Talk:Global city/Archive 2

I have to say...
This is one of the most bizarre entries in Wikipedia. The rankings are insane, and make no sense. For Paris to be ranked above Los Angeles (I've lived in both cities) is completely insane, regardless of any procedures that may be presented to give some (false) sense of authenticity. This is OK, but this article adopts the same bias as the formulators of this idea, and is clearly not objective, nor true.
 * I agree with you. Vancouver, for example, ranks somewhere with The Hague. ??????. That's just ridiculous. Vancouver is more Global than say Zurich, which is listed much higher. Then again, this is very very bizarre.
 * Please see the Wikipedia core policies on verifiability, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT. The GaWC study has serious problems, but as the leading study in this field, it is all that we can use under the no original research policy.  That is, Wikipedia can only summarize and republish findings made somewhere else, but cannot itself be used to publish any given editor's own personal views as to how to rank global cities.  Any subjective ranking of global cities here by Wikipedia editors would constitute original research.  --Coolcaesar 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Hernlund and 24.87.73.104. Nothing wrong with points. You just both have point of view that is very centralised on America. Elk Salmon 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Number of Billionaires
Compare the column that says "number of billionaires" to the list given in the article List of cities with the most billionaires.
 * yes, let's make sure we use numbers related to the city and not metro

No one lives (well <10,000) in the City of London the rich and the posh live in the City of Westminster. So what does the word city and metro mean? --Philip Baird Shearer 17:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


 * the London article says a city population of around 7.5 million, I assume the City of London and the City of Westminster are included. Metro is the metropolitan population.


 * Please read the BBC article and the Forbes 2006 Billionaires list. NYC has 40, Moscow has 25, and London has 23. --Waynepl107 18:58, 18 July 2006 (EST)
 * Forbes USA is very far from accuracy for Russia. They does not have enough staff and experience for their job in non western countries. Huge gap in figures between Forbes Russia and Forbes USA for 2004 show it very well. 2006 Figure for Moscow in the table is based on the rank of RosBusinessConsulting (largest media group in russia and specialising on financial analytics) and Finance magazine. Link to short list published on Rating RBC is in ref 32. Elk Salmon 09:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes it appears there are 50 billionaires in Russia if I'm reading right. I can't see where it says that they live in Moscow so I will go by the Forbes list.--Old Guard 23:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why has the POV/bias tag been removed?
This article is extremely biased towards Western, capitalist, Euro-centric and Anglo-centric viewpoints. (And I'm a Western capitalist myself, but if capitalism is a system that works, who needs false hype?) There is also the lack of a time perspective. Let's face it, in 1420 China had cities over 1 million people while Europe was just a back-water. For the past 3,000 years, China has been the most important "global" area. It's been said in Shanghai and Hong Kong that China just had a little 200-year slump. Look at the numbers and infrastructure. Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than any other city in the world, and the highest life expectancy of any major city. Shanghai has 16 million people in the municipality alone, and while Westerners boost the "Western" cities by claiming "suburban" populations, the "suburban" population is not even included in Shanghai's total. It would likely be over 20 million if the suburbs were included.

Further, this article has the bad start of blowing out of all proportion a list made by STUDENTS. Excuse me, since when did people who didn't even graduate yet suddenly become the WORLD AUTHORITY? By allowing this article to continue, Wikipedia continues to miss the mark of becoming a true encyclopedia. → R Young {yak ł talk } 08:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. Though for historical perspective, Rome for example had about five million at 1st contury. It also was the most important city in the world. About the GaWC rating I vote for removal.--Nixer 09:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I somewhat disagree and we've been over this. Instead, I propose replacing everything between the table of contents and the GaWC listing – the many criteria for which really have no cited, verifiable basis – with content like this from the "city" article, with editions: that should minimise and address any POV in usage of the term.  E Pluribus Anthony 14:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * This article should be expected to have a western bias... The title is Global cities and I think we can all agree that the western world is more dominant than the eastern in a global sense.--Dakart 20:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but not THAT dominant. This is nothing more or less than self-seeing propaganda. By failing to take a larger worldview, ironically, this article fails the real test of globalization. As such, it should be tagged with the POV tag. 69.180.8.87 21:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Table being added
Nixer, may I suggest the table you are adding be started as a user page and moved in when appropriate. Also, where is your source? Marskell 12:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * This should be an integration from different sources, just the same way as in the transport page.--Nixer 12:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, provide those sources. Marskell 12:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What about sources of the table in the transport page?--Nixer 12:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Provide relevant, authoritative, and comparative sources related to world city stature (which you still haven't done – at all – despite repeated requests and your persistent, wanton editions) for data in a table; explain the meaning of the dots; provide brief explanation/analysis beforehand, et al.


 * Failure to do those things would constitute original research on your part, and will be removed or will be taken to higher channels. For this instance, we're unconcerned with what happens on the transport page: just because it's on that page (and I challenge the table's utility there, as sources are uncited), that doesn't make it so.  Two wrongs do not make it right.  E Pluribus Anthony 12:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * So you remove it only from this page - because of your bias.--Nixer 13:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What bias is that? I remind you again (a prevalent phrase in these discussions) to refrain from personal attacks.  Actually: it is you who are including your table here because of your bias.  You have failed to cite any sources to support your contention or convince anyone of your position (though I empathise with your sentiments and goals), despite repeated requests from more than one person.  As well, I'm not qualified nor interested to comment at depth on the transport page at this time; I've not worked on it and cannot offer informed comment other than my belief that the table appears to be based on uncited sources (though I may be in error). E Pluribus Anthony 13:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

POV tag
The article is being discussed, so according the rules, dont remove the tag.--Nixer 13:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * And until you cite sources that support no original research or verifiability, consistent with the following Wikipedia policies – NPOV_dispute and Neutral_Point_of_View – the tag will be removed from the article. (In the perpetual quest for enlightenment, though, I have placed it atop this talk page.) E Pluribus Anthony 13:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What the purpose of the tag, it it can not be added to the article if it is disputed?--Nixer 20:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The tag should be used for disputes of fact, likely meant to discourage overzealous use; otherwise, everything in Wikipedia could be possibly disputed. You (still) have not provided any citable, relevant references/facts for comparison and have only provided notional information; once you do, and if they don't agree with other interpretations, the tag on the article is completely valid. E Pluribus Anthony 20:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * No, for disputes of fact used another tag: --Nixer 20:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Your interpretations are based on beliefs and do not justify the tag; the article concerns the topic of world cities and describes/interprets the GaWC list (and should other authoritative ones, too). You have not convinced anyone through your interpretation alone and, on that basis alone, it's moot.


 * You are still skirting around the issue: until you provide sources, ANY such tags will be removed from the article (and I will no longer continue to debate it). Others: please feel free to weigh in s'more.  Feel free to use the tags in talk.  E Pluribus Anthony 20:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * What sources? That Tashkent is much smaller than Petersburg? Or that GaWC use definition of the global city, differing from the discribed in the first part of the article? Tashkent havent any chance to become a global city - got there and see this village youself--Nixer 20:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, look at this:

Highly Industrialized Countries

''The urban population in the highly industrialized countries is projected to be 547 million, or 84 percent of its total population of 649 million, by 2020. Today, urban areas account for 80 percent of the total population of 597 million. On average, municipalities obtain about US$ 2,906 per capita in revenue per year.''

''In 2020, there will be 5 urban agglomerations larger than 5 million inhabitants in Europe: Paris, Moscow, London, Essen/Ruhrgebiet and St. Petersburg. Most urban populations in Europe live in small or medium-sized towns; half the urban population lives in small towns of 10-50,000 people, and a quarter in medium-sized towns of 50-250,000. Only 25 percent of the urban population lives in cities with more than 250,000 people.''

Cities in highly industrialized countries no longer deal with the effects of urbanization, but rather with a combination of other demographic issues and the impacts of global trends: increasing internationalization of metropolitan regions; changes in the distribution of responsibilities between the public and private sectors; a generally stronger role for a few major cities within each country; ageing populations and the related problems of access to health care and pensions; international migration; and the highly detrimental impacts of social and economic polarization.

''For the past two decades, the highly industrialized countries committed themselves to economic policies aimed at encouraging macroeconomic stabilization, structural adjustment and the globalization of production and distribution. Although these policies have in general been effective in promoting short-term economic growth, low inflation and lower current account imbalances.Negative longer-term societal implications, however, are now emerging as major political and socio-economic dilemmas. Growing political disenchantment arising from widening income gaps, declining political participation and widespread social exclusion are manifesting themselves in cities across North America and Europe alike. In the United States, for instance, racial tension is reported to be the number one issue facing cities.''

This states, first, that Russia is a highly industrialized country, which is in contravercity with your statements, and, second, that Paris, Moscow, London, Essen/Ruhrgebiet and St. Petersburg are the largest city agglomerations in Europe. The source is .--Nixer 21:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * A few notes/comments/responses:
 * (1) Who do you think provided the link to the UN site in the global city article in the first place? Me!  :)
 * (2) You just proved my point: Russia, nor any other ex-Soviet state, are considered highly industrialised countries (HICs) See for yourself! The map clearly shows HICs in RED.  The report/your citation does not explicitly say Russia is among the HICs.  This is consistent, and not in controversity [sic], with my prior statements;
 * (3) By citing this report, you have (re-)opened the door to the correlation between countries' levels of development and city development; which this report does.   This is also consistent with my prior statements; as well, this continues to detract from our discussion about global cities, which you still have not provided relevant citations for;
 * (4) I fully concur with information about the size of the five largest European cities; I do not concur – based on the available information, nor do others – that they are all global cities, where they all fall on this spectrum, or that you have yet proved your case.


 * You really need to do your homework. I will not respond further to repetitive, irrelevant, unsubstantiated argumentation, in addition to your retaliatory edits through the tags and the Toronto article; this situation will proceed to higher channels.  Au revoir! E Pluribus Anthony 22:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I guess, this is a mistake (like a typo). In other UN (and Rockefeller Foundation) publications HIC abbreviature means High-Income Countries, not Highly Industrialized Coutries. Also, we could see that countries such as Iceland, Greenland, Tuvalu, Tonga, Tokelau, Samoa, Palau, Nauru, Vanuatu are not industrialized at all (compare to Poland, for instance :-) )--Nixer 01:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted; the immediate discussion (above) concerns your citation/example – i.e., HIC and its meaning is clearly indicated in this UN report – other reports are not at issue, and the discussion should refocus and return to relevant topics and information regarding global cities at hand ... which you still have not provided. E Pluribus Anthony 15:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This article is worth removing
What's the point of publishing this? What are the criteria? Promotion of Westernized bias? Humiliation towards anything that authors, or mass media or "general public" know less about? How about Mecca and Jerusalem? Do not they deserve to be Alpha #1? They are much more international than anything else. What kind of, excuse me, moron, matches Tijuana and St.Petersburg? What's so international about Tijuana? How about Ciudad Juarez? It seems like whoever did the research has no clue about culture. Could anybody just care to count world class museums and theaters?

This list is an insult for Wikipedia. I vote for removal.

This article is extremely biased and subjective, very Euro-centric, capital-centric. The U.S. is thrown a few "bones," book honestly, The Hague, Bratislava, etc? Then there's the rest of the world!!


 * Hello. As you can see below, this article is in a state of flux to provide a more balanced perspective.  Moreover, read the article and you will note the provisos about the GaWC list and similar assessments as being somehwat subjective.


 * I'm also sure that other lists ('ranked' or not) exist for major universities worldwide: the one indicated was generated by The Times; another briefer list (with Ivy League, UK, and Japanese universities at the top) was recently generated by The Economist. As respected publications, these – in and of themselves (as they are both British publications) – do not constitute bias above and beyond the editorialising they normally endure.  If you can cite verifiable information that substantiates why the various data presented (either in the article, or through in-line wikilinks) is biased or inappropriate, or provide similar lists, feel free to do so. E Pluribus Anthony 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

If this were a vote ...
Keep it, and enhance it! Why not 'publish' it? The article in Wikipedia should serve as a point from which visitors can obtain information (all of it, summatively) about global cities. I don't necessarily agree with all of the criteria used in the GaWC list – as much of it seems subjective (even the article itself indicates the GaWC list may be subjective) – and I'd concur with recent opinions about specific cities to include, particularly on a cultural basis: personally, St. Petersburg, Jerusalem, and Mecca (particularly if non-Muslims were not prohibited from visiting) should all be included or appear elsewhere on the spectrum. Yes: Tashkent and Tijuana seem inappropriate candidates.

However, this does not invalidate information available about the topic and objectively presented. Being subjective, my and other opinions are moot without substantiation. Even though it's imperfect, the GaWC list is a peer-authored treatise by 'students' (a working group) of the topic at a university in the UK. Neither should the article nor Wikipedia serve as a pulpit for Western/'development' hypocrisy, anti-Western bias, nor a lament for naysayers and malcontents of all stripes. Despite all of this, no other information (to my knowledge) has been provided to substantiate various user argumentation/opinions/contentions this way or that way in an objective manner. Until substantive – and relevant – references/information can be cited and presented (and in deference to my prior statements regarding this topic/article), the article should stay, be added to, and be improved.

Thank you very much! E Pluribus Anthony 11:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Who died and made one university in the UK "god" of the cities? What arrogance! Your list is so far off track as to not be worthy of salvaging. Look at the other measures...population, GDP of the metro areas, etc and see what results you get!→ R Young {yak ł talk } 11:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comment: the lists provided are compilations by other orgs found online. We are not generating or ranking the universities, just as Wp didn't rank or create the global city lists: we merely cite and present verifiable information.  If you can recommend other notable lists for inclusion, or criteria that should be included or excluded, feel free. E Pluribus Anthony 20:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

NIXER: request for mediation/arbitration initiated!!!
By the way, Nixer, I suggest we refrain from making edits to this article, and retaliatory edits to the Toronto article, et al. as ''[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Dispute_between_Nixer_and_E_Pluribus_Anthony.2C_et_al._regarding_content.2Fdispute_status_of_global_city_article.2C_et_al. a request for mediation has been initiated regarding this]''. Other parties are free to comment

Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 19:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

-

Same to you, sir. My humble comment regarding the quality of this text that I consider highly biased, do not change a word in the essense of the article. I'm not going to quote anything so far. I do not know what kind of argument one needs to convince anybody that Rome, Jerusalem, Venice, Katmandu, Cologne, Prague, Nice are much more world cities than Toronto or Calgary; even if there are no world banks residing and no subway system.

I'd love to hear your arguments regarding keeping this roster the way it is. What I would suggest is rename the article to something like "global city according to mediocre accountants from GAWC".

Thank you very much. Please don't repeat your threats. This is wikipedia. Weighted opinions count, weightless - don't.

-Vlad Patryshev, 09/30/2005


 * Sir:


 * Given the tone and wording of your statements, your comments are neither humble nor objective.


 * I do not disagree with some of your beliefs (you will note that I edited your statements initially, I did not remove them) and also empathise with your position somewhat.


 * However, your littany and lament demonstrates your inherent bias. Your editions were not only edited by me, but by another who did not agree with them.  More importantly, neither you nor your compatriot have provided any pertinent citable information to support your claims.  So, who is weightless here?


 * And I do not threaten, I challenge. You should try doing the same.  End communication.  E Pluribus Anthony 22:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You havent provide information where did come from the first part of the article. Why do you mix terminology (i.e. "global city", "world city", "world class city")? These terms differ as I consider.--Nixer 22:50, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * All three are similar terms (I did not originate them); I have used global city consistently; however usage in different areas of the globe differs. Saskia Sassen, Allen J. Scott, Edward Soja, Anthony King, and Peter Hall are some researchers to look for when looking for relevant definitions; as well, I believe this was mentioned here.  E Pluribus Anthony 23:06, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Where came from the criterias described in the first part of the article?--Nixer 23:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't orignate them: I presume they are an amalgam of prior contributions by various users, based on available information cited; consult the history for the article. E Pluribus Anthony 23:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


 * So, there is no academic source for this. Furthermore, the criterias differ from those used in GaWC rating. We should replace the unauthored criterias with those from the GaWC article.--Nixer 00:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * No; I'm stating that the article is an amalgam of text from all of its contributors. The GaWC list is only one aspect of world city stature; other references are there.  Relevant definitions should be in the articles/references cited, et al. E Pluribus Anthony 00:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What the source? Can you give any? The author of this criterias is Wikipedia. We should replace them from an academic source - GaWC rating. There can not be any different position--Nixer 00:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This is circuitous and argumentative; I've just provided you with names of researchers to consult; use the GaWC article, as well and the two dozen references therein, and others in the reference section of the global city article. However (again!): you have still not provided any citable information regarding global cities.  Can you give any?  How many times have we asked you?  If you expect answers, you must demonstrate reciprocity. E Pluribus Anthony 00:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Vlad, I can't help but feel that your citing Toronto and Calgary was a subtle shot at EPA's nationality. I'll grant you Calgary (which isn't high on this list) but not Toronto. It has a GDP of $300 billion dollars which is larger than any other city you mention. It has the world's ninth largest stock exchange and informally is considered the third or fourth most vital economic hub in North America (along with Chicago and after New York and L.A.). It has, along with Sydney, effectively replaced New York as the place to go in the immigrant immagination (that is my POV but I'll stand by it having lived abroad). It has the second largest percentage of foreign born amongst any city in the world [ http://www.amren.com /mtnews/archives/2004/07/toronto_second.php]—if that doesn't qualify it as an important global city I don't know what does. Note I have consistently removed attempts to move Toronto up the list. Not boosterism—weightful truth. Marskell 00:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Criteria
Okay, let's start with the criteria by which the list was produced. Whatever that GaWC is, it cannot be a reliable source of information if it is the only source. Some people somewhere made a list of cities they visited and liked - that's the impression. Why is Calgary better than Mammoth Lake, another fasionable ski resort?

We should not follow their lead just because they created the list. But, since participants represent different points of view, let's check the list carefully. Also, bringing "quotes" as a proof of something... Probably our differences are bigger than we notice. Say, you bring a quote from the Bible, I bring a quote from Coran, someone else brings a quote from Torah, ans someone else starts quoting Chairman Mao - then what? Quotes and citations won't work unless they come from a source that everybody respects.

So far this article looks very, very biased. The two arguments of the guy from Toronto that is so ardently is defending it are, as I see them, the following: a) leave the article as I formulated it; b) the list comes from GaWC. For me, none of these arguments is worth anything.

There are criteria listed in the first part of the article. I would suggest to produce a list of, say, 20-30 cities according to each, then try to assign weights to criteria, and produce a summary list. Do you agree?


 * Actually, it's your assertions that are biased and rather unsubstantiated, Vlad Patryshev. Furthermore:
 * (1) the guy from Toronto did not author or formulate the article, he has contributed to it – as other users can – and advocates for including citable, relevant information to it consistent with Wikipedia policies and procedures, and
 * (2) the guy from Arkhangelsk did not sign his comments and has provided little constructive input thus far.
 * Ta! E Pluribus Anthony 18:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I think assigning the weights is not acceptable because this constitutes an original research.--Nixer 17:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Who posted the above? And what the hell is s/he talking about Calgary as a ski resort? Calgary doesn't rank here cause of the snow. It's the most important oil centre in North America outside of Texas and the richest city per capita in Canada.


 * And I absolutely disagree "somebody made a list of cities they visited and liked." Follow the links—the GaWC is perfectly respectable. These are not normative judgements—no city is better because it is higher. A lot of people think San Fran and Seattle are better cities than L.A. but no one would deny that the latter has greater international weight/is more internationalized. I often here "if you go to Russia go to St. Petersburg" but obviously again Moscow is higher on this list. Montreal is certainly a better place to spend a weekend than T.O.


 * Is this last sentence subjective, Marskell? ;) (he he) E Pluribus Anthony 18:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Finally, Nixer is right: if we assign weight to criteria it constitutes OR. We can list things of course. Marskell 18:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with much of what is happening and it's good! I'm glad that we can move forward regarding this.


 * There have been prior attempts to weigh individual elements/criteria regarding cities; however, a consensus for inclusion was not established. See the very top sections of this 'talk' page for detailed information, for example.


 * At this point, I would probably advocate including lists of notable candidates in various broad groups (religious, cultural, social, etc.) under a broad category like 'Other global cities' and cite distinctions/variations with current information. If we (Wikipedia users) take it upon ourselves to assign ranks or values for 'global cities' – even though they may be obvious, population for example – this may constitute original research on our part.  We need to find other sources of information that rank or list global cities in toto and not do so ourselves.  (However, I may be smoking something.)


 * We could include a table too, but this should probably be more geared to ranking or listing cities of global importance in citable sources and comparatively to the GaWC list and other lists; see this URL/map, for example, which is directly relevant.


 * As for other notable candidates, and even constituent criteria/lists, I recall that the Encyclopædia Britannica Almanac 2005/6 – and or similar publications – has a wealth of lists of notable museums, facilities, and the like. I think this would be a good (i.e., relative, citable, and summative) source and starting point.  I shall attempt to look for more 'world/global city' information, in the interim, too.


 * I hope this makes sense. Thoughts? Thanks again!  E Pluribus Anthony 18:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Check this: User:Nixer/Global city additions Marskell 19:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Hey; this is good. However, we are still ranking them against the GaWC list; we should not and only compare against comparable lists – apples with apples, not oranges. :)


 * I propose something like this. What do you think!? E Pluribus Anthony 19:42, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh: feel free to edit the above noted page I've created, if you wish. E Pluribus Anthony 20:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it was me, Vlad Patryshev, that wrote about criteria. So, yes, I continue thinking that Calgary is a ski resort (and Santa Barbara, the inhabitants of which are significantly richer than those living in Calgary) is another resort. Why not add such a nice city as Prince George? It is an important city on Alaska Highway; they have Safeway there, prostitution is abundant, and people are very nice (like everywhere in Canada)?

But, well, I tend to agree that we probably need some kind of reliable sources. But I disagree with the statement that GaWC is a reliable source. They are interested in financial institutions, fine. How about concentrating on internet throughput instead? Then Palo Alto, Taipei and Half Moon Bay will be three most important cities in the world. Not sure you ever heard of Half Moon Bay. Do you see my point? You may be biased towards money flow, I may be biased towards internet traffic and/or culture (museums, libraries, theaters). Any educated person, from Europe, from China, or from Australia, will find GaWC's choice of Atlanta, GA and Tashkent, Uzbekistan as world cities just laughable. It is not about, you know, national pride or something.

I would also appreciate it if we could switch to a cooler and more objective tone. Please excuse me if I was too pushing.


 * Hello! Thanks for your comments; no problem.  I think the appropriate question at this point, though, is: can other reliable sources on global city stature be cited?  Despite what you/some may believe, I'm not preferential to the GaWC list and will gladly entertain other citable lists regarding global cities; however, no other users have presented any similar lists for comparison or inclusion.  Nor has the GaWC list been disputed or is controversial (to my knowledge) to other academics; the burden of disproof, therefore, is for users/Wikipedians who dispute its authenticity.


 * To that end, numerous parties (e.g., Nixer, Marskell, and I) are compiling information so that a more balanced perspective on the topic can be presented; see here and here. Note that the latter has various criteria (with either lists or, for manageability, links to lists), and internet connectivity and technical throughput are among them. :)  (I hope to have this completed by week's end.)  We also have to be cognizant of the fact that we (Wikipedians) should not be ranking anything – original research – but don't see it being problematic to link to authoritative lists and ranks that do and let users infer whatever they will.


 * And I think prostitution is a scourge wherever humans live: in cities, mountains, arctic inlets, and everwhere in between. Lastly, I'm all for détente.  Thoughts?  Thanks for the feedback.  E Pluribus Anthony 06:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

GaWC
Why did you decide that only GaWC alpha cities should be depicted?--Nixer 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't decide this; from what I've observed over the last few months, it was customary to have only the images of Alpha cities on the article page to ensure any individual cities/images weren't being 'pumped.' Please note: there has been alot of vandalism recently by various users, present company excluded (e.g., by someone 'pumping' Toronto, moving around Montréal and Sydney, etc.).  (Also note:, I deleted images for Toronto too.) :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Picture of Tokyo
The picture of Tokyo linked from this page was broken. I presume it was one of the images removed in the current hunt for images without copyright information. So I uploaded my own picture of Tokyo by night. It's not a great picture, so if you've got a better one that can be GFDL'd or placed into the public domain, feel free to upload it on top of mine. I'm living in Tokyo at the moment, so maybe I'll get a chance to take a better picture than the current one, if noone else has anything better. Colin M. 23:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I took a much better picture of Tokyo last night at the Tokyo Metropolitan Government Building in Shinjuku. It's now a bit more recognizable as Tokyo, with Tokyo Tower in the background and the KDDI and NTT DoCoMo buildings in the foreground. It's also just a much better-quality picture than the one I had previously uploaded: I used a tripod (despite the signs telling me they weren't allowed :)) and there's no glare/lens flare. Colin M. 01:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for uploading, it's good but. Do you think you can in the course of your stay maybe take and upload some pics of Shibuya at nite, Ginza, or pics of Shinjuku at the station? domou... Gryffindor  12:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I'm only in Japan for a couple more days and now I'm in Kyoto. But what do you think of any of these? Just outside Shinjuku Station at night ... and another Akihabara ... another, from higher up Shinagawa Station and surrounding skyscrapers Personally, I like the current picture better than any of these because it gives a better overall feeling of Tokyo. I do have some other pictures of Tokyo that aren't online yet... most notably some good ones of Tokyo Tower. I can provide links to those too, in a week or so, if you're interested... Colin M. 22:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Minsk
childish vandalism by anon user

"Childish vandalism"?

Why don't you think Minsk can have at least one point in this article? And why don't you want its photo to be placed at the right of the article? I think that Minsk can have at least one point compating with Kiev (2 points) and Tashkent (1 point). Minsk is very valuable city in East-European region, so it can be included in this list. By the way, Minsk is home to The Commonwealth of Independent States (the CIS) headquarters.

-- WBR, Andrew 82.209.245.203 12:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear anon, this is not a list of cities we think should be world cities. It is the official listing from an agency devoted to studying the matter. They could well be and probably are wrong, but we can't just go changing their listing and misrepresenting their views. Please do not re-add any cities to the list that don't belong there or you may be considered a vandal and blocked. - Randwicked 13:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is that agency a GOD for us?

Table or list, as mediated
So I will place the table here.--Nixer 16:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi! Sorry: I've been somewhat tardy in addressing this ... here, let me do it!


 * Below is the proposed section/listing to be included in the global city article (which may be massaged shortly). Unless there are any objections, it will be included in the article and the related mediation can be resolved.  Woo-hoo!  Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony 16:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If this is sufficient, Nixer, please indicate here. Merci!  E Pluribus Anthony 17:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Its OK, but why did you remove the table, which we created collectively?--Nixer 17:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good! Actually, both here and on our user pages, I believed we agreed to include a list and not a table, (and not both).  Why?  A table created by us will:
 * (1) assign rankings that we are not qualified to assign (no original research);
 * (2) compare unlike values (e.g., apples with oranges);
 * (3) have to be frequently updated, based on revised statistics.


 * As stated, a list of links to appropriate topics will enable individual users to learn more about global and other cities and make judgements for themselves. Agreed?  E Pluribus Anthony 17:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't believe including both a table and list is productive: notions in the table are included within the list and is thereby redundant. This is not as agreed; until this is, I will remove both table and list.  In any event, we should put this to a vote; agreed?  E Pluribus Anthony 17:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We worked on the table collectively with Marskell. This does not contain any original research because is based on external data (and includes links there).--Nixer 17:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why did you not participated in the meditation? NO VOTE THIS TABLE IS THE RESULT OF MEDITATION--Nixer 17:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I was clear from the get-go about including a list.  You were involved in the discussion.  I also participated with you, Marskell, and other users to generate and get feedback on the list.  Even though the table contains external data, we are using it to compare unlike values: thus, it may be original.


 * If we cannot agree (as of yet) – please indicate either way – we should continue to work on this, neither should be included and both should be removed, and/or I will put this to a vote.


 * If I don't hear from you, Nixer, I will remove both table and list and place them here until this is resolved. E Pluribus Anthony 17:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I did not participate in your list. You will not remove anythig because this is the result of meditation.--Nixer 18:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I provided a link indicating you did with reasons thereof; I did not participate in your table. I may remove both but will keep them both up for now; I do not wholly agree with the table approach (and you knew this) and you went ahead and placed it in the article anyway.  I will include both options here, though, for our collective input and put it to a vote, after which I hope this matter will be settled.  E Pluribus Anthony 18:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

-

VOTE! – Table/list/both/neither in global city article?
In attempts to enhance the global city article and to successfully resolve a mediation regarding its contents, a number of approaches (e.g., a table and list) have been proposed to present other criteria and candidates for global cities in the article (lengthy discussion also appears above). Which option do you prefer? (See and vote below.)

-

Option [A]: TABLE – Table of the cities of the world
-

Option [B]: LIST – Other global cities
The GaWC list is based on specific criteria and, thus, may not include other cities of global significance or elsewhere on the spectrum. For example:

-

Vote here!
Please indicate and sign your vote below. If a clear consensus is not reached before 30 Nov./05, both list and table, as currently structured (list above, table below), will remain in the article. Thanks! 18:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Only TABLE (Option [A])
 * The table as it stands seems fine though having two lists for metro size is a little much. While I appreciate getting the right links was some work, the list is too generic. If we have a list make it specified toward culture as that's the glaring omission on the page at the moment. The mention of pilgrimage sites should remain in form. Rm my earlier unsigned abstain. Marskell 19:53, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: As noted, the list is meant to be generic (but still have structure), providing details and links to a wealth of information the table alone cannot. As well, any notions regarding culture can perhaps be addressed by including relevant lists in the list or narratively (a list with merely cultural links is not really here or there); however, I'm open to suggestions.  E Pluribus Anthony 15:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I second this. We only want number of metro passengers. Metro length really just tells you how sprawled the city is. The list itself is a nice idea (ask me again in 3 months though).- Randwicked 09:05, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Only LIST (Option [B])

Both TABLE and LIST (Options [A] and [B]) (if so, indicate possible arrangement)


 * This one, but edit TABLE, by deleting "Metro system by length" and adding "Airport system(?) by international passenger flights ending/departing at that city" if possible. Show LIST first, then TABLE --Silvestre Zabala 14:20, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current arrangement, with a list preceding a (parred down) table ([B], followed by [A]), which is a compromise that seems to be working. A list provides links to relevant information without passing judgement on what a global city is, and the table alone does not and cannot expand on these various topics.  Moreover (in this context), I think a table – whether alone or in tandem with a list – is only viable if it compares similar lists of global cities, not of top 10 lists of disparate values that may contribute to global city stature in toto (i.e., comparing apples with apples, not oranges); otherwise, such a table can be construed as being original research.  My second choice is including merely a list [B] (as Randwicked has stated too) for reasons stated, but I'm not rigid on this point. E Pluribus Anthony 15:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Neither TABLE nor LIST (neither Options [A] nor [B]) (if so, indicate alternate)

Abstain / Not Voting

-

Other commentary
 * NO VOTING. You were invited to participate in the work during the mediation process. You didnt. Now you're trying to reconsider the result.--Nixer 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Incorrect: I did, and indicated throughout to you and also other users that a table is only one way (and not the way) to go. That didn't stop you from participating in that discussion; it also didn't entitle you to add the table today on your own without discussion.  I'm merely attempting to reconcile and have Wikipedians judge for themselves the best approach.  If the list is voted out, I can deal with that.  And (as I said) if a consensus is not reached, both can stay. :)  E Pluribus Anthony 19:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not abstain.--Nixer 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Your objection is noted. And you will not remove this vote. E Pluribus Anthony 19:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I WILL. Because we worked on the table under meditation for several months, and you do not have right to remove it.--Nixer 19:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And I will restore the vote until hell freezes over ... or until a consensus is reached otherwise. I am not removing anything; what part of the above do you not understand?  If a consensus of Wikipedians does not decide either way, both can stay.  E Pluribus Anthony 19:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, but FULL consensus.--Nixer 19:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Of course, and that's why various options must be presented; otherwise, we cannot arrive at or identify any consensus. TY! E Pluribus Anthony 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the list should be drastically shortened or removed; it's all over the place. Marskell 15:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Marskell, hello! I think that's part of the point: to include (and provide info) for factors that may contribute to global city stature, while not passing judgement on any of them.  As well, it took sometime to collate all the relevant links (and they are structured logically within the list), so this section/list can serve as a resource for those who want to learn more about this and related topics, without searching high-and-low.  And one other user has provided feedback on the list, largely as is, beforehand.  I am, however, open to suggestions about modifying the list.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, M: please vote, if so inclined. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you consult the links for the GaWC list, the rationale of these "analysts" and data used is evident. Moreover, there are adequate provisos in the article indicating the criteria behind the list.  The concept of global cities/world cities is prescribed and defined by works later in the article, and I see nothing objective in your analysis that substantiates your questionable edits.

Vote: Table Only. If was possible, I'd vote for an unsorted list and the table. CP\M 5:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * a note for precision of information presented in 'Table': Miami is ranked #1 for international population. This statistic is clearly not taking into account the number of nations represented, merely the number of international residents vs. number of native residents. Therefore, it is not an accurate representation of the ethnic diversity in the city.

RfC conclusion
Hello! As a consensus has not been achieved regarding the above noted issue/RfC, the status quo seems sufficient – i.e., keep both table and list. To that end, since this appears to be a modus vivendi that everyone can live with, I am going to remove the tags atop the article and hereby consider this matter – and mediation – resolved. Agreed? If there are no objections, I will do so shortly. Happy communing! :) E Pluribus Anthony 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the article still needs worldwidization.--Nixer 02:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I do not disagree: however, some weeks have passed and updates to this article – as others in Wp – continue to be made by us and others. Moreover, how specifically does this article need to be worldwidized, beyond suggestions arising from our mediation and conciliations already integrated?  We've done what we can.  Given ongoing discussions: if a proposal hasn't already been made or isn't forthcoming, there's no need for continuing to include this tag.  To that end, I believe it prudent that we agree to close/resolve this issue.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As no additional objection or substantiation has been presented, I'm removing the worldwide tag from the article. And unless there's additional objection (and to not be premature), I consider this matter resolved!  Thank you all for your input. E Pluribus Anthony 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Airports
And how to rank airport traffic of the cities?

We all know that traffic of New York is bigger than traffic of Denver. But how to determine this if we have this list: [13] only?--Nixer 13:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we simply provide a * note saying this isn't an aggregate of all a city's airports and perhaps mention New York specifically. When I looked at it previously it seemed to be the only one that was obviously missing taking airports individually. Marskell 14:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What about Paris? How to compare Tokio and London?--Nixer 14:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * If we provide a caveat there's nothing at all disenginuous about it. X city has largest airport, end of story. I can have a list of cities with tallest skyscrapers, for example, while noting that other cities may have more skyscrapers and/or more overall office space. All of these lists come with caveats. I think the first column is silly, for instance, because it doesn't make sense to compare jurisdictions which may have radically different for defining the primary city. Marskell 14:43, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How to represent Tokio and London (both have two airports in the top-list)? By major airport or by sum of both airports? There can be other large (but not top) airports in the cities.--Nixer 14:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

My argument is stated. Marskell 15:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will do so, but still wating for a better idea proposed by somebody.--Nixer 17:42, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think, as previously discussed, we should list (or link to) airports/lists with their traffic volumes, not just the cities or 'totals'. Remember, for example, Baltimore-Washington International Airport?  How would you classify Newark International Airport: with NYC, or Philadelphia, etc.?  E Pluribus Anthony 18:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * By the way, may be then also list tallest buildings/skyscrapers?--Nixer 17:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello! Such lists of cities/skyscrapers exist here (see the right table) and here; others are also available. E Pluribus Anthony 18:03, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Seems useful.--Nixer 18:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * NP. I'm gonna include the latter link in the list, since the former also appears to include (somehow) 'number of pictures' on that website. E Pluribus Anthony 19:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I changed the source for the Number of Skyscrapers column in the table from Skyscraperpage.com to Emporis.com. I hope this meets with everyone's approval; I'm new to this discussion and just wanted to provide more meaningful data as long as the table is being included. Emporis.com lists thousands of buildings in its statistics instead of Skyscraperpage's hundreds, and they apparently use the same criteria so obviously the totals on Emporis are far more complete. Also Skyscraperpage mixes one count for "Greater London" with other counts for cities proper, while Emporis is consistent about totaling the number of high-rises in cities proper only (not metro areas). no user name yet; 20:35, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * They do not count skyscrapers, but buildings with more than 12 floors:
 * The cutoff between high-rise and low-rise buildings is 35 meters. This height was chosen based on an original 12-floor cutoff, used for the following reasons: 1) Twelve floors is normally the minimum height needed to achieve the physical presence which earns the name "high-rise"; 2) The twelve-floor limit represents a compromise between ambition and manageability for a worldwide database.--Nixer 22:00, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but same with Skyscraperpage.com. Check Kansas City on their list, for example: they show 160 "skyscrapers". Probably the best thing would be to define the criteria and include only buildings above a certain height (any suggestions?).


 * Follow-up: what do you think of this -- list cities by the number of skyscrapers over 200 meters. I can get this data easily from Emporis, and unlike the more comprehensive stats on high-rise building totals, this data would be complete. I can get the ranking by this weekend.


 * Anyway, this is interesting information. But may be 100m is better? I would like look at both if possible.--Nixer 01:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Reduce GaWC section?
I suggest we reduce the GaWC section slighty because we have added a lot of new stuff.--Nixer 18:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree: the more information, the merrier; we may need to consolidate information, but we shouldn't remove one list for another. If anything, the description/qualifiers immediately after the table of contents (in the intro)  can stand for some 'pruning.' E Pluribus Anthony 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Mexico or Mexico City?
What is better?--Nixer 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * For clarity, I think Mexico City, or New York City etc., should be used. E Pluribus Anthony 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I changed it because initially the table actually linked to the country; having changed one, they all needed to be, to be consistent ("to be, to be" is shurely ungrammatical!?). Marskell 08:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Makes sense! :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Links
May be it would be better to highlite from top to bottom?--Nixer 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you are referring to the Global city section, I would suggest an alpha arrangement (based on authors/names, which is unpreferential) or -- perhaps more subjective -- one based on relevance to the topic at hand. E Pluribus Anthony 20:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Metro length
There appears to be a consensus to delete this from the table. OK? Marskell 09:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Go. - Randwicked 09:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. Marskell 11:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * What a pitty. I think it was indicative.--Nixer 11:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes: I support having it deleted (after the fact ...). E Pluribus Anthony 15:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, we do need a scaleable table and it is rather redundant to have two lists specific to metros. Length was the one that people above picked out as least needed.
 * In better news, this page is actually coming together. As I say, if we can make the list specific to culture and prune it I think we're good to go. Marskell 11:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm open to suggestions about what to prune and or include in the list about culture; what do you have in mind, M (et al.)? E Pluribus Anthony 15:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * But lenght and passanger rides are different things, dont you think so?--Nixer 12:34, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Remember: this is already in the list, or can be added. E Pluribus Anthony 14:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

That part of the table is totally wrong, but I think the correct version should be left in. This is the correct order:

New York 468 Paris 369 London 275 Tokyo 274 (Tokyo Metro 168, TOEI Subway 106) Seoul 263 Berlin 254 Munich 229 Madrid 190 Mexico City 175 Moscow 171

But there's something wrong here too: the number of stattions is not the same as length. Overall, this whole thing is such a mess we should not change the article until we can do it properly. --Jleon 15:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There is some sense to this, and I would support making editions here if it meant tidying things up and finalising something. As well, that's partially why the list may be a jewel: we only need to update links to information, not copious amounts of data that periodically change.  E Pluribus Anthony 15:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What do you think?
How about to replace the data on largest airports with this:

Source:

--Nixer 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * London (West End) - US$19,330
 * Paris - US$15,520
 * London (City) - US$15,280
 * Washington DC - US$14,250
 * Frankfurt - US$13,640
 * Tokyo (Central 5 wards) - US$13,400
 * Dublin - US$12,740
 * New York City (Midtown) - US$12,200
 * Munich - US$12,010
 * Stockholm - US$10,780

And I will then search for data on overall city air traffic.--Nixer 14:16, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Data on largest seaports
Look at this:


 * This is sufficient: I will add to the list, too. E Pluribus Anthony 15:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Anholt-GMI City Brands Index
Shouldn't we also include the Anholt-GMI City Brands Index? This list is based on research on the city brands.

Quote: ''Are Cities Considered Brands? Yes, cities have always been brands, in the truest sense of the word. Paris is romance, Milan is style, and New York is energy. These are the brands of cities and they are inextricably tied to the histories and destinies of these places.

Yet the brand of a city is not always accurate – especially when viewed from a global perspective. Some cities do not attract heavy investment or the right kind of talent because their brand is not as strong or positive as it deserves to be. On the other hand, some cities benefit from a positive brand that they do little to deserve.'' Official website: Report (preview):

Maartenvdbent 18:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi there! This is interesting.  I'm mildly concerned about the limited/proprietary nature of the list.  Is it well known or widely accepted?  Perhaps this list of cities can be compared to the GaWC in a table (a table additional to the current one)? E Pluribus Anthony 18:52, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about this list, but I think it is somewhat widely accepted, since I read the article about this in the Financial Times today.

Syndney Morning Herald and CNNMatthews also wrote about this today.

An additional table with this info looks fine to me. I probably make an edit in the coming days.

Pro Western
Man, i c des article's very pro of western, y? coz u choose da west or pro west city in top position, n i suppose dad's very rid's, ex: Manila in top 10 most population city? man, i ges u must red many book of it, i know u r American or Japanese, but don't u try 2 manipulation the fact of it..... coz we r not stupid, perhaps u can lie 2 ur fren in West, but we r Asian know abt da truth, n u can't lie dad, evry 1 in Asia know were's Most Biggest city in Asia, n dad's not Tokyo or Manila, so don't u try 2 make a foolish thing, coz dad make u lookin' as an idiot....


 * Hello! Thanks for your comments.  However, as you can see above, we have extensively discussed the issue of bias and have enhanced the article to address this.  If you can cite verifiable information regarding global cities with a neutral point of view and consistent with Wikipedia principles, please feel free to do so and discuss here.  Otherwise, please do not tag and edit the article as you have been, and repeatedly, which is increasingly appearing like vandalism.  E Pluribus Anthony 10:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dizzy
i'm dizzy n confuse, y if i told evry 1 da truth, they call it Vandalism? wat's vandalism? da vandalism's when u try 2 manipulation da truth, dad's it real vandalism! I just wanna tell da truth! n evry 1 need da truth abt da world, not manipulative data! coz i c evry article in here not objective, they'r only us their opinion 2 make an article(very subjective)! not reality! i just wanna said if wat i'm doing u call Vandalism, it min u spoiled my human right! n dad min u spoiled da Democration......


 * Wha? Your comments and edits are wholly unclear.  You have been adding mentions of Indonesia without citing why and have been adding multiple tags atop the article without at all discussing them.  In Wikipedia, it's not necessarily about truth: it's about verifiability – we cannot verify any of your assertions, so don't add or change the article unless they can be.  And Wikipedia is not a democracy.  As well, you have been making these edits repeatedly: this appears to be vandalism or making a point.  I regret if you are "dizzy": perhaps you should see someone about that.  However, if you cannot edit the article in the spirit of Wikipedia and as above, refrain from doing so or your edits will be reversed.  E Pluribus Anthony 13:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well stated. I concur. --Coolcaesar 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Dissapointed
man, u know i'll have 2 nationality, China/USA, n i luv da 2 nation, but 1 nation make me dissapointed, u know y? coz des room! des room is very subjective n not objective, they only give da people American dream, n not give da truth, i luv USA, but i don't wanna lie, u know y? coz da truth still da truth, don't care how high ur manipulation level, n it make me dissapoint, coz des American site can't be Objective, n lose their neutral side, God bless USA n God Bless evry American! but i guess Not 4 this site..... coz American site must be objective n i suppose des site not American site....


 * What? - Randwicked 13:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't bother. Our anonymous visitor is clearly a psychotic homeless person at some public Internet terminal.  --Coolcaesar 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well stated; I concur (if I may be so bold). :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

liar?
Oh my God, I'm Russell Minamoto, Tokyo, Japan , 24, and its first time i ever heard that 1 site, claim themselves not democratic, wow, oh my God, are this site is communist? or this site only for fun? cause i wanna searching the truth in this site... its mean i can't search the truth in this site? if it's right, the mean is this site full of liar...... and i recomendate my other friend not to came to this site.....


 * Hello! If you consult the links above, you will note those assertions – about truth, democracy, etc. – are official Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in place to ensure that everyone can contribute appropriately.  Consensus is also one of the cornerstones of Wp, as are the "five pillars": Wikipedia encourages input, but you've been going about it entirely the wrong way.  K? E Pluribus Anthony 11:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

redundancy
Can we remove from the list everything that's already mentioned in the intro? The page is a bit of an eyesore and there is a lot of redundancy. Marskell 21:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Hello! I hope you're well.  I disagree that there's redundancy.  The list, in a discrete section, points to information and data elsewhere that the intro does not.  I don't disagree with removing points in the list that do not link to anything yet (though they are meant as placeholders until appropriate lists/data can be found to link to).  As noted before, we should prune the introduction of redundant or excessive points: there's no reason to do so to the list unless there's consensus or compelling reason to do so.


 * FYI: contrary to our prior arrangement, I noticed that someone else sought fit to remove the table earlier while leaving the list alone, so it might be the table that needs refinement. Thanks. E Pluribus Anthony 22:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Intro: "A fairly large population...", List: "Large populations..."; Intro: "An advanced transportation system," List: "...transportaion infrastructure..." I'd say close to half of it is redundant and, uh, how you define discrete? The whole page is "over-bulleted" to the extreme. The bullet points of the intro could be merged with the list and the redundancy removed that way and the whole thing left as a second section after a one or two para intro and before GaWC. It should be tidied and probably shortened. Marskell 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Understood: "discrete" means a section of its own, separate from dialectic earlier in the article. I maintain and prefer that points in the introduction – and the intro in general – should be tidied, pruned, reorganised, or obliterated entirely: many of the points concern characteristics (though logical) that are actually not cited per se.  Head on over to the "global cities" section in the "city" article for the content I think should be in the intro here.  The text upfront might be repeated with text in the list, but the links to the information/data are not, foregoing any difficulties with verifiability or interpretation by providing direct links to info/data.  Also note that there was input from another user earlier regarding the list (without substantial changes), so I disagree that it's overbulleted and that it should be pruned for aesthetic and as extensively as you suggest.


 * Alternatively, I might support marrying the intro and the list, but only if it can be effectively done and without any loss of links found in the list. I fear this will only move those wikilinks up and that may obscure the intro (which should be fairly succinct).  If this is something you wish to do, please do so here and we can mutually edit before updating the article.  And, further to that, I think we need to again look at and refine the table.  E Pluribus Anthony 22:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Houston?
In the beginning it says


 * A fairly large population (the center of a metropolitan area with a population of at least one million, typically several million). A good example would be Houston.

Houston? A good example of what? Maybe the miminum population that could possible constitute a "global city" but certainly no one would argue that Houston is a worldly city. It's description as such is confusing. Removed unless anyone can explain why it's there. --Mercury1 02:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * That was likely an attempt by someone to equilibrate the article. While Houston is listed in the GaWC roster (Gamma), I've no objection to including another locale.   Where's Matt Houston when you need him?  :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 03:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * To take Houston's place, I put in Chicago as an example (3 million in the city, 6 million more in the suburbs). --- Dralwik|Have a Chat My "Great Project"

Cairo and Alexandria
Nearly total negligence of cities like Cairo and Alexandria and their infuence makes me wonder about the importance of such categorization

Putting Cairo for example with Abu Dhabi and a strange place called Almaty (can you locate them on the map without cheating?) is really ironic


 * I've put the pov tag back on this article since it is totally disputed and no consensus appears from the dialogue above. As it stands this article is offensive to anyone who doesn't come from the USA or Europe. I think there should be a vote on removing the article completely as IMHO it doesn't comply with Wikipedia's policy of verifiable fact. &mdash; Steverwanda 14:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that. This whole concept could be referred to the article on Faeces. Factoid Killer 14:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * See Verifiability. The policy does not require that assertions be true; that is, they are not required to be facts. They are required only to be verifiable against a reputable resource.
 * I don't like the GaWC list either, but in the absence of anything better (for example, a list maintained by the U.N. or some other similar international body) it's probably the best option available. --Coolcaesar 02:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason the UN don't maintain a list is because the concept is completely (not partially) subjective, and no definitive list can therefore be drawn up. The crucial point is even included in the article: However, many people have a personal list, and any two lists are likely to differ based on cultural background, values, and experience. I don't object to having an article that discusses the general topic, but IMHO it should refer to GaWC only in passing as an attempt to formalise an essentially informal topic. What I do object to is the creep of this woolly subject into other articles, such as those on the cities themselves, where the results of the GaWC are stated as if it they're facts that everyone agrees upon. &mdash; Steverwanda 08:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * While I was the one who initially added the GaWC info, I've since tried several times to trim it down (to only the top ten cities), mainly because of the never-ending vandalism the list attracts. Perhaps it is time to can the full listing for good, and only mention that it confirms with the generally accepted top four (i.e. Paris, London, Tokyo, NY). - Randwicked Alex B 09:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Cairo and Alexandria or any other city per se, since doing so would be rather subjective.
 * As someone who has actively been involved in discussions regarding this, I think this discussion is somewhat moot. First, this is a concept with some degree of research and sourcing behind it: see the "External links" section.  Some would argue that the concept of human development is subjective ... nonetheless, the concept is used by the UN when describing the world's cities (e.g., the City Development Index) and further delineated with the HDI, which is used to gauge countries worldwide.  As well, though disagreeable to some, the GaWC list is one that anyone can verify.  Moreover, there are numerous provisos indicating the criteria behind the GaWC list and, with rigour, numerous items have been added below to balance the article.  A listing of the 'top ten' or even the top four from the GaWC list is, arguably, just as arbitrary as including the whole list.  As for other edits and vandalism, they should be dealt with respectively.
 * If anything (also noted above), the article can be improved by nixing qualifiers/points early on in the article (since, though reasonable, aren't really sourced) and adding notions about global cities as noted in the "city" article ... not removing information (as per Cc) that already conforms to the five pillars. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 15:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

--Steverwanda, this topic can't be discredited simply because an undisputed list is impossible to create. From that perspective, all of the social sciences should be thrown out for being too subjective! This is a categorization that reflects many of the qualitative and quantitative aspects of functioning cities, and if the criteria is weighted towards Western cities that is simply because global economic and cultural forces are currently dominated by Western countries. I don't think you can dispute that, and the fact that these trends are overwhelmingly influenced by certain cities is the whole point of the article. --Jleon 18:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

St. Petersburg, Russia
I can't believe St. Petersburg only got 1 point for "minimal evidence of Global City formation". >:( No wonder the factual accuracy id disputed...--Fox Mccloud 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Supported, also for some other cities, including asian and russian cities heavily underrated and some east-european overrated.

I think it's necessary to remove all and any possible sings of ranking from this article, and sort the cities in alphabetical order. I've done a partial attempt of this, as it doesn't reduce the quality of information (desinformation is not information!) and makes the article more neutral. I guess some people will think about reverting this, but please think before acting so. We should not turn Wikipedia into a political combat arena, and any non-mathematical ranking does just that. Maybe at some point objective ranking will be possible, but not now. CP\M 8:00, 26 February 2006


 * I wholly disagree for reasons stated and have reverted this. Non-descript lists, in substitution of sourced information regarding this topic, is a wholesale reduction in quality.  I'll also point out that not one Wikipedian who opposes the list has cited anything authoritative to counter it.  Please do so, garner consensus, and read up on the "five pillars" before insinuating questionable edits.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This list's proof can't be countered just because it has no specific proof to counter. It's a view of some analysts, but there's no data about how and on what basis the decisions were made. An example of absurd judgments is just the subject, St. Petersburg gaining one point.

This article will remain a battlefield just as long as biased information is stated here. CP\M 5:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If you consult the links for the GaWC list, the rationale of these "analysts" and data used is evident. Moreover, there are adequate provisos in the article and at the GaWC website indicating the criteria behind the list.  The concept of global cities/world cities is prescribed and defined by works cited in the article, not by opining: I see nothing objective in your analysis that substantiates your questionable edits.


 * And the article remains a "battlefield" because various Wikipedians cannot or will not refute verifiable information in a manner consistent with Wp policies and procedures. Until you can, edits will continue to be dealt with judiciously.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I do _not_, did not and will not repeatedly edit the article. It's anyway not worth the effort: anyone sensible enough won't take such ratings as a reference.
 * I have reviewed the links, but have not found any strict algorithm used for making decisions. Also I've viewed the edit history and now I see you hold tight to your position. But I'll just state my thesis: Any possible ranking of world cities based on more than one criteria can not be correct and objective.
 * Including this one. I do not know or care why did the analysts made such decision, and I *do not* suggest any other ranking, because it would also be subjective. Maybe they really weren't biased and used pure math for sorting cities. But it's clear that this rating doesn't look correct for many people and doesn't reflect the common POV. The current subject, St. Petersburg, is much better known, more important and more 'international' than most cities in the 2-points list.


 * No, I don't have an institution to back up this POV. It sometimes seems that any report, made by an organization, is considered to be correct by definition, even if they state that Iraq is a large-scale manufacturer of nuclear weaponry.
 * Isn't it why Wikipedia's information accuracy is sometimes compared with writings on a fence?


 * A lie from a reputable source is not another sort of truth, but just another sort of lie.
 * CP/M 22:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'm not going to get involved with editing this article because Pluribus is clearly totally fixed on its current form and revert wars are boring and tedious. However I maintain, along with others, that it's perfectly legitimate to refute the information from the GaWC survey even if it is is verifiable, since to me it has the look and feel of a tinpot study done by a group of students on beer mats in their college bar. And no one will ever be able to come up with any alternative verifiable information because no other group has been mad enough to try and make an objective list out of a completely subjective topic. IMHO this article is not encyclopedic at present, and hence is de facto inconsistent with Wp policies and procedures. &mdash; SteveRwanda 15:55, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Can either of you – anyone – cite any reputable source to refute the GaWC list or the notions stated? Any criticisms that anyone else can verify?  I hear alot of bluster and rhetoric, but nothing substantive is really being said nor has anyone produced anything reputable.  If you can't or won't, you've already answered the question ... the content already satisfies the five pillars.  And in case you haven't noticed, I've suggested ways of improving the article and have gone about to do so elsewhere.  In fact, your wilful commentaries demonstrate why I won't indulge them further.  Until then ...  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

--To the two detractors, the measuring of metropolitan area populations is somewhat subjective too. Should we throw out those lists and prevent any mention of metro areas in city articles? Should we prevent the articles on artists, writers, and philosophers from saying so-and-so was "one of the most influential" in something? Should we change the U.S. article to say that the U.S. is not the world's only superpower just because there is some debate on what makes a superpower? Should we throw out anything that some nut might disagree with just so you bean counters can be satisfied? You people are being completely unreasonable! --Jleon 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Non reliable table and Other global cities
The table clearly shows evidences of poor stats. It is really amusing to see Buenos Aires to have a larger population than Mexico City (please check article about Buenos Aires). Also, when you get a table mentioning that S Paulo has more skycrapers than Chicago...owh.(it is sure a city with buildings, but for sure not skycrapers...I live in SP)..

Thus the table just makes the article confused without purpose. Surely GwAC uses a reasonable basis for classification (even with disagreements), but that table shows no objetive!!! Also the subarticle Other global cities features guidelines to classify a city as a global one. But please...take a moment and compare those guidalines with the ones presented by GwAC. Pratically the same!!! Thus there is redondancy. Cloretti2 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The source says it has greater population. If you have another data, please give a link.--Nixer 00:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I have restored the list of Other global cities removed without consensus or discussion, and ill-considered of prior discussions. The data and links in the list provide a broader treatment than the criteria in the GaWC list, and enables visitors to make informed decisions for themselves about cities listed and not by the GaWC.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


 * We'd better keep away from them for some time. But anyway a table is better than a biased rating.

Hello, please check infohttp://www.buenosaires.gov.ar/ (official site for the city of Buenos Aires) check for infografia and territorio y poblacion habitantes 2,970,950...enough ?Cloretti2 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, this table can contain mistakes. But this is an attempt to make an objective rating when other information in this article is purely subjective. Of course we can coorrect the mistake. Can you provide a link to any table/list of cities by population?--Nixer 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Resolving neutrality issues
I have carefully reviewed the report and the listed sources. Yes, the research group does have a strict definition. But it is different from the one given in the article. I'll cite it.


 * Article definition:

A global city (also known as a world city or world-class city) is a city that has a direct and tangible effect on global affairs through socioeconomic, cultural, and/or political means.
 * Source report (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html):

We are going to be very specific in our designation of world cities. Taking our cue from Sassen (1991, 126), we treat world cities as particular 'postindustrial production sites' where innovations in corporate services and finance have been integral to the recent restructuring of the world-economy now widely known as globalization.
 * Specific criteria used (from the same report):

1. Global Service Centres in Accountancy 2. Global Service Centres in Advertising 3. Global Service Centres in Banking 4. Global Legal Service Centres

First, please note the serious difference between the definition in the article and the criteria used by GaWC group. It creates internal contradiction in the article.

Second, please note that the GaWC does not give, and does not claim to give an overall global cities rating, but rather only gives a rating of representation of advertising, accountacy, banking and legal services in mentioned cities. That study does not take into attention:
 * Cultural significance of a city
 * Historical significance of a city
 * Global first-name familiarity
 * Participation in international events and world affairs
 * Political meaning of a city
 * Evrything else which is not directly connected with advertising, accounting, banking and law services.

The term 'global city', in both the common meaning and definition in the article, seriously differs from the criteria used by the GaWC. The list is not useless, but it does reflect only one side of the topic, specifically the advertising, accounting, banking and law services. However, being a global city is in a large part a question of cultural value.

I suggest the GaWC roster nor to be deleted, neither to be made a part of the global article, but rather becoming a separate article, which will be linked from the Global city article.

Please post if you support not this way of resolving the issue or give argumented critics if you don't.

CP/M 04:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good solution to me. A separate GaWC article could explain in detail all criteria used for that study, allowing people to make an informed decision, without the current implication that this study is the definitive definition of a global city. The concept could then also be moved from the opening paragraph of the London, New York City, Tokyo and Paris articles to interesting trivia somewhere below (which is actually the main reason why I'm so opposed to this article in the first place - it's allowing misleading statements to creep into some of the core articles of Wikipedia). &mdash; SteveRwanda 11:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it should be left because independent notability is debatable. The first thing I think needs doing is merging the bullets under the intro with the bullets in Other Global Cities.


 * Also, "I think this stat is wrong" is not a reason to slap that damn ugly "totally disputed" tag on. If you believe a stat is wrong, find a source to improve it (this isn't directed at the two folks above, just a general comment). Marskell 12:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If independent notability is debatable, why is the GaWC list being branded as the definitive list and propagated on that basis into all other parts of Wikipedia? I don't like the POV tag much either, but sometimes it's the only way to get people's attention and avoid endless revert wars! SteveRwanda 12:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not treated here as the definitive list. And how exactly will giving it its own page stop it from being propagated everywhere? Marskell 12:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Placing this list on a separate page will allow to make the information more detailed.
 * It will be possible to give the intermediate objective information about each city and each aspect used for a criteria by the study. Presence of such information renders the article more neutral, as each reader will be able to analyse the information and form his own judgments based on objective data. Also it will allow better understanding of criterias used for the list.
 * Therefore such a solution will increase information quality of Wikipedia.
 * CP/M 16:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

As affirmative feedback for the proposal was requested, this is not it: I dissent. My position is stated above: bring over content from the "city" article et al. and tweak, nix many subjective qualifiers/points earlier in the article (without source), retain GaWC list/treatments, retain list of lists (Other criteria née Other global cities), severely reform or nix Table of cities of the world (replace with comparative table of global/world cities). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Moreover, I suggest individuals head on over to Talk:London, where a detractor (who also added a neutrality tag atop the London article) has an issue with notation in that article and – particularly – my 'position' regarding article content here. If there are issues with content, discuss, edit, and comment judiciously ... don't slap tags and make personal attacks to make a point. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, mentioning your name was a mistake and I apologise. I'm sure you're a great chap and we could have a good healthy chat down the pub if we lived in the same country, but evidently we hold different opinions on the usefulness of the GaWC data. Fine. My reason for sticking the tags on was that I wanted to raise a bit of debate (without just getting into edit wars or pretending my opinion is the only one) over whether the statement "London is one four Global cities (along with New York, Paris and Tokyo)" can really sit on its own at the top of an article about London, looking for all the world like a hard and fast fact. Again, if that's not the correct approach then I apologise. Ideally there would be a vote on that issue or an attempt to build real consensus somewhere, but I don't really know the correct way to handle such a thing. &mdash; SteveRwanda 14:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Thoroughly using talk pages and, failing that or in concert with it, requests for comment or peer reviews might be more effective. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

--I think the saddest part of all this is that certian participants in this debate don't even appear to be reading the article, so I feel compelled to quote it here:
 * The GAWC is presented as being an “influential attempt to define” global cities, not a definitive list
 * The list is further qualified with the disclaimers: “note that this roster is weighted toward financial criteria” and “the GaWC list is based on specific criteria and, thus, may not include other cities of global significance or elsewhere on the spectrum”
 * The subjectivity inherent in the topic is clearly stated with “defining a global city must be partially subjective”

With these things in mind, I fail to see any merit in the current round of complaints about the article. --Jleon 13:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ditto ... but as above and below, there's always room for improvement. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 14:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * True, the disclaimers are given. And they well figure out the problem.
 * The definition of a global city is subjective (though not completely). GaWC is not an international standart organisation and definition given by them does not become an official standart. Therefore, an analysis based on a such definition becomes a point of view.
 * It is obvious and can be proven that there also do exist other points of view, and they are widely accepted. However, they are not equally presented in the article. An article can only be neutral if either all widely accepted POVs are equally presented, or no subjective POVs are presented at all. Therefore this article is not completely neutral, being focused on one POV.


 * Dividing it into a completely neutral main article and a linked dedicated article about GaWC study, named in a way which makes clear it is GaWC POV (like "GaWC world cities roster" or "Global city: GaWC roster"), and leaving possible to create equally ranked articles presenting other POVs would completely resolve the issue.


 * CP/M 16:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

--Well could you please refer us to some viable sources on these other points of view? There may be other lists out there that differ slightly (partly as a result of what year they were from), but I doubt there are many that would totally disagree with GaWC. Also, its important to remember that nothing will ever completely resolve this issue, because every time someone from Chattanooga sees their city isn't mentioned here they cause a raucous. --Jleon 16:58, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The first obvious place to look is a search engine like google, bringing very extensive results.
 * I'll just post a few relevant found on the very first glance.
 * Have a small listing:
 * http://nlntv.com/GlobalCities.html
 * Include another definitions and opinions:
 * http://www.lancs.ac.uk/fss/sociology/cemore/word%20docs/global%20cities.doc
 * http://www.marquette.edu/polisci/Friman/conference/pakpaper.doc
 * http://www.peterme.com/archives/000413.html
 * Some stats found at:
 * http://www.citymayors.com/sections/rankings_content.html
 * Please note I haven't done a good search and browsing yet. This is what can be found in a minute. It just shows there are alternate opinions, and not only by wikipedia users posting here. I do not say they are more or less objective than the GaWC's one, it simply illustrates alternates exist. So we should give them a right to be.


 * The question of the global cities is not simple, and it's not just about financial services. We shouldn't promote GaWC ranking as being the main one, it's a multi-POV subject. Separate POVs would better be expressed in separate articles. They can't be well expressed shortly enough as a part of article, which is dedicated to global cities per se, not their ranking.
 * CP/M 22:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

--I still don't see anything to contend with GaWC. Those links are to various conferences, papers, and TV shows about the study of global cities, but they don't offer anything in the way of ranking, or conclusive definitions. I think it's important to keep in mind the origin of the phrase "global city" to begin with: it started with Saskia Sassen, and virtually all of her work has cenetered around the role of these cities in global finance. I suggest you check out her book "Global Cities: New York, London, Tokyo" to really understand what this is all about. --Jleon 13:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * They weren't meant to offer rankings, only to show that there are verifiable sources showing a different set of cities from the 'big four' which are being presented to us as universally accepted. And of course the work of Saskia Sassen should be discussed on a global city page, but in the context of people's wider understanding of the term, which is not necessarily limited to financial criteria. And just to prove there's no definitive list of global cities, even your own tight definitions aren't consistent - the book you mention above does not include Paris in the title so is that really a global city?! &mdash; SteveRwanda 15:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

--Which one of those sources shows a different set of top cities? Paris is considered one of the four primary ones, but it doesn't have quite the importance to financial markets as the other three. --Jleon 15:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you give a source, from which came the difinition, presented in the article?--Nixer 23:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Link 1 - Frankfurt, New York City, Tokyo, London, Mexico City. Not particarly a ranked list, but it is a slightly different one from the GaWC.


 * Link 2 - More of a discussion, but crucially says: In the nineteenth and for much of the twentieth century [the 'global city'] would have been claimed as a Western imperialist phenomenon (London, Paris, New York) or cities and countries that consciously emulated western imperialism (Tokyo). This conception--if ever actually true--certainly cannot be supported today. The European and north American cities now vie with the booming cities of Asian Tigers (Mumbai, Shanghia, Seoul), and the great developing cities (Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Bahía Blanca, Lagos), as well as regional expressions like the 'Pacific Rim' cities. That's from an academic source (Dr Lawrence Phillips, Global Cities Conference, University of Liverpool), and while it doesn't actually name a set of top cities, it clearly questions the idea that L, P, NYC and T are the global cities... &mdash; SteveRwanda 16:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

--So someone made a TV show episode about Franfurt as a global city, that doesn't have anything to with this article. As far as I'm concerned, this debate is closed unless you can find real sources that we can cite alongside the GaWC. --Jleon 16:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Arguably, SR, this is already covered in the article. Most are listed in the GaWC list (as 'global cities' or those 'exhibiting formation'), though tiered differently; as well, the following deals with this with qualifier and can be refined:


 * In the Western view, London, New York, Paris, and Tokyo have been traditionally considered the "big four" world cities – not incidentally, they also serve as symbols of global capitalism.  However, many people have a personal list, and any two lists are likely to differ based on cultural background, values, and experience.


 * As well, the paragraph after that can stand for refinement, since it already discusses locales in the developing world.


 * Moreover, Dr. Phillips' excerpt is from a conference that has yet to occur and gain acceptance (though I don't necessarily disagree with it). Anyhow: if anything, the above are reasons to add said content to the article, not to nix disagreeable content in favour of it or to parse the information ad nauseum into a plethora of articles – that's the essence of NPOV.  And I generally agree with Jl that added sources are required, particularly to give credence to "wider understandings" that differ from authoritative ones (Sassen, et al.) that are referenced (or should be treated better; see below). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 16:39, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, I'm starting to agree with the way you're talking now. I don't want to nix the GaWC data, but adding references to these other sources should improve the page a lot. The conference will certainly prove interesting, and once it's concluded should beef up this article a lot, but it's still a few months away... My issues with the bald statements at the top of the actual city pages remain, not because I don't think they're global, but mainly because each city is explicitly declared so, along with the other three, as if they and no others are the four. Casual readers might think there's something official and god-given about this... &mdash; SteveRwanda 17:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Just a notice: Please don't forget that "Global city" isn't a scientific term, but rather a question of worldwide public acceptance as a global city, just like with the word "celebrity". So sources don't have to be scientific, they just need to reflect common views.

I've made a small google search for simultaneous use of city names with 'global city' term, and NY has 145k, London 137k, Paris 88k, Tokyo 62k, Chicago 67k, Frankfurt 26k (note the huge fall down), Hong Kong 54k, LA 54k, Milan 12k (again), Singapore 82k, San-Fran 35k, Sydney 32k, Toronto 38k, Zurich 1k, Brussels 14k, Madrid 18k, Mexico 47k by itself or 12k as 'Mexico city', Moscow 14k, Seoul 16k.

Beijing, dropped down by GaWC, has 23k. Rome has 20k. Shanghai 24k. Berlin 45k - higher than any 'beta cities'. Athens, which isn't in the main list by GaWC, has 15k, more than Zurich or Milan. Lyon 13k. I've probably forgot to search some, if so, add them.

GaWC list has some resemblance with this, but makes some popping up and down. Isn't anyone against adding a list by internet references as global city? It would be completely neutral. Also I suggest to add pictures of some top world cities by references, which are omitted by GaWC top ten, like Sydney, Beijing, Shanghai, Rome, Berlin. These are cities of high world importance, well known, and often referred as world cities. CP/M 02:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the term being 'scientific', this is more a matter of usage: the article already addresses this ... see prior post(s). And little has been presented (discussions above and below notwithstanding) to countermand usage and defs that are from reliable sources that we can verify.


 * And though informative, Google counts are not an accurate gauge of this topic (nor is it completely neutral): without cited source, they likely constitute original research.


 * Lastly, the cities depicted are already in references: traditionally, the pictures have been limited to those on the upper tier of the GaWC list to preclude just anyone from adding personal favourites (which happens sporadically). Is the current depiction somehow deficient?  I don't think your proposal is any more pragamtic than the current one.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You don't actually need to link the wikipedia policies, I have thoroughly read them and regarded before writing. Unfortunately, the policies aren't yet well indexed (like laws are), so I'll cite them.
 * Please don't take this personally, I simply want to explain why statistics of a search engine counts are acceptable in articles as an illustration of current popularity or common usage, if the engine is named.


 * Original Research: "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged." - A google search is a primary source, as a form of statistics. Collecting its information is in no way creation of a source, but rather organizing existing ones. The information is easily verifiable by just repeating the search.


 * Also, "An edit counts as original research if it proposes ideas or arguments." - and listing search stats isn't proposing ideas, it's simply stating an easily verifiable fact.


 * Google by itself: "When using Google to test for importance or existence, bear in mind that this will be biased in favor of modern subjects of interest to people from developed countries with Internet access, so it should be used with some judgment." - This is quite OK, the article is on a very modern subject of developed countries.
 * "Further judgment: the Google test checks popular usage, not correctness." - also nice, if what we need to show is exactly popular usage.


 * So, policies clearly allow adding such data, especially in this case. I'll add a list when I have a bit more time if anyone doesn't by the moment.


 * I'm sorry: I think I do need to link to policies – and will continue to – since little of your commentary seems to address them. You are trying to skirt guidelines by erroneously rationalising why online searches should be included when there is no reliable source or guideline for including them as proposed.  To do so would be to imply some sort of connxn between online searches and global city stature ... forgive me if I'm wrong, but you've not substantiated this.  Please do.


 * I was suggesting a form like that: "A google search for simultaneous use of 'global city' and a city name gives highest results for: ... This may indicate how commonly 'global city' term is applied to cities today in internet". As a notice in the part on different povs.


 * You are drawing conclusions or inferring them that are not supported (or at least cited) from reliable sources. That's original research and is prohibited in Wp.  You have not substantiated that this is relevant or appropriate.  Until you do, I cannot comment further.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * If anything, this will skew results in favour of Western/developed-English locales ...


 * Compared to the roster Asian cities get even a bit higher level.


 * and my further opining on this would be fruitless. As well, a primary source is something dealing with the topic of global cities – as in the 'References' sxn of the article (Sassen, GaWC) – not an online Google search that you feel is an indication of global city stature and which has no demonstrated source in literature.  Until you backup your contentions, and you have not, any such list and contributions will be nixed.


 * Furthermore, I have made significant copyedits ... many of the prior edits are repetitive and deficient in grammar, format, and quality. And if said contributions remain unsourced or of low quality, I will continue to judiciously edit them.  I also encourage others to do the same.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually you have made deletions of material explaining how the GaWC rating was derived. This material was sourced from the GaWC bulletin. Specifically:


 * "For creating this roster, first there were built lists of number of international companies' offices each for accountancy, advertising, finance and law. Based on these numbers, cities were given Prime (generally top ten), Major or Minor levels. After that, for each city a sum of points was produced, scoring three for being prime in any of categories, two for major, and one for minor. For a more detailed explanation and some intermediate data see the bulletin itself ".


 * This material IS NOT UNSOURCED. It is directly based on the GaWC report. Read it, and compare. This is an exact description of the algorithm they used. First, stage one: lists and prime/major/minor division.


 * As also indicated above, your edits are of low quality, duplicating statements already made or are grammatically deficient. There's nothing in them that isn't satisifed through the current text or links to the original source matter.  And, as noted on every edit page: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly ..., do not submit it." E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

" For this task we have put together suitable data for 10 banks within the top 25 in the world by assets. For seven of the banks we use office locations to represent significant presence but for the top three, with their many offices, we have to define significance in other ways. For the top ranked bank, Standard Chartered, we have detailed data on branches which allows us to include only those with five or more fax numbers listed. For the second and third ranked banks, Credit Suisse and UBS, we have the problem of numerous branches in their origin country, Switzerland. We solve this by including branches outside Switzerland as significant presences but requiring two branches for a significant presence in a Swiss city. "

"Data for 10 of the top 25 banks in the world are used to define significant presences:

* Standard Chartered (ranked 1): all branches listed with 5 or more fax numbers;

* Credit Swisse (2) all branches listed except for Switzerland where two or more branches required for a city to be listed;

* UBS (3) all branches listed except for Switzerland where two or more branches required for a city to be listed;

* Compagnie Financiere de Paribas Sa (8) all branches listed;

* Creditanstalt-Bankverein (10) all branches listed;

* J P Morgan (12) all branches listed;

* Bankers Trust (13) all branches listed;

* NatWest Group (18) all offices of NatWest Markets listed;

* Banco Bilbao Vizcaya (23) all branches listed;

* Dresdner Bank Group (24) all branches listed.

For each significant presence a city scores one point.

* Prime centres: cities with scores of 8 or more

* Major centres: cities with scores of 5 to 7

* Minor centres: cities with scores of 2 to 4"

Stage two: scores.

"We have created the inventory by aggregating the information from the four sector listings of centres. 122 cities are considered in all. A sum is produced for each city by scoring three for a prime centre, two for a major centre, and one for a minor centre. Given 4 sectors, the result is series of estimates of world city-ness ranging from 1 to 12. Cities and their scores are shown in Table 7."


 * Please show what do you find wrong in my description.

--The google counts are totally meaningless: most of the articles out there citing Frankfurt as a global city would be written in German and would not be using the english phrase "global city". And likewise for all other non-western cities. Google does contain some translated sites, but only a small fraction, and even if it translated everything on the entire net the results would still be largely irrelevant. --Jleon 20:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally I supposed to list international use of the term. That isn't important, though, I don't insist; this was just a suggestion how to add another pov.


 * I'm sorry, but most of the discussion above and recent additions are subjective gibberish. Please present salient information and points-of-view/criticisms from reliable sources and make better-quality edits or discuss them beforehand.  Until you do, I'll respectively refrain from commenting further and will continue to edit judiciously.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:52, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This "gibberish" is directly taken from a document named "A Roster of World Cities", created by Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network. It's full version is here: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html
 * CP/M 05:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * P.S. Please when you cut a big chunk out of an article, do not mark it as minor edit. It isn't.


 * Hmmm ... for someone who was insistent on removing and dumbing down the GaWC list earlier, your rehash of information that is already found in totality through that URL (which I'm fully aware of) doesn't really serve a purpose. I defer to prior statements.


 * Please remember others' purposes are not known to you, so you don't need to decide what would serve them better. Thanks. P.S. I aim to make this article seem neutral for a visitor, not to remove or discredit anything. I was attracted here by a very critical and somewhat aggressive discussion of this article in a community outside wikipedia. A few people felt insulted, and I was asked to try to change it. A thorough explanation of what this list is and what it isn't would prevent such misunderstanding.CP/M 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Think and garner consensus before being so argumentative and insinuating edits of dubious quality, and said removals won't be tagged a such. If you have something major to contribute, please do so ... until then, I won't quibble over minutiae.  Thanks.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 06:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a strict definition for 'minor edit' term here, which is in no way related to opinion about material, only to change being very slight.CP/M 02:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems I'll have to add specific information about how the GaWC list was built. WP isn't a web directory, most important data should be inside the article, not in links. The algorithm for building the GaWC list isn't obvious, and doesn't match definitions. CP/M 17:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of opinion: the important data is already included in the article – the GaWC list. There's little need for extraneous descriptions of algorithm when succinct notes are included and accompanied with links.


 * As above and before, any contributions – particularly badly written ones – will be edited or nixed judiciously. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Merge material within the article
A quick look at the bullet points... We have 11 bullet points in the intro. Of these, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are subsequently repeated under "Other global cities" (now "Other criteria"). Can we please merge these and prosify as much as possible? Wikipedia is not a repository of links and "excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia." Marskell 12:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The many bullet points, though reasonable, are unsourced qualifiers (which seem to vary depending on editor): many of them have little to do with cited notions (c.f. Sassen) of what a global city is. If they cannot be corroborated, I will judiciously edit them and replace with definitions/notions in the "city" article et al.


 * And, as already discussed, the list provides users with germane data and links unavailable elsewhere ... enabling visitors to size up the world's cities on their own. So it adds to the article, not detracting from it.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 12:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * My fundamental point is redundancy. The nine bullets I note above should be removed from the intro or removed from the later list. If "many of them have little to do with cited notions of what a global city is", then why are all of them repeated in the list? The list, if turned more into prose, can become the second section after the intro if you like. But there's 20 external links there, by my count, which does violate "not a repository". I just find it hard to follow if nothing else; there's obviously some useful links, but broadly there is too many of them. Marskell 13:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * If anything, they should ne nixed from the intro. I hear you about redundancy, but prosifying them as points and interpreting them upfront is distinctly different than providing a separate section below that conform to policy of "content-relevant links".  As is, the points upfront are presented as "criteria" of global city stature when, actually, the notion has more to do concepts of power and influence.  As a section/list below (as with many other articles which have sections of 'other' links), it is separate yet diverse and relevant ... as well, it obviates any perceived bias in content aboveit  by providing links to germane information about cities.


 * If there are no objections, I will prune or replace the qualifiers and consider tweaking the list. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 13:16, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Makes sense to me. HistoryBA 00:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are there pictures of beta cities?
Forgive me if I'm unwittingly setting off some contentious issue, but why are there pictures of beta cities? I seem to remember coming here before and there being just the alpha cities. The page was much more readable in its prior state. Adding two of three tiers is entirely arbitrary. Why stop there? Who's to stop someone from adding the gammas? Having been on Wikipedia for quite a little while now, I can surmise with near-certainty that this is the work of a beta-dweller nursing a sore ego. Alas, facts first, clarity second, pride third, no? I say just alpha pictures are necessary, or, better still, just the Big Four. Raggaga 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The added pictures (for GaWC beta cities) appear fine to me ... perhaps by including them, it will prevent more wilful additions?  Adding any more would truly clutter the article and including just the 'big four' may be counterproductive (e.g., 'NPOV').  However, the prior state/rationale (with just the alpha cities depicted) is just as acceptable to me. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I concur with limiting the number of pictures (although I would go further and limit to just the Big Four). --Coolcaesar 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I am in total agreement with E Pluribus Anthony (is that a first?) - the page is fine as it is: the pictures are small and unobtrusive, and there's sufficient text that they don't float off way beyond the bottom of the article. As previously noted ad nauseam, the 'big four' and 'alpha cities' etc. are not universally accepted concepts, so including others is more in line with NPOV. &mdash; SteveRwanda 16:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Although one oddity is that on my browser (Firefox 1.5 running on Linux) the images from San Francisco down are all shifted to the left. Not sure why that's happening so I don't know how it could be fixed. &mdash; SteveRwanda 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I've rectified the shift ... before recent tweaks, the article and pix appeared differently in IE and Firefox (e.g., lotsa white space). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, image alignment now OK. The cities of the world table (with its pink box) had been shifted down massively to below whichever picture it was below, due to the clear all tag. I've now removed that, hopefully not destroying the look of the page in IE? &mdash; SteveRwanda 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The totally disputed tag
Any chance we could get this removed? There doesn't seem to have been any debate on the issue (whatever it is) for the last two weeks, and no one other than the original protaganist has put up any serious opposition to the state of the table as it stands... &mdash; SteveRwanda 18:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with including the tag, but if evidence isn't soon provided to clarify matters (as with the prior tag atop the article previously), this tag should be nixed.  If the table is replete with error and cannot be corroborated, it's the table that should go.  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:28, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The table is mostly fine, although the list of City (proper) figures does seem rather arbitrary, looking at the relevant page for it. In cases where the city itself is nonexistent or tiny (such as Tokyo or London), the list chooses some arbitrary larger entity. This is why Buenos Aires appears larger than Mexico City. Not sure the best solution, but maybe nixing that column could be a way forward. The skyscraper list can't be questioned, as long as you accept their definition that a building of 12 or more storeys is a skyscraper. Presumably if you made the cut-off somewhere else, you'd get a different looking list.


 * Related to that, how about including height of tallest building in the table as well? From, you'd get: 1. Taipei 2. Kuala Lumpur 3. Chicago 4. Shanghai 5. Hong Kong 6. Guangzhou 7. Shenzhen 8. New York 9. Dubai 10. Kaohsiung. Just an idea, anyway &mdash; SteveRwanda 11:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

apply for Semi-protection
This article would be an excellent candidate for Semi-protection. I just don't get why it attacts so many POV editors. --Dschwen 08:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's because of the nature of the list, which may include or exclude a number of locales that (perhaps myopically) some may feel should be on it or elsewhere within it.


 * Semi-protection is an option. In any event, I believe the recent anon/IPs are in breach of 3RR (if not being disruptive and uncommunicative) and will be reported shortly. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 08:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

BsAs
Previous versions listed Buenos Aires as a Gamma 4 point city. I restored its position from an earlier version, however, does anyone know if it actually belongs under 4 points. The GaWC site only has it under Gamma cities. I just want to make sure that's were it belongs since someone moved it and then it was deleted. M P M 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * 4-points Gamma City is correct. &mdash; SteveRwanda 10:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Most skyscrapers
Emporis does not provide information on number of skyscrapers (above 150 meters). It is number of entered highrises (completed buildings 12f+) to their database, which far away from to be full and cosist only few percents of all highrises from around the world. Hong Kong definitely is most skyscraper city in the world. But this list is completely incorrect talking about highrises what they talking about and in total number of highrises Hong Kong and New York is nowhere close to such utter highriser cities like San Paulo (49000 12f+), Shanghai, Beijing and Moscow (which possibly have over 20000 each). I suggest to remove this column completely because there is no one source that accumulate exact numbers of skyscrapers and highrises from all biggest cities. Elk Salmon 00:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * We ought to just remove every column because they're all ridiculous and imprecise.
 * have you ever been to sao paulo and hong kong? I have. Hong kong definetly has more huge skyscrapers but sao paulo has a "sea" of 30-storey-highrise constructions (and it is much larger both in area and in population), doubtlessly it houses more higrise structures than the amazing HK. Anyway, since we have no trusworthy database on that we should remove it. BTW, I agree with the user above. we should just remove these columns, not because they are imprecise, but because they assume that certain criteria are more important than others.

What's a global city?
This article is useless, as it simply does not say what's a global city. It says the concept was created in 1991 by an american professor, but it doesn't say anything else about her theory about global cities.

I looked up her book Global City at google, and it appears to me global city is a term that is supposed to describe a phenomenon of the 20th century, in which cities have acquired new roles on the world affairs. As it stands, the article does not explain the difference between ancient Rome or Alexandria and global cities of today, except that it [the article] "requires" global cities to have optic fiber and other tchnological stuff that didn't exist back then.

The article gives one definition on the introduction, and then a little after it says it's hard to define a global city. Then there's a list of confusing things, the "general characteristics"... Those general characteristics don't help at all to elucidate the concept of global city. It is not said why those specific characteristics are the ones a global city should have.

It appears to me this article assumes the concept of global city is "obvious" and everyone understands it. Then it gives a list of global cities of today. It makes no sense, it didn't help me to learn about global cities. I suggest everything after the introduction is deleted, and the part of the introduction that says what are global cities without  saying what's the difference between those and other influent cities as Mecca, Jerusalem, ancient cities etc be deleted as well. A.Z. 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Overrating of Some Cities...
The moment I saw this Article, I initially find it very biased... Some cities in Europe where quite overrated than other cities... I can't Imagine how Brussels got 8 points, while Osaka got only 6 points... doesn't anyone know that osaka has the 3rd highest GDP of all cities in the world? only after Tokyo and New York? It deserves to be in the Alpha Cities like Singapore and Hong KOng... How about Dusseldorf and Prague? It is of the same level with Houston, Boston and Washington DC at 6 points... but Alas! Rome, Montreal and Berlin have even lower ranks... I thought one of the criteria for judging is first name basis or be known without the addition of country name? These Cities aren't even that well-known and it gained that rank? Atlantico
 * This list has been made in 1999. Outdated for sure. GaWC updated it in 2004. Elk Salmon 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Formatting problems
The images along the right side of the page are causing problems with the edit tags on each section - they're running into the table at the bottom of the article. Given my lack of experience with article layout on wiki, could someone with more knowledge take a look? I cleaned up the code a bit to make things clearer, but haven't yet made any attempts at fixing the problems. Dbratton 15:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that the problems aren't apparent until the page is actually saved, since the edit tags are only added to the current saved revision of the page. Previewing changes doesn't include the tags, nor do old revisions, so neither is useful in this situation (as I discovered the hard way). Dbratton 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for fixing the article layout, Elk Salmon. :) Dbratton 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This page looks extremely broken in Opera. The body text is extremely squashed to the left all the way down until that line of images stop. Rayward 04:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Tokyo photo
Just my opinion, but I'd suggest someone more familiar with Tokyo may want to change the photo; not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's just almost identical to the shot of Paris right above it. (A night shot, centred on an illuminated triangular tower.) A little more variety might spruce the article up a bit. Sadly, I don't know enough about Tokyo to suggest or find something appropriate. Not that important, but at least it's not someone whining that $MY_CITY should be on/higher on the list! --ByeByeBaby 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Correct, I'm going to fix some of the pictures.--Old Guard 15:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Top 100 biggest companies.
List isn't really accurate. Most of big companies in developing countries are not presented on marked and does not publish their financial data. Elk Salmon 10:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, then there's no way of telling how big they really are, then, is there? The only way to objectively compare companies is to compare only public companies which have reported their financial stats under strict government standards. --Coolcaesar 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Release Version 0.5
Global cities are eligible for nomination for Release Version 0.5. Maurreen 12:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

World-Class City has other meanings
Well, not exactly meanings so much as it's things it's used for; i.e. in government bumpf/advertising and vanity editorials in the Toronto and Vancouver (and by now, Calgary) papers, the buzzword being "world-class this", "world-class that", and "this is what we can increasingly expect in our newly world-class city". In other words, it's a gee-shucks term when used this way, and has nothing to do with definition of Global City overleaf; except in the pols' and their ad companies' premises that they, too, are important. Yeah, whatever. We're all bored with but they keep on with it anyway; apparently the lumpen proletariat give a shit and the haute bourgeoisie and intelligentsia were bought off with pap a long time ago. The true mark of a world-class city is when it doesn't have to point out that it is, after all....Skookum1 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

World-city building: Clarify?
This sentence is awkward and unclear:
 * The phenomenon of world-city building, albeit with slightly more success, has also been observed in Buenos Aires, Frankfurt, Sydney, Mexico City and Toronto: each of these cities has emerged as large and influential.

More success than what? Than other unnamed cities implied in the previous sentence? Can't the two sentences just be combined? At the very least, let's get rid of "albeit," which makes no sense in this context. Joel Bastedo 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous Users
I see from the recent history at least that there has been some vandalism. I just now made a revert. Would it be advisable to prevent anonymous users from editing?--Old Guard 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)