the beginning and has to make too many compromises right at the start, it is better to rethink the concept. There is nothing wrong with making compromises, but the need for them usually crops up later. To make it clear: A list that is single sourced on the UN Demographic Yearbook is fine, as long as it says so and as long as it does what it says.
We need to take the source as is and use nothing but the source. We may not re-categorize "agglomerations" to "cities proper," just because the city proper is missing. It may be missing for a reason, or because someone forgot. If there is no entry for city proper, there is nothing to cite. If there is nothing to cite, it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. --BsBsBs (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
But the city proper is the agglomeration at least for Dhaka, Bogota, Istanbul, and Bangkok. That much is obvious if you compare the population numbers to census authority figures for the year in question. Because these cities are composed of independent local government units, they may have been reported as agglomerations rather than city proper. London uses the urban area. This list at UN Data [1] appears to be somewhat more complete but still mainly has the same issues as the DYB. --Polaron | Talk 13:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Time to give WP:OR another read. You are not allowed to do the obvious. Just like you are not allowed to add up districts over 1500 pop/sqkm in Beijing and say that's the city proper. This is way beyond "routine calculations." It's WP:OR exemplified. If Istanbul has no city proper in that source, you need to drop Istanbul. And if someone complains, you say "sorry, not in source." We do that all day long in Automotive industry. If someone complains why, say, Iran Khodro is not on the list on the world's largest automobile manufacturers, we simply say: "OICA list. Single source. Not on list. Complain with OICA." You do that nearly once a day in List of metropolitan areas by population. You do the same with this list. KISS. --BsBsBs (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

There is also the option to format the list similar to List of metropolitan areas in Europe by population, where we can have multiple sources on a single list. In this way, we can also merge the World's largest municipalities by population here. --Polaron | Talk 13:38, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are my eyes rolling again? As you and I know, there are many ways to look at a "city" and hence its population. Here, a list with multiple viewpoints makes sense and is educational. Once you have a list with a single, narrowly defined criterion, namely "city proper", you have only one column. I can't help it that some people think "city proper" means anything else than "within city limits." People have all kinds of convictions. (So what would the columns be? One each for every editor?) -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
There are several lists of cities without their suburbs. We can use one for each of these lists. --Polaron | Talk 16:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Mr. Polaron: "City proper" is defined as a "locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." It doesn't give a hoot about "urban" or "suburbs". These are your inventions. I must say, city proper was defined as a "locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government" (with some minor unsourced changes by yours truly, which we shall cover at a later date.) You will recognize the (original) definition as the United Nations definition. It was defined as such until 02:45, 8 August 2010 when a thoughtful editor removed the definition along with all references and the snippy remark "If I remove the UN definition, does that mean this article is no longer a fraud?" - No it means that an administrator vandalized a page. Did that escape your vigilance? Do you want to revert this blatant act of vandalism or shall I? -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Quit with the passive voice. The United Nations defines city proper in that way; that does not mean that no other definitions are possible. I did not vandalize the page. I removed the United Nations definition because there is no consensus that it is an accurate assessment of what a city proper is. john k (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Utter, unmitigated nonsense. You vandalized a page. That statement had been there for months. It is the official United Nations definition. Used by the way for the single source for which a consensus seems to build here. Now look here - that's the book proposed as a new single source. No consensus? People love it! You killed it. Why? There were no complaints. There had been request for references, long ago, which were provided. You wiped them out. The sentence was even slightly edited by Polaron. You deleted it. There was a reference to a book by the United Nation with a reference. You exterminated it. You left the article without a concise definition, and without the references people had asked for. This is all documented. Where is the request to change the definition? Where is a discussion about it? Where is a discussion about alternate definitions? Did you suggest an alternate definition? You are blowing smoke, Kenney. You are way out of line. You vandalized the page along with a snide remark about "If I remove the UN definition, does that mean this article is no longer a fraud?" This is vandalism, pure and simple. An administrator should know that.

Also, I would appreciate it if you would cease ordering me around. What voice I use is strictly my own choice. And what "passive voice?" Could it be that you are mistaking "passive voice" for "third person" because I referred to you as "a thoughtful editor?" If you don't know the difference between "passive voice" and "third person" then I can totally understand that you could have difficulties with other matters. -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

passive voice: "city proper is defined". Who is so defining it? john k (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, after your vandalism, nobody. Before your vandalism, if you would have gone to the trouble of reading the references you had vandalized, you would have noticed that city proper is defined as above by the United Nations Statistics Division, and by most of the world's national statistics offices. City proper is defined as above by plenty of literature and what looks like the rest of the world. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Kenney, are you going to to the civil thing and undo your vandalism, or must the matter escalate?-- BsBsBs (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
I will not undo my edit, which was not vandalism. Wikipedia:Vandalism makes this perfectly clear:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia...Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example adding a controversial personal opinion to an article is not vandalism, although reinserting it despite multiple warnings can be disruptive (however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism, see edit warring).

I was making a good faith effort to improve wikipedia by removing a definition of "city proper" that, whatever its provenance, does not accurately reflect the commonly understood English meaning of the phrase. If you want to revert, go for it. I'm not going to edit war with you about it - I don't think it should be there, but I will seek consensus for removal before removing it again. john k (talk) 23:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You didn't add anything. You bulldozed. You ripped out the heart of the article. Removing the core definition of this article, which nobody had questioned (you failed to show me a spirited debate about this) is the opposite of good faith. It's vandalism, pure and simple. If you want to improve Wikipedia, you add or edit text. You add references to improve, you don't kill references. You do not wholesale slaughter core passages, just because they are in the way of your POV. That's vandalism. If your good faith - which I must question - tells you that that definition should not be there, then you should have opened a discussion long ago, and not belatedly below, as a cover-up for your act of vandalism. With a little good faith, you could have indeed ascertained that the definition accurately reflects the commonly understood English meaning of the phrase - the world over, I may add. You didn't bother. By your own admission, you did not remove the definition because disagreed with it - you removed it, because it proves many entries in the list as fraudulent. See "If I remove the UN definition, does that mean this article is no longer a fraud?" By tampering with the evidence, you perpetrated fraud on an even grander scale. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The heart of the article, as I understand it, is the list. I had a reason in terms of improving the article for removing that definition, making this is a disagreement about content, which is never vandalism. Repeatedly insisting that it is just shows that you don't understand wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whether I added anything or not is completely irrelevant. Now, I may have been wrong to remove the definition; it was an aggressive edit. As such, I have already told you that if you put it back in, I'm not going to edit war about it. But it's not in any sense vandalism. john k (talk) 13:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition of city proper

Since BsBsBs has accused me of "vandalism" for removing the UN definition of a "city proper" from the intro, I thought I should open up a more substantive discussion of this.

As I see it, the basic disagreement which we have been having for some weeks is the definition of a "city proper". Bs has supported the UN definition, which he takes to mean that an area the size of Austria can be a city proper if the government defines it as such. When others disagree, he accuses them of committing "fraud". This is absurd, but I think the basic issue here is only partially about interpreting the UN definition. We should also consider the question of whether the UN definition is appropriate at all. If you read the text, the UN definition is a bit confused - first it defines the "city proper" as the municipal boundaries, but then, in defining the "urban agglomeration" it strongly implies that a city proper is always smaller than the agglomeration. It then notes, however, that it will count municipalities that include large rural areas as "cities proper." The whole conceptualization is thus a mess; it works well when the agglomeration is bigger than the municipality, but doesn't really work at all when the municipality is bigger than the agglomeration.

Obviously, simply removing the UN definition leaves us without any very specific definition of a "city proper," but I don't think that definition itself does a very good job of it. It is this definition, also, which leads to the absurd claims for Chongqing as most populous city in the world. A city, as I've pointed out before, is defined in English more or less as a "large town;" a town is a "a densely populated area of considerable size." So a city, then, has to be densely populated. Proper, in this sense, means "in the strict sense of the word." In situations where the administrative area of the city is smaller than the agglomeration, it makes sense to say that the "city proper" is the administrative area. When the administrative area is larger than the agglomeration, this makes no sense - by that logic, "Chongqing proper" is larger than "Chongqing", which turns the meaning of "proper" on its head. Because of this, the UN definition is problematic, and we ought to at least supplement it with other discussions of the issue. john k (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My only knowledge of the issue is from a very quick scan of this talk page, and from reading a report at WQA. Sorry for asking what has undoubtedly been debated at length above, but how can a list of city populations ever work unless it comes from one source? I doubt if any UN definition is sufficiently rigorous or sufficiently applied in practice for two sources to produce compatible results. No two organizations will ever agree on the current population of a city, so saying City1 has population Pop1 (source Ref1), while City2 has population Pop2 (source Ref2) is going to be misleading, if not synthesis. I suppose that a single source will not cover all the cities which editors would like to list, but adding items to "correct" the picture is very problematic owing to the extremely different methods of defining city limits and estimating population.
Re the removed UN definition: I can see the attraction of using a kind-of international standard to define what is meant by "city proper", but my lay reading of the removed text makes me feel that the UN has given up defining the term, and instead says something like "a city proper is whatever its administration says it is". Do the sources for the populations used in the list unequivocally state that the figure they quote is based upon the UN definition? If not, I do not see why the UN definition is helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Let me preface this that I am under the impression that this alleged discussion is a belated attempt to hide the vandalism under a cloud of smoke. Before we go on a fool’s errand of discussing the meaning of “city proper”, let’s get the input from other editors whether they are in fact interested in such a discussion. Just some short words to save everybody a lot of typing:
In demography, and this is what we are discussing here, “city proper” is a narrowly and unambiguously defined technical term. Demographers have no long discussions about what the meaning of “city proper” is. They know what it means. In demography, City proper is one of the three basic concepts used to define urban areas and populations. The other two are urban agglomeration, and the metropolitan area. In demography, city proper is synonymous with “within the administrative boundaries.”
In daily life, and this is what we are not discussing here, “city proper” can mean all kinds of things. I wouldn’t venture a guess. Just like it makes a big difference whether a lady asks me “do you want to go downtown?” or whether a cop says it. This is where you really want to avoid ambiguity.
There is an extensive article about the use and abuse of city proper and the confusions the term can and does lead to. In the interest of saving time, keyboards, and bandwidth, editors may want to consult this article and its references first.
If there is subsequent interest in discussing the definition of city proper, then we can engage in the debate.-- BsBsBs (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


Do you have sources for these narrow and unambiguous technical terms in demography? The definition at city proper seems to come exclusively from the United Nations, and that article itself (which you wrote) states that this definition was first used by the UN in 2000. The Bloom, et al, article which you cite as the basis for the claim about the three basic concepts does not even slightly support your case, because, once again, its definition of the three concepts pretty much directly states that the city proper is smaller than the agglomeration, which is smaller than the metropolitan area. So:

The city proper is determined by legal and administrative criteria, and typically

comprises only those geographical areas that are part of a legally defined, and often historically-established administrative unit. However, many urban areas have grown far beyond the limits of the city proper, necessitating other measures. It says that population in rural settlements can be counted as urban by virtue of being in the metropolitan area; there is no indication that the "city proper" can include rural settlements. It also specifically notes that the 23 wards should be considered the city proper for Tokyo. Hell, they specifically note Chongqing as an example of a city proper which is smaller than the metropolitan area:

Even though the municipal district of Chongqing has a total population of more than 30 million inhabitants, fewer than 6 million actually live in Chongqing city proper.

As I've discussed before, the "city proper" in cases where the administrative boundary is larger than the urban agglomeration is poorly defined, as the Bloom paper itself discusses. john k (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop confusing "city proper" with "rural" or "urban". It trips you up. This trap has been set by Polaron, and you are falling into it. It's bad for your head and wears out your keyboard. Use your administrator skills, read up on WP:OR and the fallacies of synthesis. If it doesn't want in you head, simply move on. Ever tried badminton?
  • "City proper" denotes a boundary: Where does a city start and end.
  • "Rural" or "urban" denotes the characteristics of an area. Is it mostly covered with woods, fields and meadows? Then it's "rural". Is it covered by urban sprawl? Then it's "urban."
A "city proper" can have both "rural" and "urban" areas. "Urban" areas can grow beyond the boundaries of the "city proper." For what it's worth, even Manhattan can have a "rural" area. The Brambles in Central Park can get quite rural. It even has Red Tailed Hawks. The most famous lives at 927 5th Ave. Now does he count as the "urban" or the "rural population"? As far as the city proper goes, it doesn't matter: Anything within the NYC city limts is NYC proper. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
A 770 acre city park is not in any way comparable to a vast rural area of 82,000 square kilometers. At any rate, excluding Central Park from "New York proper" would not result in much of a change in population size, because virtually nobody lives there (18 people in 2000). Once again, your own sources say that the Chongqing municipality is not equivalent to the Chongqing city proper. Your own sources say that an urban agglomeration is, by definition, larger than a city proper. john k (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You either lack reading comprehension, or you think people are too stupid or too lazy too look up a source. Bloom et al say, without selective quoting:

"The most basic concept underlying the measurement of urban populations is that of the city. According to the 2007 edition of the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary, a city is ‘an inhabited place of greater size, population, or importance than a town or village’."

"For statistical purposes, where more specific definitions are needed, three concepts are generally used to define urban areas and populations: the ‘city proper’, the ‘urban agglomeration’, and the ‘metropolitan area’."

"The city proper is determined by legal and administrative criteria, and typically comprises only those geographical areas that are part of a legally defined, and often historically-established administrative unit. However, many urban areas have grown far beyond the limits of the city proper, necessitating other measures."

"An urban agglomeration is the ‘de facto population contained within the contours of a contiguous territory inhabited at urban density levels without regard to administrative boundaries’(UN 2006: glossary). Urban agglomerations are thus determined by density: the agglomeration ends where the density of settlement drops below some critical threshold."

"A still more comprehensive concept is the metropolitan area. This concept includes both urban agglomerations and any ‘surrounding areas of lower settlement density that are also under the direct influence of the city’ (UN 2006: glossary). Populations in rural settlements can thus be counted as urban, as long as they fall under the direct political or economic influence of a city."

That's what "my own sources" say. Bloom et al try, to the best of their abilities, to explain that there are three basic ways to look at a city from statistical standpoint: City proper, urban agglomeration, or metropolitan area. You need to keep them apart and you can't mix them around. Apparently, Bloom et al fail bring that point across so that everybody can understand it.
Your contrived "rural" and "urban" theory has no source and no foundation. Forget it. It just gets you in trouble. Or into urban agglomerations.
Those who can't keep City proper, urban agglomeration, and metropolitan area apart should not edit articles about demography. It's as different and as related as torque and horsepower, as acceleration and top speed.
With all the rigmarole, it comes down to the mere fact that it bugs you to death that Chongqing can be called the largest city by population. Just accept it. As you get older and around the world, you'll learn to accept a whole lot more.
As far as 2000 goes, I lied. You usually don't trust me, so don't trust me when it's convenient. I made a mistake. "City proper: defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status which is usually characterized by some form of local government" dates as far back as 1976. Maybe before your time. Article corrected.-- BsBsBs (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see how your quote from Bloom et al, invalidates anything I have said. They specifically say that Chongqing proper has only 6 million people, and in the passage you quote above they specifically note that urban agglomerations are larger than cities proper. Based on what I've read so far, I'm willing to concede that a "city proper," in general, should be based around clear administrative borders. I continue to see no evidence that a city proper can include vast rural areas beyond the extent of the urban agglomeration - by saying that Chongqing proper has only 6 million people, Bloom et al are obviously denying this. Their definition of Chongqing proper is obviously what List of administrative divisions of Chongqing refers to as "Central Chongqing," possibly including also the near suburbs. They obviously do not consider, say Qianjiang District, which is 300 km from central Chongqing, to be part of the city proper. As in the case of Tokyo proper, which consists of the 23 wards, which have no central administration, a city proper can, in certain instances at least, consist of a well-defined group of administrative units which have no central administration. john k (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: If you, as a total outsider, are given the impression that "that the UN has given up defining the term, and instead says something like 'a city proper is whatever its administration says it is'" then you have become the victim of an intentional or unintentional misrepresentation. Far from it.

The United Nations Demographic Yearbook is compiled using questionnaires dispatched annually to more than 230 national statistical offices. For the purpose of this discussion, the statistical offices are asked "how many people live in your cities proper?" and "how many people live in your urban agglomerations?" This is accompanied by a glossary that says:

  • "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status, usually characterized by some form of local government."
  • "Urban agglomeration has been defined as comprising the city or town proper and also the suburban fringe or densely settled territory lying outside of, but adjacent to, the city boundaries."

The United Nation also hands out a questionnaire in which respondents can refine, and if they want redefine the terms. It asks:

  • The definition of a city proper for this census is:
  • The definition of urban agglomeration for this census is:

The answers received then go into the footnotes of the tabulated data. The 2007 table is here.

On inspection of the results in the table, three points will become immediately evident:

  • Most respondent countries accept the definitions as is
  • Some respondent countries expand the definitions to account for special cases (Tokyo for instance)
  • Some respondent countries say: "Sorry, I can't give you the information for 'city proper', use 'agglomeration instead'" (Australia)

Most importantly, NO country engages in a philosophical discourse about the meaning of "city proper". There is a huge worldwide official consensus by more than 230 national statistical offices that "city proper" means what the UN says (except for some noted exceptions.) We can rest assured that these statistical offices come with the necessary qualifications.

Pretty much the only differences you can find is whether it should say "locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized ..." or whether "which is usually characterized" is more correct.

A consensus was reached, the "that" and the "which" were dropped.

It quickly becomes evident to most people (with the exception of my esteemed colleague John K perhaps) that the definition of city proper as "a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status, usually characterized by some form of local government" is widely reflected in the literature and in on-line publications.

As arcane as the term may be, it could be the best referenced term in Wikipedia, and the one with the highest degree of consensus: The leading demographic institutions of 230 countries of this world agree year by year by written ballot that "City proper is defined as a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status, usually characterized by some form of local government."

It's amazing that the United Nations can agree on something, and we cannot. BsBsBs (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Where on earth is Paris with 10 million inhabitants and an urban density of over 20,000 per km2. Argh. Ronsard (talk) 02:53, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Decision time: Chongqing or London ( and some more)?

Let’s call it how it is: It gives people sleepless nights that a city they never heard of and can’t spell can claim that it is the most populous on the planet. People rather spend nights at the keyboard than with their loved ones. The “city proper” concept was used, but it proved to be a trap: Amongst demographers “city proper” means “within administrative boundaries.” Chongqing is back again. All the wikilawyering, contrived calculations and misunderstood definitions don’t help.

Assuming that we want to stick with “city proper”, we have two options (and I promise I’ll be a good boy and I will not complain):

Option one: Use the true population within the administrative boundaries. It’s a chore, but more rewarding than these debates. Just hunting down the real number du jour of Beijing can be a matter of high suspense. In this case, Chongqing will be on top.

Option two: United Nations Demographic Yearbook, “City proper” column. Nothing but. Single sourced. Exploit the fact that the Chinese forgot to fill out the form where they are asked for a proprietary definition, thereby accepting the UN default definition of city proper as "a locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status, usually characterized by some form of local government." Their own problem if they don’t pay attention. Then exploit the fact that the Chinese delivered data from the 2000 census to the UN. Chongqing is a nobody! A mere 9.7 million. Beijing 11.5 million. Shanghai 14.3 million. China sinks into irrelevance, at least statistically. The price? London, Bangkok, Toronto, Montreal, Dhaka, Bogota, Istanbul, Ankara, Guadalajara, Mexico City, Monterey will not be on the list. Come on, that's a small price to pay to put upstart Chongqing in its place, where they probably still have chickens running around in central square and everybody rides a bicycle. John K will be happy! Isn’t that what we all want? Tu felix Austria! -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't take the UN Yearbook and supplement it with other sources when appropriate. This is the fallacy of the excluded middle. john k (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
No, you can't. Check the administrator's handbook. This is demography. Not philosophy. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Can we not have both lists in a single sortable table? We can define a lower limit (say 3 million) and alphabetically list all cities that have population over that threshold in either definition. Readers can then just sort using the column of the data source of their preference. --Polaron | Talk 17:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
What a radical idea. siafu (talk) 17:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
You mean "City proper, strict" in one column and "City proper, UN Yearbook" in the other? That may work. Would make the UN look silly, but they are used to it. I'll even donate my autocalculating template to the cause. And no more "municipalities vs. cities" bitching? -- 18:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think "strict" is the right word; otherwise I guess this is okay if it ends the argument. But what are the "administrative boundaries" of Tokyo, say? john k (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For administrative, Tokyo Metropolis, for the UN list, the 23 wards. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Here's an initial draft (only cities over 4 million and beginning with letters A-C) for comments. --Polaron | Talk 19:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. If someone can give me or show me an excel sheet for the UNDY, then I can have this up with very little manual work. I maintain the municipalities data in excel, and it spits out the Wiki code. -- Any problems with the areas I have? Then I can use those -- oops, areas. Do we know the UNDY areas for their city proper? -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

There are no sqkm in the UN list. Assume makes an ... I guess we'll have to drop the density number. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DYB Table 8 spreadhseet available here. There are a couple of areas but mainly the area data is not filled in. --Polaron | Talk 19:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Guess we'll lose the density calc, ok? Pls check columns of the municipalities list and tell me what to keep. I need a few days. I'll put it up in the sandbox first.-- BsBsBs (talk) 20:05, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an UNDY excel sheet for the footnotes? I could and should put those in the UNDY list. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems like we run into problems with original research no matter how we go about this. On the one hand, we can do what BsBsBs seems to prefer, and try to apply the UN definition to every large city in the world. This runs into OR problems in that often, that definition (at least in the way that BsBsBs interprets it) conflicts with what reliable sources on the individual city say. Thus, reliable sources on Tokyo use "Tokyo proper" to refer to the 23 wards, but this doesn't fit with the UN definition (or at least with the prevailing interpretation of it). That is, I think, OR - no reliable sources say that "Tokyo proper" is identical with the Tokyo Metropolis, and saying it is based on the UN definition is original research (especially since the UN itself uses the 23 wards as the basis for its definition of Tokyo proper). My preference, on the other hand, would be to go to each original city and determine what reliable sources say is the "city proper". But that also runs into OR problems in terms of it being original synthesis - we'd be making up a new list based on data collected from various sources. The only way to completely avoid any OR issues is to slavishly follow the UN list, but that list has its own problems in terms of having some unacceptable omissions. Anyway, my suggestion would be that each entry in the "administrative" column needs to be footnoted with an explanation of what is covered by it, as well as a source. Entries in the UN list should also indicate what is being covered whenever possible. More information is always better than less. I might also suggest an additional column that might give any alternate population totals for the "city proper" that can be sourced to reliable sources. john k (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm German. I always thought us Germans hold the world record on overcomplicating things. It's simple. There is text before that list. Actually, the more text and the more thought out that text is, the less gripes. In the left corner: "This is a list of the total population within the administrative area of the respective city /municipality, as reported by reliable sources." In the right corner: "This is the list of the population within the city proper as reported to the United Nations, single sourced from the 2007 United Nations Demographic Yearbook." Where's the original research? Where's the synthesis? I'm not going to build a complicated database if the griping goes on. Maybe you want the job? -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


The spreadsheet I linked to above has the footnotes on a different sheet. I think area figures and definitions should be included whenever that information is available as that helps the reader determine what is and is not included in the particular population figure. There are other lists of cities without suburbs of varying reliability that we can look at: citymayors.com, GeoHive (top 20 only), Demographia (over 7 million only), World Gazetteer, and Statistics Finland (not sorted). --Polaron | Talk 20:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Footnote tab. Let's hold off on the other lists. City proper time. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

For the administrative data, it took some work, but was doable. I simply went to the official government page of that city and took their number. It's their city. Sometimes, there are no numbers, or I don't speak the language. Currently, this has a number from alternate sources, with a note. The proper numbers can be crowdsourced, if available. India seems to have a big problem with numbers, but they are doing a huge census. This is census year, so next year we should have grade A numbers. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:47, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

All: Even with computer help, this is a lot of work, and we need to agree beforehand. This is the basic layout I propose. Are the fields ok, or are some missing? Density dropped due to lack of data in the UNDY. The end result will be prettier, with the "administrative" and the "UN Demographic Yearbook" in nice broad header rows above the respective data ( I don't have the time now to do the wikicode.) "UN Demographic Yearbook" will get one big fat reference to the book. The administrative entries all have their own references. Next week, I will have to do some gainful work and drag clients all around China, so if it won't be finished this week, it will have to wait another.


City/Municipality Country City proper, administrative Source, administrative Type, administrative Remark, administrative City proper, UN Demographic Yearbook Method, UNDY Remark, UNDY
Cairo  Egypt 6,758,581 [45] Governorate a remark 3,339,076 11 XI 2006 (CDFC) Note from UNDY

-- BsBsBs (talk) 14:56, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This is how it could look in HTML

(I need to figure out the Wikicode to reach the same result - any takers?)

                   
                   
      According to administrative boundaries According to the United Nations Demographic Yearbook 2007 [1]  
  City/Municipality Country City proper pop. Source Type Remark City proper pop. Method Remark  
  Cairo  Egypt 6,758,581 [45] Governorate Here goes a remark 3,339,076 11 XI 2006 (CDFC) Here goes the respective footnote from the UNDY  
                   

-- BsBsBs (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What does the "method" mean? It's Greek to me, and, I would assume, to the vast majority of readers. john k (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


Not much of a researcher, are we? If you would have consulted the tables you are supposed to reach a consensus over, you would have noted that the UN graciously provides us with an explanation of the method with which the data of each respondent country were generated. To wit:
"'Code' indicates the source of data, as follows: CDFC - Census, de facto, complete tabulation. CDFS - Census, de facto, sample tabulation. CDJC - Census, de jure, complete tabulation. CDJS - Census, de jure, sample tabulation. SSDF - Sample survey, de facto. SSDJ - Sample survey, de jure. ESDF - Estimates, de facto. ESDJ - Estimates, de jure"
So in the example given, we would have a CDFC from 2006, which means that quite recently, they actually counted the people who actually lived in Alexandria.
This is a crucial bit of info, because it tells the interested reader when and how the number was generated.
This is something that must and will be explained in the accompanying text. Have you given some thought to the text?
It is also the only way to spare you the Chongqing massacre you so much want to avoid. The Chinese supplied data from a 1 XI 2000 CDJC. Data from a stale, outdated census 10 years ago that only reflects the population that was officially (de jure) supposed to live there (hukou), not the people who actually and de facto did. Nicely say "xie xie" (thank you.) If they would have given a 2006 SSDF, the matter would look a whole lot different.
Folks, there is no sense in spending the considerable time and effort to compile such a table, as long as there is no consensus, notably from the major stakeholders in this discussion. This discussion did quiet down a lot the minute work was on the table. Yes or no? It would also be nice if this would be a collaborative effort. For instance, I could use help in translating the layout above into a wikitable. I could study this for two days and probably find out. Most likely, there is someone who can do it in 5 minutes. There is also a lot of writing to be done. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Sigh. I had no doubt I could have figured it out. But I shouldn't have to do research to understand the meaning of a table on wikipedia. The meaning of abbreviations should be clarified in or near the table itself. Beyond that, I'll say that I have no particular enthusiasm for this solution, but I'm willing to acquiesce in it if everyone else agrees. john k (talk) 12:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

We need more enthusiastic support for the consensus solution than a lone and meek "I am willing to acquiesce." This is a lot of work, and it's only worth it if it's not immediately reverted once up. There is time to decide. I have a week with clients coming up, and can only tackle the job thereafter anyway. We need a firm yes or no. No is fine with me - no work! -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Sydney and Melbourne

I noticed while browsing through that this list does not include Sydney and Melbourne (Australia's two largest cities) yet elsewhere on wikipedia they are listed at 4.5 million and around 3.8 million respectively. I understand that Sydney is technically divided into different local government regions but the city is essentially one contiguous city (ie: you don't say "i'm going to paramatta" you say "i'm going to sydney") - this is obviously the reason that there is a single page on sydney and it's subdivisions are separate less-important pages. At any rate, why is it they are not included on this list? I can't speak for similar cities in other countries as i'm not familiar with them. 115.70.136.49 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

AFD of World's largest municipalities by population denied

I am relieved to hear that the recent AFD nomination of World's largest_municipalities by population was denied, and the matter was closed with the recommendation to merge or redirect, and that "how much content to merge, if any, can be discussed on the article talk page."

The request had been made by Jeppiz the same user who had previously defaced this article.

On September 21, Jeppiz did the same to World's largest municipalities by population. By his own admission, the edits were "probably the worst ones I've ever made as they make very little sense." He was right on that, and the edits were reverted. He then applied for World's largest municipalities by population to be deleted. Which was denied.

This should remind us that there had been a consensus to merge the articles. See above. The work was never done, probably because work was involved. I'm still ready to do the work as per the consensus above. However, I am asking for the support of, and maybe a little help from the stakeholders. There was peace around both articles for months, and I don't want to risk an edit war by implementing the solution, without asking for the support by the other editors first. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Again, we should at least merge the list sections. Whether we should merge the rest of the information is open for discussion, but I personally don't think it is really needed. [|Retro00064|☎talk|✍contribs|] 00:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree with Retro00064. The lists could be merged and I'm willing to hear all arguments for merging text as well, although I'm not sure about any of the text being relevant. As I said, though, I'll gladly listen to any argument about that. I would also ask BsBsBs, again, to his personal attacks directed at me. As for "defacing" any article, I stand fully by what I said then. It is erroneous to make very assertive claims that might lead the reader to think that the matter is simpler than it is. I also stand by claiming that the best solution would be one source in which experts have made their judgement on the ranking of cities proper by population, rather than Wikipedia editors interpreting sources themselves and compiling a list based on their evaluation of different, and sometimes conflicting, sources.Jeppiz (talk) 10:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
The problem is what is going to be the one source. There are inconsistencies with definitions from the sources I've seen. There are also problems with BsBsBs's article. For example, in the Remarks section of the list, this is where personal analysis is included. Statements like: There is doubt whether this number is for the agglomeration or for the city proper. The UN source contradicts itself and World Gazetteer sourced, treat with caution are basically opinions and POV. The main issue that's been going on for a while is with the Chinese cities. But, we should decide first whether to redirect World's largest municipalities by population or merge it. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 13:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
You're quite right. My thoughts on the two questions you mention:
  • We are unlikely to find the one source I mentioned, I am well aware of that. Lacking that source is problematic, but not something we can do much about. That being the case, I think we should take great care to inform readers about this fact. As long as we don't have a definite ranking made up by experts in the field, it might be a good idea to make it very clear to the reader that there are issues with interpreting the data. Ideally, this should of course be brought forward in the text, not by tags.
  • My suggestion would be redirect 'World's largest municipalities by population' rather than to merge it, but I have already said that I'm happy to take part in a discussion about what to merge if anyone in favour or merging would put forward such a suggestion.Jeppiz (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
There was a similar dispute of a definite ranking on List of cities by GDP. Since there was also a dispute with just using one source, several sources were used to get a better estimate. Perhaps we should go in this direction? Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 14:13, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
That sounds like a way forward. We were in a similar dispute in the list of languages by speakers. There, we did have several lists that build on one source, the problem was that they were all slightly different; in the end we included several of them. It still does not present the WP:TRUTH but it allows the reader to form a better picture of the situation and to understand that there are conflicting interpretations even among specialists.Jeppiz (talk) 14:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The Shanghai Edit

It is true that the recent edit by Ryanblanck (population Shanghai, city proper, 19,547,388) is "unsourced/not according to source." Whether it is "not the city proper populations" is a completely different matter.

If Ryanblank would have edited the reference also, the edit would stand in a different light. We don't know where the 19,547,388 come from. However, on February 20, 2010 People's Daily wrote: "According to the latest data recently released by the local statistical bureau, the number of Shanghai's permanent residents stood at 19.21 million at the end of 2009." Before someone says "this is just a newspaper:" People's Daily is not "just a newspaper," it is the official organ of the Chinese Communist Party, and what they write can be taken as gospel - at least when it comes to these matters. In any case, it is a reliable source.

Now to the current 13,831,900 number. That is also "not according to source." And it is definitely "not the city proper populations." If you follow the source given in the article, you get a list of districts, from which "Pudong New Area, Huangpu, Luwan, Xuhui, Changning, Jing'an, Putuo, Zhabei, Hongkou, Yangpu, Baoshan, Minhang, and Jiading" were picked and added-up. Why this was done and on what basis remains a mystery. The article claims that this is a list of populations by city proper, i.e. the population within the administrative boundaries of a city. In contradiction of this statement, the Shanghai entry claims the number is for "Core districts + inner suburbs," with a made-up source that doesn't exist: "Refers to fully urban districts, that is districts with a population density of over 1,500 per km²." It's a bogus number, shrouded in an air of faux respectability to flummox the unsuspecting reader. The real number for the population within the administrative boundaries of Shanghai was given by the cited Statistical Yearbook as 18,884,600 by the end of 2008. 19-odd million by the end of 2009 are entirely plausible.

This is not the only problem of this list. There are more and some are even more distorting than the Shanghai entry. They don't need to be re-hashed again. I recommend a read of the talk archives. This long discussion led to the compromise above, namely to have two lists side-by-side: The UN list of cities proper, and a list of populations within administrative boundaries, sourced (wherever possible) on official or semi-official, recent numbers for the respective cities. Neither list will make all people happy. Can't win them all. BsBsBs (talk) 06:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you check the edit? I would hardly call this just the "Shanghai edit" especially when Shanghai wasn't the only city edited. The Istanbul and Sao Paulo changes are most likely vandalism. In nearly every case I've seen, selective number changing how call it, or changing only a few numbers but leaving every other number the same indicates vandalism. Working with statistics, you should know that data that doesn't end in zeroes almost never have the same numbers when there is an update, and sources do not have the same numbers unless they are copying another source. Mumbai's population is obviously wrong. The rest are just unsourced. Elockid (Talk) 12:58, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
You are right. Pretty insidious vandalism. Honestly,I didn't look further. Edits without a new source, or without pointing out obvious errors, should not be accepted. The Shanghai number looked a bit fishy, as the Chinese usually report in 10,000 units. I.e. 18,884,600 people are reported as "1888.46". Sometimes we see numbers that don't end in zeroes. That's usually a sign of projections. They work with a growth rate factor and apply it. Very dangerous, especially with Chinese statistics, as the 2000 census was never finished. The CIA factbook for instance reports the total Chinese population as 1,338,612,968. Telltale projection. Things don't look good for the 2010 census btw. Some Chinese don't like to be counted and we are getting reports of violence against census takers. Be prepared for serious underreporting. All that doesn't change the fact that this list has serious problems. The "old hands" are very much aware of those. As usual, there is a lot of spirited discussion, but when work is on the table, the enthusiasm wanes. Back to the topic on hand: Isn't it odd that vandalism is closer to verifiable facts? BsBsBs (talk) 15:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
From official site of Xinhua net(http://www.sh.xinhuanet.com/2011-05/03/content_22664507.htm), I added the population number of the folloing district as below:
Jing'an, 246788
Luwan, 248779
Huangpu, 429891
Changning, 690571
Zhabei, 830476
Hongkou, 852476
Xuhui, 1085130
Putuo, 1288881
Yangpu, 1313222
Jiading. 1471231
Baoshan, 1904886
Minhang, 2429372
Pudong New Area, 5044430
Sum 17836133
So I think the proper population of Shanghai could at least be updated to 17836133. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kezhongseu (talk • contribs) 03:29, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Delhi

With the release of the 2011 Census for India, shouldn't the population for the municipal corporation of Delhi be listed instead of some estimate? I mean, the Mumbai number is from the most recent census, so why isn't Delhi's? --Criticalthinker (talk) 01:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

The census figures for municipal corporation of cities is yet to be released. Only the population of National Capital Territory of Delhi have been released. --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 03:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
And districts also[2]. World Gazetter calculation is an original research made by nonprofessional amateur/ Bogomolov.PL (talk) 06:59, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if the census results will show a population of central Delhi about a million or so below the estimate from World Gazetteer. Two of the central districts in the NCT even show a decline in population 2001-2011. Mumbai is still the most populous "city proper" in India.--Pjred (talk) 07:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Worlg Gazetter is a hobby site of the webmaster Stefan Helders, it is not a scientific information. And Stefan Helders' calculations are not any estimations as estimations are based on the census data and natural increase plus (or minus) migration saldo, but Stefan Helders does not have any intentions to create the estimations as a private person with the family and real job in a chemical firm has no possibilities to make the estimations. Cens0us figure is 578,671 for the Central district and 133,713 for New Delhi. The same with Mumbai district - a decline -5.75% from 3,338,031 to 3,145,966. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
As was shown, we can't update the numbers for Delhi until we get the municipal corporation numbers from the Census, which I guess haven't yet been released. It seems the only reason we can use the Census numbers for Mumbai is because the municipal corporation of that city is completely coterminous with the two districts that make up the municipal corporation. In Delhi's case, the municipal corporation is not coterminous with the district in which Delhi sits, so we'll have to wait. I think everyone's in agreement that World Gaztter is not the best source or most accurate source unless no other official/formal national statistics exists. World Gazetter is definitely the "source of last resort". I think everyone knows that the Mumbai municipal corporation will ultimately be more populous than the Delhi municipal corporation when we can get the number for the latter. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What you said is true. The municipal corpn. area of Mumbai and Chennai are coterminous with the respective districts. So the population of those two cities are nothing but the pop of its ditricts. Delhi municipal corpn with an area of 430 sq.km had a population of 9.8 million in 2001. Mumbai had 11.9 million in 2001. Now the population is 12.4 million. I too feel Delhi's population cannot be more than 12.4 million as of now. Any way, we'll have to wait till the figures are released. On the other hand, I see reports stating that Bangalore corpn population as 8.4 million and even some sources stating that 9.5 million as of now. I'm really surprised how it could be that much high, since the population of the entire Bangalore dist itself is 9.5 million, which encompasses Banglaore corpn area along with its sub-urban areas, with an area of 2100 sq. km --Thalapathi (Ping Back) 05:48, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

That's another thing that needs correcting on this page. The Delhi Municipal Corporation covers an area of 1,397.3 km². The 1483 km² given on this page includes the entire territory, which also includes the municipal corporations of New Delhi and the Delhi Cantonment. This needs to be corrected. Now, maybe only 430 km² is urbanized, but the municipal boundaries of Delhi include 1,397.3 km² of area. In fact, when you go to the citation of the 430 km² it pretty clearly states that that's only the measurement of the urban area within the municipal corporation. This page is for municipally and/or statistically defined boundaries as opposed to urban areas and agglomerations, so the area definitely needs to be changed back to 1,397.3 km² to keep it consistent to how other city propers are measured on this page. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Re [3], per usability experts at the Nielsen Norman Group, even teachers don't always read the ledes - people just want to find out a specific ranking and I think the hatnote link will catch their eye. Our aim is to make a usable encyclopedia, not to confuse people who don't take the time to read everything. -- Jeandré, t 12:18, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

City Boundaries

I came to this page looking for less debatable figures on city populations, and I found I was naive. Different countries have different definitions of city boundaries, and this makes comparison quite difficult. True London proper is roughly a square mile, and some of the cities listed are over 3,000 square kilometers. The page has found a rough solution to reporting London by using the definition of Greater London. Unfortunately, it is more difficult to divide figures given for an exceptionally large area. Some people might certainly think areas 50 kilometers away should not qualify as the same city. Therefore, I think it might be useful to try to collect population data not only within some city boundaries but within an arbitrary area and to set it in a new column. The exact area should be decided by the Wikipedia community and should be large enough to appreciate the size of really spread out cities while attempting not to exceed the suburbs of more concentrated cities. Perhaps 500 square kilometers or 1000 would serve well. The real difficulty lay in collecting the data, however. We would be dependent on people who know a given city to pick out the divisions that best represent the center of the city, find sources for the population of those division, add those populations and their areas, and write them in the new column. It might be too difficult for someone who doesn't know a city well to do the research and contribute to this column, and I worry that in some cases the data will not be available online. Still, the idea seemed worth discussing. Please comment. Dbm1110111 (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

It is not up to us to makeup census divisions. All we can do is report (regurgitate) what is out there. The main reason is because we cant combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources See WP:SYNTHESIS. All we can do is make notes explaining why such and such a city is measured in a certain way.Moxy (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Is New York City a municipal corporation?

I'm confused about the whole municipal corporation thing when applied to the U.S, especially in the northeastern part of the country, as I live in Florida and the layout, makeup, and history of Southern towns and cities are different from towns and cities of the South. Don't worry. I've asked several questions on Wikipedia's Reference Desk about my confusion. I've been told that historically, New York City, like Boston and many northeastern towns even outside of New England, follows (or followed) the New England town model, which has to do with cities and towns as municipal corporations. Anyway, if New York City can be defined as a municipal corporation, why is it not defined in the Definition box in the table list as one along with "city proper" on the list in the article? It also doesn't act nor operate like any American city, with its borough system and 1898 consolidation history. Willminator (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it does function as a regular city. For all intents and purposes, the boroughs don't matter, because they aren't seperate governments. The only thing different about NYC is that it just so happens to cover multiple counties (it's boroughs), but that doesn't change anything at the municipal level. Yes, NYC is a municipal corporation that just so happen to cover the entirety of more than one county. --Criticalthinker (talk) 00:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
Would it be ok or not if I put "Municipal Corporation" next to "City Proper" on the Definition box of the New York City table section, table #14, on the table list that ranks city population in the world on the article? If not, why not? Is this just a special case for the cities of India? I noticed that each of the Indian cities listed (Delhi Mumbai, Bangalore, etc.) on the table list on the article is defined in the Definition box as a "municipal corporation." What's the difference between "municipal corporation" when applied to New York City and "municipal corporation" when applied to those Indian cities listed in the table list? Willminator (talk) 02:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
This would be highly redundant. In America, any incorporated place is a "municipal corporation." Findlaw (just as a for instance) says: "A municipality is a city, town or local government unit, formed by municipal charter from the state as a municipal corporation." There are ongoing attempts to give "municipality" a meaning it does not have. A municipality is a generic term for an incorporated place. West Hampton Dunes is a municipality or municipal corporation, so is New York City. "City proper" defines what is within the administrative boundaries of those municipal corporations, a fact that is likewise lost on some editors. BsBsBs (talk) 13:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Is Shanghai or Chongqing the largest city in China?

Summary: the dispute is whether Shanghai or Chongqing is the largest city by population in China. The main argument in favour of Chongqing is that the municipality the largest administratively, and the argument in favour of Shanghai is that in the PRC, a municipality is not the same as a city. Please leave your comments at Talk:Shanghai. --Zanhe (talk) 23:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

karachi is largest popultion city in the world

karachi is largest popultion city in the world


because today now around 1 cror or more muhajir families from india(UP,BIHAR,BENGAL,PUNJAB,HARYA,MADHOOPAR,,,,,,,,) around 25 lakhs afghani around 15 lakhs pathan and related around 35 lakhs or more punjabi around 5 lakh ore more siraikhis around 40 lakh sindhis around 3 lakhs all over balochistan around 2 lakh from northern areas

when travelled i saw all village empty in all over pakistan bcz they all come to karachi karachi world largest yatim khana here everyone is badmash according to communities — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.178.47.25 ([[User talk:182.178.47.25|talk]]) 06:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you need to use the English numbering system. Second, there is no proof that what you're saying correct. You need a reference. --Jmumman (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Shenzhen

On Shenzen's own page, it gives the core "city" districts - which we've always used to define Chinese city propers here - as being 3,538,275 in 412 sq km. So, why are we adding in the extra suburban districts when we don't do that with any other Chinese city? --Criticalthinker (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Shenzhen's suburban districts are actually quite urban, with a population density of 4,324/km2 (see Shenzhen#Administrative divisions), far higher than NBS's 1,500 threshold. Geohive also uses the same number (10,357,938). Zanhe (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"We" don't define anything. This is a list of the most populous cities according to city proper. Reliable sources and this article agree that "A city proper is a locality defined according to legal or political boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." According to its mission statement, this list claims to list the population within administrative boundaries. If certain entries on this list don't stick to this, then it needs to be changed. This Shenzhen remark proves where sloppy editing gets us. First, we confuse "urban" with "city proper." Now, we confuse "central districts" with "urban districts." I'm just waiting for someone to say that Hong Kong's population is 250,000 - because that's the population of Central. It is not up to us to decide whether suburban districts are quite urban or not. All we are allowed to do is find a reliable population number for the city as defined by the lede of this article. This list will fall further into irrelevancy if we allow statistical engineering that eliminates millions of people from their own cities. BsBsBs (talk) 07:11, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

STOP the fake Chinese numbers

I would like to put editors on notice that blatant acts of data manipulation are being perpetrated.

Judging from an unreferenced footnote that says that the respective entry “refers to fully urban districts, that is districts with a population density of over 1,500 per km²” I can only assume that someone is embarking on a major recalculation project. This is an egregious example of Original Research. According to WP:OR, “the term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—for which no reliable published source exists. That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.” The entry goes on to say: “ ‘No original research’ (NOR) is one of three core content policies.” Wikipedia is seen as a reputable source and is widely copied. As editors, we bear the responsibility to reflect verifiable facts. The falsification of data already has serious impact:

There is a note above the “Save page” button that says “Encyclopedic content must be verifiable.” A lot of money and untold hours by volunteers have been spent during the 2010 census to gain a reliable picture of the population of this world. Please use the official data. Please stop making up numbers. I will not edit these entries in order to avoid an edit war which (if the past is an indication) will surely follow. Editors are asked to be responsible and to bring the entries of this list in accordance with Wikipedia principles. Editors who patrol this article on a regular basis are asked to be vigilant. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Please, not again. You've already wasted enough of other people's time having to refute your same argument again and again, most recently on Talk:Shanghai. It's a well-established fact that most Chinese cities govern large rural areas that cannot be considered part of the city proper, and you should be now well aware of the published research by KW Chan that has so convincingly argued the point but that you've chosen to ignore. So stop pushing your POV that city proper equals administrative area already.

  • The numbers for the Chinese cities are NOT fake. The 17,836,133 number for Shanghai and the 11,716,000 number for Beijing are reached by Geohive using the same methodology, see here. I've now added references to the Geohive page to the main list to quell any further doubt.
  • The 1,500 per km² criteria for determining mainly urban districts is not Original Research. Here's the direct quote from the Chan paper: "For the 2000 Census, the NBS (National Bureau of Statistics of China) has established relatively reasonable criteria for defining urban areas that are acceptable to many observers (Chan and Hu, 2003; Zhou and Ma, 2005). The criteria include an average population density of at least 1,500 per sq. km or the contiguity of built-up areas" (p. 392). But I agree it needs to be better explained, preferably in the lede.
  • The Guangzhou number is reached by adding up the populations of the six districts defined as "Central Districts" in source, and differs from the Geohive number.
  • The Wuhan Statistical Yearbook 2010 defines Jiang'an, Jianghan, Qiaokou, Hanyang, Wuchang, Qingshan, and Hongshan as the Central Districts (p. 12, footnote 4), so only populations from those districts are included.
  • I've updated all Chinese cities' 2010 census data by district, and linked to them from the main list, so anybody can easily verify where these numbers come from. The only exception is Shenyang, whose by-district data I still haven't been able to locate. There are also a few major omissions from the list. I've added Shenzhen, but there are still Dongguan, Chengdu, etc. It's been a lot of work, and then I have to spend considerable effort fending off repeated challenges from you rehashing the same unsupported argument over and over again.
  • Ranking cities proper is a messy business as there are no universal criteria, especially across borders, and the best we can hope to achieve is to find the most reasonable and/or updated sources among the many conflicting sources of varying reliability. Criticizing a number without providing a better alternative is not very helpful.
  • Looking at your contribs, it seems that you spend the vast majority of your time challenging the status quo on various talk pages instead of actually working on improving the article. I suggest that you redirect your energy to more productive areas. Zanhe (talk) 02:02, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
"Well established facts" are no sources. You are not allowed to use a calculation method found in an obscure paper and pervert it to manipulate and distort official census data. This absolutely collides with WP:OR.
  • If most Chinese cities contain rural areas, then that's what they do. It is not our job to re-district cities.
  • Ranking cities proper is easy. You read the definition, and then you take the population within the administrative boundaries. That's what city proper stands for. These numbers are readily available and provided by an official census. If you think they are of varying reliability, then you must do another census. Recalculating them does not make them more reliable.
  • If you disagree with this, then you need to compile a "List of world's largest cities by population of their central/urban districts." This is what you are doing at the moment.
  • It is not my POV that city proper equals administrative area. It says so in the intro of this very article and in any encyclopedia. There are enough references for this.
  • To reiterate, you may not use data which are not in a reliable source. I challenge you to find "the population of Wuhan is 4,513,100" etc. in a reliable source. And that excludes references to sources which already copied the manipulated numbers. As long as Wuhan's statistical bureau says "as of November 1, 2010, the city's resident population was 9,785,392 people," then that's the number. And to mention the obvious: Same for the other cities. BsBsBs (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
You don't appear to understand what a reliable source is. You can't dismiss a paper as "obscure" just because it disagrees with your POV. Academic research is not pop culture, most of it is obscure to the average person. You need to read WP:Verify: "Where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". The Chan paper was published in the peer-reviewed academic journal Eurasian Geography and Economics and is used as textbook material at the Univ of Washington. That's the golden standard of reliable sources. Zanhe (talk) 06:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

The gold standard for population is the most recent census. That's what all the work and money is for. There are countless papers that discuss what should and what should not be regarded as a Chinese city. Chan isn't the only one. They do not change the fact that these cities are what they are. You cannot, and you are not allowed to take a theory from one paper and apply it to another source. This is original research, plain and simple. It is a gross violation of a basic tenet of Wikipedia. Also, while on the topic of reliable sources, I caution against using Geohive when official data are readily available. Geohive is one of the better compilations, but just to be sure, use official statistics when available. BsBsBs (talk) 07:31, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Quote from WP:NOR: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources." Primary sources like raw government data are less reliable because they're susceptible to bias and political manipulation. Elections could be rigged, growth rates could be inflated, political boundaries could be arbitrarily drawn, etc. That's why WP:Verify says "academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". If there are countless papers that support your POV, why don't you produce one? Zanhe (talk) 01:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Ok, so now we go from fudging statistics to changing the outcome of elections, we adjust economic data and redraw political boundaries which we feel are arbitrary. Your talents are wasted on Wikipedia. I suggest you run for office. BsBsBs (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Quibble: to evade the truth or importance of an issue by raising trivial distinctions and objections. Zanhe (talk) 08:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
While you work on your campaign, think about how ridiculous an editor looks who dismisses census results as unreliable, and who at the same time references these allegedly highly unreliable results in edits of other articles, which, may I add, use the very same numbers as gospel which you here call the product of governmental manipulation. If official census data are reliable enough for this edit by Zanhe, or this edit by Zanhe, or, just to name a few this edit by Zanhe then the census data should have survived the verifiability test, both by the Wikipedia community and by Zanhe himself. - unsigned comment by BsBsBs
You're either a very confused person or just deliberately trying to confuse others. I've never said census results are so unreliable that they cannot be used as sources, but that "where available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources" (WP:Verify), taking precedence over raw census data when conflicts arise. As we already discussed ad nauseum in the Shanghai RfC, a Chinese municipality does not equal a city proper, and while it's okay to use the census data for administrative divisions like municipalities, it's not okay to interpret those numbers as populations for cities proper, as clearly explained in the Chan paper. Your memory span is not that short, or is it?
Also, you seem to be an expert at playing dirty little tricks, like surreptitiously deleting an opponent's comment in the Shanghai RfC and claiming computer problem when caught, and now placing a new comment between your old one and my response to it without a new timestamp (I've moved your new comment to its correct position), in direct violation of the talk page guideline, presumably in order to obfuscate the nature of the discussion. Zanhe (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


Just one more thing:

Instead of going to Geohive, wouldn't it make more sense to go straight to the Beijing Municipal Bureau of Statistics, which says that as per the 2010 census "the city's resident population is 19,612,000"?

Instead of going to Geohive, wouldn't it make more sense to go straight to the Shanghai Municipal Statistics Bureau, which says that as per the 2010 census "the city's resident population is 23,019,148 people"?

Doing so would survive any challenge.

Now assuming that reading Chinese statistical bulletins is too challenging, wouldn't it make more sense to find the Geohive entry for Shanghai which faithfully reflects the official 23,019,148 number for Shanghai? And while we are at it, shouldn't we do the same for Beijing's Geohive number of 19,612,368 which just happens to agree (with the usual Chinese rounding error) with the official statistics?

Apparently, this is too simple. So instead doing the obvious, the unwitting reader is lured to another Geohive page which produces different numbers. No wonder, it is the wrong list.

The list is titled "Cities: largest (without surrounding suburban areas)." As we now well know, those Chinese cities cannot be talked out of including vast areas of suburban (and sometimes quite rural) land, how hard the learned authors of academic papers may try. To their benefit, these authors usually do not try to change the Chinese political landscape. They simply explain that one needs to be aware of the fact that Chinese city limits are usually drawn wider than the usual first or second world city limit. This is exactly what Chan did. Anyway, a lot of the criticism of the scholars is reflected in the most recent 2010 census, which lists the resident population, no matter whether it has hukou or not, citizens or Chinese, urban or rural. The cities still refuse to change their city limits, and we should not infer that they did.

If "For the 2000 Census, the NBS (National Bureau of Statistics of China) has established relatively reasonable criteria for defining urban areas that are acceptable to many observers" then that's what they did. If they said it's urban only when there are 1,500 per sq. km, no argument. I will not debate that Chaoyang looks very urban, whereas Pinggu looks quite rural. Nevertheless, the population of both and all districts of Beijing counts towards the total within the city proper of Beijing. If you don't agree, then you have to petition the NBS to give you a revised count. Or even better, petition Beijing to cede Pinggu to Tianjin.

To make a long and tired story short:

  • It is Wikipedia policy that "all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable published source using an inline citation. Cite the source clearly and precisely ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it." As explained various times, the recent China edits are not supported by a reliable source. Admittedly, the numbers were produced using a synthesis of published material.
  • This Geohive page is not a reliable source for the population within the limits of the listed cities. It does not purport to be. It says it deducts the suburbs. It can do as it pleases. This Geohive page would be an acceptable source for a List of largest cities (without surrounding suburban areas).
  • A paper from 2007 that is based on the 2000 census and 2005 estimates does not reflect the current population. Especially when recent data are readily available.
  • As editors, we are not allowed to apply methods to new data just because those methods were used with old data. This is to protect the public from the amateurs we are. BsBsBs (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)


Don't you ever wonder why nobody uses your simple and elegant method, and why scholars like KW Chan go through all the trouble to calculate a new set of numbers instead of using the raw census data? I compiled a quick (and probably incomplete) list of Chinese cities that have populations of at least 8 million in their administrative boundaries:

1 Chongqing 28.8 million
2 Shanghai 23
3 Beijing 19.6
4 Chengdu 14
5 Tianjin 12.9
6 Guangzhou 12.7
7 Baoding 10.9
8 Harbin 10.6
9 Suzhou 10.5
10 Shenzhen 10.4
11 Nanyang 10.3
12 Linyi 10
13 Wuhan 9.8
14 Shijiazhuang 9.3
15 Wenzhou 9.1
16 Weifang 9.1
17 Zhoukou 8.9
18 Hangzhou 8.7
19 Qingdao 8.7
20 Handan 8.7
21 Zhengzhou 8.6
22 Xuzhou 8.6
23 Xi'an 8.5
24 Ganzhou 8.4
25 Heze 8.3
26 Dongguan 8.2
27 Shenyang 8.1
28 Quanzhou 8.1
29 Jining 8.1
30 Nanjing 8

I stopped at 8 million, and there are maybe one or two hundred more cities that have a total administrative population of at least 3 million, which appears to be the lower limit for inclusion in this article. If you want to produce a list that ranks Chongqing the largest city in the world, and has cities like Baoding, Nanyang, Linyi, and Zhoukou ranking higher than Tokyo, New York, and London, just go ahead and do it. Let's see how long it'll last (and I promise I won't revert it). "Doing so would survive any challenge"? I really doubt it. Zanhe (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Before you continue editing more articles, and to avoid wasting more of your precious time, may I respectfully suggest that you read up on No Original Research and Verifiability. If this remains alien to you, then I even more respectfully suggest to choose another hobby.
When editing demographics related articles, at least a basic understanding of its principles is helpful. You continuously confuse yourself and others by not understanding why "urban", "suburban", and "rural" have no bearing on city limits or city proper.
Trust me, I know the Chan paper quite well. He does a good job explaining why Chinese cities are what they are. Required reading with an open mind. Chan is a good (if slightly outdated - Chinese development moves at a rapid pace) source for an understanding of the sometimes perplexing make-up of Chinese cities. What you are not allowed to do is to use his methods and apply them to new statistical data. As per Wikipedia rules, this is Original Research, clear and simple. No amount of rhetoric will change this.
Editing Wikipedia requires a certain amount of curiosity, an open mind to find something new. Wikipedia surprises us daily with things we had not known. If Shijiazhuang has more people than New York City - surprise, we learned something new. If adding all these cities produces more red flags than at a parade down Chang'an Avenue - maybe that serves as a wake-up call to what is really happening in China. BsBsBs (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
There appears to have been a synthesis tag since July 2010, long before I started working on this article. So your original research claim is nothing new. I've been searching for sources (such as this) to improve that. Why don't you do the same, instead of clinging on your ideology of administrative region = city proper, which has been so thoroughly refuted by the Chan paper that you claim to know well?
On the other hand, if you're still so convinced of your simple methodology, why don't you go ahead and add the 100-200 largest Chinese cities with raw census population of over 3 million to the list? It's not hard, really. It took me about 15 minutes to compile the list of the 30 Chinese cities with population > 8 million. The world needs to wake up to the fact that Shijiazhuang and Handan are bigger than NYC, and Ganzhou and Heze are bigger than London. Zanhe (talk) 07:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Simply reading the intro of this article and following the references would tell you that city proper = administrative region is no ideology, and certainly not mine, it is what everybody from the United Nations down to Encarta and Merriam-Webster says. If there are reading comprehension issues, then I would address them first before continuing further edits. If it took you just 15 minutes to compile the list of the 30 Chinese cities with population > 8 million, then I suggest you add them, along with the reliable sources you undoubtedly found. IIRC, the July 2010 synthesis tag was mine. It was there to warn readers that some numbers are not kosher, and to warn editors away from adding further synthesis. That warning stands. Original research is not allowed. BsBsBs (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Have you forgotten that I'm against your ideology? Why are you asking me to add the list that conforms to your ideology? Here, let's make it even easier for you: just add the 30 cities with populations of at least 8 million that I already found out for you. All the info can be easily accessed here, just click at each province to find the 2010 census data and area details of every prefecture-level city of China. Go ahead and show the New Yorkers and Londoners how small their cities are compared to your Chinese megacities like Baoding, Linyi, and Weifang. Please don't tell us you don't have the guts to put your dearly-held ideology into action.
If everybody from the United Nations down to Encarta and Merriam-Webster follows your ideology that city proper = administrative region as you claim, where are their results? Where are the city lists from the UN or Encarta that show Chongqing as the largest city proper in the world with its 28.8 million residents? And where are the lists that put Baoding, Shijiazhuang, and Wenzhou ahead of Tokyo, NYC, and London? Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of challenges

Please do not remove challenges without improving the article first. Please observe Wikipedia rules when editing.

  • As noted in the discussion above, a Geohive page for “Cities: largest (without surrounding suburban areas)” is not a reliable source for a List of cities proper by population. Different concepts. Please use the appropriate census numbers, which are readily available.
  • As noted repeatedly,synthesis and original research are not allowed.
  • The statement "Refers to fully urban districts, that is districts with a population density of over 1,500 per km²" is a made-up reference. It does not reference a source. This had been brought up repeatedly in prior discussions, see discussion archives.

I am deliberately refraining from further edits in an attempt to not incite another edit war. Please extend the same courtesy and likewise refrain from edit warring.

Thank you for your understanding. BsBsBs (talk) 09:32, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

  • Please do not abuse the citation-needed tag. I've removed several where citations are clearly provided, but left a few debatable ones intact.
  • Geohive is a respectable and widely used source, and it conforms to the published KW Chan paper when determining true sizes of Chinese cities. Please provide reliable sources to support your allegation that it's not reliable.
  • I've added the Chan paper as a source for the NBS criteria of 1,500 per km2. You claimed that you knew the paper well, so why didn't you add the source yourself rather than repeatedly bringing up the problem in discussions?
  • Thanks for your decision to refrain from further edits here. For someone who appears to spend 90% of his time either arguing with others or engaging in edit wars (judging by your contribs), that's a really nice gesture. So thank you! Zanhe (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


I know I am supposed to assume good faith. What am I supposed to assume now? A lack of basic comprehension? Being left with no other choice than to assume the latter, I try again, and I make it as simple as possible:

  • A source can be as reliable as can be, if you pull your data from the wrong table, then even a reference to a platinum-clad source turns to garbage. According to WP:Reliable, sources “should be appropriate to the claims made.” If you are supposed to look for a population number within the administrative boundaries of a city, and you go instead to a table that does not reflect the population within the administrative boundaries, then the source is not appropriate, and your reference does not point to a reliable source. Or to explain it so that you can hopefully understand: Even if you quote from the balance sheet of the Vatican that has been signed by the Pope, and if you take the operating profit number and call it net profit, then you point to an inappropriate source, the reference is worthless – at best, and the claim cannot be verified. Some less charitable people could call it fraud.
  • A source may have applied a formula to data. You are not allowed to apply the same formula to new data. This is a prime example of synthesis and is strictly verboten. “That includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.” This is a very wise rule. This is not case law. It is Wikipedia.
  • According to WP:Reliable, “sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article.” WP:Verifiability requires you to “cite the source clearly and precisely.”

In other words: You need a reliable and recent source that says “The resident population of city x is y.” Extremely recent data on this are available. They are called Census 2010. I suggest using them.

Any more wikilawyering and hairsplitting is a waste of time and an insult to the intelligence of the readers.BsBsBs (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


Oh please, who's insulting the intelligence of the readers here? You're the ONLY one who insists that the population number within the administrative boundaries of a city must be used here, despite being reminded numerous times that it's thoroughly refuted by the Chan paper and is used by no sane person or reliable source to determine the populations of Chinese cities. But fine, if you insist on using raw census data here, I've shown you what the results would look like: with Chongqing as number one, and minor cities with huge rural hinterlands like Baoding, Linyi, Nanyang, Zhoukou, Handan, Ganzhou, Zhoukou, Heze, etc. would rank higher than New York and London and dominate the list. I repeatedly challenged you to put your words to action and add these cities to the main list, and you don't have the guts to do so. So either put up or shut up, and stop wasting everyone's time here! Zanhe (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"This is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of city proper (an urban locality without its suburbs). A city proper is a locality defined according to legal or political boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government. "World Urbanization Prospects", a United Nations publication, defines the population of a city proper as "the population living within the administrative boundaries of a city." BsBsBs (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
BsBsBs, if I may just reiterate what Zanhe is trying to say, no one quite agrees with the above ideology and no editor, as of now and apart from you, is willing to make those changes. Thus, if you feel the changes are necessary, you are the only one as of now who will make them. If you do not want to make those changes then this discussion can end, because, I believe you have made your point. 08OceanBeachS.D. 02:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
BsBsBs, I'll try one more time to reason with you, despite the fact the my numerous past attempts have fallen on deaf ears:
  • This article opens with the sentence "This is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of city proper (an urban locality without its suburbs)." As the Chan paper points out, Chinese cities tend to govern vast rural areas way beyond its urban core and even remote suburbs, the population living in such areas should obviously not be included in the city population.
  • The article continues with "World Urbanization Prospects, a UN publication, defines the population of a city proper as the population living within the administrative boundaries of a city", but that "The term city can take on many meanings throughout the world". It's evident that the UN definition is meant to cover this one single publication "World Urbanization Prospects", and not a universal definition that is to be slavishly followed by all citizens of the world (and the UN doesn't have the authority to impose such a rule if it wanted to).
  • Even if the UN definition were to be considered universal, it only says that only the population living within the administrative boundaries can be included, but not that ALL population living within the administrative boundary of a city must be included. The purpose of this definition is to distinguish city proper from the metropolitan region, which can include population from outside the city boundary. This is evidently how the UN interprets the definition itself, otherwise all UN publications would rank Chongqing as the largest city, and prominently feature Baoding, Linyi, Nanyang, Zhoukou, etc., which is obviously not the case.
  • Determining a city's population is not designing a rocket, it's far from an exact science. Any ranking that results from a reasonable methodology applied on a relatively recent and reliable data set should work fine. However, no definition is sacrosanct. If rigidly sticking to a definition leads to absurd results, then there's obviously something wrong the definition itself (or the interpretation thereof). Zanhe (talk) 18:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I am the only editor? I appear to be the only editor who still speaks up. What is branded by you guys as "ideology" happens to be the first paragraph of this article, and it defines the list. If you would take the time to go through years of discussions, you would see that this definition had been developed by reams of editors. If you think this is ideology and the wrong one, then you need to come up with a new ideology, a new list definition and a new title. Which just sounds like a new list.
Amongst demographers, "population of city proper" means what the intro says. I did not write it myself. I now get the impression that this discussion is fueled by ideology. As Zanhe so eloquently stated, there may be people who are afraid of the Yellow Peril and who can not live with a list "with Chongqing as number one, and minor cities with huge rural hinterlands like Baoding, Linyi, Nanyang, Zhoukou, Handan, Ganzhou, Zhoukou, Heze, etc. would rank higher than New York and London and dominate the list." If that causes sleep deprivation, then may I counsel to stay away from frightening Chinese statistics.
Stop putting words in my mouth. You're the only one playing the race card here. All I did is to compile a list of populous cities according to your ideology, and asked you to put your words into action and add them to the main list, but you have no guts to do so. Instead you came up with more rambling and conspiracy theory to conceal your cowardice. Zanhe (talk) 00:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be even more ideology driven, because the same objections are not raised about other countries. This is an Anti-China ideology wrapped into contrived and misunderstood population studies.
People who refuse to read references to definitions supplied by the United Nations and major encyclopedias are resistant to reality.
Fudging numbers to comply with the ideology that 8 million are more than 12 is fraud, and is not what Wikipedia is about.
If I am the only editor who insists that a List of red apples is free of oranges, pears and green apples, even if red apples elicit fear of a communist conspiracy, then so be it. BsBsBs (talk)
You are free to pick the oranges, pears, and green apples from this list of red apples. No one is stopping you. But now I ask that you view this from the Chinese perspective: would people in China consider Chongqing larger than Shanghai or Beijing? That answer would seem to be, quite simply, no. Even the Chinese use the core city/inner suburbs definition when listing their cities. Chongqing does not appear to be number one in that list. 08OceanBeachS.D. 06:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Neither you nor I speak for the Chinese or any people. It would be highly presumptuous, and I will not go down this line. This list is not about whether Shanghai is bigger than Chongqing. This list is about correct and verifiable population data next to the respective city. This is Wikipedia, and when editing it we accept the rules set forth by Wikipedia. FYI, Wikipedia does not think that Wikipedia is a reliable source, which renders a reference to the Chinese WP as DOA.
The China card has been played to whip up support against an alleged Chinese invasion. Oddly enough by someone whose user name translates to "Shanghai" from the Chinese. I will not play that game.
You cannot downadjust population numbers because people allegedly will get upset by the real number. This would break all Wikipedia rules, plain and simple. Before making further arguments, I respectfully suggest a familiarization with these rules.
Anybody is free to make lists of cities according to any criteria. Wikipedia is full of them. As long as this is the list of cities proper by population, it will be the list of cities proper by population, and it will be so according to the definition given in the article. Doing something else violates WP rules, is dishonest and unprofessional. If someone would make a list of onelegged frogs, I would defend the list with the same fervor against an invasion by centipedes. If this list hurts feelings, then I suggest to compile another one. I'm sure Wikipedia would be delighted to have a "List of cities by population of their core districts/inner suburbs". Or to isolate an easily upset public from the Red Menace, how about a "List of cities proper by population, not including China?" Or even better "List of the world's largest cities by perceived size." BsBsBs (talk) 11:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
You, my friend, are quite literally insane and shouldn't be editing much of anything. You're sitting up here making all kinds of dubious claims and conspiracies for no reason. I will request that this page be locked so that you can't keep abusing it. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
Great we have sunk to the level of ad hominem attacks. Please provide a reliable source for your claim. It is noted that appeals to adhere to the most basic rules of Wikipedia are read as symptoms of full blown insanity. BsBsBs (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
A quick scan through the discussion archives revealed the following complaints from the administrator John K:
  • "Note that BsBsBs seems to actually have no idea what he's talking about with regard to Chinese administrative divisions. [...] This article has been held hostage by BsBsBs's ignorant verbal diarrhea for way too long. Beyond the obvious content fork he's now in the process of creating (note: referring to World's largest municipalities by population created by BsBsBs last year), we ought to take a look at city proper, which he has created and filled with confirmation of his POV."
  • "The fact that he constantly fills this talk page with screen after screen of rambling doesn't help much either - it's virtually impossible to carry on a reasonable discussion because of the absurd quantity of posting he engages in."
  • And there's a complaint on the Administrators' Noticeboard titled Continued disruptive behavior and personal attacks by BsBsBs by Jeppiz.
I wouldn't venture so far as to question your sanity, but you do exhibit an uncanny ability to consistently elicit opprobrium and exasperation from people who have to interact with you, myself included. Zanhe (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_cities_proper_by_population/Archive_5&oldid=1136934578"