Talk:List of cities proper by population/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 9

Jiedao

The population of Beijing and Shanghai is defined as that of "Core districts + inner suburbs" with a note that says "Refers to districts that contain jiedao (street committees) associated with the central city." A request for a citation for that assertion remained unanswered. The translation of "street committee) for jiedao is wrong. Jiedao simply translates to "street". See dictionary entry for jiedao or dictionary entry for jiedao. Does this mean that "Core districts + inner suburbs" are simply defined as places with streets? -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, this is incredibly tendentious for a supposed expert on China. Try Subdistrict (China). john k (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

IP vandals

This page appears to be under vandalism attacks by IPs. Looks like yesterday someone from Turkey didn't like the article, today, it's someone from Rapid City, SD. Maybe, the article should be blocked for anonymous edits. -- BsBsBs (talk) 13:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Overlap with new article, "World's largest municipalities by population"

It appears that user BsBsBs has gone and made his own page in parallel to this one, entitled World's largest municipalities by population. In it, he is using the definition of City proper. He has also added some discussions of the terms Municipality and City, which illustrate some of the points which have been debated here. Overall, I find the effort quite helpful, since he's putting his money where his mouth is and contributing in a positive manner. I'm also very sympathetic to his views expressed on this page, since if we use an inconsistent (read: non-UN Yearbook) definition of City proper, we end up with the 6-year history of edits that this page shows now.

That said, it's very unclear in what ways that page deviates from the intent of this page. The proper solution, in my view, is to give BsBsBs license to rewrite this page largely in the format of that page, and then we can all take up individual disputes over particular cities-proper and figures thereof. In my opinion, these two articles are redundant, and between the two, I'm inclined to preserve the one with the 6-year history of edits and discussion, rather than the one-week-old article which exposes BsBsBs, well-intentioned though he may be, to accusations of petulance and undermining. I don't believe that's the case, but we should probably merge these two if we're going to work towards achieving consensus.

-- Denzera (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the other article seems like a fork, but seriously, the proper solution is to let BsBsBS do what he likes here? I guess I'm going to have to once again express my intense disagreement with the idea that a municipality the size of South Carolina can in any sense be described as a "city proper". I'm not completely sure what the best solution to this is, but I'm absolutely convinced that BsBsBs's solution is wrong. 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. john k (talk) 03:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Denzera,thank you for your thoughtful words. I don't think there will be accusations of petulance or undermining in regards to World's largest municipalities by population . Actually, this separate list had been suggested repeatedly by other editors, and I followed their advice. The preceding comment illustrates the problem of this list here. There are various editors who are guided by strong feelings and beliefs, which overpower verifiable facts. They don't have a better solution, but strong convictions. If you state your case, they don't have an answer, but instead complain about ramblings. The key to a successful list is a proper definition of inclusion criteria and scope. Once this is done, it must be followed to the letter. As the meager results of the RFC show, there seems to be little interest in coming to any solution. As it stands, we have a proper definition of inclusion criteria and scope, but this is not being followed. The definition is accepted, the results aren't. There is a word for this: chaos. Sometimes one has to step away from chaos and rebuild elsewhere. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about strong feelings and beliefs. It's about the fact that a city is defined in the English language as a "center of population". Defining "city proper" in a way to include vast rural areas is unacceptable. So, no, I don't accept your definition. Your definition is unacceptably rigid and has results that are absurd. A "city proper" is, pretty much by definition, smaller than an urban agglomeration. The idea that a "city proper" might be larger than the urban agglomeration is nonsensical. That means the definition here is flawed; it is based upon countries like the United States, where the municipality is usually smaller than the urban agglomeration. The UN definition explicitly admits this; its definition of "urban agglomeration" specifically states that an urban agglomeration has to be larger than a city proper - the city proper plus "the suburban fringe or densely settled territory lying outside of, but adjacent to, the city boundaries." It then goes on to talk about your favorite case of the municipality which includes rural territory, but doesn't have a very good sense of what to do with that. Maybe for some countries, the whole exercise is too difficult to really deal with. But in many countries there is a concept of "city proper" which is distinct from that of "municipality." When this is the case, we should take advantage of that. I'll note the examples of Italy, where the communes are explicitly divided into a capoluogo and frazioni with distinct identities and the United Kingdom, where boroughs and districts are normally divided into civil parishes and unparished areas that more closely correspond to what we think of as a "city proper". In cases where the country doesn't do anything so convenient, like China, we should use common sense. When the urban agglomeration is larger than the municipality, the municipality is the city proper. When the municipality is larger than the agglomeration, then the agglomeration is the "city proper." Administrative divisions of China specifically says that prefecture-level cities are not cities, and county-level city says the same thing about its subject, noting that "urban areas" are more closely equivalent to "cities". Obviously it's a complicated situation, but going country-by-country and trying to figure out what statistical designation in that country most closely approximates the commonly understood (not-UN) definition of "city proper" seems like the best way to go about it. john k (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The bulk of the contention appears to be in how to define Chinese cities. As mentioned somewhere above, there is a perfectly reasonable definition being used for Chinese cities based on the National Bureau of Statistics definition of urban, which is the set of districts whose population density is greater than 1500 per sq km. (which is what is currently being used). Many of the research articles about Chinese cities cited in the forked city list article all conclude that the administrative population is too large and all suggest using the population in urban areas only. --Polaron | Talk 15:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. Can you please show me where the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics defines a city? What is a city in China and what it not, is defined by the Chinese government. Not by the Chinese National Bureau of Statistics and not by some Wikipedia page.

Now here is where you were led astray. That bigger that 1500 "urban" definition created by the Chinese for the UN Statistical Yearbook was in answer to the question "what is the urban and what is the total population of China?" It was not the answer to "what is a city?" or "what is city proper?" You are misrepresenting the facts again. If you insist, you can use that formula (properly) to arrive at the number of "urban " vs "rural" population within a city proper. There are peasants in Beijing, undoubtedly. However, using the formula to derive the population of a city proper would be utterly wrong.

If you look up the UN Statistical Yearbook 2007 and look for table "8. Population of capital cities and cities of 100 000 or more inhabitants", you find two entries, "City proper" and "Urban agglomeration". This is the right table to use.

The technical notes for this table say "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."(Incidentally, this is the definition used in this list and in City proper) The notes also say that " 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 Yearbook then gives the individual countries the option to alter this definition. This is noted in the footnotes. If you go to the China entry, you find no footnotes. No footnotes means that the definition from the technical notes are accepted. For the purpose of the Yearbook, I must add. The table then provides only city proper data for each "city" of China. For Beijing, the number surprisingly is 11,509,595. I have looked through my Beijing statistics books, and the only number that comes close is the 2003 adjusted census number of 11,488,000. This is the number for the whole municipality of Beijing, registered (hukou) population only. The total "permanent Population" for this year already was 14,564,000. At least for Beijing, it appears as if for the purposes of the 2007 UN Yearbook, the 2003 census number was used, and only the number for the hukou population, and not the total permanent population. However, the respective number for the whole Beijing Municipality was used, and nothing for any urban or rural areas. Different list, different table.

I am afraid, the UN Yearbook will disappoint you. It will not help you in promoting your theory that the Chinese define only districts with a density over 1500 as a part of a city proper. It will also deny you the listing of major cities of countries that report no city proper data.

As for the neverending city or no city discussion, all I can say: If you think it's no city, take it out. Start with Tokyo, London, Lagos, Santiago, Madrid, Rio, and while you are at it, wipe out all of China. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. The 1500 density requirement was created by NBS for the 2000 census. You should read through the references and external links about Chinese cities in the city proper article. The UN simply follows what each country does. --Polaron | Talk 19:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't seem to have a copy of the 2000 census. Could you please show me where it defines "city" and "city proper" as above? According to my information, the 1500 density requirement is to separate "rural population" from "urban population", not for defining "city proper." And by the way, if the whole municipality has a density above 1500, then the whole is counted as urban. Applies to Shanghai. I did read all references and external links about Chinese cities in the city proper article. I had to write it, because there was none. As for the UN, the UN simply reflects what the individual countries tell them. That's not necessarily what they do. Again, no footnotes for China when the UN Yearbook talks about "City Proper" -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not how the NBS does it. It is by district not by municipality. If a district has a population density of 1500 or more, the whole district is counted as urban. It is true that this is not explicitly listed as "city proper" but most people who study Chinese cities regard the de facto population of the fully urban districts as the population size of the city. This is what is done in this article you cite (see Table 3). Here's a quote from Appendix 1 of Chan and Hu, China Review 3 (2003), 49, which summarizes the 2000 census urban definition.

Major Points in Defining Urban Population in Census 2000

i) The resident population of a place is the population in that locality with local hukou, and those without local hukou (migrants) who have been in that locality for at least six months, or who have been in that locality for less than six months, but have been away from the hukou registration place for more than six months.

ii) The urban population of China is composed of the “City Population” and the “Town Population.”

iii) A population density criterion is introduced for classifying city Districts (including all the lower-level units within them) as urban. Precisely, Districts with an average population density of at least 1,500 persons per sq.km. are automatically counted as urban. All the population in such a district is counted as city population.

iv) A “contiguous built-up area” criterion is also used to cover localities other than the above:

a. For city districts with a density of below 1,500 per sq.km., and county-level cities, only the following is defined as urban (and hence only population in the following is the City Population):

i. A township-level unit (Street, Town and Township) where the District or City government is located;

ii. A township-level unit of which the built-up area is contiguous to i) above.

iii. All other Streets.

This corresponds more to the urban agglomeration concept but is probably the best option to use in the absence of a conventional city proper (core area without suburbs) for Chinese cities. --Polaron | Talk 20:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this separates the "urban" from the "rural" population, as noted above. This is not the formula to use to calculate the population of "city proper" (which can and often does consist of urban and rural people.) Please note that China reported the total of the [hukou] population of all of Beijing for the City Proper count. (They did not report those who "been away from the hukou registration place for more than six months." If I recall right, the first time the non-hukou population was even mentioned in Beijing was around 2007 (before the Olympics) when the count suddenly jumped to 17.5 million or so. Now it's at 22 million.) -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

And as I mentioned, the census-based population (includes long-term non-hukou) of urban areas of city districts (i.e. the urban agglomeration) is what is typically used as a stand-in to represent the population of the "city without its suburbs". Again, see Table 3 Column N of this paper you cite. The author concludes that the whole municipality population is not the most appropriate to gauge the population size of Chinese cities. --Polaron | Talk 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You're begging the question here, in assuming your preferred definition of "city proper" and then using that as an argument for why this definition cannot possibly be referring to cities proper. john k (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note that BsBsBs seems to actually have no idea what he's talking about with regard to Chinese administrative divisions. He not only doesn't know what a jiedao is (which is obviously forgiveable; I didn't know what it was until earlier today when reading through old comments here and then looking it up), but he can't be bothered to even look at the wikipedia article linked, which clearly explains the concept, and instead asks whether "'Core districts + inner suburbs' are simply defined as places with streets?" 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, we ought to take a look at city proper, which he has created and filled with confirmation of his POV. john k (talk) 18:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

When they made you an administrator back when, was there already a test about WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:civility, or did they just give the job to anyone who volunteered? -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The criteria for creating admins was indeed far less onerous back when I got made one. Basically, the question was "can you be trusted not to abuse admin tools?" I barely ever use any admin tools, save to delete redirects in order to move articles, and an occasional rollback of vandalism (is that even still something restricted to admins? I'm not clear anymore.) As such, I don't see how the decision was misguided. I have no doubt that I would not be made an administrator if I applied again today, but I also know that I haven't abused the tools, and that I find being able to delete articles for moves is incredibly useful, so I have no interest in resigning my adminship or attempting to get it again. Back in the day, adminship was supposed to be "no big deal" and basically was given to everyone who didn't seem like they would abuse the (rather minor) powers of the administrator. I don't think that I'm due any additional respect because I'm an admin, but I also don't think I ought to be subject to any particularly greater scrutinity in my activities as an editor and talk page participant. I'm not here as an administrator, and have never performed any administrative tasks with respect to this article that I'm aware of. As such, I don't see why I should pretend to maintain a phony "balance" rather than simply stating what I think without equivocation. Sometimes I get a bit too hot and say something insulting. It's easy to forget that the usernames we are debating against are real people. As such, I'll apologize for the "ignorant verbal diarrhea" remark, the tone of which was uncalled for. I nonetheless stand by the basic standpoint of my previous remarks: you are wrong about this subject, you don't actually know as much about it as you pretend, that your incredibly long comments make any kind of reasonable discussion here nearly impossible, that you have created a POV fork of this article, and that you have created an article at city proper whose purpose is to push this page in the direction you want it to go. From here on out, I will try to make these points (and any others that arise) in a civil manner that avoids personal attacks. john k (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The "ignorant verbal diarrhea" was just one of the many uncivil remarks. And then you go on the attack again. This is what’s called an insincere apology. As an Administrator, you are held to a higher standard. At the very least, you should know the basics of civilized behavior. As far as the rest goes:

• World's largest municipalities by population is no “POV fork of this article.” This is a groundless and unsubstantiated accusation. As an Administrator, you should know better.
• World's largest municipalities by population was created after editors had recommended it. There was an irreconcilable disagreement over what is and what isn’t a city (coincidentally, these alleged non-cities are still here.)
• World's largest municipalities by population goes to great pains to explain criteria and scope for inclusion of the list.
• World's largest municipalities by population has a long discussion of the problems and different opinions, something this List of cities proper by population lacks (and that might be the reason for the endless discussions)

• The allegation that the purpose of city proper “is to push this page in the direction I want it to go” is likewise groundless and unsubstantiated. One should be able to expect more from an Administrator.
• City proper was created on 20 July 2010. On 20 July 2010, the intro of List of cities proper by population said: “This is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of city proper. 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. This list contains some of the world's urban municipal units and their population. "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." The book continues to say that "city proper as defined by administrative boundaries may not include suburban areas where an important proportion of the population working or studying in the city lives." Therefore, the populations listed are for the administratively-defined city and not for the urban area nor the metropolitan area. Statistical definitions for each city, approximate surface area, and population density are also indicated. The term city can take on many meanings throughout the world. This list enumerates the population within the city limits of some of the world's most populous municipalities.”
• At that time,“City proper” was a redirect to city limits which caused confusion.
• Because editors still demanded a definition, despite the intro, City proper was written.
• City proper expanded on the existing definition of this article, added more sources, references, and especially a detailed discussion of misuse and controversies.
• Therefore, it is beyond me how anyone, and Administrator to boot, can allege that City proper was written to push a POV. This article actually takes a lot of input from the discussions here, painstakingly references the material and shows problems and pitfalls of the term.

I am sorry that your renewed attack in an apology’s clothing caused a new round of "ignorant verbal diarrhea." Your unsubstantiated attacks necessitate precision. As an Administrator, you should have an understanding for it. -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Look, it is not as though you have been an exemplar of civil discussion here. You have among other things, accused everyone who disagrees with you of suffering from confirmation bias, and argued that I disagree with you because of "strong opinions and emotions" rather than "facts." I am happy to take back any specific language that went over the line from "vigorous disagreement with your ideas for this page" to the level of "personal insult." The "ignorant verbal diarrhea" line was clearly an example of that. If there are others (and there may well be), I apologize for those as well. They are unnecessary and only distract from the important issues. That being said, I'm not going to back down on the basic arguments here. I think you are wrong on the merits, and I'm not going to back down from this because you point out that I have in the past lost my temper and said insulting things about you that I shouldn't have. Arguing about whether this or that remark is uncivil is one of the most tedious, unproductive things we can spend our time doing on wikipedia. Can't we just stick to debating article content, without sanctimonious discussions of whether I'm living up to my high example as an administrator? Even if it's proven that I'm not, that doesn't mean you're right, and even if it's proven that I am, that doesn't mean I'm right. It's a red herring and a waste of time. I apologize for any remarks which you might have taken personal offense to. This was not my intention, but as I said before, I have a tendency to rudeness when I get annoyed, which I should contain and which is unnecessary and distracting from important issues. That being said, you're still wrong about this article, and that's true whether or not I have insulted you. john k (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

As to the substantive issue - Denzera, who agrees with you about this article, thinks the other article is a POV fork. I don't think it's necessarily one that is inherent in the nature of the article, but as it currently stands, saying that it is a list of municipalities using the concept of "city proper", it clearly is. john k (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Peace. As for the alleged fork, I didn't want to write it. I wanted to help doing what the article says: Compile a list of cities by population within city proper, i.e. administrative boundaries. Should be easy enough (except for the drudge work.) However, this was endlessly reverted. One of the main arguments was that cities aren't municipalities (generally wrong, if people would read the articles), and that municipalities aren't cities (well, the big ones usually are.) I was repeatedly told that I should compile my own list of municipalities, if I insist. So finally, I did. In that article, I did my utmost to avoid POV. Note the liberal use of "for the purpose of this list ... " Note the sentence that other list with other views can be equally valid. As for "city proper," this article doesn't have a monopoly on it. I can use "city proper" for a village. It's another term for "city limits" or "administrative boundaries" if you will. Personally, I get the impression that, write as much as we want, people have their own views of cities, municipalities, and city proper. That's fine. Free country. Hence "for the purpose of this list ... " -- BsBsBs (talk) 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I continue to dispute that "city proper" can in all cases be equated to "administrative boundaries." Or, at least, that "city" can be. A city is a center of population. It is, by definition urban. To say that there is a "city proper" which includes rural areas the size of smallish countries and medium-sized US states stretches the normal definition of "city" well beyond the breaking point. Even the UN definitions state the normal case as city proper<agglomeration<metropolitan area. In the case of Chongqing you would have it be agglomeration<metro area<city proper. That makes a hash of both the concept and the English language. john k (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

As a non-administrator, you should expect administrators to HAVE an understanding of Wikipedia policy, and if they say you are disobeying it you shouldn't just say "No, I'm not." World's largest municipalities by population is a great idea. For the list to exist, that is perfectly fine. Writing several paragraphs in support of your own opinions along with it is not. That is why it is POV. It "goes to great pains" to support your own opinions about what is or is not a city -- if the article is called "World's largest municipalities by population," you should be defining what a municipality is and leaving it at that. Someone the Person (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Please don't invoke anyone's authority as an administrator as an argument. I'm going to once again say - I have no special authority. My arguments should stand and fall on their own merit. That said, I agree - why is the largest municipalities article even talking about cities proper? john k (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I like the solution of having two separate articles. It allows everyone to get what they want. However, if the articles are separate, they need to have separate purposes. Therefore, we need to rewrite the introduction to make clear the purpose of THIS list. This is a list of cities. A city is a center of population. It does not include rural areas. It can include multiple municipalities in some cases. When put like that, we can comfortably keep London, Lagos, Tokyo, and Kinshasa, plus we can add in Sydney and Melbourne. The other article, World's largest municipalities, will go strictly by the definition of municipality. Someone the Person (talk) 20:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. john k (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We already have lists for metropolitan areas and urban agglomerations, each of which matches the term "center of population" depending on who you ask. The purpose of this list was to define municipalities based on a consensus of what constituted a municipality. The common consensus is that places like Chongqing do not belong at the top of any such list, and that is essentially the basis for BsBsBs's crusade to create a new list. We obviously can't make a list for everyone's personal definition of municipality, and so it needs to be deleted. --Jleon (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

First of all, "municipality" isn't a matter of opinion, it is a hard fact -- a municipality is an area with defined boundaries with a local government. "City" is what is hard to define, because "city proper" can mean municipality, or it can mean the center of population. Second, urban agglomerations are different from cities because they include suburbs separate from the central city. Third, I am strongly against deleting this list, because it seems as though the only reason to delete it is that it creates too many talk page disputes. Someone the Person (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts, I think. A "city proper" is not a synonym for a municipality, no matter what the UN may say. It is only that, as I've said before, when the municipality is smaller than the agglomeration. john k (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It says here "This is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of city proper." It doesn't say "This is a list of municipalities for which there is a consensus that they are municipalities." I've never been to Chongqing. The purpose of my "crusade" is to finally show how many people live within certain administrative boundariesl something this list claims, but not does. -- 21:45, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then, let this list claim to do what it does. Someone the Person (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You are getting this backwards. The dispute isn't over whether Chongqing is a municipality. It obviously is. It is whether it's a city proper. This list should not claim to show how many people live within certain administrative boundaries because that's not what it should do - it should say how many people live within different cities. Defining cities between different countries and such is certainly a difficult endeavor, but should not be an impossible one. john k (talk) 23:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Tokyo yet again

I’m sorry to be a pest again. The edit of Tokyo by user:Aurichalcum introduced an updated Tokyo Metropolitan Government population estimate for June 2010. Thank you. But it does nothing to resolve the confusion about the Special Wards (Ku) allegedly being the City proper of Tokyo. Reference 19 points to an Excel sheet that lists the total population, and then breaks it down into Ku, Shi, Gun, and Islands. It says nothing even close to “city proper.” The note 20 next to where it claims that the Special Wards make up the City proper says “Corresponds to the former City of Tokyo merged into the Tokyo Metropolis on July 1, 1943. Although there no longer exists an administrative unit to govern only 23 special ward governments, the whole of 23 wards is still sometimes statistically treated as the city proper of Tokyo (e.g. Statistical Bureau of Japan, The United Nations Statistics Division).” There is no reference to back the latter claim, the Statistical Bureau of Japan has no reference, the UN link just goes to a Wiki entry for the UN Statistics Division. We need a reference that says “The City Proper of Tokyo is defined as the Special Wards.” I had to set an {{or}} tag for the time being. According to the source given, the population for the city proper of Tokyo as defined in the intro to this list (area within the administrative boundaries) is 13,058,392. -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there is no official "City Proper of Tokyo" in Japan. However, the United Nations Statistical Yearbooks have long treated the population of 23 wards as that of the City Proper of Tokyo. For example, the reference 33 of the Table 8 of the Demographic Yearbook 2007 below says:

Data for city proper refer to 23 wards (ku) of the old city. The urban agglomeration figures refer to Tokyo-to (Tokyo Prefecture), comprising the 23 wards plus 14 urban counties (shi), 18 towns (machi) and 8 villages (mura). The 'Tokyo Metropolitan Area' comprises the 23 wards of Tokyo-to plus 21 cities, 20 towns and 2 villages. The 'Keihin Metropolitan Area' (Tokyo-Yokohama Metropolitan Area) plus 9 cities (one of which is Yokohama City) and two towns, with a total population of 20 485 542 on 1 October 1965.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2007/Table08.pdf

On the other hand, the de jure populations of all the prefectures (to, dō, fu, ken), subprefectures (shichō), districts (gun), municipalities (cities: shi, towns: chō or machi, villages: son or mura, wards: ku) in Japan as of Oct 1, 2005 (latest census) are summarized below.

http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/Xlsdl.do?sinfid=000001082772

In case of Tokyo, there is an additional entry of "Tokubetsu Kubu" (lit. special ward area) with an populatino of 8,489,653. Although the political status of a ward in Tokyo equals nearly to that of a city (desiginated cities of Sapporo, Sendai, Saitama, Chiba, Yokohama, Kawasaki, Sagamihara, Niigata, Shizuoka, Hamamatsu, Nagoya, Kyoto, Osaka, Sakai, Kobe, Okayama, Hiroshima, Fukuoka, and Kitakyushu have their own wards, but these wards have no mayors and elected representatives), the Statistical Bureau of Japan have long treated "tokubetsu kubu" as an independent entry nearly equals to a city. For example in "2-8 Population, Daytime Population and Ratio of Daytime Population to Nighttime Population of Major Cities (1965--2000)" below, Tokyo (ku-area) has an independent entry as if it is one of the major cities.

http://www.stat.go.jp/data/chouki/zuhyou/02-08.xls

Anyway, probably there is no clear definition of a city proper that can be applicable to all the municipalities in the world. I think following the definitions by the UN Stastical Yearbooks may satisfy loose consensus for cities proper.Aurichalcum (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. As for a clear definition, there is, and there isn't. The intro to this list clearly defines city proper as administrative area. Nevertheless, there are many entries in the list that do not follow that definition. Worldwide, the same definition usually applies. The administrators of an administrative area usually know or want to know how many people are in their area. (Sometimes, they get overwhelmed and give up.) The trouble starts when the UN asks for a population of "city proper" and asks at the same time for a country-specific definition of "city proper". Now you are bound to get many answers. Correspondents sometimes get the impression that city proper must be different than administrative area, and they make up a definition. The statistical yearbook then reflects the count for whatever each country thinks is right for "city proper". However, these definitions are not always the definition used in the context of this list and article, a subtle distinction that is sometimes lost on editors.

http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/products/dyb/dyb2007/Table08.pdf can be enlightening. It asks for City Proper and Agglomeration. The US correspondents answer the "City proper" question only and stick to the city limits. Canada does the opposite, answers "agglomeration" only and delivers no definition, except for Ottawa. It would be faulty to deduce (not that anybody would, but you never know) that the U.S.A. has no agglomerations, and that Canada has no cities proper. They simply reported the data as such, for the purpose of that certain tabulation. The answers and definitions can be different in the context of another questionnaire.

This list has two choices:

• It can leave the intro as is. Then it must adhere to that definition in every entry, i.e. list the population of the administrative area. This appears to be the current intent, but not the current result.
• It can say "for the purpose of this list, "city proper" follows the definitions submitted by each country to the United Nations." Then this list must simply reflect the "City proper" entry of the UN's "Population of capital cities and cities of 100 000 or more inhabitants." There already is a List of towns and cities with 100,000 or more inhabitants. Confusingly, its entries point to Wikipedia articles, which more often than not do reflect a different population count than in the the UN's "Population of capital cities and cities of 100 000 or more inhabitants."

Both solutions are rather simple to implement, the second (correctly using entries in the UN's "Population of capital cities and cities of 100 000 or more inhabitants") would be the most expedient and most verifiable solution. But we can't just mix it around and make it up as we go. -- BsBsBs (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The "Special Wards" of Tokyo as a whole is an administrative unit without an administrator.

I prefer loose entries by the UN Statistical Yearbook, because the Tokyo Metropolitan Prefecture includes three towns and villages of mountainous Nishitama-gun and subprefectures of Ōshima, Miyake, Hachijō and Ogasawara (Bonin) Islands.

Anyway, the Special Wards (Tokubetsu-kubu) of Tokyo can be considered as an admistrative unit without a specific administrator. Yes, the "Special Wards" does not have a unique govenor to administrate 23 wards. But the "Special Wards" as a whole is one of the special local public entities (Tokubetsu Chihō Kōkyō Dantai) constituted by the Local Autonomy Law of Japan (Articles 281 to 284).

For example, Clean Association of Tokyo 23 (see below) is an office for waste management that covers 23 wards. The head of this office is one of the 23 ward mayors to be exchanged every year.

http://www.union.tokyo23-seisou.lg.jp/

Other administrative service run by the Special Wards Unit includes employment and adnimistration of officials and government of horse racing.

Districts (gun) which consist of towns and villages are also considered to be administrative units without administrators in Japan, but they are not special local public entities constituted by the Local Autonomhy Law of Japan. At least, the "23 Special Wards" of Tokyo as a total is more administrative than gun districts.Aurichalcum (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

All true and correct. I have a second home in Otaku. No argument there. We have to decide what this list is supposed to be.

• Option 1: City proper according to one definition (administrative boundary). Or ...
• Option 2: City proper according to UN Yearbook definition. Keeping in mind that these definitions will be different from country to country. Also, many cities would be missing from the list, because their countries only report agglomerations to the Yearbook: UK, Thailand, Qatar, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Suriname, Colombia, Nicaragua, Canada.

We cannot have it both ways. We can't do Option 1 and at the same time use definitions and data from Option 2, when it comes to pass, or "feels right." -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

So I deleted "not an administrative unit" in the reference. By the way, the head of the clean association of Tokyo 23 (now Mr. Masami Tada, the ward mayor of Edogawa-ku) may be considered as an administrator of the special wards.Aurichalcum (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It would be a bit of a stretch to elevate a garbage disposal co-op to an "administrative unit", but even if we would, no harm done. Administrative unit or not has no bearing on the discussion. Many cities have administrative subunits, often with elected officials. The question remains: ASre the 23 Kun equal to City proper of Tokyo? Answer: Option 1: No. Option 2: Yes. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

No clear answer can be made to the question: the 23 wards (Tokubetsu-kubu) as a total is not a city (shi), but usually treated as an equivalence to cities (shi), towns (chō or machi) and villages (son or mura) in official statistics (including censuses) of Japan. At least, Tokyo Metropolis is not considered as a city.Aurichalcum (talk) 11:42, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Guiding principles for List of cities proper by population

As we all know, many entries of this list do not follow the definition in the intro. They do that for various reasons. We need to decide what the List of cities proper by population shall be. Currently, there seem to be two favored options. We need a consensus on one: 11:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Option 1: City proper according to the current definition (administrative boundary) - then we need to adhere to this

• For:

• Against:

Aurichalcum (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (or make it as a list of municipalities)

• Option 2: City proper according to UN Yearbook definition - then we can simply take the UN Yearbook entries

• For:

-- BsBsBs (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC) (it will never end otherwise...)

Denzera (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (consistent with WP's City proper page - we can have a separate list with a more conventional definition, if we can agree on one)

Aurichalcum (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• Against:

• Option 3: Strike the list, as this is not a topic that can be encyclopedically compiled, due to differences in the way cities are defined from country to country.

• For:

Powers^T 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Against:

Someone the Person (talk) 22:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Denzera (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2010 (UTC) (this is a useful concept for a list, with both a research and a business purpose - we just gotta iron out the details)

Aurichalcum (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Submitted by: BsBsBs (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

Perhaps we should just decide that this is not a topic that can be encyclopedically compiled, due to differences in the way cities are defined from country to country. Powers ^T 23:34, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the current rule? 112.118.170.146 (talk) 14:36, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It might be a lot easier for sensible people to come up with some way of working this out if BsBsBs weren't spamming the talk page with massive walls of text every six hours or so. john k (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the intro of the article also is known to help. -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:56, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The intro you wrote? Someone the Person (talk) 22:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and if we're going to be missing countries because we use the UN Yearbook definition, then I am against using only that definition. This list must include the entire world. Someone the Person (talk) 22:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The list is already pretty much following the UN definition. For the following cities, there is no city proper figure and the urban agglomeration figure is used mainly because the municipality of each of these cities as a whole is classified as an urban agglomeration: Bogota, Istanbul, Bangkok, Dhaka. For London, there is no city proper figure listed and the urban agglomeration figure corresponds to the London urban area. However, there is an obvious adminstrative area to use for London. Sydney is the only one that's missing. The UN lists the statistical division as a city proper although the urban centre concept (no rural territory) is probably more appropriate. --Polaron | Talk 23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

UK, Thailand, Qatar, Cyprus, Bangladesh, Suriname, Colombia, Nicaragua, Canada do not report "City proper" data to the UN. Australia plays it fast and loose and 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'." -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me (and no one ever does :) ), using urban agglomeration figures where no "City proper" figures exist is perfectly reasonable if footnoted. To take Bs's example of London, Londoners will never be happy with the listing of London within "City Proper" because the only reasonable definition is that of the City_of_London, which has a nighttime population of about 8,000. This is why a separate table by urban agglomeration is both necessary and desirable. But the purpose of this page definitely should stick to City Proper under the UN definition, as Polaron notes. It certainly will be far from the most useless list on Wikipedia. -- Denzera (talk) 19:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

As long as you stick with the definition given in this list, the city proper of London is that of Greater London - if only for the purpose of this list. No agglomeration necessary. According to the definition given here, "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." Greater London has all that. Those who doubt it should ask Boris Johnson-- BsBsBs (talk) 10:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Greater London? Alternately, Inner London. john k (talk) 03:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm slightly confused, as this seems to be a problem that is very easily fixed by taking advantage of the technology available to us. In particular, it's quite easy to make a table containing columns for whatever definition of city proper you want; such a table could be sorted by the user to obtain the listing by the definition of their choosing. In essence, it's quite easy to have both and there's no need to argue over which definition to use. siafu (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Addendum: see the table at List of world's longest ships for an example of what I mean. siafu (talk) 16:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Misusing policy

I just removed a bunch of "original research", "citation needed", and "dubious" templates that were irrelevant. These templates are for when something is not referenced. The information in the article is taken from the sources, so it is not original research. I would advise User:BsBsBs to not say, "This is original research" when what he actually means is, "I really don't like this content the way it is right now." Someone the Person (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a confusion over the meanings of "citation needed", "original research", and "dubious". There are sections on WP that explain that in great detail, so here just the salient points:

• "Citation needed" means "Please give me a reference for that claim"
  • There were templates of this sort right NEXT to references. Can you justify that? Someone the Person (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• "Original research:" WP:OR says "The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources." (Emphasis mine)
• For "dubious" see WP:DUBIOUS, especially where it says "If you come across a statement with an accuracy warning, please do the following: Don't remove the warning simply because the material looks reasonable: please take the time to verify it properly. Visit the talk page to see what the issues are. Correct it right away if you can. Please take the time to verify it properly. Please also add to the article any sources you used to verify the information in it: see cite your sources."

The intro of this list claims that "this is a list of the most populous cities of the world defined according to the concept of City proper. 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." As long as this definition is used for the list, the entries of that list have to follow that definition.

So, I say that we should use a different definition. Someone the Person (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

There have been various attempts to bring the list in accordance with that definition. The last big effort to do so was wiped out on July 20, 2010 by an editor named Someone the Person. When told that "by reverting to the old list, a whole bunch of bad data is reintroduced," the editor answered: "You're right. I'm sorry. I guess I'm just too lazy to make little individual changes." In order to avert an edit war, the bad data was tagged and left alone. I have tried to improve the quality of the list. Maintaining a proper list by definition amounts to many little individual changes. People who are too lazy for the drudgework of many little individual changes should find another topic or hobby. If the good faith attempts by more dedicated editors are being destroyed, one cannot expect that editors will spend much time improving the list, and the list will become an irrelevant embarrassment.

Editors? I see only you. And what's this about averting an edit war? Tagging may not be technically an edit war, but it's far from leaving alone. It keeps the content that I (in this case) put in, but it's like writing "THIS IS BAD" all over it. And as I said, I'm sorry about not making all the individual changes. I think you're being way

Not that I am required to, but here again are the reasons for the tags:

• When the population of Shanghai proper as defined for this list is not cited from the source, but is derived from adding up the population of the districts of Pudong New Area, Huangpu, Luwan, Xuhui, Changning, Jing'an, Putuo, Zhabei, Hongkou, Yangpu, Baoshan, Minhang, and Jiading, then this is an analysis or synthesis of published material, and thereby WP:OR. It also contradicts the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry. (If somebody wants to know where the mistake is in adding up these districts, then I can explain it. It is a bit complicated and will put some to sleep. In the meantime, suffice it to say that this is a perfect example for why OR is not allowed here. Whoever came up with this number made a whole series of mistakes and dangerous assumptions on several levels.)
  • It IS derived from the source, which LISTS the populations of the districts. If you call using a calculator original research, I'd call that going a bit too far.
• When a reference is made up (without citing sources) that says "Core districts + inner suburbs - Refers to districts that contain jiedao (street committees) associated with the central city", then a "citation needed" is in order. Where does it say that? See also discussion about jiedao above.
• When the population of Beijing proper as defined for this list is derived from adding up the population "of the two functional areas of 1) Core Districts of Capital Function and 2) Urban Function Extended Districts, including eight fully urban districts," and if it's done wrong (see discussion above), then this is an analysis or synthesis of published material, and thereby WP:OR. It also contradicts the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry.
  • The solution then is to add it up correctly, not to tag it for other people to fix. Someone the Person (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• When the population of Tokyo proper as defined for this list is derived from just counting the special wards, while the actual population of Tokyo proper is some 4 million higher, then this is WP:OR. It also contradicts the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry.
  • The introduction you wrote says that it "delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry." If the introduction is rewritten then it will not be a probem.
• When the number for a statistical area is used, such as for Lagos, then it is in clear contradiction to the definition of this list. "Dubious" is putting it mildly. Lagos should most likely not be on this list. It has been broken up. There is no Lagos proper as defined for this list.
  • This is the same issue again. You put in the definition; what others (including me) want is to get rid of it.
• When the population of Chongqing proper as defined for this list is derived from a statistical area that is different than what is defined for this list, then this should be tagged. The definition "Core districts" is a contradiction to the definition of this list. Asking for a citation and calling for a discussion is putting it mildly.
• When the population of Tianjin proper as defined for this list is derived from adding up the population of "Heping, Hedong, Hexi, Nankai, Hebei, Hongqiao, Dongli, Xiqing, Jinnan, and Beichen," excluding "the separate urban area of Binhai" then this should be tagged as WP:OR. The definition "Core districts" is a contradiction to the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry. Asking for a citation and calling for a discussion is putting it mildly.
• When the number for a province is used, such as for Santiago de Chile, then it is in clear contradiction to the definition of this list. "Dubious" is putting it extremely mildly. There is no Santiago proper as defined for this list.
• When the population of Guangzhou proper as defined for this list is derived from taking the sum of the population of the districts of Yuexiu, Liwan, Haizhu, and Tianhe, then this should be tagged as WP:OR. Using "Core districts" is a contradiction to the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry. Calling for a discussion is putting it mildly.
• When the population of Shenyang proper as defined for this list is derived from a Finnish database, and when (supposedly) "Core districts" (unreferenced) are counted, then this is dubious at the very, very least. It also contradicts the definition of this list.
  • A Finnish database is a database nonetheless, in fact in this case it is (from Statistics Finland) "the national statistical institution in Finland." I would expect information from that site to be reliable. Someone the Person (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
• When the population of Wuhan proper as defined for this list is derived from taking the sum of the population of the districts of Jiang'an, Jianghan, Qiaokou, Hanyang, Wuchang, and Qingshan, then this should be tagged as WP:OR. The definition "Core districts" is a contradiction to the definition of this list. The list says it delivers the population within the legally fixed boundaries of that entry. Calling for a discussion is putting it mildly.
  • Again, using a calculator is original research? I'm sure you have a calculator on the computer; why not check the numbers for the core districts listed, add them up and see if the number matches the number on the list?
• "Dynamic list" has nothing to do with a 3,000,000 limit that has never been set, but that seems to be nonetheless observed by mutual agreement. Dynamic list means that this list can be changed, entries can be added and removed. For instance, this list misses many cities above 3 million, and some should be removed.
  • The 3,000,000 limit HAS been set, on this talk page -- I'm sure you can find it if you look in the archives. Someone the Person (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I have taken the time and care to explain why these tags are here. Not that I have to, these matters had been referred to in previous discussions and have been left unsolved. These tags had been here unchallenged for quite some while. The tags must be removed when the matters they refer to are resolved. As long as nobody spends the energy to resolve these issues, the tags must stay to notify the reader that certain items should not be taken at face value. Demography is an inexact science at best. We shouldn’t make it more inexact than it already is.

If only there were an {{opinion}} template. Then you could place these tags and not be challenged. Someone the Person (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion that these tags were put in because "I really don't like this content the way it is right now" lacks proof and is an uncivil insinuation. Tags are there to help improve the data and to foster discussion. Wholesale removal of tags is uncivil, rude, against policy, and squelches discussion. Some could view it as vandalism. Instead of just removing tags, editors are asked to help improve the content, or at least join the discussion. All tags were removed without a single attempt to improve the data. The problems remain. As there were no meaningful edits thereafter, the list was rolled back to the last version by L Kensington. The rationale has been exhaustively documented. Be advised that the removal of the tags is seen as a revert. WP:REVERT says: "A reversion can eliminate "good stuff," discourage other editors, and spark an edit war. So if you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, then try to improve it, if possible – reword rather than revert." The rollback was performed to reinstate the status quo. Further reverting would be edit warring. Furthermore, the items had been tagged for quite some time. If the issues are left unaddressed, then the only solution is to remove the disputed list items. -- BsBsBs (talk) 08:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted something once. How many times have you reverted, back to your version of the list? As far as I can see, what you are doing is putting these templates on the list because the definitions on the list come into conflict with the version of the introduction that you wrote, an assertion of your own opinions. Yes, you sourced it, but still, there are templates for when an article contradicts itself -- why not use one of those? Someone the Person (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Polaronics

I am glad that Polaron has seen the light and has realized that this fraud cannot continue. We cannot tell people “here are the population counts within the administrative boundaries of cities” and then give them some arbitrary faux number if the real number affects the tender feelings / political leanings / national pride / inferiority complex of some editors.

I am also glad that Polaron has realized that a proper solution is to re-word the intro, as repeatedly suggested.

However, I am afraid that his choice of lawyerly language acerbates the already tenuous situation.

• The intro promises that “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).“
• The intro says that “A city proper is a locality defined according to legal/political boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government.” Followed by a bunch of references for that assertion.
• A paragraph down, it now says that “The administrative city proper may correspond to a single municipality or may consist of a well-defined assembly of several local government units.”
• It then goes on to say that “the populations listed are for the administratively-defined city and not for the urban area nor the metropolitan area.”

Sorry, this is not the way it works. You cannot say “This list does this, but in some arbitrary cases, it does that.” You cannot contradict the title of the article and the sentences before and after your sentence. What we have here may be the first recorded case of wikilawyering in an article itself. A case of bad wikilawyering, I may add, because as any halfway educated real lawyer will tell you, if passages in a legal document contradict themselves, you run the risk that both passages will be thrown out, and you end up with nothing.

You cannot claim that this is a list of populations within administrative boundaries, and then hide a sentence that effectively says “except when we don’t feel like it.” The sentence doesn’t even define when and where we don’t feel like it.

With this language, at any time, we can make up some “well-defined assembly of several local government units” and voila, a new city population. With that language, the city proper of New York City can be that of Manhattan and Staten Island, the other three boroughs can eat crow. Next, Queens will forge an alliance with Putnam county. With this language, we can do whatever we want, demography buffet-style.

Sorry, this is a weasel so big it could be mistaken for a bear.

But wait, it gets worse.

A little further down, well out of the eye of the average reader (who doesn’t look up references anyway) comes a Polaron specialty: The faux reference.

Hidden between two ref tags comes the following sentence:

“For cities in China, because administrative boundaries encompass large amounts of rural territory, the urban agglomeration concept is used instead, with fully urban districts as component local government units. Chinese urban agglomerations are based on the National Bureau of Statistics definition of urban for the 2000 census. Fully urban districts are those whose population density is greater than 1,500 per km².”

Sorry, Mr. Polaron. You can’t do that. You are not allowed to forge references. You need to find a reliable source and cite that. You can’t just fabricate some theory, put lipstick on it and call it a reference. I won’t go further into the insanity of that fraudulent "reference," except to add parenthetically that the intro had just sworn that “the populations listed are for the administratively-defined city and not for the urban area nor the metropolitan area.” If you want the population of a city, go find the number in a reliable source. Don’t put words in the mouth of a government agency. And don’t hide the hoax between ref tags that don’t ref.

But wait, it gets even worser (curiouser?)

The intro goes on to say that “The term city can take on many meanings throughout the world.” Sure does.

Then, Mr. Polaron adds: “For the purposes of this list, the definition of a city as a primarily urban locality is used.” (Emphasis mine.) Again, a massive contradiction. Didn't we just promise that we use the administrative boundaries? Didn’t we just promise that the urban area is out? Who defined city as a “primarily urban locality”, and where? There is a definition of city in Wikipedia. There are many more in the literature. Where does it say that a city must be primarily urban? (Whatever “primarily urban” may be.) Apparently, Polaron couldn’t find a citation to promote his position. He reverts to his specialty. He fabricates a fraudulent reference.

Hidden between two faux ref tags, away from prying eyes, it says “Some administrative divisions that are known as "cities" contain extensive rural territory. Only the urban parts of these administrative divisions are included in this list.” Citation needed, Mr. Polaron Esq. A real citation. Not a forgery.

Also, did Mr. Polaron then go through the list and adjusted each and every city population to make sure that "only the urban parts of these administrative divisions are included in this list,” as he promises? No, he did not. The sole purpose of the forged reference is to provide cover for other likewise fraudulent references and fabricated population statistics. Fraud to obscure fraud.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what we have here is fraud on a massive scale. We have contradicting statements, conflicting assertions, we have citations that don’t cite, we have references that don’t refer anywhere. We have a botched attempt to deceive the gullible reader.

This crude act of deception is perpetrated to provide cover for previous cases of fraud and forgery.

Worst of all, we have a case of pseudo-statistical genocide: Millions of people are eliminated, if only from Wikipedia. In reality, billions of people who use Wikipedia as a source of facts are being deceived and defrauded. This egregious act is performed by Mr. Polaron, a highly experienced editor. I am unable to find extenuating circumstances. Other editors may be forgiven for overlooking or misinterpreting a rule. However, Mr. Polaron demonstrates daily his extensive knowledge of the finest nuances of Wikipedia editing, he shows his vigilance by reverting other editors’ edits for the slightest infraction of Wikipedia rules, real or imagined.

This cannot stand. It makes a mockery of Wikipedia. It decimates large swaths of the world’s most populous cities. It insults the people who live there. -- BsBsBs (talk) 08:42, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Simply rename the list to List of cities proper by population, except China. It would be honest and it would serve the same purpose as the verbal calisthenics. You would get no opposition from me or the Chinese. They are used to it. -- BsBsBs (talk) 09:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

These were not meant as references per se but more like footnotes. These can be better referenced for sure. In any case, city propers can indeed be groupings of local government areas. For example, the 23 wards of Tokyo, the group of London boroughs (a borough is technically a municipality), the Lagos LGAs, the district municipalities of Istanbul. Also, the UN definition clearly rules out the inclusion of suburbs in what they call a "city proper". The Chinese cities already include near suburbs in the definition being used so these are already larger than the UN concept of "city proper". In any case, what we're using here is consistent with concepts in use such as the one for Beijing proper (城八区/城六区). The first sentence of the article City has references to the definition of city as an urban settlement. --Polaron | Talk 15:30, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Weasel, weasel, weasel. The sentences appear under “references.” Give me a break. In demography, “city proper” is synonymous with “within administrative boundaries”. If we take Tokyo Metro, then “city proper” denotes the administrative boundaries of Tokyo Metro. The 23 wards have no common administration. If you don’t grant Tokyo city status, then you have to drop it. The Lagos LGAs are independent. No common administrative boundaries. Nuke Lagos (I recall you removed Lagos yourself from my list of municipalities, it’s still here.) The Chinese do whatever they want. They do not include suburbs outside of their city limits. Whatever you are using for Beijing (the definition seems to change, the number stays), if you can prove to me that Beijing proper has a 10 million population, you win an all expense included trip to Beijing’s most infamous and most expensive bar, situated at the south gate of Ritan Park. If you want to take the UN concept, then take the UN numbers for city proper and the listed cities for city proper. You will miss some dearly.

If you wouldn't entrap yourself with sneaky language, it would be so easy: “A city proper is a locality defined according to legal/political boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government.”

• Tokyo:
  
  • Locality defined according to legal/political boundaries: Check
  • Administratively recognized urban status: Check
  • Characterized by some form of local government: Check

• Tokyo, 23 wards:
  • Locality defined according to legal/political boundaries: Bzzt (not as a whole)
  • Administratively recognized urban status: Bzzt (not as a whole)
  • Characterized by some form of local government: Bzzt (not as a whole)

• Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, Chonqing:
  • Locality defined according to legal/political boundaries: Check
  • Administratively recognized urban status: Check (protests from the peanut gallery notwithstanding)
  • Characterized by some form of local government: Check

• Lagos:
  • Locality defined according to legal/political boundaries: Bzzt (not as a whole)
  • Administratively recognized urban status: Bzzt (not as a whole)
  • Characterized by some form of local government: Bzzt (not as a whole)

Sneaky verbiage doesn’t improve the list. It makes it worse. -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

All these are defined according to political boundaries, i.e. they are made of units of local government. These are also classified by the national census authority as urban. In China, the entire municipality is not classified as urban. Because by definition a city proper excludes suburbs, the whole municipality cannot be used as the municipality is even larger than the metropolitan area. --Polaron | Talk 18:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This was the most ridiculous Polaronism I've seen, and I've seen many.

The intro swears, warrants and promises:

• "A city proper is a locality defined according to legal/political boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government."
• "The populations listed are for the administratively-defined city and not for the urban area nor the metropolitan area."

Do I need to spell it out for you? Urban area or metropolitan area do not count for this list. They are irrelevant for this list. The only thing that counts are the legal/political boundaries. The intro says that. You deny it.

Don't you know at least a little bit of shame? Aren't you embarrassed about leading the world around by their noses? Here is someone who has a twitchy revert finger, eliminating edits by the dozens each day for the slightest infraction. But in this list, you make it up as you go. You don't mind to forge and cheat. It's rules du jour. If you wouldn't have a vested interest in this list, you would have already deleted every questionable entry.

Instead of digging a deeper and deeper hole for yourself, why don't you call a spade a spade. (Others have already, you are in good company:) You can't stand the idea that a city you didn't know it existed is the world's largest by population. -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that in urban geography, a city proper by definition is smaller than the urban agglomeration. Thus, we exclude suburban areas. Chinese municipalities clealry include the metropolitan area and more in their territory. The paper by Kam Wing Chan that you cited clearly says that the whole municipality population is larger than the city proper. That paper says the city proper is the de facto urban population of city districts. Would you be happy with sourcing the list to a single source? Statistics Norway, for example, has such a list (second list) [1]. --Polaron | Talk 22:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

This isn't geography, this is demography. As long as this list says population within legal/political boundaries., I want to see population within legal/political boundaries. I want to see nothing else. In this context, I am not interested what Kam Wing Chan or Statistics Norway says. I recommend the study of Kam Wing Chan's paper, because it gives a taste for the difficulties in China. But I humbly ask that this list delivers what this list promises, namely the population within legal/political boundaries. I will not stop asking for it.

As far as sourcing the list to a single source goes, saying that I would be "happy" with it would be an exaggeration. But if title and intro clearly say that this is a list based on a single source, and if the intro says that the list is old and only one of the many ways to look at a city population, then I must and will accept it. You will get a big discussion from other people about whether Statistics Norway is the go to place for these stats (remember Finland?) but you will not get any flak from me whatsoever. I'm not "happy" with the Forstall list either, but as you may recall, I did defend it from dimwitted editors until I grew tired of cleaning up their messes (the template is still there, in case you get likewise tired.) Forstall made some serious mistakes, but they are his mistakes, not ours.

One of the problems of List of metropolitan areas by population is - as both of us know - that many people do not read the intro. With an attention span of puppies, they just read the title and head for the list. You need to spell it out in the title. List of cities proper by population won't fly if you use the Norwegian list. Worlds's largest cities (without suburbs, Statistics Norway), maybe. Please not Worlds's largest cities without suburbs...

Also, "suburbs" is a bit vague. I see the Norwegian list uses the 23 special wards as Tokyo without suburbs. Large parts of the outlying wards clearly have suburbian character. Limiting the height of a building to 10 meters is quite suburbian, won't you agree? -- BsBsBs (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: I don't know about this Norwegian list (which appears to be the infamous Finnish list). Their 2005 population of Beijing (with suburbs ...) doesn't agree at all with the official 2005 Beijing stats. And from the numbers, they seem to assume that Yokohama is a suburb of Tokyo ... Not very awe inspiring .... -- BsBsBs (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Navigating the streets and cities of China

For the budding sinologists who rely too much on Wikipedia entries (frequent editors should know of its dangers), here are some remarks about the largest and tiniest municipal structures in China. Now that the flames of the holy wars have died down a bit, we can do something constructive. Let me preface this by disclosing that I lived in China for six years now. I’m far from fluent in Mandarin, and at my ripe age, I never will. However, at my office, I am surrounded by learned, well paid Chinese, who can lend a hand and a dictionary. (No WP:OR comments, please.)

(The following discussion requires your computer’s ability to display Chinese characters. If that ability lacks, you just need to trust me – as hard as this may be. I also enclose some pinyin.)

Direct-controlled municipalities

There has been a lot of discussion that many Chinese "cities" don’t qualify as "cities." One recurring argument is that the Chinese themselves don’t call Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Chongqing "cities" – they call them direct-controlled municipalities, so they can't possibly be cities. Let’s set aside the contentious (and occasionally mind-boggling) argument that a city is a municipality, and that a municipality can be a city. Let’s focus on the fact that the Chinese don’t call Beijing, Shanghai, Tianjin, and Chongqing "cities." Supposedly, they call them "municipalities."

Well, they don’t call them "municipalities." We do.

Direct-controlled municipalities are called 直辖市(zhíxiáshì) in Mandarin . An English-Mandarin dictionary will translate this to "directly governed city region" or something to that effect, but that’s already trying to be helpful to the foreigner. Literally translated, it means "directly administered city." City. Not municipality.

Let's dissect zhíxiáshì (dictionary entry under the link):

• 直 (zhí) = "straight; vertical; frank; directly; straightly; upright"
• 辖 (xiá) = "have jurisdiction over"
• 市 (shì) = "market; city"

(Speakers of Japanese will recognize the Chinese character and the "shi" likewise as "city" – it’s a loan word from the Chinese.)

The alleged direct-controlled municipalities are in truth and in their language "direct controlled cities."

But then you say, the Chinese translate it themselves as municipality. They sure do. They do it as a favor to us 老外 (lao wai) or more politically correct 外国人 (wài guó rén) i.e. foreigners. They tell us what we want to hear, not what they say.

Let’s go to Beijing’s official website. There it is: "Beijing Municipal Government." They are nice to us. If you go to the Chinese version of Beijing’s website, you will find 北京市政务 Běi jīng shì zhèng wù (Beijing city government affairs) and 市政府 shì zhèng fǔ (city government). Actually, Běi jīng shì is a double city. Běi jīng means "northern capital city" and shì means "city". So we have a "Northern capital city city government."

Because we insist (and insist we do) they call themselves in front of us a "municipality" – but amongst themselves, they call their city (and the whole thing, a.k.a.. the "city proper") a "city."

Similar situations exist in many countries and languages. Many languages lack a direct equivalent of "municipality". We need to be mindful of this when something is translated. Sometimes, the translation just tries to be helpful. For instance, translated to German, a very literal language, "municipality" can mean anything from "village" ("Gemeinde") to "city administration" ("Stadtverwaltung"). Translated from German, "Gemeinde" translates to "village", or "parish", or even "church congregation." "Stadtverwaltung" translates to "city administration". Be VERY careful of translations. Also be careful and suspicious if someone, Wikipedia included, tells you that "municipality" means this in that country, and that in another country. You could become a victim of overly solicitous translations, or simply, mistakes. Municipality tells you that in Germany, a municipality is a "Gemeinde" (village, parish). Correct. If it would tell you that in Germany, a municipality is a city or a city government, they would also be correct. Even when Wikipedia tells you the truth, it may not tell you the whole truth.

Jiedao

Our resident sinologists say that jiedao is a "street committee." I have been castigated for having no idea what I’m talking about, and for not knowing what a jiedao is. Honestly, I had no idea. However, I am surrounded by Chinese and, as I now realize, by jiedao. Again, do not trust Wikipedia (why would you trust something that is edited by people like me?)

In Wikipedia, Jiedao redirects to Subdistrict (China), which is patently wrong. It should be deleted on the grounds of utter nonsense.

Jiedao (街道 jīedào) simply means "street". The translators and redirectors were led astray by Jiedao Banshichu (街道办事处 Jīedào Bàngshìchù), which also doesn’t mean "street committee", it means something like "subdistrict office". See here for a dissection of Jīedào Bàngshìchù. I inquired with my Chinese whether "jiedao" could be the short version of Subdistrict Office in slang (maybe as in "do you want to talk now, or do I have to take you downtown?"), but they vehemently deny that. I am led to believe that at least in Beijing, "jiedao" means "street" and nothing but. Again, tread carefully with translations. Or would you accept a redirect from street to street gang? -- BsBsBs (talk) 11:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This all seems beside the point. As far as jiedao, I will admit to complete ignorance of the Chinese, but obviously when it was being referred to earlier what was meant was "Subdistrict," as I quickly ascertained by typing "jiedao" into the wikipedia search box and coming up with the redirect you note, and which was obviously the intended meaning. If you think that's wrong, that's something to bring up at Talk:Subdistrict (China) and Talk:Jiedao, but doesn't really have anything to do with the discussion here. (I'm sorry, though, that I accused you of ignorance before on this matter - obviously you know what you're talking about). As far as city vs. municipality, I think that's a red herring too. The argument isn't about what the direct-controlled municipalities and the like are called. It's about what they are. The direct-controlled municipality of Chongqing, whatever it is called, is not a city and certainly is not a "city proper," a term which strongly implies a unit smaller than an unmodified "city". No matter what word the Chinese use, direct-controlled municipalities, prefecture-level cities, and the like simply are not "cities" or "cities proper" under the commonly understood English meanings of those terms. john k (talk) 13:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In the commonly understood English (well, American) sense, a "city" is whatever the city fathers decide. In the commonly understood English sense, "city proper" is what city proper says. This is something that doesn't want in your brain. I can understand that. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Both the Chinese Wikipedia and the UN Statistics Division use it so there is probably some usage of it as such. A search in Google Books and Google Scholar also shows significant usage of the term as it is used here. --Polaron | Talk 13:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The UN statistics division fell prey to the same translation mistake. They actually translate "Jiedao" literally as "street" - which created a lot of confusion. If you follow the revision history of Jiedao, you will see that someone had it right in the beginning. That turned into roadkill. I supplied the correct translations as links. That's all I can do. I can't change deeply rooted beliefs. I never thought there would be jiedao fundamentalists. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If jiedao is not the Chinese word for a subdistrict, what is? john k (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why ask me if you won't believe me anyway? Try http://www.nciku.com Type in "subdistrict". Then type in "subdistrict office". With a little work (you'll figure it out), you'll notice that "subdistrict" translates to 分区 ,fēn qū, something like "small district" (makes sense, the first choice given is more a "development" in American, or a "housing estate" in British). You'll also notice that "subdistrict office" translates to something that has no "subdistrict" or even "district" (qū) in it, the now infamous 街道办事处 Jīedào Bàngshìchù, which dissects to this. Did they ever mention that Chinese isn't easy? If you really want to know, you will find out that single words are pretty much useless in Chinese, everything depends heavily on context. -- BsBsBs (talk) 03:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be a significant number of results in a Google Scholar search which indicate "jiedao" as a synonym for "subdistrict". In the absence of further proof, I would trust these references over your looking up words in a dictionary. john k (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a significant number that got it wrong, and there is a significant number that got it right (Jīedào Bàngshìchù). Did I warn you of translations? I can give you more than a million hits for "Kindergarden", but it doesn't change the fact that it's "Kindergarten." Required reading for the budding sinologist: Chinglish -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are asserting that jiedao is wrong based on a forum post and your own ability to use an online Chinese-English dictionary. The term is used not on the internet at large, but in scholarly papers. I'm sorry, but until you can present some actually useful evidence, I'm going to go with the scholarly papers. john k (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the status of usage of "Jiedao" as a synonym for "Subdistrict," none of this has anything to do with this article. john k (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't? I'm relieved. If that article would do what it claims it does, namely list all the people living within the administrative boundaries of each list entry, then any jiedao, lu, ma lu, jie, da jie, subdistricts, districts, or whatever would indeed be totally irrelevant. However, this list lies. It says it lists the people within the administrative boundaries. And then it fabricates numbers that fit beliefs and convictions, but are otherwise a fraud. To bolster claims, likewise fraudulent references are created, Such as the infamous "Core districts + inner suburbs - Refers to districts that contain jiedao (street committees) associated with the central city." Nice try, but total bunk. This is no reference. It has no source. It's a fraud. It is as genuine as a 4 dollar bill. It's a clumsy forgery. Full of mistakes. When the forgery and the mistakes are brought up, they are dismissed as "irrelevant." By an administrator, who should have some idea of what a source is. By someone who had made a big to do of the blasted jiedao a few days ago. Conveniently forgotten. Thank you for confirming that the jiedao doesn't mean a thing. I take that as a confirmation that we can now go back to what the list says it is doing, ok? But why do I believe that this is not going to happen? I see the revisionist brigade has already performed a new round of ethnic cleansing and removed all tags that had put questionable or downright fraudulent entries up for discussion. Editors who would normally be up in arms looked the other way. I will not put the tags back. This six year old list is a wasteland, a crippled victim of edit war crimes. It is beyond hope. This list has been made irrelevant. -- BsBsBs (talk) 01:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Once again, we do not all agree that this article should list all the people living within the administrative boundaries of each list entry. Beyond that, are you really accusing people of fraud here? Polaron's arguments about core districts and outer subdistricts comes directly from an article linked at the University of Washington website. You may think his interpretation of those results is in error, but for someone who a couple of days ago was so concerned about civility, it's pretty outrageous to use this to accuse others of forgery and fraud. Beyond that, I'll point out again that the precise Chinese word for "subdistrict" is completely irrelevant to any argument that anyone is having. Polaron's contention was that districts with over 1500 people/square km + surrounding subdistricts with over 1500 people/square km constitute the "urban" part of Chinese cities, and that these, rather than the much larger administrative units that are called "cities," should be considered to be the "city proper". What does the Chinese word for "subdistrict" have to do with any of that? And what is the fraud here? john k (talk) 05:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

There you go again. You ask for a translation of "subdistrict", and when given, you dismiss it as irrelevant. Why do you ask in the first place? If "Core districts + inner suburbs - Refers to districts that contain jiedao (street committees) associated with the central city" comes directly from an article linked at the University of Washington website, why doesn't it have a reference to that article? Why is it marked-up as a reference, when it isn't? Indeed a minor point, if the bigger point would be observed. And the big, central point is this:

• When the article says that these are population numbers within administrative boundaries, and they aren't, then it can be a mistake.
• When it is pointed out and corrected, with proper references to go with it, and when it is subsequently reverted, again and again to patently false numbers, then it is deliberate fraud.
• Must I explain "fraud" also? (As nothing of value seems to change hands, I take 1b).

If you want something else, get rid of the intro. Lose "administrative boundaries" and "city proper" because in the English language, it means the same. Come up with something new (good luck.) As long as it says that these are population numbers within administrative boundaries or city proper, and as long as what follows intentionally are not the population numbers within administrative boundaries, then we have "an act of deceiving or misrepresenting." Fraud. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

BsBsBs - I don't know that anyone was specifically defending the particular language you are quoting and beating up on. I certainly wasn't. But the University of Washington site talks about the urban population consisting of districts with over 1500 people per square km, plus surrounding subdistricts with over 1500 people per square km. That is what is being meant by the rather awkward language you keep harping on, and you continue to profess not to understand it despite people repeatedly explaining it to you. As to fraud, this is ridiculous and outrageous. Assume good faith. In this case, it's not even hard, because it's obvious that people are acting in good faith. We disagree with you that cities proper are identical to administrative boundaries. When you change the list and include the population of an Austria-sized area as the population of "Chongqing proper" you are reverted because people disagree with your definition of "city proper". If they are reverting to numbers that are problematic, that is unfortunate, but it is not fraud, and the way to get better numbers is not to revert to your preferred version which nobody agrees with you about and then accusing other editors of fraud when they revert you. You are using these various pedantic points to try and turn a good faith disagreement over content into a question of maliciousness. Beyond that, you have yet to explain why you think it is definitive that a "city proper" must be equivalent to an administrative unit - you just keep asserting it, over and over again. In normal usage, a city proper is, in essence, "the area where nobody would dispute it is part of the given city." For some places, this corresponds pretty well with the municipal boundaries. In other parts of the world, it really doesn't. Insisting on a one size fits all solution simply makes this article useless. john k (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's very, very simple: This list says it delivers the people within administrative boundaries. It admittedly and certifiably does not. According to your writings, with intent. Editors remove data that lists population that adheres to the intro. This is a scandal. I don't have to explain anything, except that the list has to do what it says it does. I won't explain anything to you anyway anymore, because once I do, you say it's irrelevant. If you don't believe that "city proper" is equivalent to "within corporate limits" then I must question your reading comprehension, you cannot be helped, and you should not edit these articles. Even if you don't grasp the meaning of "city proper", the list says: "Here are the people within the administrative boundaries." The list does not deliver the people within the administrative boundaries. It delivers intentionally false, doctored, and made-up numbers. Next time you hand in your tax return, and you report only half of your earnings, try complaining about "using various pedantic points to turn a good faith disagreement into a question of maliciousness" and see what the auditor has to say. This position is indefensible. I am asking you as an administrator how deliberately using false data that doesn't fall within the scope of a list jibes with Wikipedia's pillar of verifiability. The option to change title and intro remains open. How about "List of the world's most populous cities according to gut feeling?" -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, be careful when denying cities that exceed the size of Austria their right of existence. Hulunbuir, Jiuquan, and Kalgoorlie-Boulder won't see the humor in it. Your enemy #1, Chongqing would remain unaffected, as Austria is a tad larger than Chongqing . If you want to hit Chongqing, you must create a list titled List of cities proper by population, excluding those exceeding the surface area of the Czech Republic. Why stop at that? Create List of cities proper by population, excluding those exceeding the surface area of Brunei. You will have wiped out most of the most obnoxious Chinese cities, and you will live happily ever after. -- BsBsBs (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Jiedao (街道) can be translated as an urban street in China, but it can also be regarded as a subdistrict within urbans. Both translations of "street" and "subdistrict" are not wrong. For example in Beijing: Dongcheng District consists of 17 jiedao. Xicheng District consists of 15 jiedao. Chaoyang District consists of 21 jiedao and 21 diqu (地区, subdistricts). Fengtai District consists of 14 jiedao, 2 diqu, 2 zhen (鎮, towns) and 3 xiang (乡, townships). Shijingshan District consists of 10 jiedao. Haidian District consists of 14 jiedao，2 diqu，2 zhenand 3 xiang. Mentougou District consists of 4 jiedao and 9 zhen. Fangshan District consists of 6 jiedao. 3 diqu, 11 zhen and 6 xiang. Tongzhou District consists of 4 jiedao, 10 zhen and 1 minzu-xiang (民族乡, ethnic rural township). Shunyi District consists of 3 jiedao, 7 diqu and 12 zhen. Changping District consists of 2 jiedao, 3 diqu and 12 zhen. Daxing District consist of 3 jiedao, 14 zhen and 2 other areas (Hongxing Agricultural-Stockbreeding Divisional Area and Yizhuang Economic Development Area). Huairou District consits of 2 jiedao, 3 diqu, 9 zhen, 2 minzu-xiang and 2 other areas (Yanqi Economic Development Area and Mutianyu Great Wall Travel Area). Pinggu District consists of 2 jiedao, 4 zhen and 2 xiang. Miyun County consists of 17 zhen and 1 minzu-xiang. Yanqing County consists of 11 zhen and 4 xiang.

The official estimated population of Beijing as of Dec 31, 2009 (press release on Feb 2, 2010) is:

http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/xwgb/tjgb/ndgb/201002/t20100202_165217.htm

Total de jure population (常住全市人口): 17,550,000 (including only residents over 6 months)

hukou (de jure) population (户籍人口): 12,458,000

Registered temporary de jure population: (外来常住人口): 5,092,000

Urban (de jure) population (城镇人口): 14,918,000

Rural (de jure) population (乡村人口): 2,632,000

However, according to a press release on July 22, 2010, the estimted de jure population of Beijing as of Dec 31, 2009 is slightly corrected.

http://news.itxinwen.com/Commerce_Finance/2010/0722/153683.html

Total de jure population (常住全市人口): 19,722,000 (including only residents over 6 months)

hukou (de jure) population (户籍人口): 12,458,000

Registered temporary de jure population: (外来常住人口): 7,264,000

Registered temporary population: (外来人口): 7,638,000 (including all the temporary residents)

There is another early press release in Februrary, 2010, that the population of Beijing was 22,000,000 as of Dec. 31, 2009, but the number is slightly reduced as above. The numbers above (either 19,722,00 or 22,000,000) may not be officially released final estimates.

For the estimated city district de jure population (市区人口) within city districts (市辖区, shixia-qu), I can only find the figure of 15,595,000 out of total 16,330,000 as of Dec 31, 2007.

So there are three options to choose for the population of "City Proper" of Beijing.

A. 17,550,500 official estimated total de jure population of Beijing-shi (as of Dec 31, 2009) (or 19,722,000 as of Dec 31, 2009 according to the press release in July, 2010)

B. 15,595,000 official estimated de jure population of city districts in Beijing-shi (as of Dec 31, 2007; maybe there is much newer number) (or probably slightly less than 19,000,000 as of Dec 31, 2009, if July 2010 press release is accurate)

C. 14,918,000 official estimated de jure population of urban areas in Beijing-shi (as of Dec 31, 2009) (or probably slightly more than 18,000,000 as of Dec 31, 2009, if July 2010 press release is accurate)

Among these, I prefer the definition B, which follows the UN data.

I know some people want to use urban area definition C. The official defitinion of statistical urban areas (城镇) in China is given below:

http://www.stats.gov.cn/tjbz/t20061018_402369828.htm

According to article 4, urban areas (城镇) consist of urban districts (城区) and town districts (镇区). According to article 5, urban disticts (城区) are the inner areas governed by street offices (街道办事处) and additional suburb areas (city public facilities and contiguous village areas) within city districts (市辖区) and cities without districts (不设区的市). According to article 6, town districts are towns (镇) and their public facilities and contiguous village areas, and some village-level divisions with more than 3,000 persons.

Although urban area definitions C is officially and statistically set by the Agency in China, it is apparent that such urban area population is not that of a city proper.

I also know that some people do not like big population of Chonqing-shi. So, the better answer is to change the definitions of "city proper" to the loose one accepted by the UN admitting many exceptions, and make the other list for municipalities.Aurichalcum (talk) 10:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Finally someone who has a sense for the sometimes byzantine world of China. Let me preface this with a note: I have lived and worked in China for 6 years. I’m on the 40th floor, overlooking Chang’an Avenue. I still have to get used to the idea that my street address, let’s call it 123 Chang’an Avenue, does not denote a building, but several blocks up and down the Avenue and several blocks deep into the side streets.

I employ some learned Chinese. My office manager is a member of the National Congress. I had a long jiedao discussion with her, and was offered to be introduced to the manager of my Jīedào Bàngshìchù (something that I usually avoid). This is what I learned from a seasoned administrator who has been around since before the Cultural revolution.

It is true that Jīedào means street. It can also mean “neighborhood” or “area” It means more to older people than to younger people.

Here is how it works here.

• I’m in Chaoyang District.
• My subdistrict is Jianwai. It is administered by the now infamous Jīedào Bàngshìchù. Here is the website of Jianwai. Confusingly, the 街道办事处 Jīedào Bàngshìchù is often translated as “Street Office” (especially when using Google translate, probably because it has “street” in it). Better translators use “subdistrict office” or “area office”. It is everything but a small office at a street corner. It provides important functions to the population.
• The Jianwai subdistrict again has 8 branch offices that serve neighborhoods. They are called居委会 (ju wei hui) , sometimes translated as “neighborhood committees”, sometimes as “street committees”. They are no committee. They provide the lowest level functions.

I spent my whole Saturday afternoon researching why "Core districts + inner suburbs - Refers to districts that contain jiedao (street committees) associated with the central city" is total bunk. And when I was done, I found out that the work was for naught, because the faux reference has been changed into a likewise faux and unreferenced reference saying “Refers to fully urban districts, that is districts with a population density of over 1,500 per km².” Another fabrication.

As for the population, after living in China for a while, one gets used to the fact that there are differing numbers. It’s a big country. Several entities do the counting. The methodology changes. There is the hukou and non hukou thing. Some numbers never agree. It is estimated that Beijing has around 5 million people that appear on no statistics, because they are here illegally, and avoid any jīedào bàngshìchù, ju wei hui, policeman or statistician. They hide under the bed when the census taker knocks. Knowing this and trying to come up with a correct number by applying a formula that is translated by Google, and using inputs that do not care about this formula, is an exercise in futility. Getting the real number for the whole city is hard enough. Why some people try to calculate another number is beyond me. Except if they do it for propaganda purposes. Whether Beijing proper has 20 million or 22 million, I don’t know. I accept any official number. What I know is that it definitely is not 10 million. 瞎说八道. --BsBsBs (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You say: “Refers to fully urban districts, that is districts with a population density of over 1,500 per km².” Another fabrication.. But the statement is factually correct. Look up the densities of the included and excluded districts. --Polaron | Talk 18:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

How long have you been editing Wikipedia? We don't want facts. We want verifiable facts, referenced to reliable sources. You fabricate your own references. We most definitely don't want fraudulent references. And even if you reference your 1500 per sqkm to the bible, it doesn't help you: The intro says it delivers the population within administrative boundaries. Not the population in areas above 1500 pop/sqkm (While you grapple with that logic, please remove Pyongyang, Chongqing, Shenyang, and Cape Town from this list. In each case, the whole city is listed as below 1500/sqkm. When you are done with that, please deduct the population of all districts below 1500/sqkm from all cities listed. That should keep you busy for a while.)-- BsBsBs (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Polaron, just by way of a sanity check: Would you mind giving us the math you used to arrive at the population of 10,123,000 for Beijing, assuming your formula of counting only the districts over 1500 pop/sqkm? Not that I accept that formula for the purpose of this list. I just would like to see how you computed that number. Thank you. -- BsBsBs (talk) 23:46, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do I think we'll never get a proper accounting for this number? It's supposed to be instantly verifiable. -- BsBsBs (talk) 10:16, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your point is here. There's a reference linked to for district populations. Just add the populations for the districts listed. If you want an explicit list of densities this should help. Again, this is consistent with the statistical concept of 城八区/城六区. --Polaron | Talk 13:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Population of Beijing is not properly cited.

According to the official Beijing Statistical Information Net, the de jure population (permanent residents over six months) as of Dec 31, 2007 is as follows:

16,330,000 is the official estimated de jure population of Beijing-shi.

15,595,000 is the official estimated de jure population of city districts within Beijin-shi.

13,799,000 is the official estimated de jure urban population of Beijing-shi.

http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/tjnj/2008-tjnj/content/V35_0308.htm

http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/tjnj/2008-tjnj/content/mV33_0301.htm

The official estimated de jure populations of Beijing (total, urban/rural, hukou/non-hukou, city districs/counties) are as follows:

Year	total	urban	rural	hukou	non-hukou	city districts	counties
Dec 1, 2000 (census)	13,569,194	10,522,464	3,046,730	--	--	11,509,595	2,059,599
Dec 31, 2000	13,636,000	10,574,000	3,062,000	11,705,000	1,931,000	--	--
Dec 31, 2001	13,851,000	10,812,200	3,039,000	11,223,000	2,628,000	--	--
Dec 31, 2002	14,232,000	11,180,000	3,052,000	11,363,000	2,869,000	--	--
Dec 31, 2003	14,564,000	11,513,000	3,051,000	11,488,000	3,076,000	--	--
Dec 31, 2004	14,927,000	11,872,000	3,055,000	11,629,000	3,298,000	--	--
Dec 31, 2005	15,380,000	12,861,000	2,519,000	11,807,000	3,573,000	14,661,000	719,000
Dec 31, 2006	15,810,000	13,333,000	2,477,000	11,976,000	3,834,000	15,074,000	736,000
Dec 31, 2007	16,330,000	13,799,000	2,531,000	12,133,000	4,197,000	15,595,000	735,000
Dec 31, 2008	16,950,000	14,391,000	2,559,000	12,299,000	4,651,000	16,206,000	744,000
Dec 31, 2009 (provisional)	17,550,000	14,918,000	2,632,000	12,458,000	5,092,000	--	--

Aurichalcum (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

But the number that this article cites is 10,123,000 as of Dec 31, 2007. This means someone has calculated the urban population of Beijing-shi, and the official data is not properly cited.

Anyway, the area size of an urban area changes every year, and the definition of an urban area is not administratively done; an urban area is determined by gathering second or third-level subdistricts within the first-level districts.

I think we should follow the definition of city proper by the UN Statisticsl Yearbook (except for those with only urban aggloremations), for "city proper" is a vague concept. In this case, we will use "city districts" as a "city proper" for Chinese cities. If this article is a list of "cities" (not city proper), then we should use total (or municipal) population for Chongqing. We should not cite Tokyo as a city (every ward of 23 special wards in Tokyo should be listed independently as a locality equivalent to a city, although even the biggest ward of Setagaya has only 800,000 inhabitants and shall not appear in the list).

By the way, the over 1500/km2-density criteria for the definition of urban areas in China, which was introduced in 1999, is no longer used for the definition of urban areas. In 2006, the definition of an urban area has changed as I mentioned above.Aurichalcum (talk) 19:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. sorry, not de facto but de jure population (parmenent residents over 6 months in case of China). By the way, 16,330,000 figure is de jure population (hukou plus temporary) as of Dec 31, 2007. The hukou population of Beijing-shi as of Dec 31, 2007 is 12,133,000.Aurichalcum (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Aurichalcum (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The new criterion of using the contiguous area under the adminstration of street committees was the one previously listed prior to all this discussion. That is the one being used in the 2009 revision of the World Urbanization Prospects. --Polaron | Talk 20:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

One problem with using the total urban population of the municipality is it does not represent a single urban area. The total urban population includes the cities of Fangshan, Shunyi, Changxindian, Changping, and Liangxiang, in addition to Beijing proper. --Polaron | Talk 20:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Aurichalcum: The 16,330,000 number is the hukou number. You need to add 4.197.000 non hukou or 外来人口 as they say. That bring the total pop to 20.5 million in 2007.See table here. For non Chinese: Beijing-shi: Beijing City. That's what Beijing calls itself. Beijing-shi is all of Beijing. It totally agree that one cannot just willy-nilly go into these tables and make calculations. That's called Original Research. And an outsider will never get it right. BTW, the PSB number and the statistics number always differs. --20:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

No, I can read Chinese characterers. 常住人口 is de jure population. You can find year-by-year 户籍人口 (huji (=hukou) population) here.The huji population as of Dec 31, 2007 is 12,133,000. That is, 12,133,000 (hukou) + 4,197,000 (non-hukou) = 16,330,000 (total de jure)

Aurichalcum (talk) 20:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC) Aurichalcum (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For the non-Chinese speakers: There is an outdated 2006 Yearbook in English. http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/tjnj/2006-tjnj/index-english.htm . Table 3.8 http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/tjnj/2006-tjnj/content/mV8_03-08.htm explains it in Chinese and English. It gives the "Permanent Population" 常住人口 and the "Non-permanent Natives" #外来人口. One needs to add these two columns to get the total. I have lived in Beijing for six years and I'm not even counted. I officially count as "temporary resident" which is not "non-permanent". In the 2010 census, for the first time foreigners (as in non-Chinese) will be counted also. Editors should also know the difference between the "de jure" and the "de facto" population. The "de jure" population is based on registration data kept by the Public Security Bureau. The "de facto" population is based on a major census every 10 years and 1 percent micro censuses every year. These micro censuses are used to extrapolate the population. Note that the 2000 census was never finished.--BsBsBs (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC) ´´´

The English translations are rather misleading. 常住人口 means simply de jure population (with successive residents over six months in Chinese case), which includes (常住)外来人口 in this case. The table http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/tjnj/2006-tjnj/content/mV8_03-08.htm says 常住人口 is 15,380,000 and 外来人口 is 3,573,000 in 2005. But if you see another table http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/tjnj/2006-tjnj/content/mV5_03-05.htm , 户籍人口 (Registered Permanent Residents) is given 11,807,000. So this is the right answer: 11,807,000 (hukou) plus 3,573,000 (non-hukou) = 15,380,000 (total de jure). So adding 常住人口 and 外来人口 is perfectly wrong. Maybe the 15,380,000 figure should be called, "The official estimated de jure registered population of Chinese nationality."

The estimated population of Beijing in 2009 is explained below in Chinese (but probably provisional one). http://www.bjstats.gov.cn/xwgb/tjgb/ndgb/201002/t20100202_165217.htm

人口：年末全市常住人口1755万人，比上年末增加60万人。其中，外来人口509.2万人，占常住人口的比重为29%。常住人口中，城镇人口1491.8万人，占常住人口的85%。全市常住人口出生率8.06‰，死亡率4.56‰，自然增长率3.5‰。全市常住人口密度为1069人/平方公里，每平方公里比上年末增加36人。年末全市户籍人口1245.8万人，比上年末增加15.9万人。

Population: total de jure population at year end: 17,550,000; 600,000 increased compared to the last year. Among it, non-permanent population is 509,2000, occupying 29% of de jure population. Within de jure population, urban population is 14,918,000, occupying 85% of de jure population. ........... Total huji population at year end: 12,458,000; 159,000 increased compared to the last year.

By the way, even the censuses in China use de jure concept. In Japanese case, de facto concept was used in censuses before 1947. So even the people including foreigners staying in hotels for one night on census day were counted as residents. But after 1948, de jure concept was introduced to censuses. So the census population only includes foreigners who live in Japan more than six months.Aurichalcum (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Population: The city's permanent population by the end of the year was 17.55 million, an increase of 600,000 over the previous year. Of this, the temporary ("foreign") population was 5.092 million, 29% of the the resident population of 29%. Of the resident population, 14.918 million, or 85% was urban. The city's permanent population birth rate was 8.06 ‰, the mortality rate was 4.56 ‰, the natural growth rate was 3.5 ‰. The city's resident population density is 1069 persons / square kilometer, an increase of 36 over the previous year...."

I know it says that, It is a well known fact in Chinese demographics that there are conflicting statistics, even official. There have been other releases with other numbers. The 18 million number is politically sensitive in Beijing, as Beijing's capacity officially is planned for a maximum of 18 million by 2020.

It also is a well known fact that even in the same yearbook, numbers conflict.

The population in 2007 was already 17.14 million: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2007-08/21/content_6035187.htm. (This was a PSB number, always lower ...)

Then by the end of 2008, it was 16.95 million: http://www.philstar.com/article.aspx?articleid=434893

Feb 2010: More than 22 million: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-02/26/content_9511839.htm

In July 2010 19.7 million: http://www.gov.cn/english/2010-07/23/content_1662269.htm http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90782/90872/7078574.html

August 4, 2010: 19.72 million, but could be 3 million more - http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2010-08/04/content_11089666.htm

It looks like "19.72m, but maybe 3 million more" will be the official number for this year, because it was used in a report to the Beijing legislature.

Welcome to China. This is definitely not Japan or Germany.-- BsBsBs (talk) 23:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Polaronics, Part 2

Welcome to Polaronics, Part 2. A series where you can gain from the vast experience of a highly experienced editor. Mr Polaron is a highly decorated veteran of Wikipedia, with a chest full of barnstars to prove it. Watch how he does it, and soon you too will become an editor that walks away victorious from any edit war.

Did you ever wonder why Wikipedia warns you not to do any original research whatsoever? Did you sometimes question why this is a good idea? In this episode, Polaron shows you why you should stay away from original research, as far as possible.

Remember, further up we had asked Mr. Polaron how he arrived at the population number of 10,123,000 for Beijing proper. Let’s set aside the contentious argument for a while that he should count the whole population. He insists that as a special treat for China, he counts only the population of the districts above 1500 people per sqkm. Ok, let’s go with that assumption for a moment. When asked how he arrived at 10,123,000 for Beijing, Mr. Polaron tersely tossed us a table of areas and population densities. Nowhere on this table does it say 10,123,000, so we have to do the hard work ourselves.

Here is the math:

District	sqkm	Pop/sqkm	Pop
Xuanwu	18.91	29,244	553,000
Dongcheng	25.34	21,784	552,000
Xicheng	31.62	21,031	665,000
Chongwen	16.52	18,099	299,000
Chaoyang	455.08	6,594	3,001,000
Haidian	430.73	6,533	2,814,000
Shijingshan	84.32	6,475	546,000
Fengtai	305.8	5,536	1,693,000	10,123,000
Tongzhou	906.28	1,065	965,000
Daxing	1036.32	944	978,000
Shunyi	1019.89	722	736,000
Changping	1343.54	667	896,000
Fangshan	1989.54	446	887,000
Pinggu	950.13	446	424,000
Miyun	2229.45	201	449,000
Mentougou	1450.7	186	270,000
Huairou	2122.62	149	316,000
Yanqing	1993.75	143	286,000
			16,330,000

Good job! 10,123,000 on the dot! And isn’t it amazing that Beijing’s population in 2007 already stood at 16,330,000 people? Too bad that 6 million of them are not represented in Mr. Polaron’s table. It’s their own fault. If they would move into the higher rent districts of Xuanwu through Fengtai, they would be properly recognized. It’s especially tough for the people in Tongzhou. Here is a district with a population density higher than the capital of North Korea (according to this list), but its people, nearly a million, are swept under the rug. Same for Daxing. Or any of the other second class citizens of Beijing that don't make Polaron's grade. But Polaron’s rules are Polaron’s rules.

I know what’s on your mind now: What’s so wrong with original research? You know, even the most seasoned editors can make a little mistake once in a while. Mr. Polaron was tricked by the sneaky Chinese. They gave him a table that calculated the population density only by the people who have their hukou in Beijing. The other people were not counted. You know, it’s as if you live in New York, but you become an NYC statistic only if your parents, grandparents and previous generations stepped off the Mayflower and immediately moved to New York City. If your parents moved from Boston to Manhattan, you would go in another column. (Imagine how this would make board interviews at Co-ops easier! Wrong column? Sorry!) The Chinese have those two columns, and to arrive at the total population, both have to be added. You don't believe it?

According to "Major Points in Defining Urban Population in Census 2000", Mr. Polaron's Bible, those with hukou and those without must be added. Darn, forgot! A small oversight by Mr. Polaron, happens to the best of us. Let’s fix that now. Here is the new table:

District	sqkm	Pop/sqkm	Pop Hukou	Pop Non-Hukou	Permanent Pop Total
Xuanwu	18.91	35,008	553,000	109,000	662,000
Dongcheng	25.34	25,770	552,000	101,000	653,000
Xicheng	31.62	24,510	665,000	110,000	775,000
Chongwen	16.52	21,429	299,000	55,000	354,000
Chaoyang	455.08	8,711	3,001,000	963,000	3,964,000
Haidian	430.73	8,502	2,814,000	848,000	3,662,000
Shijingshan	84.32	8,456	546,000	167,000	713,000
Fengtai	305.8	6,998	1,693,000	447,000	2,140,000	12,923,000
Tongzhou	906.28	1,372	965,000	278,000	1,243,000
Daxing	1036.32	1,269	978,000	337,000	1,315,000
Shunyi	1019.89	891	736,000	173,000	909,000
Changping	1343.54	894	896,000	305,000	1,201,000
Fangshan	1989.54	511	887,000	130,000	1,017,000
Pinggu	950.13	480	424,000	32,000	456,000
Miyun	2229.45	219	449,000	40,000	489,000
Mentougou	1450.7	208	270,000	32,000	302,000
Huairou	2122.62	170	316,000	45,000	361,000
Yanqing	1993.75	156	286,000	25,000	311,000
			16,330,000	4,197,000	20,527,000

Whoa! Nearly three million more! The districts of Tongzhou and Daxing miss Mr. Polaron’s 1500 mark again, but only by a few. With those districts, Beijing’s city proper, Polaron style, would already stand at 15.5 million. Isn’t it amazing? (Those who think that Mr. Polaron’s insistence on 1500 per sqkm has ulterior motives should check their tinfoil hat.)

And aren’t we surprised that in 2007, the total official population of Beijing, according to data anointed by Mr. Polaron, already stood at more than 20 million? Too bad that now 7.6 million are missing from Mr. Polaron’s statistics. Again, they should move to a better neighborhood.

Let’s not dwell on minutiae. Let’s focus on the big picture. Are we still surprised that Beijing’s total population was reported to be more than 22 million by the beginning of 2010?

Speaking of 2010: If we would do a population estimate per district and project the 2007 numbers into the beginning of 2010, then the Polaron number would be 15.3 million or 17 million, depending on Daxing reaching the 1500 mark or not . According to my numbers, they are just 35 people shy of the big Polaron divide. But these are estimations, and they would be highly illegal according to Wikipedia rules, therefore, I won’t show them. Unless you are interested. And promise that you won’t tell anyone.

Now back to the real number. Even according to Mr. Polaron’s highly restrictive (and some may say dubious) criteria, the real number is nearly 13 million. Will Mr. Polaron admit his mistake? Will he change the number for Beijing? Will he recalculate the numbers for the other Chinese cities, assuming that he was consistent and did them the same way? Will Mr. Polaron apply the strict 1500 rule to all cities of the free world? Or will he even succumb to the democratic rule to count all people within the city limits, whether they are on the right side of the tracks or the left? Stay tuned for the next episode of Polaronics. -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1500 density rule is only used by the UN for China since other places don't overbound their cities. Also, the number cited is the full resident population. It includes both hukou and non-hukou populations (see section below). You are the one that's mistaken. --Polaron | Talk 20:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The 1500 density rule is used by previous versions of UN World Urbanization Prospect. But in UN Statistical Yearbook, "city districts" within a city has been used for the definition of a city proper in China since around 1993.Aurichalcum (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The population of all city districts is the criterion used in the 1990 census, which is known to overbound. It was changed to include a density component for the 2000 census. --Polaron | Talk 22:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Today, I read "Tabulation on the 2000 population census of the People's Republic of China (中国2000年人口普查资料)" (2002) in three volumes (ISBN 7-5037-3872-3) and "Prefectural Tabulation on the 2000 population census (2000人口普查分县资料)" (2003) (ISBN 7-5037-4004-3), and I found that [城市] is translated as "city" in English. But the populations of total city districts were still given in the census books. Furthermore, the prefectural population data contain total de jure populations, huji populations, urban populations (城镇人口), rural populations (农村人口), etc, but the city-type urban populations (城市人口) and town-type urban populations (镇人口) were only available for the four direct-controlled municipalities and provinces as far as I read.

Below is the data available for four direct-controlled municipalities as of Nov 1, 2000 (census).

直辖市 (direct-controlled city)		总人口 (total)	城镇人口 (urban)	城市人口 (city urban)	镇人口 (town urban)	乡村人口 (rural)
Beijing 北京市	直辖市 direct-controlled city	13,569,194	10,522,464	9,496,688	1,025,776	3,046,730
	市辖区 city districts	11,509,595	9,876,661			1,632,934
	市辖县 county districts	2,059,599	645,803			1,413,796
Tianjin 天津市	直辖市 direct-controlled city	9,848,731	7,089,812	5,313,702	1,776,110	2,758,919
	市辖区 city districts	7,499,181	6,755,403			743,778
	市辖县 county districts	2,349,550	334,409			2,015,141
Shanghai 上海市	直辖市 direct-controlled city	16,407,734	14,489,919	12,720,701	1,769,218	1,917,815
	市辖区 city districts	14,348,535	13,459,634			888,901
	市辖县 county districts	2,059,199	1,030,285			1,028,914
Chongqing 重庆市	直辖市 direct-controlled city	30,512,763	10,095,512	6,598,225	3,497,287	20,417,251
	市辖区 city districts	9,691,901	6,174,429			3,517,472
	市辖县 county districts	16,460,869	2,436,988			14,023,881
	市辖县级市 county-level cities	4,359,993	1,484,095			2,875,898

Urban (城镇人口) and rural (农村人口) populations were available for all the county-level cities, city districts, counties, but city-type (城市人口) and town-type (镇人口) urban populations were not available. How can such data difficult to access be recognized as city proper population? I checked the UN Statistical Yearbook and the 2000 census population, and apparently city districts criteria are still used for all the cities proper for all the sub-provincial and prefecture-level cities.

Since 2006, 城市人口 and 镇人口 were abolished and updated city-type (城区人口) and town-type (镇区人口) are available, which are about the same with urban populations within city districts and outside city districts.Aurichalcum (talk) 18:14, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Most comparative lists I've seen use the urban population within city districts as the relevant city population figure. There are apparently some tabulations of Chinese city proper figures in the following:

• Zhou, Yixing and Haibo Yu, “Zhongguo chengshi renkou guimo jiegou de zhonggou (The Restructuring

of China’s Urban Population Size Structure),” Chengshi Guihua (City Planning Review), 28, 5:50–55, 2004.

• Zhou, Yixing and Yulong Shi, “Jianli zhongguo chengshi de shiti diyu gainian (Toward Establishing

the Concept of Physical Urban Area in China),” Dili xuebao (Acta Geographica Sinica), 50, 4:289-301, 1995.

• Zhou, Yixing, “Definitions of Urban Places and Statistical Standards of Urban Population in China:

Problems and Solution,” Asian Geographer, 7, 1:12-28, 1988.

If you have some means of accessing these, it might help illuminate the discussion. --Polaron | Talk 18:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I read the article by Y. Zhou and H. Yu (Chengshi Guihua, 28(5), pp. 49-55 (2004); article began from p. 49, not p.50) which provided three sets of "city population" with top hundred names of cities and populations rounded in hundreds. The one is what he calls "census city population (市人口)", which matches the city-type urban population 城市人口) defined for 2000 census. The other two are huji population and huji non-agricultural populations within city districts. The paper referred to two official data books, "China Population Statistics Yearbook (中国人口统计年鉴) 2001" and "China City Statistics Yearbook (中国城市统计年鉴) 2001". I found that the former statistics yearbook provided only huji populations within city districts, so the city-type urban population (城市人口) must have been taken from "China City Statistics Yearbook 2001". Unfortunately, the libraries where I can access easily do not have "China City Statistics Yearbook 2001", so I have to pay a couple of dollars to libraries in order to borrow the book to check the basic census data of 城市人口.

According to this article, the authors admitted that the city districts population was still used as the city population in Chinese publications. Indeed, although he referred to 城市人口 as city population, the official "China City Statistics Yearbook 2001" used traditional city districts population as city population (市人口).

The other two references you refered were published even before the criteria of urban population (城镇人口) was introduced in 1999. Anyway, the article by Y. Zhou and Y. Shi (Dili xuebao, 50(4), pp. 289-301 (1995)) does not provide any list of city populations. Furthermore, he gives English translation of "city proper" to the city ditricts (市区, same with 市辖区).

Anyway, it is apparent that the Chinese census in 2000 or official statistics yearbooks still treated city districts population (市辖区人口, 市区人口) as city population. The city-type urban population (城市人口), which is slighlty different from and usually lower than the urban population (城镇人口) within city districts, is not given in the fundamental datasets of census 2000. The definition of 城市人口 as city population seems only used by Y. Zhou and H. Yu (2004). Even K. W. Chan (Eurasian Geography and Ecnomincs 48(4), pp. 383-412 (20007)) did not use 城市人口 but used urban population within city districts for representing real city population discussions. You must know that the datasets used for "the urban population within city districts criteria" are quite different among researchers who support such theory.Aurichalcum (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2010 (UTC)