Talk:Shanghai

The current China Collaboration of the Month is none currently (collaboration inactive).

Help select the next Chinese Collaboration of the Month (ZHCOTM) now! Nominate an article you think needs improvement or vote for one of the candidates here.

Theories and facts

As for our friend Chan, lets not make the serious mistake amateurs are prone to make: Confuse theories for facts. There are many learned papers that say how things should be. But things are what they are. Chan, like so many others, argue that Chinese cities should have narrower boundaries. A valid point. The trouble is, those Chinese cities refuse to listen and won’t change their boundaries. As editors, we are reporters, and we are supposed to report things the way they are, not the way they should be. The population of Shanghai is 23 million, not 13.46 and not 17.8

When Chan came to the conclusion that Shanghai is the largest city of China, and not Chongqin, he did so by laboriously calculating his own numbers. For details, see above. As a scientist, he can calculate as much as he wants, however, he will not change census numbers and administrative boundaries. This is the problem with theories and facts.

If Chan would write his paper today, it would be much shorter, because all the agricultural, urban, hukou and non hukou stats are gone. What remains is the fact that many still object that the boundaries of Chinese cities are drawn too wide. This discussion will go on forever, and as honest reporters, it is not our job to massage or falsify data so that they fit a theory.

Saying that "Shanghai is the largest city by population in China and the largest city proper in the world. It is one of the four province-level municipalities in the People's Republic of China, with a population of over 23 million as of 2010" is absolutely beyond the pale. The average reader is led to believe that these three records are all related to the 23 million - which they are not. These statements must be put in the proper time and context, and the lede definitely is not the place for this.

An honest, responsible and professional reporter and editor may write that ”Chongqing has a population of 28.8 million. However, you will be disappointed when you get there expecting a bustling metropolis like Toyko and Yokohama. The boundaries of Chongqing are drawn quite wide, and much of that city will look quite bucolic to you.” An honest, responsible and professional reporter and editor however may not write “Chongqing has a population of 4.5 million.” Honest, responsible and professional reporters being a dying breed, more and more will fall for the 4.5 million nonsense and repeat it.

As Wikipedia editors, we need to be extra careful and professional, because Wikipedia is more and more taken as gospel and not as the works of rank amateurs.

And now we come to the true heart of the matter: This edit war already has, as collateral damage, afflicted List of cities proper by population, and from there Geohive, Infoplease and who knows what else. It was started by some editors, notably Zanhe, who insist that Shanghai is the most populous city in China, gee, maybe in the world – the census be damned.

• It was Zanhe who recalculated the alleged official "city proper" number of Shanghai, claiming that it is Shanghai Municipal Bureau of Statistics, 2010 National Census Data - wile using a number that is nowhere to be found in the reference.
• It was an emboldened Zanhe who then embarked on his own recalculation campaign until he was stopped for gross Original Research.
• After Geohive had picked up the identical false numbers, it was Zanhe who then changed the references to Geohive, with the boldfaced claim that this is to "avoid WP:OR."
• It was Zanhe who lied and said that “Wikipedia has always followed this general practice since the Shanghai article was first created 10 years ago. It has been undisputed until one editor (BsBsBs) recently decided to challenge it.” See above for the true facts.

It's the same Zanhe - offense is the best defense - who is quick to claim "POV pushing" and "disinformation."

Response to false accusations by BsBsBs: Just as I thought you couldn't sink any lower, you come up with these bold-faced lies, maliciously scrambling up the sequence of events to support your false accusations. I've learned by now that reasoning with you is futile, but I need to set the record straight:

• On 18 July 2001, the very first version of this article was created, with a single sentence that says "Shanghai is China's largest city".
• On 30 April 2010, just before you started your first edits here, the article started with the sentence "Shanghai is the largest city in China and the largest city proper in the world".
• On 1 May 2010, you made a series of edits including this one, changing the intro to read "Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the PRC", and started an edit war with another editor.
• On 10 June 2011, Geohive already ranked Shanghai as the largest city in the world with a population of 17,836,133. This is the page saved by archive.org on 10 June 2011.
• On 22 June 2011, I made my first ever edit on List of cities proper by population, updating Shanghai's city proper population to 17,836,133. Your allegation that Geohive somehow picked up that number from my edit is obviously false.
• On 25 June 2011, you made this edit that changed the intro from "Shanghai is the most populous city of the PRC" to "Shanghai is one of the most populous cities of the PRC", starting another edit war which led to the RfC.
• On 7 July 2011, during the RfC I made the comment that said "Wikipedia has always followed this general practice since the Shanghai article was first created 10 years ago. It has been undisputed until one editor (BsBsBs) recently decided to challenge it", which you now call a lie. Readers can decide for themselves who's the liar.
• As for your allegation of my "recalculation campaign", it appears that you need to be reminded that I've already refuted it in this discussion and this one. But I'm not surprised that you're bringing it up here again, repeating the same argument over and over again is a key characteristic of tendentious editors.

Zanhe (talk) 00:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The patent nonsense that Shanghai has a population of 17,836,133 is already racing through the webs. I am sure that Zanhe's namesake city is not enthused about the unintended consequences of elevating the city to the top of the world by getting rid of 5 million people. It is actions like these that give Wikipedia a bad name, and that cause irreparable harm far beyond the boundaries of Wikipedia.Once these numbers are on the loose, they are unstoppable.

(Speaking of Infoplease: Why go to the trouble with Chan if we can simply cite Infoplease? It says: "Shanghai is China's largest city." However, if we do that we also have to live with "1994 est. pop. 12,980,000." So much for reliable sources that edit the Time Almanac.)

I have no stock in Chongqing and, as stated before, I don’t care whether it is the largest city. I care about facts. I had repeatedly offered the compromise that “Shanghai is one of the largest cities” of China, even the world. True statement. Verifiable. Or as an alternative, we can drop the largest altogether. But as long as pages and books are filled with arguments about what is right and what is wrong, what is and what should be, a responsible editor cannot make the unqualified statement that Shanghai is the largest city in China. Qualifying this statement would fill the aforementioned pages and books, so we best leave it alone.BsBsBs (talk) 06:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I am glad that Zanhe admits that he was wrong and that I did not recently challenge this article, as he originally claimed. He could have saved himself the research, must of it had already been | documented above. If I was wrong with Geohive, then I apologize. It definitely looked like Geohive had picked up the data from Wikipedia, the districts chosen and alleged "city proper" totals cannot be found in an official source. Zanhe studiously avoids the main point, namely that "Shanghai is the largest city by population in China and the largest city proper in the world. It is one of the four province-level municipalities in the People's Republic of China, with a population of over 23 million as of 2010" is nonsense, dishonest, unprofessional and either inadvertently or deliberately confuses the reader. I challenge Zanhe to come up with a current, official (i.e. 2010 census based, and not from a hobbyist site, or from a site that mirrors erroneous data) source that supports the claim that Shanghai is the largest city by population in China and the largest city proper in the world. I'd even be happy if an official source by a Chinese statistical agency could be foud that says that as of 2010, the population of the City of Shanghai (proper or not) was 17.8 million. For the umpteenth time, I must express my wonderment that one editor cannot live with a compromise and insists on edit warring that now stretches to multiple articles. BsBsBs (talk) 15:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I would have accepted your apology had it not been accompanied with more lies. Frankly I've never seen an apology as insincere as yours. So you say I was wrong about your "recently" challenging this article because you started attacking it in May 2010 instead of June 2011? Geez, can you get any more shameless? Zanhe (talk) 18:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Where is the official source? BsBsBs (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already addressed your repeated questions about reliable sources in this discussion and this one. Again you're exhibiting tendentious behavior. Zanhe (talk) 20:25, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that means that you can't find it in an official source. Reliable sources says that "deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." It stands to reason that the results of the most recent full census are most appropriate in the context of population. It is not plausible that Geohive is used when official census data are readily available. Geohive is a self-admitted amateur site. What's more, you cite from a list in Geohive, which is - if we accept it - a summarizing source. Reliable sources says: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." The most appropriate secondary source in this case is the published official results of the 2010 census. Reliable sources says that "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is the best such source for that context. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication." The official census is the work of millions of people, has been carefully scrutinized, and is highly reliable. It definitely trumps a list compiled by a self-admitted amateur, who made a mistake. Calling it "tendentious behavior" when someone insists on correct official data in place of dubious material takes a lot of gall. BsBsBs (talk) 22:14, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Just to interrupt for a minute here: a, am I wrong in thinking neither of you want a bad article? Then kindly glance over at WP:NICE and think about whether it really gets us any farther to bicker this way.

b, Zanhe: first, great name. Second, as above, if your number is valid, surely someone else must have mentioned it. User:BsBsBs is completely correct that Geohive at least is not an appropriate source. So find one. Third, if the 30m number is a valid concept for Chongqing's city proper – the area directly under the urban municipal government – then the claim leading this article is factually incorrect and should be removed. The fact that Chongqing doesn't deserve to call itself "urban" any more than Jiuquan deserves to call itself a "city" is really irrelevant until you can find a reliable source to make your argument for you. It's just a casualty of Commieland statistics.

Thanks. There is an in-depth analysis of the population numbers of Chinese cities, the oft-mentioned Chan paper (the relevant conclusion is on pp 393-395, which unequivocally says Shanghai is China's largest city) and it's provided as a reference in the lede. It was published in a peer-reviewed journal, the gold standard of WP:reliable sources.

Secondly, I respectfully disagree with your view that Geohive isn't an appropriate source. Geohive compiles data from reliable sources and provides methodology in its rankings. Its city proper ranking is published by the Time Almanac (see here). It's used and recommended as a resource by multiple government and educational institutions (such as here, here, and here), and quoted by over 500 Wikipedia pages. WP:Reliable explicitly says that "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Besides, it's the only widely-used source that I know of that has updated its numbers with the 2010 census results (which were only published in May). Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

c, User:BsBsBs, it makes no difference if one source gives one set of numbers based on one criteria, another a different one based on a second, a third a separate one based on a decade-old number, and you know that. If the number is consistent within its own comparison in a reliable source, that's fine. Your ad homs distract from your point. If you can establish Chongqing as an appropriate city proper (lord knows it shouldn't, but see Jiuquan above) with a valid reference of your own, fix the city proper list and then fix this one. Geohive isn't an appropriate source, but you shouldn't blank presumably reliable data until you have a good source showing it's materially incorrect. — LlywelynII 13:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw, the UN backs up Zanhe as of these 2007-based statistics: Sh 16m, Bj 12m, Gz 9m, Cq 7ish. Now to wait until Beijing relabels Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Zhongshan as "Pearl River City" and makes the whole argument moot. — LlywelynII 13:38, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not just the UN. Check out the multiple rankings from a variety of sources on World's largest cities, none of them accepts Chongqing's 29 million as its city proper population, or even as its metropolitan area population. Zanhe (talk) 18:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Be that as it may, User:BsBsBs still has a point that you still need to find out some reliable source to explain why they and you are doing that. =) — LlywelynII 00:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason is well explained in the aforementioned Chan paper: Chongqing's population is over 70% rural, spread out in an area the size of Austria. Zanhe (talk) 00:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Taiping Tianguo and Shanghai

A new addition to the history section states "Shanghai fell to the Taiping Rebellion in 1851 but was recovered by the Qing in February 1853. [24]" The citation is to S. W. Wells The Middle Kingdom p. 107. This is odd, since the Taipings were still in Guangxi in 1851. In fact, it was not the Taipings, but the Small Swords Society, a distinct group which apparently came from Fujian. After an earlier uprising in Fujian, the society seized the Shanghai xiancheng in September 1853 and called themselves Damingguo "the great Ming Kingdom". They quickly changed the name to Taiping Tianguo, but never joined up with the actual Taipings, maintaining control of the xiancheng (but not the western settlements) until February 1855. Not sure how or why Wells got this wrong, but there is a colorful Western account in John Scarne's Twelve years in China (Edinburgh: Constable, 1860: 187-209). If there is no further discussion over the next day or two I'll go ahead and change this.Rgr09 (talk) 15:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Support. It appears that Wells confused the Small Swords Society with Taiping. I asked the editor who added the statement (see here), and he/she agreed that the source might be wrong. Zanhe (talk) 17:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. Worth mentioning that they were affiliated with the Taiping, all the same. — LlywelynII 16:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Article expansion

For interested editors helping out with the Shanghai improvements, I've been working on some of the railroad pages (a start on the Songhu Railway and a future article in the Woosung Road namespace) and stumbled across this site. It's a former version of the bizarre but lovely labor of love at Astor House Hotel (Shanghai) (apparently China's first western hotel?) and its affiliate pages. There's a mass of images and information over there (>250k) about the Shanghailanders and their times. — LlywelynII 16:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Dajing Ge Pavilion also has some good old pictures of Shanghai. — LlywelynII 19:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

History of Shanghai

Speaking of which, while we're working on this article, the History of Shanghai one is in much graver need of reformatting and cleanup. — LlywelynII 19:41, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

what about the history of shanghai needs improvement.Meatsgains (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Assuming it's not obvious, see here. — LlywelynII 16:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Unfortunately the vast majority of China-related articles on Wikipedia are in an even worse state (many counties and cities with millions of residents only have one-sentence stubs). There are simply not enough Chinese who write English well enough or English speakers who know China well enough to contribute here. Zanhe (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that. Stubs are better than misinformation (although the obviousness of the original POV over there probably has unintended, counterproductive effects...) — LlywelynII 16:53, 8 November 2011 (UTC)