Talk:Shanghai/Archive 1

Transclusion from Talk:Shanghai Municipality
Is Shanghai Municipality = Shanghai? (note that it is not the case for Chongqing Municipality and Chongqing City). If it is the case, then we should probably merge the 2 articles. olivier 16:57, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

According to the main article, "Administratively, Shanghai is a municipality ("self-governing city", see Shanghai Municipality) of the People's Republic of China, which gives its city government provincial status."

I say merge for now. --Jiang 20:27, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * The reason why I asked this question is because I am wondering how accurate is this statement in the main article. Shanghai Municipality is clearly a municipality, but I am asking if Shanghai city = Shanghai municipality. If it is not the case, then my understanding would be that the main article is about the city and an additional article would be needed for the larger territory of the municipality (Cf Chongqing). olivier 05:55, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I believe that Shanghai city = Shanghai municipality. Shanghai is too small to have a capital city(Chongqing is 10 times the size of Shanghai), and so there is no "capital" in Shanghai.--Formulax 07:24, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Shanghai city = Shanghai municipality. see: chinese talk.--Shizhao 08:05, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Let's merge then! Did you say that it is the same case for Beijing? --Jiang

I agree with Shizhao. If we go along with the official translation of PRC, there is technically no Shanghai City (not the capitalized C). There was, at one point, but not anymore. For the largest municipality of Chongqing, there also sub-cities ("county-level cities"). But for the rest of the municipalities, there is no more cities below the municipalities. It's mostly districts, and a little counties.

So yes, the other cases are the same: Tianjin Municipality, Beijing Municipality, and Chongqing Municipality = Tianjin, Beijing, and Chongqing City (should be at Chongqing). No cities in Chongqing is called Chongqing too. So, in Chinese, "Chongqing" can only naturally mean Chongqing Municipality (shi). This is true even in Taiwan, because Tianjin and Chongqing were already municipalities in the days of Kuomintang. (Their status was discontinued for a few years during the communist rule.)

--Menchi 08:36, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds good. But where does the discrepancy in population between Chongqing Municipality and Chongqing City come from? olivier 13:34, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * 7,200,000 is probably the just city centre/core (without official boundary).
 * Merriam-Webster gives even less! 2,000,000
 * As does Encarta: (1991) 2,980,000.
 * World Encyc. says 3,122,704 in 300 km²
 * For the first two, the area size is not stated. All the Chinese sources (half a dozen) I came across give around 30,000,000 . The four cities of Chongqing each have a population around 1,000,000 and size of 2,000 km² . And there's no district matching the area given by World Encycl. and no district with the population around 2,000,000 - 3,000,000. So the English counts must be using a small segment (even smaller than a city): downtown, perhaps.  --Menchi 08:39, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I just realized something: Those 3,000,000 #s are from before the establishement of the municipality, so they must be referring to the original City that doesn't exist anymore. But the 7,200,000... --Menchi 04:05, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I just Googled, and there's no reference like that except ourselves! --Menchi 04:29, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

See also Talk:Chongqing. --Menchi 05:51, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

--I agree that the smaller population is before the establishment of the municipality. When Chongqing was established as a municipality, it became much larger, but there is no Chongqing city any more. It is just Chongqing municipality, though everybody knows that it is not like Shanghai or Beijing where all around the municipality is urban and developed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.168.154 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Nongtang/longtang
The word 弄堂 or alley or lane, is, according to the dictionary, pronounced "nong tang" in mandarin. however, every single shanghai native i know, myself included, pronounce it as "long tang". anyway, i've changed the reference in the article to "nong tang". but what is the policy in these cases? if a word in one language is pronounced differently in another area, how do you label the pronounciation? Can the experts resolve this?? --Sumple 12:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Shanghainese pronunciation for 弄堂 is /loNdA~/. In Microsoft Pinyin IME 2003, nongtang does not produce 弄堂, but inputting longtang gives you 弄堂. The word 弄堂 is originally a Wu dialect (吴方言) vocabulary, it is not of Mandarin origin (Mandarin is 胡同 hutong), hence longtang is the Mandarinized pronunciation of the Shanghainese. Personally I think Shanghainese cultural terms native to Shanghai or Jiangnan region should directly use the local pronunciation to avoid these problems, like the Cantonese term Dimsum 点心 (don't you think it would ridiculous if we romanized it as Dianxin?). Unfortunately, there is no standard Shanghainese romanization system, we should stick to a Shanghainese romanization system in the future on Wikipedia.  BTW, we don't distinguish -n and -ng.  英 in = 音 in; 声 sen = 森 sen. naus 03:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * off topic, but dianxin is not an exclusively cantonese word. it's in mandarin and wu as well.
 * anyway, Shanghainese romanisation is problematic because of the large variations in pronunciation. There isn't really a "standard" accent - the dialect spoken in the walled city of Shanghai is/was much closer to the Suzhou dialect than the contemporary Shanghainese dialect. Those spoken in the port districts are influenced by different dialects again... I took a look at the Shanghainese romanisation system (? romazi or something?) listed here and there on wikipedia, and it doesn't seem a good representation of the actual sound in many cases. --Sumple (Talk) 11:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Jai Alai
There was a Jai Alai court there in the 1930s, wasn't there? -- Error


 * is this a court of law or what?? --Sumple 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Municipality
Is Shanghai Municipality = Shanghai? (note that it is not the case for Chongqing Municipality and Chongqing City). If it is the case, then we should probably merge the 2 articles. olivier 16:57, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Shanghai municipality is the administrative unit. It includes the notional Shanghai city as well as several other towns. What I'm trying to say is that, administratively there is no "Shanghai city". You have several districts which make up what ppl would think of as "Shanghai city". these districts, together with several other townships, form the administrative unit "Shanghai municipality". am i making things clear or confusing you even more?--Sumple 11:49, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Abbreviations
The article says: "In China, Shanghai is also known as Hu4 (&#28396; or &#27818;) and Shen1 (&#30003;)." What does this mean? Could this be explained for non-Sinophones? Adam 11:18, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * I've paraphrased it. Major Chinese places (all province-level entities, for example) have one-syllable abbreviations, which may or may not be a syllable from the multisyllabic placename. In Shanghai's case, the abbreviation Hu means "fence used to catch fish". The other alternative abbreviation Shen is an ancient Shanghai ruler's name. (See Shanghaï) --Menchi 00:45, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. Chinese name systems are an enduring mystery. Perhaps someone could write an article about them. Adam 05:03, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * There is Chinese name and Chinese family name. But they're not on placenames. --Menchi 06:04, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * i've added an explanation for the names. hope it helps! --Sumple 11:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

BTW It's the abbreviation they put on Shanghai Licence plates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.159.224.65 (talk) 21:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Map
Someone find a map so we can fill up the hideous space next to "administration". --Jiang 00:24, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I have an early 1900s administrative map of Shanghai drawn by British Surveyors. It's HUGE though (takes up a whole wall) and I would have to scan it in parts. It'd be great to get online, but it might be best to external-link it. Unsure on copyright too. I can't get at it for about 10 months though, as it's back in Australia (I'm in Shanghai now) --Pratyeka 01:33, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * It'll be very useful re: history of Shanghai. Seeing how Shanghai was developed and organized systematically after that. We may have to create early twentieth-century Shanghai just to explain some of the buildings on the map. But this map is not suitable alone for Shanghai. Do you have a district outline map? -Menchi 02:03, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * If you're looking for modern districts, I have never seen a general map with only districts marked. If you're looking for the classic early 20th century "French city", "Chinese city", etc. then I have seen a few, but they've all been in modern books and are thus likely in copyright.  I can certainly work on drawing my own maps (traced over scans) once I get back home next year, if nobody's done anything by then.  Interestingly, one of the academics at my university has recently published a(nother) book on the history of Shanghai, so I could probably make this in to a pet project and get help from her, though again this would have to be next year.  --Pratyeka 07:40, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Here are some district maps in various years: But they're copyrighted I believe. --Menchi 08:02, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * I have a new computer here in Shanghai now, so I can produce some new maps from those. I'll give it a whirl.  I think the size will end up being necessarily large though, as the changes over time in the size of the city's borders (or whatever the large blue region is) are not very extreme, and will be unclear on a smaller resolution image once I overlap the borders of various yea:rs. --prat 23:02, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)


 * Well, I just layered them up in Illustrator but came to the conclusion that the maps are unusually large scale for the early 20th century period and are thus likely not really all that useful after all. The major changes visible as you progress through time are redivisions of existing land within greater Shanghai, particularly around the city's outlying areas.  I can certainly produce a map illustrating these Changes but it would not be in the classic early 20th century central city map style... --prat 23:33, 2004 Feb 23 (UTC)


 * Hi, sorry I didn't realize there was some discussion about maps already. I drew a Shanghai district map using several scanned tourist maps as a base. Should I upload the plain district map without any district highlighting to Shanghai main page? you can see the highlighted maps under different district pages. Also, should those small Puxi districts actually have a district map which only shows Puxi and part of Pudong. Huangpu, Luwan and Jingan are especially tiny on that Shanghai municipality district map. -- Huopa 2004-10-09 13:22 (GMT)

I've made a map from Huopa's district maps:



-- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 17:01, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * Okay, I'm experiencing some weirdness with the uploading of the map... I've uploaded a new version that has the word "Minhang" cross the Huangpu River, but it's not showing up for me (ISP cache?). So can you guys please help me confirm: is the word "Minhang" on the left bank of the Huangpu or does it cross over?


 * Thanks in advance. -- ran [[User talk:Ran|(talk)]] 17:25, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)


 * I can see it crossing over the river, and not squeezed against the left -- only if I go to the image directly: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4b/Shanghai.png and force reload. Just a cache delay it seems. --Menchi 18:12, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Disambiguation placement
Why is it appropriate for the Solitaire game definition to be at the top of this page? Surely it is a rather minor meaning compared to what I am guessing most page visitors are looking for? It was put there and called "disambiguation" but that is not what I understand it to be, just an alternative and rather minor meaning. I feel that it shoudl be at or near the page bottom. Nevilley 10:07, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * The solution now in place, of putting in a proper disambiguation block, is much neater. Whatever the standard is supposed to be, it cannot be right that visitors to a page about a city see an alternative meaning, looking like a definition, before they even get to the city. I think that was ruled out by common sense and I am glad to see something more suitable now in place. Thanks to ?Menchi who I think made this amendment. Nevilley 10:31, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * It's lucky that there are actually other encyclopedic things with "Shanghai" in it. In accordance to current disambiguation policies that Bryan brought up, if shanghai is used only as the Mahjong name and the verb that means "rob", then I'm afraid every single visitor to this article be struck with that obscure solitaire game screaming at them for attention, every single time they read that page. Phew!
 * Anyway, thank you for bringing up this aesthetic/stylistic issue. --?Menchi 10:39, 23 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Music schools
We've got a colleges and unis section in this article... in Shanghai there are at least two specialist music schools (perhaps many more, for all I know!). Whilst one of these was I think for younger kids (i.e. school age) and hence perhaps outside the scope of the section, I am *moderately* sure that one is providing a graduate-level education to post-school-age people and therefore, like many music schools and conservatoires elsewhere, operating at the university/college level. Is there a knowledgable person who can fill in for my ignorance and provide the listing, if it's appropriate? Thanks. Nevilley 10:30, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * There's the Shanghai conservatory of music, and there's the conservatory high school.--Sumple 12:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Simplified vs. Traditional
At the risk of beating a dead horse, given that Shanghai is on the Mainland and that Traditional characters are extremely uncommon here, it might make more sense to refer to things in Simplified characters. At least, if traditional characters must be included, at least include simplified as well, preferably first. It makes as much sense to refer to Shanghai-specific places and people's names using Traditional characters as it would to talk about Taibei-specific places and names with Simplified characters.

For example, hu4 (used on license plates to refer to Shanghai, and in other places as well) is refered to almost exclusively using traditional characters, except at the beginning of the article. I've lived in Shanghai for a long time and I can honestly say that I have never seen the traditional form used here. For someone not particularly fluent in written Chinese, this could be confusing. Those of us able to read Chinese reasonably well of course understand both, usually.

Changed the characterization of new migrants as "Mandarin-speaking". Actually most of the migrants are no more or less Mandarin-speaking than Shanghaiese.

Roadrunner 17:17, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Picture
You know what would be great? A picture of the Pudong skyline. It represents the incredible economic progress Shanghai has been through in the last 10 years or so.

[[User:Colipon|Colipon+(T)]] 17:21, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I have some such photos on my little personal web site, in case anyone feels this would bebe a suitable link to the page... -JL - 12:39, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)


 * irrelevant comment here, but does anyone else wonder what drugs the architects were on when they designed these new buildings in shanghai? --Sumple 11:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a picture of a normal street in Shanghai on here. I know there's a lot of different kinds of "normal" streets, but it would be nice to see things that aren't tourist sights or scenic views. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.238.136.123 (talk) 23:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Pollution
shanghai has "surprisingly little air pollution" we learned in school that shanghai was very industrialized and had lots of air pollution. who's right?
 * does anyone have any information on this? -- Tyagi 01:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * From what I can see (not now, its night now) the sky sometimes seems very dusty, sometimes very clear. Compared to what i've seen when I was in Beijing the sky here does look very clean. I can't compare it to other city's though because of lack of experience. CyeZ 16:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Errr... It needs a little more scientific evidence as oppose to observational evidence. People used to living in polluted are usually used to it and won't think of it as bad as it is. I'm sure there are air pollution/smog indices available. --Kvasir 17:12, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As for being used to living in smog: I definetely am not used to live in smog, the town I lived in less than a year ago had less than 1000 inhabitants and wasnt near any big city. CyeZ 13:15, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The official data for the overall air pollution of major cities in China in 2003 is here (in Chinese). Shanghai ranks 22nd best among the 42 cities, while Beijing, Tianjin and Chongqing ranked 36th, 35th and 41st respectively. R6144 17:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah that is great. a simple comparison statement and a link to the webpage would be great re: air pollution in Shanghai in the article. --Kvasir 20:31, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but from an airplane above (very recently) you just don't notice Shanghai as a city with "little air pollution". The smog can be seen, although not as clearly as Beijing. In Beijing it literally just hovers above the buildings. Colipon+(T) 20:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. R6144 13:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've been looking at the data... but are you really sure you are not reading the table in the wrong direction? It seems to me the higher bars would indicate higher polution, in that case polution in Beijing would be considerably higher than Shanghai. But my Chinese reading isn't very good yet, so I'm not entirely sure. CyeZ 13:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, the rankings I gave above are counted from best to worst, or from right to left in the figure.

Daily air quality for all major Chinese cities can be found on the State Environmental Protection Administration page, in English: http://english.sepa.gov.cn/

Nickname
Shanghai is sometimes referred to as the whore of the East. Can someone back me up on this. Here are some websites:     

I hope this term stands and isn't reverted for supposed vandalism. CoolGuy 07:30, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

the nickname of Shanghai described on this page is inaccurate, "Queen of the Orient"? how come I've never heard of that one? The most famous nickname of Shanghai is "The Paris of the East", "The Pearl of Orient", and "The Whore of Asia"


 * "cradle of revolution", that's what i grew up with. talk about cultural differences, eh? --Sumple 11:54, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Hu" is appropriate name for Shanghai.

"Westernization"
It is written under the economics headline that Shanghai has recently been improving its banking etc. sectors to compete with Hong Kong. A glaring error in this entry is the use of the term "westernize." This term is vague and hints of racial superiority. Please edit by replacing the term "westernize" with "modernize."


 * I replaced one of them, but other instances of "westernize" appeared to be correct - for example, "The Pudong district of Shanghai contains purposefully westernized streets (European/American 'feeling' districts)" - where the text actually was referring to western culture and such. Feel free to make further edits yourself, if there are others I missed. Bryan 06:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * This is actually somewhat a ridiculous statement, Bryan. Many Shanghai streets before WWII were "westernized streets" too.  Pudong is not unique, this is what makes Shanghai Shanghai.

I think it would be good to show how Pudang district was before, since its a pretty new area- does anyone have pictures? --200.158.156.40 22:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


 * you can still see "old" pudong out beyond the new glitzy weirdo buildings. lots of canals, some drab streets... rice paddies here and there. --Sumple 11:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Since when exactly was started the new modernization (i.e. new towers/skycrapers, new infrastructure development...) of Shanghai? did it start in 1991? Johannjs (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, in 1990/1991 Pudong was opened to foreign investment as a special economic zone (as part of China's ongoing economic reform since the 1970s) and the city was promoted as a centre for investment by Shanghai's mayor Jiang Zemin, who later became President which in turn secured Shanghai's growth. --Joowwww (talk) 18:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
I deleted a section that said something like "Shanghai in Shanghainese is pronounced "Zanhe" with "Zan" sounding like "zon" in Amazon, and "he" sounding like "hey".

This was written by someone who either knows no Shanghainese or has a very weird accent in English. The "Shang" part is pronounced like "zarn", with "arn" as in barn. the "hai" part is pronounced like a bit like "hair", but withou the "err" bit at the end. In any case, i think the pronunciation is best left to the IPA. --Sumple (Talk) 23:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's best (most text efficient and informative) if we made a recording. The Shanghainese pronunciation ranges from the "awn" in English "lawn" to Mandarin "ang".  "arn" is a little off (kind of "bent" feeling).  Nishishei 06:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * on second thought, yeah it does sound like "awn" or "zon" in horizontal. but the second part is not so close to "hay" coz its /he/ not /hei/ (sorry i cbb typing the IPA characters: hope you know what i'm talking about) --Sumple (Talk) 05:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Delisted GA
Hi. I have removed this article from the Good article listing due to the following:
 * No references. One of the GA criteria is that a reference section must be provided.  Inline citations are preferred but not required.  When this issue has been addressed, please feel free to re-nominate.  Thanks! Air.dance 04:06, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Busiest Port
Previously, there was a passage in the page as followed, "Shanghai is also home to the world's busiest port, followed by Singapore and Rotterdam." However, there is no standardised means of evaluating port performance and traffic. It is very doubtful, and possibly inaccurate to write 'Shanghai is the busiest port in the world.' Therefore, recently I have changed the wording to become "Shanghai is also one of the world's busiest ports." Apprently less decriptive, however, I believe the wording is less controversial, as we can see there are other sources say that Singapore or Hong Kong is the busiest port in the world seperately. Here are some links for your references, and if you search in Google or other search engines, you will find more than one answer to the question: which is the busiest port in the world. this one claims Singapore this one claims Hong Kong

Hopefully, the change of the wordings will be understood by some anticipated wikipedians who are also enthusiastic about the international status of Shanghai. C n ho 18:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai Global Paradise
Would you write a few words about the above? See Adam78 21:24, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai's Infobox
Can the person who keeps changing the format and looks of Shanghai's infobox stop for a moment and try to be consistent? Please make Shanghai's infobox look roughly similar to that of Beijing, Chongqing, and Tianjin's infobox. All four are Chinese municipalities and should have the same infobox template format. Okay, save the picture of Shanghai's skyline. But the other things must be consistent. If anybody here is willing to help, maybe somebody can also upload a skyline image each in the Beijing, Tianjin, and Chongqing's infobox section too? And actually, the current Puxi skyline image is really ugly (slanted, foggy, not clear in distance). Anybody have better picture of Shanghai for the infobox? --Heilme 23:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Several people have been tweaking the new infobox format. Beijing is consistent with Shanghai... The new style is more aesthetically pleasing, because the geographic location map background matches the table background. Also, the official English name of Shanghai is "Shanghai Municipality" not Hanyu Pinyin "Shanghai Shi." The old style's abbreviations placed way at the top with a gray bar underneath is also arbitrary and unnecessary. I am in the process of updating Tianjin and Chongqing, that's why I have been reverting. Once Tianjin and Chongqing are done, then at least the 4 municipalities will be consistent. We can work on the provinces slowly. Naus 02:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am OK with this, if we can all make 4 municipalities consistent, then start tackling the other provinces. But, is there any Wikiproject for this, new format agreed by everyone, or is this just your idea? I am not aware of any such new discussion. However, as I mentioned in your talk page, this new style (created last week) is actually a direct copy of Berlin's infobox style. Heilme 02:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Shanghai article
An objective history would point that the major element in Shanghai's development from a backwater to a major port/industrial center was the economic planning and intra-structural development provided and stimulated by the occupying "western" powers in the period 1880-1930. It is understandable (but false) that everyone wishes to forget this colonial episode but it makes for bad history` 28 April,2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Norfolk (talk • contribs) 18:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the history section of the article is now long enough to be spun off as a separate article. The whole Shanghai article is probably too long, anyway. Please comment before I or someone else makes the change. --Easytoremember 03:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. --Sumple (Talk) 04:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai vs. HK
Can someone think of a way to diplomatically point out that, while Shanghai has stronger links to the central government than Hong Kong, that is not a clear advantage. Hong Kong is directly controlled by a competent administration (with some meddling by from Beijing), while control of Shanghai is spread between an often incompetent central authority in Beijing and a slightly less incompetent, but far from sophisticated, municipal government. --Easytoremember 08:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ... who said it was a clear advantage? what is this perceived shanghai vs hong kong rivalry anyway? the two cities are clearly miles apart in many different aspects. Until the day when the streets in Shanghai do not flood every time it rains, there is no competition. --Sumple (Talk) 04:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Shanghai gets more typhoons I think than Hong Kong, so while Shanghai has less annual rainfall than Hong Kong, Shanghai has heavier pours during typhoon season. Plus, Shanghai is on lower geographic elevation (easier to flood). So that's not a fair comparison. You are right, there is no rivary, China's definitely large enough to have several Shanghai and Hong Kongs. People who believe there is some kind of rivarly between the two are usually not from either city. ;). Naus 23:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Haha I concur. --Sumple (Talk) 03:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions
i'm thinking of using Shanghai as a template for improving other Chinese city articles...is there an infox format for cities? or does one have to go through all that bgcolor and stuff to edit...thx...and btw...is the shanghai article quality like really, really good? i've read it and i must say not bad...but u guys have worked on this for like ever...thoughts? suggestions? Edit: srry forgot to sign zeChinaman 04:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Too many photoes
There are too many photoes in this article. This is also the case for some other cities in China. These unnecessary photoes make these articles flashy and shadow. Wikipedia articles about other international major cities usualy have less than 5 photoes.
 * Definitely agree. Too many photos and they keep changing the photo so often. This is an encyclopedia, not a public photo gallery. Plus, the pics are basically the same: the same old boring skyscrapers. Heilme 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Photos
I agree, there are way too much photos. Most of them unnecessary Someone should remove quite a few off.


 * i like them. i added some more. who said that encyclopedia has to be boring? and who has the time to read all those articles? only old people. most people don't have time to sit here to read everything. a pic is way better than a paragraph.

Ok then!


 * I deleted some of your out of context photos. We don't need 10 pictures of Pudong and 10 pictures of the Bund.  That's too cliche for an encyclopedia. Shanghai is a lot bigger and more interesting than the Oriental Pearl TV Tower. Yeah it's beautiful, but I'm sick of seeing it in every section of this article.  If you ask an old Shanghainese like me, I don't even consider Pudong part of the city core.  Pudong is a glamorized suburb.  In recent years, Puxi has become just as developed as Pudong, but with a lot more cultural flavor.  Also, the pictures that some of you keep uploading are pretty low in quality, very amateur.  There are tons of higher quality photos of Shanghai on Flickr and many are Creative Commons licensed (so available for use on Wikipedia).  --Naus 16:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This 71.156.40.101 and 75.8.211.164 guy has been very disruptive, posting out of context photos and writing Chinese titles. --128.135.60.9 04:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a more updated photo of the Pudong skyline? With the WFC topped off and many newer buildings finished, it looks alot different now. 2 years can make a lot of difference in this case :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.116.31.122 (talk) 04:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

High School
Isn't high school list beyond the scope of this article? --Voidvector 22:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Shanghai Sinking
Shouldn't the fact that Shanghai is sinking under all the weight of the skyscrapers and land subsidence be included in the geography section?


 * I concur, especially consider that there are many thousands of them... --Sumple (Talk) 08:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Since when did they start building the modern towers/skyscrapers in Shanghai? 1991? with the Oriental Pearl Tower (finished in 1995)? Johannjs (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Outdated links
These links in External Links section seems do be outdated:

What Do You Say To A Shanghai TAXI Driver?

What Do You Say To A Shanghai BUS Driver?

How Do You Ask For The WAY in Shanghai?

After clicking on them I get to the page saying "This photo does not exist anymore"
 * removed Matteo 09:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Photo
I don't think there is anything wrong with having pictures. In fact, I think one of wiki's advantage over traditional book is the ability to present audio, video, images. So why keep it to text only?

It's good having pictures of Shanghai, but no need to have too many repetitive pictures like the skyline of pudong or nanjing rd. Oidia 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Kanji
The graphic in the origins section that is supposed to spell shanghai appears to be wrong. There seems to be a mistake in the lower right part, in the second kanji. It should read 上海, but it doesn't. I've already marked the graphic as needing attention in its own page. 201.213.16.47 22:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The photo of the offensive Canidrome should not be allowed on this page.
The photo of the Canidrome is OFFENSIVE and it won't be appreciated by most Chinese readers. The Canidrome itself was in Shanghai but it was exclusive to westerners due to the then status of Shanghai. Most people living in Shanghai regard the role of that building as something OFFENSIVE. Just look at another wikipedia photo about this canidrome:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CanidromePerform.jpg, how many Chinese you can see on that photo? Why the building should be called elegant? Because it was exclusive to westerners?

Detailed reasons why most Chinese people regard this site as offensive can be found here: http://cul.book.sina.com.cn/y/2005-06-28/1750134809.html

The description of the site also reflect plain bias as the building was used to house the Shanghai Museum after 1949. The description can be found here: http://html.laoman.com/33top/board6/topic7587.htm

Actually, a part of the land of that Canidrome was taken from its original owners by force, with local casualties. The history record can be found here: http://www.shhp.gov.cn/front/overviewDetail.jsp?firstId=157901&secondId=181801&contentId=11900301

The birtish got most of the land from the Treaty of Nanking, as the result of the the First OPIUM War. Forcing other countries to import OPIUM is not something that should never be regarded as elegant: http://www.shhp.gov.cn/front/overviewDetail.jsp?firstId=157901&secondId=181801&contentId=11900301

Shanghai is a CHINESE city, more than 99.9% of the people living in Shanghai are CHINESE, such exclusive facilities ONLY for westerners built in such a CHINESE CITY will not be welcomed/appreciated by the owner of the city, thus that building is not elegant, its role before 1949 is VERY OFFENSIVE. I will do whatever I can to ensure such incorrect description (which also mixed with plain bias and discrimination) won't appear on wikipedia. Because the photo is regarded as offensive, it should not appear on wikipedia.

I am providing the above details for record purpose, not for discussion. >:( —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.242.38.174 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Are you kidding. Your reason to delete is 100% censorship! You are neglecting REAL HISTORY.  I write god knows how many Chinese historical pages.  I am insulted that you call me a racist, since I am Chinese too.  What amaze me is that you accuse me of trashing your page??  I practically put on the map, C-pop and Chinese Animation both came from Shanghai.  The Canidrome is in the SAME class as The Bund.  Why don't you delete those.  It is a landmark.  Offensive is a POV because you are pro-communist and cannot handle the reality that the facility was used for a power-struggle purpose. Benjwong 16:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't care whether you are Chinese or not. That building was exclusive to the westerners, is that the dead simple fact? Please answer me in a very simple and straight way: is that correct? I am not a fan of the communist party and my political view is not the topic here, you are not in the position to judge/discuss on that, it is a party of my rights to follow any political party I choose. I am talking about the offensive picture you are trying to put onto this page. In case you read Chinese (you call yourself Chinese), read the urls I provided above and ask yourself the dead simple question: why Chinese people are not allowed to have any access to the Canidrome building and all those parks nearby. Don't forget to read the chinese version of this same wikipedia and see why they had that offensive sign on every such building/park.--60.242.38.174 16:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Peak Reservation Ordinance. It is from the same time period except in Hong kong.  Instead of mentioning it, you are doing the opposite by hiding it.  And you want me to rely on a source that ends with a ".gov.cn", which is practically a censored domain.  You must be out of your mind.  By ignoring the entire western influence, you are skipping the entire 1900-1920s historical period based on the fact that the city is 99% Chinese today.  Nobody writes history that way.  If you feel that strongly about creating a good image for Chinese-only, why don't you fix the coolies page, and find some more references for this page.  I am Chinese and insulted by your reasoning.  Benjwong 16:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually the fact that the building was not available to Chinese seems like a significant historical fact. Covering this up is unfortunate and not really appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Surely its better to discuss this fact and the implications of it in the article instead of censoring it? Gwernol 16:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to see some description of that part of the history. But that is of course not something elegant, as I have said, the photo is offensive to most Chinese people. The description of the role of that building is also incorrect or at least incomplete, as I have mentioned above, the building was used as the site of the Shanghai Museum after 1949, this is something people can't deny. What I can see is Benjwong just wants to bring his own political view into this wikipedia page. Benjwong, please do understand people come here to read article about Shanghai, not your political view on the communist party, people don't care about that.

Let's make it simple: I will be happy to see the fair description of the Canidrome, the fair description _MUST_ at least contain the following history that no one can deny: 1. The Canidrome was in Shanghai but Chinese people don't have access to the Canidrome. Due to this reason, the Canidrome should _NOT_ be regarded as elegant. 2. The building was used as the site of the Shanghai Museum after 1949 before the museum moved to the people's square in later 1990s.

I don't care whether you mention the mass execution or not, I don't care your description on the communist party, but the above history can't be denied if you do want to mention this Canidrome. --60.242.38.174 16:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * First, the description of the building as "elegant" is clearly referring to the architectural design. A building's purpose can be reprehensible while its design is indeed elegant. Your argument on that point doesn't hold water, I'm afraid. Its also true that you should not remove the picture of the building just because you find it offensive. Wikipedia is not censored. The correct course of action is to cite a reliable source that discusses the history of the building. You really have to stop just removing all mention of the building, that's inappropriate and if you continue you will be blocked from editing. Please make constructive and well-courced additions instead of simply removing valid information from the article. Thanks, Gwernol 17:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the facts. The Canidrome like many other Shanghai buildings were all pretty much exclusive to Europeans.  There are many records of Chinese in the building for soccer/football games, including sports riots. The facility is big.  Part of it was for museums and flower shops and probably other purposes.  Yes, Chinese people were blocked off by westerners with "no-dogs-allowed" type signs at one time.  Bad, but true.  The user 60.242.38.174 is creating the excuse that the building is not elegant, because it has a definite dark history with the communist party.  The building was demolish by the government.  You don't see Rome trying to rip down the Coliseum. Benjwong 21:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The offensive picture is nothing about the communist party.
I am not a CCP member, I am not their fan. I don't care how they treated that building.The offensive photo I mentioned above is all about the history when China/Shanghai was treated in such an unfair manner by the western countries/people. The building was in Shanghai but Chinese people are not allowed to have any access. People then just regard that part of the history as disgraceful and the role of the building offensive. I have provided detailed explaination on my post above with detailed sources from different parties. Why my comment is regarded as "censorship"?

The status of that building before 1949 is regarded as offensive because Chinese people were not allowed to access. This simple fact has nothing to do with the communist party, people found that photo offensive and that is not censorship. --60.242.38.174 16:28, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * This is insane. You are proposing that Chinese were not allowed in the canidrome when there are tons of books on soccer games held by Chinese municipals inside the building after the 1940s.  Your POV is not historically accurate enough to be making these judgement calls. Your want this censored because during the golden days of Shanghai, Chinese were off-limit in the 1920s.  Probably true, but it is a really poor logic for an encyclopedia.  Benjwong 16:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Read my post above, you are still damaging your reputation by the stupid comment above. What do you mean by the golden days of Shanghai? A Chinese city totally controlled by the west? Or are you saying people there in 1920s or even 1940s had better life quality? Check more stats to see what kind of living conditions average people could expect in those days. --60.242.38.174 16:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you have a problem with my reputation because I am right. My reputation is solid as I help you guys write your entire Chinese timeline, and a whole lot more... You are telling me that we should not talk about the canidrome based on the fact that Chinese people had poor living conditions at the time?  That is the most ridiculous comment.  You must be new to wikipedia.  My comments are 100% facts, you should thank me for pointing out the significance of such a historical building.  I think you should be banned from wikipedia for censorship. Benjwong 17:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to be more consistent on your comment, if you claim yourself to be Chinese then you are not writing "YOUR entire Chinese timeline". I have clearly posted my comment about the canidrome, if you don't read, that is not fault. To help you correct your stupid comment above, I am going to repeat what I have said before, I will be more than happy to see the fair description of the canidrome. The fair description should at least mention the facts that:

1.Chinese people were not allowed to access the canidrome for a long time, and thus the canidrome is not elegant at all. If you want to argue the football games thing you mentioned above, please check this url:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_International_Settlement, what happened before 1928? Can Chinese people access the canidrome and all those parks in Shanghai in early 20 century? Is that something elegant?

2.The building was used as the site of the Shanghai Museum after 1949 until it moved to the People's Square in 1990s.

I don't care whether you judge 1920s-1940s was Shanghai's golden days or not, I don't care whether you mention the mass execution or not, I am not going to just allow you to judge the canidrome as elegant, that building and the role of the building before 1949 was totally offensive, thus not elegant at all. Are we clear?
 * I am interested in facts. If Chinese people were not allowed in the Canidrome in the 1920s, then how could they POSSIBLY know that it was elegant???  Every historical text talks about the canidrome as a grand ballroom, multi purpose facility.  The communist have propagandized the canidrome as something created by the west to filter out Chinese people.  You are currently taking part in the propaganda RIGHT NOW.... AND DON'T EVEN KNOW IT.  Yes by the year 1990 it was probably dirty and filthy.  But in the picture is the nice 1930s Canidrome, not the 1940s or 1950s or 1990s.  It was once a classy, elegant, wonderful facility. Benjwong 17:32, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shanghai Shenhua logo.gif
Image:Shanghai Shenhua logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:41, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Popular Stereotypes
Is this section really necessary? I don't find them too offensive myself but I am afraid it would set a bad precedent.Hzzz 18:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just removed this section. I can't find  "popular stereotypes" section for other major cities.  Probably it's because it does not fall into the [Wikipedia:Verifiability] policy.  Anyhow, it's a slippery slope not to mention flame bait when you include "popular stereotypes" for practically any topic..Hzzz 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Infobox
Was this [ reversion] really necessary? If so, what is the rationale for it? —O (说 • 喝) 17:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Needs map
Article needs a map showing the city in relation to the surrounding provinces. At present, it is impossible to determine exact where Shanghai is located in relation to its surroundings, except for the map with a tiny red dot on the entire nation of China. Badagnani 22:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do with GIS.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 22:25, 09 October 2007 (GMT)

Infobox issues
Due to a bug somewhere, Infobox Settlement appears to get broken if nowrap is used in certain fields, including subdivision_name. That's the reason for the minor edit I made just now (the elevation and density were displaying incorrectly).--Kotniski 22:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Questionable History
In 1949, most foreign firms moved their offices from Shanghai to Hong Kong. Specifically North Point is where the largest concentration of emigrants would be found. One of the first actions taken by the communist party was to clean up the portion of the population that were considered counter-revolutionaries. Mass executions took place with thousands slaughtered in the hands of the communist party. Places such as the Canidrome would transform from a greyhound racetrack/ballroom to a mass execution facilities[7][8].

I have some problem with this section. First, the wording is rather provoking, designed to create outrage. I believe the same message could be expressed with less emotions. An example is changing the word "slaughter" to just "killing", which is what wikipedia use in the Holocaust page to describe the atrocity.

Second, and here is where I am most concerned about. The two sources, they are both inadequate. The first source (7) which is to a Time article actually dated 1951 is beyond ancient. If you read the article, you realize how flawed it actually is, maybe it's just the standard at the time, there simply is no way how it can be considered to be serious.

The other source, (8) which is to a novel written in 2005, while a good seller at Amazon, can not be used here as a source. I think we can all agree why.

So I ask for your opinions. I want to do something about this, what, I am not sure yet. 24.89.245.62 (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't know old sources were not allowed. That goes for half of China's history. If you are actually serious about trying to help, please replace the source with one that you prefer. This is a mere 1% of shanghais history. Simply put there is not enough editors, we don't need people running around to tone down the atrocities. Post-1949 history is already watered-down enough.  I can think of a number of things that are missing on this page if you are really here to help. Benjwong (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That said, some of the emotive language is perhaps not appropriate for an encyclopedia. I suggest something like: "The new Communist government executed thousands in a short space of time, with places such as ..." --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:54, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That is fine. I think the original poster was more interested in cleaning things out. Benjwong (talk) 23:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, here is a question. What if the "SOURCE" is POV, would that be an acceptable source? What is Wikipedia's policy on this? By the way I am drop dead in trying to help. For now I will first drop the 2nd source, which is to that novel. I hope no one objects. We will see where it goes from here. 24.89.245.62 (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)   Since no one had replied. I went ahead to dig around some on my own. As you know I have trouble accepting the sources provided to the section I quoted above. More specifically, one of the Sources, which is to a Time magazine article dated 1951 is very hard to swallow. Not only is this source more than 50 years old, following the guidelines under Verifiability - Exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Something so hardcore and controversal by nature better have some damn good consensus. The source read like an fantasy essay, it is seriously flawed. This is definitely the first time I have ever came across something like this. Do anyone know any other source at all? 24.89.245.62 (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Come on, for something so "shocking" you got to have some creditable source, no? 24.89.245.62 (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Well since no one care to reply, I am deleting this and whoever have a problem can talk it out here. 24.89.245.62 (talk) 01:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Is like this. Chinese sources don't say enough bad things about the communist activities.  Foreign sources don't say enough bad things about their occupation of the city.  You don't have much choice.  Time magazine would not be considered old, if we were living in 1952. It is just shadowed by the more interesting history like french concession, Shanghai International Settlement, May 30 Movement, battle of shanghai. Actually I would be even more shocked if you told me CPC controlled the chaos in the city without any use of force. Doesn't matter. Cause a historical site like canidrome is being taken down by the government making it forgotten. Maybe others have more comments for you. Benjwong (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Population statistics
What area does the "metro" statistic cover, and what area does the "urban" statistic cover? Which one covers Shanghai Municipality? Someone the Person (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bund
I read somewhere that several of the buildings on the bund where designed to resemble buildings on the waterfront at Liverpool. In particular the liver building and customs house, and port authority liverpool and HSBC building look very similar. Is this true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.121.151.142 (talk) 10:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also heard that, I will keep an eye out for some kind of reference --Joowwww (talk) 19:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Shanghai Shenhua logo.gif
Image:Shanghai Shenhua logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references
I've turned the cultural references section into two categories: Category:Movies set in Shanghai and Category:Shanghai in literature. Popular culture sections are advised against as they can be described as trivia and go against WP:NOTDIRECTORY. --Joowwww (talk) 11:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Politics section
In Politics, ''Four Shanghai mayors eventually went on to take prominent Central Government positions, including former President Jiang Zemin, former Premier Zhu Rongji, and current Vice-President Xi Jinping. '' may not be very precise. Actually, Xi Jinping has never been the mayor of the city. He was appointed to CPC chief directly. But still, there were at least four mayors of the city elevated to prominent positions in central government. They are Jiang Zemin, Zhu Rongji, Wu Bangguo, and Huang Ju. Ramtears (talk) 08:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Damn
That is one mind-blowing amount of skyscrapers, does New York City have more? I've never counted.

- Does anyone know what happened to this amazing picture? It seems someone replaced it with the old boring skyline photo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.41.112.1 (talk) 20:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

- Right. I liked that picture, and it truly shows what Shanghai is really about. The boring skyline is just one side of Shanghai, recently developed, and doesn't have a lot activities going on there. The Puxi side shows the real density and massiveness of Shanghai. I am sure it has more skyscrapers than New York City. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.168.154 (talk) 20:51, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that Shanghai is quite a bit bigger than NYC, since it is about the size of some smaller states in the US, so thus the giant ammount of skyscrapers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.236.27.40 (talk) 17:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Recent profile
NPR did a series on the city recently; might provide some ideas for article expansion. -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Universities and colleges
I put this in a sub-article. I don't know why this was deleted?--40fifw0 (talk) 00:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Lists are discouraged on Wikipedia, it's better to use prose. See WP:MOS and WP:NOTDIR. Also this article was cleaned up according to WP:Summary, which says that the main article should just be a collection of summaries of sub-articles, and any detailed information can go on sub-articles like History of Shanghai or Geography of Shanghai. It's so the article doesn't get too long and stays readable. Perhaps you could apply WP:Summary to the Kunming article? It's far too long and not easy to read. --Joowwww (talk) 10:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But there is a massive list of sister cities. -40fifw0 (talk) 12:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. I moved it once but someone else moved it back. I response to your statement that a directory is "usually a complete list with addresses and other contact details", if you read WP:NOT you will see that it means any list of indiscriminate information, not just addresses. Regards, --Joowwww (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * wrt the Sister citie, i propose you can split it off into another sub article, like for the universities, instead of just deleting it. --40fifw0 (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Last time I moved it to Politics of Shanghai. --Joowwww (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay I moved it to Sister cities of Shanghai. --40fifw0 (talk) 22:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've moved it to List of sister cities of Shanghai, as per Wikipedia list naming conventions. --Joowwww (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It still needs to be referenced. I'm not sure who wrote it. --40fifw0 (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Shanghainese Dialect?
I was just wondering, should any refrence be made to the fact that the Shanghainese have their own dialect? Even though the dialect is in the process of slowly dying out, I think that it would be good to make some kind of refrence to it. Maybe in culture? Tell me what you think. 198.236.27.40 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It is mentioned in the third paragraph of the Demographics section. --Joowwww (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The dialect is a bit obscure in the West and even to other Chinese (I only know two Shanghainese people, and I didn't meet them until I was thirteen years old, and I was born and raised in a suburb of Los Angeles that is 68% Chinese, Vietnamese, and Taiwanese, so much that it rivals the actual business district downtown and the one in San Francisco). However, attempts to try and revive Shanghainese language have been made in recent years. Now they're trying to be like Cantonese and speak it instead of Mandarin, also teaching it in high schools. But despite the fact that they claim it is mutually unintelligible with Mandarin, most of it sounds very similar. I believe I was told that Mandarin dialects actually borrowed off their vocabulary and grammar way back, literally thousands of years ago. Shanghainese is like the closest to Mando that you can get, out of all the dialects (Canto sounds way different). It's like Cantonese and Vietnamese, or German and English. I don't know, it probably is dying out (most people born and raised in Shanghai can speak Mandarin fluently, at least if they were born in the 1960 to present) but yeah, it received a couple lines right there in the "Demographics" section. ★ Dasani ★ 23:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad editing
The current article has been gutted from what it previously had and should include. Further, some of the priorities have gotten skewed. The sister cities, which should be on this page, are elsewhere, while the culture and historical section go on too long. Contra some posters above, other major cities have far more than 5 photos. Cf. New York, London, and other major cities. You guys have taken out far too many of the photos and information and should start putting more of it back. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, on second glance, the current balance of photos to the existing article is fine. It's just that the balance of the article is off, there are text walls where data could be included, and the uniform and small size of the photos make for an uninteresting page. Meh.


 * Anyway, I'll do what I can if I get some time. -LlywelynII (talk) 16:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a major restructuring of this article a few months back, none of the content was removed but a lot of it was switched around or moved to organise it into the current headers. --Joowwww (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

GDP
It doesn't make sense to give GDP data for Shanghai in USD if data for all other provinces is given in CNY. Furthermore, all the figures should come from the same source, which needs to be referenced. The way it is now, it's just a big puzzle with data from lots of different, unreferenced sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.170.147.230 (talk) 07:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Shikumen/Xintiandi
The caption under the picture of Shikumen housing in Xintiandi, in the Architecture section, is misleading. The Shikumen houses aren't renovated, they were newly built specifically for Xintiandi. The buildings previously in Xintiandi were torn down. Tianzifang on Taikang Rd is an example of renovation. Xintiandi is just irresponsible redevelopment. Joy.discovery.invention (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Readded a removed external link
I've readded a link to http://holidayfu.com/shanghai-destination-guide/. The page is well-written and researched, and contains information that this page does and should not include. It's also to my site, and I received 225 unique visitors from wikipedia through the previous link, who spent an average of of 3 minutes and 7 seconds viewing the page.

The link was removed by an anonymous user, without any stated reason. If you feel it should be removed, please let me know why. Feel free to change the description - I think it's too long, but felt the need to justify the links inclusion.

n00n (talk) 17:43, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Collage
Someone needs to do a collage for this extremely large city. That night time picture in the infobox now just doesn't seem to be doing the job. Colipon+(T) 00:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Montages should only be for cities that don't have a single, recognisable skyline. I would say that Shanghai does. --Joowwww (talk) 08:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Politics
"However, in previous years a complicated system of relationships between Shanghai's government, banks, and other civil institutions has been under scrutiny for corruption, motivated by faction politics in Beijing; these allegations from Beijing did not go anywhere until late 2006. Since Jiang's departure from office there has been a significant amount of clash between the local government in Shanghai and the Central People's Government, an evolving example of de facto Chinese federalism. "

This is just a personal opinion of the author. No source at all. It should be removed or sourced. 60.28.43.134 (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This entire section needs to be sourced. Colipon+ (Talk) 02:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

change needed
the line "Those under the age of 26 have had contact with English since primary school, as English is taught as a mandatory course starting from the fourth grade." needs to be changed to say after a certain date, as this age is most certainly not the cap as it stands now, and rather than having to constantly update the article, may as well set it in a manner that doesn't need to be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.140.135 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

size
Shanghai is not China's largest city anymore... today it's Chongqing (重庆), which is even the world's largest city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.39.197.18 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Most sources, international cities rankings and gazetteers I've seen rank Shanghai as China's largest city.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The user who created this section is forgetting that the 30+ million population quote for Chongqing is for the ENTIRE province-level division. the urban area pop does not even reach 10 million. Mathpianist93 (talk) 20:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation indication
I know that the Mandarin pronunciation of the 上 has no good equivalent in English, but it does in German, with the 'ang' sound. However, it is really important for those who do not speak Chinese to get this right; too many of them say 'shane'. Any ideas on how to indicate the correct, albeit without tones, pronunciation? 华钢琴49 (TALK) 00:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

HDI rating??
why do i see a HDI rating for the CITY of shanghai? i thought it was only countries that got a HDI rating... am i to believe that cities have HDI rating too?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.116.200.135 (talk) 20:48, 2007 March 22 (UTC).
 * Shanghai, technically, is provincial level as well. ---何献龙4993 (talk) 01:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Population
The sentence “Shanghai (Chinese: 上海) is the largest city in China and the largest city proper in the world,[6][7] with a population of over 20 million people in its metropolitan area.[8]” in the intro is in need of urban renewal.

1.) Scope: The article describes the municipality of Shanghai. The intro should refer to the topic at hand. All population comparisons should be with the other direct controlled Chinese municipalities.

2.) References 6 and 7 do not support the claim. Ref 6 and 7 yield a population of 18.8  million people for the whole municipality, not for the “city” or “city proper” whatever that may be.

3.) The infobox gives a population of 19.21 million “at the end of 2009.” It is supported by reference 4. As this is a more recent reference (Feb 20, 2010), this reference should be used for the Shanghai population number. References 6 and 7 should be deleted, as they are outdated.

4.) Keeping both numbers is inconsistent and not encyclopedic.

5.) As Chongqing municipality has a population of 31.4 million, and Beijing municipality has a population of 22 million, the intro sentence must read: “Shanghai (Chinese: 上海) is the is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China.” Details can be explained in Demographics. This would also be the place to talk about “city proper” if sufficient data can be assembled.

That Shanghai is listed in lists and the World Gazetteer as China's largest city is inconsequential, as these lists are wrong and, according to Wikipedia rules, may not even be used as references. The World Gazetteer lists Shanghai's population as 18.5 million, the World atlas gives 14,2 million. Both numbers are wrong. --BsBsBs (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You have to provide sources that actually states World Gazetteer and World Atlas' ranking for Shanghai are wrong, otherwise it is original research and a matter of different views and personal interpretations. I think we can also simply switch the references (move the reference from the infobox to the lead section), if you think the source from People's Daily about Shanghai's population is more suitable.  Anyhow, I think its best to gain consensus from other editors before making any population changes in the lead.--TheLeopard (talk) 02:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done, see reference 4. If People's Daily, the voice of the ruling party, says "According to the latest data recently released by the local statistical bureau, the number of Shanghai's permanent residents stood at 19.21 million at the end of 2009," then that proves authoritatively both the World Gazetteer and The World Atlas wrong. Asking for a government press release that says "The local statistical bureau says that the number of Shanghai's permanent residents stands at 19.21 million, and called both the World Gazetteer and the World Atlas blathering dimwits" is perverting the concept of "original research." How can a fresh official number, issued by the government, be "a matter of different views and personal interpretations?" As tertiary sources, the World Gazetteer and the World Atlas aren't even allowed to be quoted. It doesn't bother you that the same article names two population numbers and makes claims that are not supported by the references given?--BsBsBs (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * One can see both the World Gazetteer and the World Atlas are not measuring the same criteria as the Shanghai government statistics bureau's (i.e. this World Gazetteer source is for "proper place" while this is for "metropolitan area" ). So the Shanghai local bureau's statistics doesn't necessarily correlates to other population rankings because they use different standards, and the Shanghai statistical bureau "did not" say the Gazetteer or any other population rankings are wrong.  It seems to me they exists independently.--TheLeopard (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The World Gazetteer and the World Atlas aren't even cited in the article. (As they should not be.) Where's the logic? And I think we can leave the matter of Shanghai population in the hands of the Shanghai authorities.


 * "Shanghai (Chinese: 上海) is the largest city in China and the largest city proper in the world,[6][7]  with a population of over 20 million people in its metropolitan area.[8]" is a mess.


 * [6] and [7] don't say anything about "largest city in China" or "largest city proper in the world." They simply give a population number of 18.8 million. This claim is perverted in the following half sentence that says Shanghai has "a population of over 20 million people." For this ref [8] is cited that is 7 years old. Shanghai has negative population growth. The infobox gives yet another recent and authoritative number for a recent period. Three numbers, in close vicinity, don't bother you? Is this an encyclopedia that deals with facts, or is this a smorgasbord for different views and personal interpretations? --BsBsBs (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I revised the article, by combining these information, as they should all be noted. Like all major city articles, it is important to highlight the city proper population, metropolitan population, as well as the entire administrative population, no exceptions. This is the best and fairest way I can think of to present Shanghai's population statistics. Please gain consensus before removing relevant information.--TheLeopard (talk) 04:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are making a farce out of Wikipedia.


 * So now we have


 * "Shanghai is the largest city proper of China and the in the world,[6]  as well as one of the world's largest metropolitan areas,[7]  with a population of over 20 million people in its metropolitan area.[4] "


 * 1.) The article is about the Shanghai municipality. Shanghai is a direct controlled municipality. In China, Shanghai begins and ends at the borders of is municipality.
 * 2.) The intro (lede) of an article usually communicates the highlight of the article. It doesn't go on a wild tangent. In an article about a municipality, discussions of "city proper" and "metropolitan areas" are wild tangents and belong in the demongraphics part, if at all in the article. This is how we do it in Beijing.
 * 3.) The common reader does not know what you are talking about. Without explanation, for the common reader city proper = metro = Shanghai. The reader is confused.
 * 4.) In one sentence, Shanghai receives three different population numbers: 16 348 947 for a City proper, 18 572 81 for the metropolitan area, and then "over 20 million people" again for the metropolitan area.
 * 5.) In the next sentence, Shanghai receives yet another population number, 19,210,000 for the municipality
 * 6.) The reader must get the impression that the people who wrote this have no numerical comprehension.
 * 7.) Source [6] is used as a reference for "city proper," but it doesn't say a word about "city proper" nor is the "city proper" defined. It simply lists population numbers for "city."


 * 8.) Identifying reliable sources says: "Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion." The World Gazetteer is definitely a tertiary source, whereas ref [4] is a secondary source which Wikipedia prefers. "City proper" and "metropolitan area" are without a secondary source.
 * 9.) "Metropolitan area" usually is used as an area far beyond the administrative boundaries of a "city". The World Gazetteer goes far beyond the limits of Tokyo, Mexico City, and New York City to arrive at is "metropolitan area" count. Probably for more cities, but these are the ones I know. Now for Shanghai, it must take a smaller area than Shanghai municipality. How else could it arrive at a number smaller than the official count (18.5 mln instead of 19.2 mln)? My guess is the World Gazetteer is plain wrong.


 * Wikipedia turns into a joke.


 * As far as consensus goes, I had made my points above. There were no voices against it. The edit was performed. --BsBsBs (talk) 06:56, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You did not wait for a consensus before removing these materials because no other editors has responded so far, aside from me (a voice). Your arguments about how the article should only state municipality population is groundless, since most city articles goes beyond that, i.e. Tokyo states several different population statistics in the lead, including city proper, metropolitan, and prefecture or municipality or other administrative regions population. Your edits, which removed "everything else" but only states "Shanghai is the third largest municipality of China" simply won't do; based on common knowledge, most "common readers" wouldn't associate that with Shanghai nor is it a common description; no mainstream sources (be it news sources or encyclopedias) I've seen have used that characterization for Shanghai. We should explain using what criteria is Shanghai usually described as the largest city of China.

You wanted to note the municipality population of Shanghai, and the introduction now does states the population statistics of Shanghai including that of the municipality. And you said the older references 6 and 7 are only for the municipality of Shanghai not for the city proper or metropolitan areas, and they are removed and was replaced with sources directly referring to that (the World Gazetteer list for metropolitan population clearly states that the other list is for "proper places" ). And yes, the 20 million statistics from the People's Daily is more suitable for the overall municipal population, and it is been edited. And since the lead has no "detailed" discussion but rather it is a summary, the tertiary source used is perfectly suitable.--TheLeopard (talk) 18:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Did you ever try logic? It's an interesting concept. After a while, you will like it. I'll say it again: If Chongqing municipality has a population of 31.4 million, and Beijing municipality has a population of 22 million, then Shanghai with 19.2 million is the third largest. See, that wasn't so hard. If Wikipedia would be about "common knowledge" then we wouldn't have to do all the work. Wikipedia is mostly about uncommon knowledge. If it would be common, there would be no need to look it up. As far as consensus goes, the only one that objects is you. One more test: Go to Beijing and ask someone at the central government: "What is the largest city of China?" To a man (or woman) they will answer: "Chongqing." Again, uncommon knowledge. But a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BsBsBs (talk • contribs) 22:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Asking someone at Beijing's central government is not a source nor facts; most published sources states Shanghai is the largest city of China.--TheLeopard (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The Chinese have a different opinion, and it is their country. Negating the authority of the central government may not be a smart move. If the local statistical bureau says that the number of Shanghai's residents stands at 19.21 million, then the number of Shanghai's residents stands at 19.21 million. Period. Can you give me an exact official definition of Shanghai's "city proper" or "metro" ? Also, your "published sources" are either not behind the ball, or they are biased. Shanghai is experiencing negative population growth, while Beijing is exploding. And if the Chinese say that Chongqing is a city, then it's a city. It's their country. --BsBsBs (talk) 00:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The intro has already mentioned that "Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the PRC", so it is not neglecting the information you putted forth, and it also includes international statistics and rankings of Shanghai's city proper and metropolitan populations, as many many major city articles on Wikipedia does, thus it would reflect a more diverse and varied points of view (not just the "Chinese opinion").--TheLeopard (talk) 03:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * not going to input in full atm, because I am about to head up to sleep. but first off: why not use the first few sentences from the ZH-Wiki as a model for the corresponding part on EN-Wiki. The intro as of now there reads as 'Shanghai is one of the direct-controlled municipalities of the PRC, and one of the 5 national central cities (not sure how to translate the sentence). Located at the middle part of the coast of mainland China, it sits at the mouth of the Yangtze... [more geographical description]' --- 华钢琴49 (TALK) 04:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hao de. That would be a much more sensible solution, much less confusing, and the sentence could actually last a while. Matters in China change quickly ... --BsBsBs (talk) 11:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Chinese Wikipedia made no mentioning of Shanghai being either the 3rd largest municipality of China, or its rankings in China in terms of population. It basically said it is one of the MAJOR cities of China, and that's about it.--TheLeopard (talk) 04:20, 3 May 2010 (UTC)


 * have to include it in the article anyways, but I suggest NOT doing so in the intro for another reason; wordiness. (it is the largest _ or it is the _ largest repeated... -_-) ---华钢琴49 (TALK) 02:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I have implemented Mathpianist's sensible suggestion, and I strongly hope that this resolves any further debate. Any rankings should go into "Demographics," but only after solid data are established.--BsBsBs (talk) 08:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * BsBsBs, its completely inappropriate for you to remove statements that are actually referenced while only to keep statement such as "After Chongqing and Beijing, Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China" in which you weren't even able to find an appropriate source for it.  This statement has to go, if we're indeed modeling them based on the Chinese version, which did not contain information like this, and as per User:Mathpianist93's discussion.--TheLeopard (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You had no problem with this statement (which is evident to anyone who knows math, and which is sourced through governmental data). Now that your "largest" city hype is gone, you get vengeful. Stop this silly edit war. You have a long history of inserting revisionist data. Enough is enough. --BsBsBs (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You should try to find a reputable reference for these claims and statements instead of name-calling people on the talk page. And by "inserting revisionist data" you mean international statistics by the World Gazetteer in which you personally don't agree with but it is widely known to everyone else?--TheLeopard (talk) 17:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * A.) I did not call you any names
 * B.) If you insist, I will insert (the quite obvious) reputable sources --BsBsBs (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, I did you the favor. Now how about references for totally unsourced claims such as "Beijing is a major transportation hub, with dozens of railways, roads and motorways passing through the city. It is also the destination of many international flights arriving in China." Who knows, it could be wrong ... --BsBsBs (talk) 18:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

BsBsBs, the references you inserted did not state "After Chongqing and Beijing, Shanghai is the third largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China", they are just individual references for Chongqing and Beijing's municipal population statistics. Where is a reference that actually states "Shanghai is the third largest municipality"?--TheLeopard (talk) 18:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Math, try simple math. --BsBsBs (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I did a simple CTRL+F search on the ZH-WIKI article on Shanghai, typing in '第三大', meaning 'third largest'. It only appeared when referring to Chongming (the large island in the north of the city), and when comparing global stock exchanges. The sentence saying 'third largest' MUST be clear in specifying the criterion used. By total admin pop, Chongqing clearly wins. By metro area, from the last set of data I looked, Shanghai: maybe Beijing due to the continued influx of workers. I say that the municipality rank stay out of the intro, but I wish it were mentioned in the Demographics. --- 华钢琴49 (TALK) 23:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Right you are. Now, hopefully this matter is settled and we can focus our energy on more productive areas. Such as finding missing references for gobs of demographic data ... How could we have overlooked that.--BsBsBs (talk) 05:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Demographics
There are large portions of completely unsourced population data in the Demographics section. As the standards for referencing appear to have become stricter, it is not too much to ask for references for these data. They have been marked. Unless proper sources are found, the passages should be deleted. They appear to be outdated anyway. --BsBsBs (talk) 20:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai World Exposition 2010
I read in an web news article that Shanghai is hosting the 2010 World Expo. I accidentally closed the window :( but can anybody add it? Jeremy's messagesto you 19:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * already there, most explicitly at the very end of the 'culture' section. it may be appropriate to include it in the intro, as is done for the 2008 Olympics in the Beijing article. However, that comparison itself is faulty, because the notability of the World Expo cannot compare to that of the Olympics.

Collage
As most Chinese cities have a Collage, it is only fitting for Shanghai to have one too. Therefore, I propose that a collage be created especially for Shanghai.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 15:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * comment - I will not, for now, advocate for one position or the other. However, 'most Chinese cities' is inaccurate; 'most US cities' is. Even the two pictures on the Beijing article cannot collectively count as a 'collage'. However, they highlight the two most renowned portions of the city. Most of the Chinese city articles have overview pictures anyways.

Out of the cities in China that I consider to be major: Jilin City, Qiqihar, Shijiazhuang, Ji'nan, Changsha, Nanchang, Hefei, Suzhou, Ningbo, Hangzhou, Hong Kong, Haikou, Sanya, Nanning, Kunming, Taiyuan, Baotou, Hohhot, Lanzhou, Xining, and Kashgar, do NOT have more than one picture in the infobox. Chengdu now only has an overview picture, but I think it once had a collage. Suzhou, Fuzhou, and Guiyang don't really count because either there are two separate pictures, or the collage is of low quality. --- 华钢琴49 (TALK) 00:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but these are the two major cities, so why not give them a collage? In fact, it is standard on Wikipedia to award capitals and largest cities collages, and many Chinese cities do have them, so I advocate one for Shanghai and Beijing.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 15:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

obvious suport. start wit sh and bj then do others
 * Support:
 * Oppose:

Need some contributors to improve Shanghai Theatre Academy posting
A very brief summary of each university on the education section here should be included IMO.

Shanghai Theatre Academy is a famous school in China for fine arts. It's own article should be expanded and linked from here as well. I will be contributing to these articles and am looking for assistance from the community.

Thanks! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlehner616 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

PISA Test in Education section
It's about time this discussion occurred. I am personally in favour of inclusion of the PISA Test. For one, there is no "Education in Shanghai" article. Secondly, I agree with 76.65.20.210 in that insertion of the information would not necessarily make the Education section too lengthy. --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 03:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with HXL. The PISA test result is influential (front page of New York Times) and highly relevant to education in Shanghai. Should be included in this article as well as the PISA article. Zanhe (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with HXL and Zanhe that the results PISA tests are important and highly relevant to Shanghai and should be mentionned in the article.  Per Honor et Gloria  ✍  08:39, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Small error
Does anyone notice, the first line says that the shanghai is the most populous city in JAPAN? I believe it belongs to China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennieys (talk • contribs) 18:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The "Shanghai Labelled Map" caption says "The 18 districts and 1 county that make up the Municipality of Shanghai". It should say 17 districts, but I'm not sure how to edit it, so I'm just pointing it out here. Anoldtreeok (talk) 05:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed. Sometimes, you need to look at templates used within an article. In this case, that would be Template:Shanghai Labelled Map . --HXL's Roundtable, and Record 05:56, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Smartphone site
http://wap.sh.gov.cn/ seems to be a smartphone site, but I don't have one on me at the moment... WhisperToMe (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Shanghai Disneyland Park
Shanghai Disneyland Park project was officially launched on April 8, 2011, after years long negotiation between Shanghai municipal government and Walt Disney Corporation. It is the sixth Disneyland park in the world, the third in Asia, and the second in China, the other one is in Hong Kong. The theme park is expected to open to tourist before the end of year 2014 at earliest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.171.18.158 (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Entry on the Disneyland Park already added. -- HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  16:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. The preparation works of construction have been under way for the last several months. It is formally announced by the CEO of Walt Disney Co. and Shanghai top municipal government officials, jointly, on April 8, 2011, the starting of full scale construction work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.171.18.158 (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

File example.png
I see this file linked to this article I wanted to remove it but I could not find it in the article.Could someone tell me what I am missing?--Shrike (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not in the article itself, it's probably inside one of the templates that's transcluded within the article. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 06:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But if this template used in other articles we should see that other articles are linked too but its not the case.--Shrike (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion
To end the highly unproductive argument about Shanghai's population size, I offer two compromises for the lede. I consider none of them a compromise that distorts facts.

1.) "Shanghai (Chinese: 上海; Shanghainese: Zånhae [z̥ɑ̃̀hé]; Mandarin pinyin: Shànghǎi Mandarin pronunciation: [ʂɑ̂ŋxài]) is one of the most populous cities in People's Republic of China." (Reference 2010 census)

2.) "Shanghai (Chinese: 上海; Shanghainese: Zånhae [z̥ɑ̃̀hé]; Mandarin pinyin: Shànghǎi Mandarin pronunciation: [ʂɑ̂ŋxài]) is a city in People's Republic of China." (Unreferenced, if someone insists, we can link to a map.)

The rest can be moved into Demographics. BsBsBs (talk) 06:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest or second largest?
The “Demographics” section says correctly: “Based on population of total administrative area, Shanghai is the second largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China, behind Chongqing which governs a much bigger area.” Some editors try to turn Shanghai into the largest city in the intro. Not only does that clash with what is said in “Demographics,” it is also wrong. No matter how large the area of Chongqing is, it is a direct controlled municipality. And as long as we use the population of the Shanghai municipality, we need to compare with the count of full municipalities. Because this has been a contentious issue for long, I offer “one of the most populous cities,” which anyone should be able to live with. This statement is sourced, and it needs to stand. BsBsBs (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, as I am about tired of the bickering. Also, something needs to be done at the infobox of the PRC article. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  20:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * "Some editors try to turn Shanghai into the largest city in the intro." Is that a joke? Check out the history of the article, the intro has started with the largest city claim ever since its inception in 2001. You're now trying to change this established fact by arguing that Chongqing Municipality has a larger population, but a Chinese municipality is not the same as a city.  There's no city in the world that can possibly cover an area of 82,300 km2, the size of Chongqing Municipality, which is bigger than many major countries like Ireland, and more than twice the size of Switzerland, Denmark, the Netherlands, or Taiwan.  If you need more concrete data to be convinced, check out this detailed breakdown of Chongqing's population: http://www.geohive.com/cntry/cn-50.aspx against Shanghai's: http://www.geohive.com/cntry/cn-31.aspx  The total population of Chongqing's city districts (not counting rural counties) is roughly 13 million, even including such far-flung districts as Wanzhou, which used to be a separate city and is almost 300 km away from Chongqing.  On the other hand, the total population of Shanghai's city districts is more than 22 million, all concentrated in an area smaller than 1/10 of Chongqing. Zanhe (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You seem to be new around here. As HXL49 says, we are tired of this bickering. It is an established fact that Chongqing is the most populous city in China and most likely in the world. Where and how big the city limits are drawn is not us to decide or to argue. It seems to tax the comprehension of some that a place they haven't heard of and can't spell can claim most populous city status. So be it. I am well aware of the stats of both cities. It is possible that a city covers 82 million sqkm. Take Chongqing as an example. We are here to report facts. Not to change them because they don't fit our world view. BsBsBs (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "most populous city" is meant to be interpreted in an administrative context...hence the arrangement regarding New Taipei (Xinbei) and Taipei in both of their ledes and the ROC article's infobox. We can certainly modify the lede to read "most populous metropolitan area". I believe the PRC statistics bureau provides metro area information, as otherwise I don't see how editors can possibly have the time to fabricate such figures for usage in articles. Triple Bs, I wonder why you haven't taken action on the PRC article's infobox. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  03:39, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not new here and I've been watching and contributing to this page for years, first anonymously then with my own account, and there was no bickering until you barged in and decided to change something that's been undisputed since Wikipedia started. Also, try googling "the largest city in china" and see how many times Shanghai comes up first compared with Chongqing.  A municipality is not the same as a city.  If China decides tomorrow to elevate Chengdu to the status of a municipality and rename Sichuan Province as Chengdu Municipality, does it all of a sudden make Chengdu the largest city in the world with a population of 80 million?  That was essentially what China did to Chongqing in 1997.  Zanhe (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, what you are suggesting is that Chengdu be renamed, which is different from what happened to Chongqing, which was carving out. Anyway, that is quite besides the point, and I may open a request for comment on this question here. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  04:29, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cognizant of the contentiousness of this issue, I had offered "one of" as a longer lasting solution, which might also be more appropriate for the lede. I am astonished how that can cause a fuss. Frankly, I am tired of hearing that we need to ignore CQ, because it has the nerve of being bigger than Switzerland. I changed the PRC infobox. Let's see how long that lasts. BsBsBs (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

There is a common myth that a Chinese municipality is different. It's not. A municipality is a local government division. It can be as small as a village of 10 (if that village is incorporated) or a city of the size of CQ. In Chinese,直辖市 - zhíxiáshì translates to "direct controlled CITY".. Please stop the edit warring and stop removing official references that counter your unsourced claim. You have violated the 3 revert rule. BsBsBs (talk) 05:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * There's no standard definition for what constitutes a city, but any plausible definition should at least meet the common-sense test: if an administrative division is bigger than major countries like Ireland or Switzerland, it's probably not a city even if it's called a municipality; if it takes a whopping 11 hours and 635 km to drive from one part of the municipality to another (try the driving direction on Google Map from Rongchang County to Wushan County, both within Chongqing Municipality), it's probably not a city; if there are regular commercial flights between one part of the municipality to another (such as between Chongqing Jiangbei and Qianjiang District), it's probably not a city. In short, Chongqing Municipality fails the common-sense test for a city. Zanhe (talk) 07:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never edited this page, but it seems like the common-sense solution would be to qualify your sentences better, i.e.: "in terms of X, Shanghai/Chongqing is the largest city in China". My personal bias is to agree that not all parts of Chongqing Municipality should really be considered a single "city".  A quick G-search will reveal that Shanghai is still considered the "largest city in China" by most observers, here (population:major cities), here, here, here (p.393), here, and here.  Some of those websites are more academic than others, but this collection gives a good reflection of general practice.


 * A G-search of "Shanghai largest city in China" produces 4,910,000 results, while a G-search of "Chongqing largest city in China" produces only 541,000 results.  Based on these results, I think we should conclude that Shanghai is still generally recognized as the "largest city in China", whatever that actually means. Wikipedia's content should reflect general practice.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Chongqing and Shanghai are both Directly-controlled municipalities of the PRC, so this shouldn't be an arguing point.  –Nav  talk to me or sign my guestbook 05:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Largest city of the People's Republic of China?
Summary for third parties (do NOT respond to this): There currently is a dispute here that does not seem as if it will have a resolution any time soon—Whether Shanghai or Chongqing is the largest city (pop.) of the PRC. The main argument in favour of Chongqing is that "largest city" is that it is the largest administratively, and argument in favour of Shanghai is that in the PRC, a municipality is not the same as a city. &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  04:38, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTICE TO ALL: If leaning towards one city over the other, do not merely write "support" or "oppose". Write the name of the city, either fully spelled out, or abbreviated (SH or CQ). This is common sense... &mdash; HXL's Roundtable  and  Record  04:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I just want to bring a few things into light.
 * Municipality vs. City. Both Chongqing and Shanghai are Directly-Controlled Municipalities, which is basically a municipality that's not in a province (similar to Washington, D.C.).  Since they're both on the same level in the government, there shouldn't be an argument about one being a municipality and one being a city.  They're both the same.
 * Area Size. Sure, it can be argued that at over 82,000km2, it's hard to see Chongqing being referred to as a "city", but does anyone argue about the area size of Jiuquan, a city of over 190,000km2.  There are two other cities that seem unnaturally large to be cities, but nonetheless, they are.
 * City Proper. There are many articles that try to define what the city proper is, such as this one which defines urban districts as those with over 1,500 people per km2, and this one, which lists six districts as "Central Chongqing" but doesn't really state how they determined that and they have no source for it either.  If anyone can provide a reliable source as to what is officially listed as city proper, then we can move forward with that argument.  Until then, I think we should count those who live in Chongqing, whether in the center or in the farther parts.    –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 05:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Shanghai. While a "municipality" is colloquially referred to as a city, there is no necessary relationship between the two. The relevant Chinese laws do not require a municipality to be either centred on a single city (in the common sense) or to be composed of urban areas. Likewise, while the SARs of Hong Kong and Macau are often referred to as "cities", there is nothing that requires an SAR to be a city. There may well be more tha one point within a municipality which, in common parlance, would be regarded as a "city", or a muncipality may only be a part of a larger area that would normally be regarded as a "city". A "city" is a geographical concept, a "municipality" in this context an administrative and political one. It is one thing to say "X is the most populous municipality in China", and quite another to say "X is the most populous city in China". When assessing the former, the relevant statistic is the total population of the municipality, when assessing the latter, the relevant statistic is the population of what would, to a geographer, be understood to be the "city", or whatever is the closest available proxy based on census statistics. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Putting Chongqing aside for a moment, while it so happens that the three older municipalities which exist in China today are each composed of a city and its surrounding satellite towns and suburbs, this has not historically been the case. For example, before WWII, the Shanghai municipality composed of a small section of the whole city and excluded all the foreign concessions. My view is that Chongqing represents another, though quite different, illustration of how the "municipality" does not correspond with the "city", because it is composed of a whole swathe of pre-division Sichuan which have been grouped together partly for administrative convenience. There is no reason to deny the possibility of the creation of future municipalities which may represent only part of a city or an area far greater than a city. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * For those who read Chinese, there is more discussion about what is geographically considered Chongqing "city" within the larger municipality in the Chinese wikipedia article zh:重庆主城区. That article states (although I note the statement is not cited) that "When conducting city statistic analysis, in terms of population and political activity, the statistic is usually based on the nine districts of the main city area", and that the population of the nine main districts is about 1/4 of the municipality population, making Chongqing "the third most populous city in the country after Shanghai and Guangzhou." The article goes on to discuss how Chongqing is viewed as a provincial-level entity with four city-level entities for economic statistical purposes. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:56, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A note about Nav's query about "city proper" vs "non city proper" - in China urban and non-urban areas are quite clearly defined with respect to a range of criteria, one of which is whether residents at that place are classed as "agricultural" or "non-agricultural" residents for huji purposes. Note that these definitions are primarily geographical and not occupational, so a CEO of a large industrial corporation may nevertheless be classed as a "agricultural" resident if he lives in an area which is classified as rural. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)


 * My comments:
 * City proper is unambiguously defined as "locality with legally fixed boundaries and an administratively recognized urban status that is usually characterized by some form of local government." If some articles, such as this one succeed in making a hash out of it (through relentless edit warfare), then so be it.
 * PalaceGuard008 falls into a very common trap of giving "city proper" a meaning it does not have. "City proper" doesn't care about "urban" or "rural." All it cares about is the administrative boundary. You can have all rice paddies within these boundaries, or all skyscrapers, or a mixture. "City proper" is agnostic of this.
 * The fixed boundaries of Shanghai, Chongqing, Beijing and Tianjin are those of the respective Directly-Controlled Municipality.
 * The National Bureau of Statistics of China lists the populations within these fixed boundaries as follows:

This is based on the 2010 population census, and renders all previous numbers obsolete.


 * Counting the hits on Google is not allowed as a reliable source.
 * "Common sense" and "personal bias" do not qualify as reliable sources.
 * If the CIA factbook lists different numbers than the official census: Your tax dollars at work.
 * There are official statistical data for each district, town or county of Shanghai, Chongqing, Beijing and Tianjin. I have yet to see official statistics that break out the population of the city of Shanghai (et al) vs. the population of the municipality. I have seen many mental contortions that arrived at such a number. However, when I call the Statistical Bureau of Beijing, where I live, and ask "what is the population of the city of Beijing" I get "last time we looked, it was 19.6 million."
 * Finally, I must point out that this article is an article about the municipality of Shanghai. It shows the map of the municipality, it lists the districts of the municipality, the infobox and the "Demographics" section list 23,019,148 as the population. Logic dictates that we compare apples with apples, and municipalities with municipalities. As we are in the context of municipalities, the whole city vs. municipality argument is moot. BsBsBs (talk) 10:27, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just note in relation to the comment about me that I said "most populous city", not "most populous city proper". You seem to be trying very hard to prove that Chongqing is the most populous municipality, and I have no doubt about that at all. But a municipality is not a city. See more detailed comments above. I have no objection whatsoever with you labelling Chongqing as the most populous municipality in China, but that does not mean Shanghai is not the most populous city in China. I'd prefer if you didn't label me as falling into some kind of trap ( set by you? ). --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't pay US taxes. I pay various different kinds of taxes or duties to the Australian, British and Chinese governments, but (I hope) my tax dollars aren't funding the CIA! --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your statistical analysis here seems almost to be bordering on original research. What do reliable published sources say to the question "what is the largest city [not municipality] in China by population"? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:48, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Sources. I want to present these two reliable sources that may help solve the question.
 * What are China's largest and richest cities? (USC US-China Institute)
 * Misconceptions and Complexities in the Study of China’s Cities: Definitions, Statistics, and Implications (Eurasian Geography and Economics)  –Nav   talk to me or sign my guestbook 12:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment I want to comment based on the paper, Misconceptions and Complexities in the Study of China’s Cities: Definitions, Statistics, and Implication, which examines the issue of how to interpret the demographics of Chinese "cities".
 * Giving an official statistical table showing that Chongqing has more people than Shanghai cannot be taken at face value because the PRC in fact collects eight different measurements of "urban population" statistics, based on different criteria of what might be considered an "urban population". Official estimates of Chongqing's urban population range from the number cited above by BsBsBs (the highest estimate, counting both urban and rural hukou populations everywhere in Chongqing municipality), to under seven million (only counting the de facto urban population of Chongqing proper). (pp.289-290)  Because of the ambiguity of official definitions of Chongqing's population, "failure to grasp this complexity, or imprudent use of the statistics by simply accepting them at face value, can result in erroneous interpretations that mislead both scholars and the public at large." (p.384)
 * The demographics of Chongqing Municipality indicate that the largest possible statistical measurement of Chongqing issued by the PRC is not the best representation of "Chongqing's" population.  As of 2007, the "31.69 million 'residents of Chongqing' were scattered across 15 city districts, 21 counties, and 4 county-level cities." Official "census data shows that the share of total employment in this Chongqing region (or province) accounted for by agriculture was 72.8 percent. It is likely that three quarters of the land area even today is rural." (p.388)  Because the population of Chongqing Municipality is in fact nearly 75% rural, nearly 75% of the population of Chongqing Municipality do not actually live in a city.  if 75% of the population of Chongqing Municipality do not live inside the city of Chongqing, they can't be considered part of the city of Chongqing's population, except in a technical administrative sense. Because more people actually live in the city of Shanghai than live in the city of Chongqing, Shanghai should be recognized as "China's largest city".
 * Among most informed observers within and outside of China, the interpretation of official statistics indicating that Shanghai remains China's largest city is "taken for granted". International publications stating this interpretation include Microsoft Encarta encyclopedia and databooks issued by the United Nations Population Division. (p.384)  What academic sources recognize Chongqing as China's largest city?
 * If the current edit of Shanghai indicates Shanghai's population wrongly or misleadingly, possibly inflated via administrative technicality, then that information should be corrected. The article should reflect that more people live in Chongqing Municipality than Shanghai Municipality, even though more people live in the city of Shanghai than the city of Chongqing. For example: "although more people live in Chongqing Municipality, many observers believe that Shanghai is China's largest city because Shanghai has more urban residents than Chongqing."Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment

Gentlepersons, please refrain from dazzling or confusing yourself and the readers. There are three ways to look at a city and its population, and those are administrative, urban agglomeration and metropolitan area. The administrative view is by far the most common. The amount of “urban” or “rural” residents is of absolutely zero import on the total of people within the administrative boundaries of a city. So unless we are discussing the agglomeration or metro areas of SH and CQ, don’t even bother to mention “urban” vs. “rural.”

This article takes the administrative view: Maps, boundaries, sqkm, even population cited are those of the administrative area of SH. As long as this view is taken, it must be taken in all respects.

Also, it would behoove us if we stick to facts. For instance, “the number cited above by BsBsBs” is not “the highest estimate, counting both urban and rural hukou populations everywhere in Chongqing municipality.” It is no estimate, it is the product of the 2010 census. It is not the hukou population, but the total resident population. The 2010 census counted the so-called “temporary residents” also. The number of people living within the administrative boundaries of a city is no “administrative technicality” but a core metric. BsBsBs (talk) 08:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: After reviewing the tables on pages 390 and 392, you are probably correct that the figure cited represents the de facto, rather than hukou, population of Chongqing Municipality. The hukou population is several million persons larger.Ferox Seneca (talk) 15:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment

I would throw the paper away. The confusion of the scholars about the Chinese counting keeps confusing civilians. For instance, in a large Chinese city, the hukou population is usually LOWER than the de facto population. Hukou only counts who should be here, not who is.

This paper, and others that grapple with the challenges of Chinese demographics are surrender notes. They just document in so many words that the authors gave up. However, Chinese autorities did something about it.

Up to 2010, all Chinese numbers were based on an incomplete 2000 census, augmented by regular small samples. The results were thrown off by the errors of the 2000 base count. Numbers were artificially low, because statisticians counted what was on the books, not what was on the street. Furthermore, there is no redistricting in China, and nothing is gained from high population counts.

The 2010 census counted the de facto population. Including the foreigner who types this, but who had lived off the charts for many, many years, despite proper registration.

To recap: hukou, rural, urban have no bearing on the total population reported in the 2010 census. The count may be slightly low, because some people did not like to be counted, went into hiding or sicced their dogs at the enumerators.

The new 2010 census faithfully represents the total population within the administrative boundaries of China. As long as we take the census of other countries at face value, we sould not confuse us and others by doctoring Chinese counts until they fit our world view.

Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why argue over whether it's the largest or not, when you could simply state things more clearly in the article. Something along the lines of "The Shanghai metropolitan area is the most populous in the PRC, although Chongqing is the largest city when the entire administrative area is counted". (Note I'm not suggesting this as the exact wording because I don't know all the details of the issue; I'm just giving an example of the sort of thing that should be tried for.) Avoids the dispute, and educates the reader more anyway. There's no need to waste time boasting in the lede when you can just make things clearer and avoid the whole discussion. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Support Shanghai as the biggest city in China, Chongqing has been sized as it has to reduce the size of Sichuan province. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 06:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Shanghai
 * - General practice: as noted above, a Google search of "Shanghai largest city in China" yields almost ten times as many results as "Chongqing largest city in China" (5 million vs. 0.5 million), so most people consider Shanghai the largest city in China. And Wikipedia has always followed this general practice since the Shanghai article was first created 10 years ago (see here).  It has been undisputed until one editor (BsBsBs) recently decided to challenge it.  Please note that 10 years ago Chongqing Municipality had a population of 32 million, twice of Shanghai's population of 16 million.  So obviously Wikipedia has always followed the general practice of not recognizing Chongqing Municipality as a city.  In the decade since, Chongqing's population has decreased by 3 million, while Shanghai's has increased by 7 million, so there's no compelling reason to challenge the general practice now.
 * - Chongqing Municipality is not a city, the real city is much smaller. It was only created in 1997 by splitting the eastern portion of Sichuan Province, many of its remoter parts (Wanzhou, Fuling, and Qianjiang) were previously separate cities and prefectures unrelated to Chongqing.  It is actually bigger than a few provinces in China, and bigger than many major countries like Ireland and Switzerland.  If superimposed on the US east coast, it would stretch from Boston all the way to Washington DC.  And at least half of its total population of 29 million live in rural areas with population densities less than 300 (see List of administrative divisions of Chongqing), which is lower than India, a huge rural country.  If Chongqing Municipality were accepted as a city, one could conceivably consider the whole India as a giant city.
 * - Editor BsBsBs argues that we should accept Chongqing Municipality as a bona fide city simply because it's officially called one, common sense be damned. I find this argument ludicrous.  Administrative regions are misnamed for all kinds of (mostly political) reasons, and common sense should always prevail.  That's why we don't treat US states as independent states, or consider Russian republics (e.g. Chechnya and Buryat) real republics, and we'd never even think of recognizing the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (official name of North Korea) as a democracy.  Conversely, we all consider Hong Kong a real city even though its official name (HK Special Administrative Region) does not contain the word city or municipality.  Zanhe (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Support Shanghai. I pretty much agree with everything Zanhe says here. There is absolutely no consensus in the academia that a city must be defined as an administrative unit and that somehow this corresponds to a municipality in China. BsBsBs claimed above that the Chinese word "市" corresponds to "city". This is simply false. The closest equivalent of "city" in Chinese is "都市" or "城市". On the other hand, "市" is a word used for widely different meanings, including "municipality", "town", "market" (usually coupled with another character to make the meaning disambiguous). In fact, in Chinese law there is a clear difference between "designated cities" (建制市, including municipalities) and actual cities (see here, Chinese). The first is an administrative and legal definition, and the latter is a human geographic definition. The English term generally corresponds to the latter definition.Batjik Syutfu (talk) 09:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely no need to force a binary solution here (saying that only one article can claim some title). Follow the sources and explain the situation in the articles content. Editors making a choice in matters such as this, justified or not, constitutes Original research. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 17:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I disagree that following well-founded convention and general practice constitutes Original Research, especially in this case when Wikipedia has been doing that without controversy since its inception. Challengers to the long-held convention and status quo have the burden of proof by providing overwhelming evidence to the contrary, otherwise the status quo should be maintained.  Zanhe (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ...That's basically my point. No editor should be making up their own definitions of what constitutes a "city", or how different definitions do or don't work with each other. Leave that to the published sources, and repeat what they say with citations. Skimming though the discussion above, the majority of it is personal opinions about how the Chinese government (or city or provincial governments in China) define things, which is meaningless on-site unless it's backed up with an external source. My opinion included, of course. Find sources, and follow them. Problem solved. — V = IR (Talk&thinsp;&bull;&thinsp;Contribs) 21:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Exactly.


 * "Shanghai ... is the most populous city in People's Republic of China" in the intro lacks a reference and can therefore be removed. I had offered a compromise: "one of the most populous cities", with a reference. This had been rejected and it ended in long diatribes that are big on "general practice", "common sense", and Google statistics, but short on sources.


 * The demographics section had for a long time correctly stated: "Based on population of total administrative area, Shanghai is the second largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China, behind Chongqing which governs a much bigger area."


 * The edit "The 2010 census revealed that the population of Shanghai had reached 23,019,148, including 8,977,000 long-term migrants, a growth of 37.53% from the 2000 census population of 16,737,734. By that definition, Shanghai is the largest city in the world. [4][37]" made by an IP, is an absolute perversion. None of the two sources say that "Shanghai is the largest city in the world." [4] says Shanghai is the second largest in China. [37] simply states the population figures, with no references to other cities, neither in China nor in the world.


 * It is amazing that this edits stands, while this discussion prattles on. BsBsBs (talk) 17:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but how is that IP edit which was reverted in about half an hour relevant to the current discussion here? And I found your use of the word "diatribe" offensive, which is probably more appropriate for describing your own long complaint about the IP edit.  You could have easily reverted it yourself (as HXL49 did) rather than complain here.


 * I agree it's a good idea to cite reliable sources. The reason there has been no source is probably because no one thought it was necessary as it's so widely accepted (articles on many cities including London, Paris, Moscow, etc. all make the largest city claim without citing references).  After reading the sources that Nav proposed (PDF and summary), I found them authoritative and well-researched (published in the academic journal Eurasian Geography and Economics, and used by Univ. of Washington and USC).  The relevant ranking is on page 393. Zanhe (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So if we are to take the ranking on page 393 as the authoritative source, which population shall we take for SH? 16.41m? 14.35m? 13.46m? 11.37m? 9.38m? You can't use 23,019,148 (official 2010 census) as the total in the infobox and in demographics, and then cherry-pick an ancient paper that uses 10 year old numbers, just to push a POV. Be careful what you wish for. If you want to prove with that paper that SH is more populous than CQ, then you need to use 14.35m  (or lower) as the SH population. An edit that would cause great unhappiness, I am afraid. If you would take 16.41m, then CQ would be on top again, while torturing 10 year old stats ...


 * The statement that SH is "the most populous city in People's Republic of China" is unreferenced because there is no reference that cannot be disproved by a simple look in recent official statistics. Statements can stand without references unless they are challenged. Consider this statement as challenged - in more ways than one. This article accepts the 2010 census result as the population of SH. For consistency's sake, it must be done in all respects. BsBsBs (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggest that you actually read the paper before critiquing it. There's no need for us to cherry-pick any number, the author already chose the number 13.46m (the column titled "De facto population in urban area only" is highlighted for God's sake and the whole table is sorted by that column).  The author then followed up with an in-depth explanation on why he chose that number before concluding that "Shanghai is China’s largest city in population, not Chongqing. The latter, instead of being the largest city, ranks seventh, with a city population of only 6.17 million" (p395).  If you didn't have the patience to read through the whole treatise, at least you could have noticed that the summary nicely lists the column in a separate table under the title "Chan combines data from the 2000 census to rank China's largest cities on the basis of de facto population in urban areas of city districts", with Shanghai ranked first and Chongqing the seventh.


 * The paper is by no means ancient, it was published in 2007. Yes it uses data mainly from the 2000 census and the 2005 population survey, not the 2010 census.  But the 2010 census data were published merely two months ago.  You wouldn't expect any academic research based on that data to be published in two months, would you?  Moreover, the 2010 census data only strengthens the conclusion of the paper: Shanghai's population has increased by 6.6 million between 2000 and 2010, while Chongqing's has decreased (see Sixth National Population Census of the People's Republic of China).  So while the specific numbers cited in the paper have changed, the relative ranking between Shanghai and Chongqing definitely have not, and there's absolutely no conflict between using the latest census number in the infobox and the relative ranking from the paper.  If you are still not satisfied with this source that has been published in an academic journal and used as textbook material at multiple universities, I challenge you to find a more authoritative research paper that supports your POV that Chongqing is the largest city in China.  Zanhe (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

[http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/newsandcomingevents/t20110429_402722516.htm Here is your paper. It can't get more authoritative.] Now, which population count do you want in the infobox? 13.46m? We need to do this, otherwise it would be an egregious example of Original Research.

The only thing that the Chan paper lets you state is „According to the 2000 census, Shanghai ranks first amongst China’s cities when counting the de facto population in urban areas only. The same statistics rank Chongqing first and Shanghai second when the total population within the administrative boundaries is counted.” I leave it up to you whether you want to do that.

May I also humbly reiterate that in demographics, there are three accepted concepts of looking at “a city” and its population: Administrative, urban agglomeration and metropolitan area. This article takes the administrative view, as evidenced by the map and the data provided. Only amateurs confuse and mix these three concepts.

You can argue that the boundaries of Chinese cities are awfully large. But this does not change the boundaries. They are large. What’s more, this discussion does not belong here. This is an article about Shanghai, not on urban studies. How about writing an article on overbounding? BsBsBs (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * BsBsBs, your attitude is now bordering intransigence. How dare you change the article unilaterally before the RfC is over?  And why did you remove SchmuckyTheCat's comment (now restored below)? Zanhe (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * How dare I? My, are we getting uncivil. The RFC has gotten unproductive and turned into a shouting match. The edit is a compromise both sides should be able to live with. As discussed, the references offered for your edits do not support the claim of "China's most populous city." Most populous urban areas maybe. It is a well-established and well-referenced fact that more people live within the boundaries of Chongqing than in those of Shanghai. I am sorry that you don't want to live with a compromise. SchmuckyTheCat's comment was removed, because there is no comment. Maybe my computer is broken. But if you are in love with an empty entry, mei wen ti. BsBsBs (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS: intransigence "- the trait of being intransigent; stubbornly refusing to compromise." BsBsBs (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You edited the article to your original version, ignoring everyone else's comments and call that a compromise? You unilaterally edited the article during the discussion, calling the RFC unproductive when all evidence is against your position.  You surreptitiously deleted an opposing comment, then claim your computer might be broken when caught.  And then you accuse the person who caught you of incivility.  I regret wasting so much of my time trying to reason with someone like you.  Zanhe (talk) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Shanghai SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Welcome to urban warfare ... As repeatedly mentioned, but studiously ignored, this is an article about the municipality of Shanghai. All data presented are on a municipality level. It is not acceptable to cherry-pick a datum from a study that takes a different perspective, just to prove a contentious point. As likewise repeatedly mentioned and ignored, demographers look at cities using an administrative view, an urban agglomeration view and a metropolitan area view. The latter two ignore administrative boundaries. The metropolitan area of New York for instance spreads across three states. There is no “right” or “wrong” view, as long as one stays consistent. Urban agglomeration and metropolitan area are important in marketing and urban planning. Their demarcations are often fuzzy and up to debate. Trained demographers learn early that these views must not be mixed or confused. Chan says on pp 393 that the de facto population in the urban areas of Shanghai was 13.46m in 2000, and that that of Chongqing was only 6.17m. Probably correct, and important in an urban context. In this strictly urban context, Chan correctly states that by using just the urban population of 2000, “Shanghai is China’s largest city in population, not Chongqing.” If I would do marketing studies or media plans, then I would be foolish to assume that a department store in downtown Chongqing reaches more people than a department store in Puxi. However, we are not making marketing plans or media strategies. We are talking about all of Shanghai, not just the urban area. Chan says the population of all of Shanghai was 16.41m in 2000 and that of Chongqing was 30.51m. A 2010 census, data published by the National Bureau of Statistics of China gives Chongqing a population of 28.8m and Shanghai a population of 23m. These are the most recent and best researched (total count) numbers, and they need to be used when talking about all of Chongqing and all of Shanghai, as this article does. This article is full of references to the official 2010 count. Removing this reference and replacing it with another one that does not bear out the claim is insincere. It makes a mockery out of this article. A few paragraphs down, the Demographics section contradicts the statement that Shnaghai is most populous. Anyone who will look at the infoboxes of Shanghai and Chongqing would shake his or her head in disbelief. For the second time today, I had to restore a compromise edit that is sourced on official data published by China’s top statistical agency. I am aware of the fact that some people would like Shanghai to be China’s most populous city, while others insist that it is Chongqing. “Shanghai is one of the most populous cities of the PRC” should be acceptable to both. Even Chan would agree. Before another edit is made, I would like to see recent data from a reliable source that says that the population within the administrative boundaries of Shanghai is higher than that of Chongqing. Should another view than the administrative be taken, then the whole article would have to be rewritten, reflecting that view. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 10:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Your endless rehashing of your POV that municipality equals city (without any supporting reference) is getting quite tiring now. It's completely against common sense and is thoroughly discredited by the Chan paper: "Shanghai is China’s largest city in population, not Chongqing. The latter, instead of being the largest city, ranks seventh, with a city populaiton of only 6.17 million. This is far smaller than the numbers used by the media sources cited earlier, 13.89 or 32 million. In fact, the difference between 6 million and 32 million is close to an order of magnitude." (p395).  You simply cannot take a municipality's population of 32 million that is only 20% urban and equal it to a city.  This article is about Shanghai, which can refer to both the city (the urban core) and the municipality, and there's absolutely no conflict between calling Shanghai the largest city and the second largest municipality (as in the demographics section) at the same time, both supported with reliable sources.  As for your so-called compromise: “Shanghai is one of the most populous cities of the PRC”, while correct, is a vacuous statement that can be applied to dozens of cities in China, and it runs against Wikipedia's mission of providing users with the most accurate information available.  Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, Zanhe ... I had mentioned before that the "largest in China" edit would contradict the data presented in the infobox and in Demographics. I went to the edit history today. This is the May 3 2011 edit of Demographics.] It correctly states that the population of Shanghai is 23,019,148. It correctly gives the bulletin if the National Bureau of Statistics of China as a source. It correctly states: "Based on population of total administrative area, Shanghai is the second largest of the four direct-controlled municipalities of the People's Republic of China, behind Chongqing which governs a much bigger area." Who made this correct edit? Editor Zanhe. BsBsBs (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Great detective work, BsBsBs. Yes, I was the author of that statement, along with most of the Demographics section of this article.  I also authored much, if not most, of the Education and Transportation sections, and updated the infobox with the latest census and GDP data.  And what have you done to improve this article lately other than edit warring?  As I repeatedly mentioned above (and supported by other editors as well as the research paper), municipality does not equal city, especially in the case of Chongqing with only 20% urban population, and there's no conflict between calling Shanghai the largest city and the second largest municipality.


 * To return the favor, I went on to do a little detective work of my own, and discovered you have quite a history for aggressively pushing your POV that municipality=city. After trying unsuccessfully to push your POV on List of cities proper by population (which, incidentally, ranks Shanghai the largest city in the world), you went on and forked a new article called World's largest municipalities by population, which was quickly nominated for deletion (see decision here). Zanhe (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is London the largest city in the United Kingdom? Is Tokyo the largest city in Japan? Neither is a city within the respective administrative hierachy. 203.198.26.78 (talk) 12:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

City definitions
Official census was based on the existing administrative division network. So we can find 17 区 units and one 县 in Shanghai municipality territory. The 县 is a rural unit, the 区 - city districts. What with the Chongqing city districts? The city has 17 区 and Qianjiang District plus Wanzhou District but Qianjiang and Wanzhou are the former cities out the Chongqing urban area. The rest of the Chongqing  municipality divisions - are the 21 县. The city of Chongqing proper are 17 区 in the 一小时经济圈, not more, I guess. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)