Talk:Global city/Archive 3

GDP of a Japanese urban area is incorrect
4th Osaka-Kobe-Kyoto: 17,000,000 population, GDP: 600 billion dollars.

10th Aichi(Nagoya) urban area population 9,400,000 GDP: 300 billion dollar.

Where is Seoul on the second list?
If you look at the table included in the article, Seoul ranks #2, #2, #3, and #7 on four of those columns, and yet, there is no mention of the city on the second list produced by the horribly biased GaWC. I mean, I can understand the low position of Seoul on the first list due to the 1998 Asian economic disaster that struck much of Asia, but even after making such a miraculous recovery, there is no mention of Seoul on the list made in 2004. How can we place credibility on lists such as this one? Flamarial 18:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Too many outdated sub-lists
Is a 1999 list by an obscure group in an obscure location at all meaningful? The published criteria under "General Characteristics" is relatively useful. However, the criteria can change in each generation. I recommend inclusion of past lists. I'm sure there must be historical documents on top cities, say, in each span of 30-50 years for the last 200 years, and then perhaps going back 1000-3000 years ago in 200 year increments. 128.32.81.128 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well this is about the important cities in globalization and economy. Not biggest cities in the world. --Krm500 23:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is it necessary to reproduce the GaWC lists here, when each is just a single source that can be linked to like any other? Both of these sections are essentially verbatim copies of the GaWC sources without any added information (aside from flags and links). Even if copying the GaWC's publication is merited, why is the 1999 edition of the GaWC study still shown, when the GaWC has produced the 2004 study with the intention of being strictly more accurate, informative, and up-to-date? At any rate, both GaWC lists are given too much prominence for any such single-source information, and should at least be moved down the page below the "Other Criteria" section and lists. Lexande 21:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This list is going nowhere
Please, when I see that San Fransisco,Brussels and Caracas as cities more important than Montréal and Beijing I just wanna cry. Re-do this article or completely delete it because it is a big lie. 

I absolutely agree. Face the facts: Brussels is not nearly as important as Beijing. Caracas is not nearly as important as Montreal. Who do they think theyre kidding? This article is a big, fat joke! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs).

Seoul isn't even on the second list. Somebody should delete these lists. Flamarial 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Global Cities Conference 2006?
I've been hoping that this conference will lead to an update of global city rankings, or at least some new statistics. They haven't surfaced: the current summary paragraph is same as it was before the conference, with future tense changed to past tense. The link doesn't show any signs of life either, nor can I find anything on Google.

Why mention this conference at all if it didn't produce any new data??

This is a joke.
There is no way a globally famous city like Rio de Janeiro is less "global" than the much smaller cities of San Francisco and Montréal!

Rio is perhaps global culturally but i dont see much economically and politically to it! In any case, the whole list is ridiculous to me. dyna 29 11  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs).

This list has major problems with it. While I agree with the top four, it goes downhill after that. Where is San Diego? Under the criteria in article, it should at least be a Beta World City, easily the equal of San Francisco, but it's not even on the list! But Richmond, Va. and Tijuana, Mexico are? The list either needs a major overhaul or should be deleted.

Montréal is as important as Madrid and Mexico
Stop deleting the photo of Montréal on the side and the changes I've made in the list since Montréal made an ascension since this page was made.


 * Not according to the source is hasn't. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally don't think that Montreal is a city as important as Madrid and Mexico city. Montreal is not a financial centre compare to Toronto locally and internationally.  Can you tell me where the exchange centre is in Montreal?  how about its volume of exchange?  how about investment from foreign companies?  how about the infrastructure for transportation and the volume of logistics?  I think Montreal is even worse than Vancouver. leungli 03:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Me neither. No way is Montreal nearly as world famous or influential as these two cities. We're not supposed to be biased, remember? 29 11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs).

Well, Montreal is an important city. I mean, it's the second largest canadien city and it does has a big economie, especially in the aviation industrie.


 * Montreal is actually an important centre of business globally. It is also the second largest French speaking capital. However, Montreal has not been bumped up as the list hasn't been updated (well it has, but it hasn't been released). CuffX 07:41, 04 May 2007 (UTC)

Where is Shanghai, Western Bias.
Shanghai isn't on this list, yet places like Sydney/Zurich/Toronto/San Francisco are? This doens'nt make sense at all. Shanghai has over 20 million people. It is one of the top three finincial cneters in Asia and is the busiest port in the world. Also it is one of the fashion and cultural capitals of Asia. Not to mention one of the worlds most impresive skylines (has twice as many skycrapers of New York) and IS LISTED ON ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA PAGE A WORLD CITY. Either add Shanghai or remove most of these other western citys. There is definitely some unjustified bias here. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RiseOfTheRev01ution (talk • contribs) 14 August 2006.

Note, shanghai doesn't have more skyscrapers than Newyork, don't change facts just to support your view point, also I would say that Tokyo is the fashon Capital of Asia.


 * Both the lists on this page are cited from specific sources. If you can find another reliable source that lists Shanghai as a world city feel free to add it. We can't change the lists that are here though or they would no longer resemble their sources. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 04:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

You think Shanghai qualifies as a global city, higher than Sydney...c'mon!!?? I agree with Zurich, however. I think they should replace Zurich with Shanghai. But no higher than Sydney, I mean Sydney has one of the world's busiest ports, a thriving film industry (Superman Returns, Star Wars II, Moulin Rouge!, are among many films made in the city), it's sometimes considered one of the main fashion capitals, has a distinctive skyline that works (Shanghai is kind over the top, and a little trashy), Sydney's harbour is ALWAYS regarded as one of the finnest on earth, is headquaters to more 400 companies in the Asia-Pacific region, tourism sector is higher than Shanghai's, home to more than four world famous structures that have entered themselves into pop culture....the list goes on!!! I hope you understand now why Shanghai shouldn't go any higher/lower than Sydney, but maybe Zurich!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kill-bill-93 (talk • contribs) 21 August 2006.
 * Oh, Jack... ҉ Randwicked ҉ 08:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * this is not western bias, this is UK-US bias.--Pedro 12:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read the archives--Nixer 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shanghai, as well as China in general, does not yet have a reasonably effective legal system. In contrast, a person arrested in any city in the top two tiers of the GaWC list has a reasonable expectation of some kind of due process or fundamental justice or its local equivalent.  Without a good legal system, a city's economy cannot operate at its full potential, because both corporations and their employees are uncertain as to the extent of their property rights.  That is, they are afraid that at any given time they could lose everything at the hands of corrupt government personnel or organized crime.  This is also why Mexico City and Sao Paulo are not in the top tier.  --Coolcaesar 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

'Oh, Jack...'

...Yes, what? You disagree, well why? I mean you seriosly think Shanghai is more of a global city than Sydney. Hmm, I wonder why Sydney is actually already more of a global city than Shanghai, why don't you try work that out


 * PLEASE READ THE ARTICLE PEOPLE. That list is part of research done by a University. You can't change that list because you disagree with that list. Don't you understand? If you think that this research contains Western bias, then look for academic research on this subject that doesn't contain the bias. DO NOT CONSTANTLY ADD THE CITIES YOU LIKE. Maartenvdbent 18:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the problem here is precisely because the article doesn't come across as a dispassionate description of one group of peoples views on what makes a global city, but rather as Wikipedia actually the peddling the concept. This isn't helped by the way some contributors like to add the fact that their favorite city is in this list to the lede of that city's article; so it all begins to look like this is WPs way of categorising cities. Clearly if a group of academics has invented this categorisation (and however lame I might personally think it is) we need to cover it; but we should be careful not to look like we are proselitizing it. -- Chris j wood 19:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we perhaps mark this as a NPOV dispute? --Raketooy 19:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not, this article comes from a reputable source, citing a study that was conducted over years. Besides, Shanghai is a poor city, the majority of the populace lives in poverty, but that doesen't matter to the "party" because do you really expect a communist government to care about human rights? Also, A high population doesn't make a world city, just like Sao Paulo, It's the infrastructure of the city, the health care, the safety of the population and the sustainable economy that make a World city. Shanghai, and China's economy is run off a large population that is mostly exploited by the rich few. (which incidently is what Communism is supposed to protect from) Sorry to break the news but shanghai is NOT a "world city".

This has absolutely nothing to do with it. Shanghai is a major world city in the sense that its powerful economically and is the center of tomorow's foremost power. Its population is enormous, and poverty is not the issue. There are slums in Paris and NYC as well. Yep, Western bias! dyna 29 11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs).

Who Cares? they're cities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

I am a Hong Kong citizen studying in UK now. Hong Kong is really a world class city which is even has the cost of living a bit higher than London, but with less political influence in the world. For shanghai, i think that the rank is lowered because they have include Hong Kong as one of the toppest in the list, just lie franfurt(10points) and berlin(4 points) in Germany. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.40.114.37 (talk • contribs) 00:04, December 4, 2006 (UTC)

formatting issues


This is what the bottom of the page looks like at high resolution (1920x1200). All the edit links are somehow clustered at the bottom. Opabinia regalis 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. It seems that the problem is based on the placement of all images in one single list. I think that if you split the images across the paragraphs, after the section titles, it should be solved. This will of course present the need for separate formatting parameters for each image. I will proceed to it right away. --Dead3y3 Talk page 00:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There was no necessary to screw up the article. The only thing was needed is adding two lines that was deleted by vandal. Reverted it to original state. Elk Salmon 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Added width to bypass Opera 9 bug. Elk Salmon 11:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed all the cities are in alphabetical order except one. The letter L comes BEFORE the letter N. I have corrected so it is consistent with the rest of the article. Matchrthom 09.16, 9 Feburary 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke: Part 2
How about Philadelphia being lower than Houston or Miami? Philadelphia is a world class city once again. It has bounced back. It is a leader in the arts. No city, with the exception of New York, is as well known for its arts scene. No city in the US has more Public art for example. It is also the home to a burgeoning restaurant scene which includes the finest French restaurant in America. Also Philadelphia has many more historical sites than Houston and Miami combined. Philadelphia is a pioneer in its wireless network which is designed to bring internet connection to the masses.

Answer: I think the research is about how important a city is in globalization, not how great my city is because we have arts. For example, many cities on the list are big harbour areas or big economic areas. And sign your posts. --Krm500 00:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out Houston's page. See for yourself why it deserves to be higher up in the rankings. --Rodeojava 03:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke: Part 3
There's a little town in the Kalahari desert called Pofadder. Often the butt end of jokes in South Africa, let's add it to the new list for extra credibility. It MUST surely be a world city based on the info put forward by GaWC. Just because it was conducted by a university doesn't mean it's accurate or unbiased. Yes, where is Shanghai? Where is Dubai? And, of course, where is my beloved Johannesburg? One could just as easily argue that Jozi's contirbution to Africa is of such great economic significance for a whole CONTINENT that it automatically should feature (don't even think of dissing my continent, scumbag). You could always find evidence for why some city should be higher ranked than another one. In my mind's eye, there is no way that London tops New York, and Tokyo is a "global niche city." Bollocks. Down with the GaWC!!!!! Viva! Viva! Amandla!

This is a joke: Part 4
This is the strangest Article I have ever read... it's absolute rubbish. Caracas above Berlin? Whoever wrote this has certainly never been to Caracas... in fact, he may not even know where Caracas is. This is a ridiculous article and should be denounced!

Merge from Financial Centre
If you ask me, Financial Centre and Global city are pretty much the same thing. Besides, the Financial Centre article is virtually linkless. I'd say a merge would be a a good idea. -- AirOdyssey 01:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * No it is two completely different things. Just put a link in view also. Elk Salmon 09:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

City table at the bottom
The City Proper population rankings in the table are hopelessly wrong; where on earth did they come from?? MarkThomas 19:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What exactly is wrong? Elk Salmon 23:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Airports by annual passenger traffic
Given that this is an article about cities, not airports, wouldn't cities by annual air passenger traffic be a more relevant measure than airports by annual passenger traffic? There's a source for this at http://www.iaurif.org/en/doc/studies/airports/INTRO.pdf giving the top 10 rankings, as at 2002, as being London, Tokyo, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Paris, Los Angeles, Dallas, Frankfurt, Houston. This properly reflects the way that large cities may be served by multiple airports. Matthew 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I've searched for this info long time.--Nixer 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Happy to help! I can't claim all the credit, though - this information came up on the London page originally! :-) Matthew 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been reverting Bjornson's edits to this column of the table. He has a sourced reference from 2005 for the busiest airports by passenger, and has been updating the table accordingly. However, I think that this list of airports is not as appropriate for an article about cities as the slightly older (2002) reference for cities by number of airport passengers. The source I advocate takes into consideration that a city may be served by multiple airports, whereas Bjornson's doesn't. In fact, Bjornson's source shows London and Tokyo to each have two airports inside the 30 busiest in 2005. Thoughts, anyone? Matthew 23:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. BTW, that table about airports was initially inserted by me as temporary solution while we do not have the appropriate data. The data on cities was planned from the very creation of this table.--Nixer 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a joke? UK Edition
OK, I'm from Liverpool and naturally I'm totally biased and think it's the greatest city on the planet. However, how on earth can Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow & Leeds be granted of having some some evidence (whatever that means) of becoming global cities yet Liverpool doesn't seem to have a case? More emphasis is needed on how the points system which yielded this result was formulated and by whom. Gary Parks


 * All the details are provided in the relevant links - for example the 1999 edition. I personally feel that given the nature of copyright infringements etc., it is not unreasonable to suggest that the reader follows the link for more detailed information about the calculations etc. - such details are probably too complex to incorporate into an article such as these.  I have no comment to make regarding Liverpool - perhaps you should take it up with Loughborough University - we sure as hell can't do anything about it here!   DJR  ( T ) 14:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we have a distinct scoping issue here: is this article about the concept of a "world city" (which is the more usual term, I'd have thought), or is it about GaWC's world city research?  The fact that the article title is global city/world city would strong suggest the former is the desirable outcome;  that the article is entirely about the latter, and even seems to imply that the two are synonymous, strikes me as a huge problem with the current version (and smacks of an article-jack by way of people boosterising their own research).  But one we sure as hell can do soimething about...  Alai 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While true, there is an inherent problem in that the use of the term in its general context is one of the most POV issues plausible. GaWC appears to be the only real research that is available on the subject, and accordingly it is the only justifiable basis for any of the content on this page.  Given this, it is important that it is constantly referenced in order to ascertain verifiability of this information under no original research.   DJR  ( T ) 11:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hum. I would tend to say that if the only credible research is that from GaWC then maybe there just isn't enough real academic debate on this subject to justify us having an article, or at least an article with this title, at all. Perhaps we should retitle the article GaWC research on the concept of the Global Worl City. That would certainly take the heat out of the boosterists who incessently try to hijack this article to proselytise their favorite city. -- Chris j wood 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I second that thought, it certainly would make clear that this isn't original research as people seem to think at first glance. We should probably try to think of a more succinct title for the article, and then have Global City and World City redirect. Perhaps it could be Globalization and World Cities Study Group, with a link to List of GaWC World Cities. Of course I'm one to say that as my fair city already made it to the list (albeit with 1 point). Analoguekid 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Kansas City appears twice on the 1999 list
It's in the one point section and the four point section, I don't know which is correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian8710 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 October 2006.


 * Well spotted! Kansas City should be a one-point city - see reference 4 for details.   DJR  ( T ) 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Cities or metropolitan areas?
Assuming the article will be kept (which now seems likely, assuming the copyright problems can be resolved):

Is this article describing cities (for example, Los Angeles) or metropolitan areas (Los Angeles)? Whichever it is, we need to standardize the links. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * These terms don't mean the same thing in each country so it's hard to make a definite policy. In general I imagine we're talking about the urban/metropolitan area though. "Cities" themselves are often political entities which don't correspond that much to the social situation, e.g. City of London is only one tiny part of London (the whole of which presumably constitutes the global city). SteveRwanda 15:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The United Kingdom, unlike the United States and most other places, does not have a veiable definition of a city in the international sense of the word.  At the same time, "metropolitan area" is pretty much as ambiguous as anyone cares to make it - especially in the case of somehwere like London. The definition of city in this article is, presumably, the same as the one that makes London (not just the City of London) a city - there is no technical definition for it but it is universally accepted as fact.   DJR  ( T ) 11:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What are we talking about??
What the real issue seems to be is that this is an article about how the GaWC defines what a world city is. There seems to be much uproar about people's cities not being included as a world city, but the page is only including those named by the GaWC. I would go as far as to suggest that this article be renamed and altered to an article more directed the GaWC, and this title used for the broader concept of what a world city is.Moe 10:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * An article about the "broader concept of what a world city is" would be wholly unfeasible as anything in it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. In order to exist (and avoid violating WP:VERIFY), any information must be based on verifable sources, and only one such source appears to exist - the GaWC.  The Global city article can only exist in Wikipedia if it is entirely based on verfiable, professionally researched information.   DJR  ( T ) 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not true - there have been many studies done over the years on this issue, including all the references listed at the end of one of the GaWC pages here. The problem, of course, is that they're not on the web which means someone needs to go and find the books to provide us with useful citations. I can't do it because I don't live in a global city so have no decent library available... :-) SteveRwanda 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The topic of world cities is a genuine academic subject that exists outside of the GaWC, although you might not know it from reading the article. It doesn't even mention Peter Hall, the originator of the term. - EurekaLott 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sir Pete is one of their "Honorary Founders", so I assume in the puff-piece-speak of this article, that increases their "ownership" of the concept, rather than any way mitigating it. (I'm not aware of his career as a Loughborough researcher in the fluffier end of human geography, mind you.)  It's also a mistake to suppose that only academic work have any place here:  the phrases are part of non-academic and non-specialist discourse, independent of GaWCs supposedly universal canon list, and should be discussed in that context, too.  One would hardly argue that only academic sources were appropriate for computer, for example (a topic which it's possible to treat of with a mite more rigour, I dare say).  Alai 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move — Mets 501 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Global city → Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network — That's what the article is about, not the general concept of a global or world city. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.
 * Oppose. First, the article is about more than the GaWC and its conferences; if needed, perhaps the conference material can be spun out into another article. Second, it is a Wikipedia convention to use short common names for things -- the items people use in conversation, informal writing, the media, and will look up. A long, unwieldy name is not a good article title unless that is the most common name for something. Please read WP:NAME, a summary of which is, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." Plus, the longer name can be added as a redirect, as can things like "GaWC". --MCB 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. Per MCB. Also - it's settled term and lists are based on sources and are relevant for this article. No need for any moves. Elk Salmon 01:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I formerly opposed the use of the GaWC list but now I have come to support it after coming to understand the importance of core Wikipedia content policies like WP:NOR and WP:V. I concede the GaWC list is a mess but frankly, it is the best available academic research on the subject.  Anything else would be academic research or non-notable.  --Coolcaesar 02:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose. Again, as I noted in the AfD discussion for this article, the term 'global city' is an important concept in a number of the social sciences.  There needs to be an article with this specific name to illustrate the concept.  It would be nice to get some non-GaWC sources but that does not mean that a name change (espeically to such an unwieldy one) is at all necessary.  --The Way 04:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support. The GaWC group develops another concept of world cities. Global cities may stay, but without the GaWC research.--Nixer 05:49, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. "Global city" may be an important concept but this ain't it. This is just a tired excuse by the GaWC ivory tower to prop up enfeebled Western cities while ignoring the real dynamic energy in the world.  Change this title or fork the generic "global city" content.  If anyone can rationalize 10 points for Chicago or 8 points for Mexico City and only 4 points for Shanghai with a straight face then I’ll withdraw my vote. —   AjaxSmack    06:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - move the GaWC stuff as specified, then restart Global city as an article with a small GaWC section and citable information from all other treatises on this subject. SteveRwanda 08:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't quite understand this. If you favor moving the GaWC material to another article, your vote should be "oppose", no? That would leave this article as a general article about the global city concept, and the GaWC material in its own article, appropriately named. Am I missing something? Thanks, --MCB 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose - to quote myself from the recent AfD, The problem with this article is that the term "global city" is a very important one in terms of usage in human geography, (development) economics and wider social sciences, and thus it is important that Wikipedia has an article about the terminology. However, it is an incredibly POV term and its usage naturally sees individuals wanting to "big up" their city - a look at the page's history illustrates countless edits to this degree. GaWC are the only electronic source that attempt to actually define the term, and thus can provide a definitive list of "global cities". It would be nice if there were other sources so that this article could take a more generalised approach, but they do not seem to be readily available, and hence why the article has taken its present form of regurgitated information from the source. Changes could be made, but it is essential that the article remains neutral, and this cannot be done unless based on external sources, of which GaWC is the only one.  DJR  ( T ) 17:36, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * A non-GaWC citation for the term being notable would help, even if GaWC is the only detailed source. Otherwise, the notablility of the term is derived from GaWC's notability, which seems inadequate for secondary notability.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I couldn't agree more. However, there is no point moving a page about a commonly used concept just because there is only one source that has made an in-depth study.  Regardless of the source, the concept still exists.  What needs to be done is not moving the page, but changing the article so that it is less of a narrative about GaWC's research.   DJR  ( T ) 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments:

Is there any other option? The name is so very long. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Nixer, there are several concepts - no other and not other. Since it's not an original research it doesn't matter if it is GaWC or not. It's verified source. Also - I don't see any reason for this poll. Yet again - it's like polling a statement for Bush article that he is black... Elk Salmon 08:13, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Points
 * This is what the article is about. There are only one or two sentences (and the pictures, of course) which are not from or about GaWC.
 * A shorter name for GaWC would be acceptable, if it were the name generally used.
 * The AfD (which I proposed, probably mistakenly) had only one !vote which did not say that the lists and conferences should be moved to a separate article. As there is very little else in the article, an article move would be better than a cut-and-paste move, but there was a consensus that most of the article doesn't belong at this name.
 * User:The Way did not specify in his AfD comment that he thought the article should remain intact, just that the concept was notable. I still don't agree, but I'm willing to concede that point.  The present article, and any article which does not remove GaWC information, implies that GaWC is the "owner" of the concept, which is untrue.  As for the name being unwieldy, Global city can redirect to the unwieldy name until such time as a true disambiguation page can be generated.
 * GaWC may be the only organization producing specific criteria and lists, but their definition is not the generally accepted definition. Perhaps the article could describe the original criteria which Saskia_Sassen used, and move GaWC to a subarticle.  There are many possibilities, but all that seem consistent with Wikipedia policies require the bulk of the article be moved to another name, be it GaWC, Global city (GaWC), or something else.
 * What's more the editor comment at the top of the page forces the article to be about GaWC. Let me quote it in full (reformated for wiki display only, without any text changed)

PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING:


 * Consult http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html and http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html for the point ranking.
 * Do NOT arbitrarily add cities or move them around.
 * The images on this pages are sorted by
 * Number of points
 * Alphabetically for equal Number of points


 * This means the city lists and image lists are "owned" by GaWC, and should be listed only if there is no other reputable organization which lists "Global cities" or "World cities". The city lists make some sense if there is no other source of lists, but the images should not be locked to GaWC's rankings.
 * All of these, separately, make cleanup seem possible, but as long as Elk Salmon wants the article intact and about GaWC, as is clear from his/her comments, it wouldn't be possible.
 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You seems missing the point. You are free to write any articles about GaWC. But this one is about Global and World City terms. So it is lists here results of GaWC research. It is relevant for this article. If you have other sources you are free to add new sections. But at this moment GaWC 1999 edition is most widespread and popular, therefore, like images are based on it. Nobody forbid you to add pictures for GaWC 2004 edition. The only reason why there are no pictures for 2004 is because there are already many pictures. Elk Salmon 01:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. Arthur, please read No original research before making a fool of yourself. That policy is non-negotiable; many people have disputed it with Jimbo Wales personally and have been kicked off Wikipedia as a result.  I have managed to get one user banned from Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee specifically because he kept inserting original research and then would not negotiate in good faith, even though it was painfully clear to everyone else what he was doing.
 * Once you're done reading, come back here and see if you can formulate a definition of world city or global city (backed up with citations to major social science journals) that is supported by existing research in the field and is not original research. If you can do that, then people will take your proposal of disposing of the GaWC list seriously.  --Coolcaesar 08:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is about GaWC's definition of "world city" and/or "global city". If there is no other definition, the article should be moved to a more descripitive title.  If there is another definition, the GaWC section should be moved to a more descriptive title, and a general discussion of "global city" and/or "world city" should be created.
 * As for the images: That section of comments is a violation of WP:OWN, in that GaWC "own's" that section of the article.  I'll take it out immediately, and we'll see if it stays out. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * There is no WP:OWN. It is a section about GaWC research therefore there is info and pictures about it. I repeat - if you have sources to other researches - you are welcome to add any info about them. As of now - please stop inventing non exist problems. Elk Salmon 00:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Comment
Arthur. This is invisible comment for the people who has no clue what is this article and lists about. So comment is more easy for them. No need for pictures following all ranks. There are already almost 2 dozens of them. It is not a visible comment. Also. There is no WP:OWN in the article. Pictures are part of 1999 GaWC edition. And it is not only section in this article. Also - it is editor actions are WP:OWN, not existing of only source. Right now you using everyway to strip GaWC lists ignoring fact of source existence. It is WP:OWN. Please leave this article. Your actions will only lead to nowhere. And please read again what have said DJR, Coolcaesar, The Way and others and what, the same, i am repeating as well. Elk Salmon 17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I missed your note on the picture list the first time. If the pictures are actually from GaWC, then we may have a copyright problem, in addition to the possible copyright problem I mentioned about the lists and GaWC's criteria.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The pictures are not from GaWC - you can see that by clicking on them and finding out that half of them are featured pictures.  DJR  ( T ) 12:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hidden summary
Unless it was deleted from the talk archives, the hidden commentary at the top was never discussed, hence it is incorrect to say that there is consensus on it.

User:Elk Salmon's version:

My latest correction so that it's not established that GaWC "owns" the article:

I see no consensus to User:Elk Salmon's version, even if it has been stable (which I can't easily verify). Any comments? &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The hidden comment is from this edit in April by me. I was made in frustration after reverting (and seeing reverted) countles uninformed additions and modifications of people who'd rather see their pet town further up this percieved popularity list, instead of reading the article and trying to understand it. Of course GaWC doesn't own the list but the comment was meant to be concise and had to point people to an off-wiki source. Anyway the new version is great. --Dschwen 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply that the hidden comment was added in bad faith, although I may have thought that. I guess (my) latest version is about the best we can do in that section unless some non-GaWC material can be found for the article and/or the lists spun off to a GaWC article.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Balance tag
As expressed by several commentators in the recent afd, this article appears to have been colonized by a particular research group at Loughborough University or at least there is undue weight given to them. This verges on abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion. This article is very likely to significantly boost the Loughborough research group's profile in the discourse through this being the no.1 hit for "global city" on google, plus all those wiki mirrors of course. This is comparable to corporate spam abuse of Wikipedia.. Sassen's "seminal" work still just gets a passing mention in a single short sentence while Loughborough occupies about 50% of the article without any evidence that their rankings/surveys are notabily influential. We also have a section on an academic conference at Liverpool Hope University which also demonstrates no notable influence whatsoever. Academics go to conferences all the time. What's so special about this one? I'm tempted to be bold and wade in with a root and branch reworking of this article. Bwithh 02:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The current first line is especially jarring in the way it makes a huge, unsupported claim for discursive authority in a hedgy turn of phrase:A global city and world city, or world-class city, is a concept introduced by a group of academics including the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC), based primarily at Loughborough University. Bwithh 02:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see how WP:NPOV could be applyed to this article. GaWC is balanced source. Their rank and are based on the vast research. Elk Salmon 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that the article presents GaWC as the main fount of "global cities" research - a huge claim without any evidence. . .This is unbalanced coverage of this subject, tantamount to promotional abuse of wikipedia for the interests of GaWC Bwithh 19:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going to neutralize the lead sentence now but the rest of the article still needs a thorough reassessment of GaWC content Bwithh 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you include more information about culture, infrastuctures,... in the TABLE OF THE CITIES OF THE WORLD to make more completly the aspects of the cities?. Thank you and excuse me for my english.


 * Perhaps a small point of bias: why only look at e.g. Amsterdam and not at the conglomeration of the Randstad that it makes part of? This a pretty arbitrary choice. Only conglomerations that have grown from one nucleus are then 'global city'. If they have grown from a number like The Hague, Rotterdam Utrecht and A'dam, only part of them is taken into consideration

Jcwf 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's just your opinion. Personally I see these two ranks as very well educated and very well balanced. They are also based on big researches. It's not a personal opinion of publishers, like Mercer's best city for life. Elk Salmon 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is a matter of badly defined research. (yes I am a researcher, no not in this field). Research should not be based on arbitrarily chosen delineations. Parameters must first be well defined, otherwise all you do is bias your own outcome. Science has fallen in that trap a great many times and that is certainly not just my opinion A pertinent example of the bias that is already there is that the greatest maritime port of the world -one of the parameters that is supposed to define a global city- is Rotterdam and this city hardly figures on the list. If the Randstad is considered together (including R'dam's port and A'dam's airport, it may well outrank a city of lesser importance like London. Is that perhaps the reason for making such arbitrary choices?

Jcwf 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Image list
Tying the image list to alpha and beta cities in GaWC 1999 is absurd, even in a hidden comment. I have no objections to tying city lists to their respective sources, guaranteeing that they are in the same order as in their source (even if the only source is GaWC), but tying the images to a specfic list is void without discussion. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Like you it or not it is most widespread research and very well balanced. Arthur, you have lost AFD, RFM and article concept cases. Please just stop it. You dropping now into WP:OWN Get a life and stop terrorizing this article. And don't forget about WP:3RR. Elk Salmon 15:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way. The 86021485 version you have reverted to, was a vandalized version. Elk Salmon 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reverting. It wasn't vandalised, and the pictures being supposed to be the alpha and beta cities from the 1999 GaWC may have been what you intended, but it hasn't been in the article in the hidden section for some time.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You again reverted it to vandalized state of 86021485 revision. Also don't accuse wikipedians in something that they haven't done. Check WP:FAITH. I have to remind you that you have lost AFD, RFM and Cleanup proposal. So your actions are WP:OWN now. Don't forget also WP:3RR rule. Elk Salmon 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is changing from 1. / (blank) / 2. to 1. / 2. / 3. vandalism? Even if the original is wrong, it's the equivalent of correcting a typo.  And there is no discussion of alpha / beta, while the pictures being in the same order of the text is a simple guideline which can be applied regardless of how the article evolves.  I'll revert it again if within 3RR.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This revert war is a) disruptive; b) petty; c) does not even concern the content of the article. This is an encyclopaedia - not a photo gallery.  If people want to see pictures of the relevant cities, they can click on the links or use Wikimedia Commons.  The inclusion of the images do nothing to make the article more encyclopaedic, and if anything detract from its credibility by implicitly violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and act as a catalyst to WP:3RR and WP:POINT violations.  Thus, I have acted unilaterally and removed the images and the hidden reference to them.  Please concentrate on improving the content of the article rather than attempting to simplify its contents into a list of images.   DJR  ( T ) 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that the removal of images is an improvement, as there have also been revert wars in the past as to which image was used for New York City. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

 * Removal of the NPOV tag is vandalism.
 * Removal of correcting typos in the original source is vandalism, unless one were to rewrite it as:
 * 1. ...
 * 2. [sic] ....
 * 2. [sic] ....


 * On the other hand, adding unsourced speculation on "the Triangle" and Rotterdam is also inappropriate. I've moved that to this talk page, until such time as it can be sourced, although it provides a reason for the assertion of {WP:POV:
 * In many places in the world world-cities are forming not from one nucleus but by the merging of multiple growing nuclei. In North Carolina people speak of the 'Triangle' (Raleigh-Cary-Durham-Chapel Hill), in the Netherlands of the 'Randstad' (Amsterdam-Utrecht-Rotterdam-The Hague), in Minnesota the Twin Cities (Minneapolis St. Paul) etc. The research done at Loughborough arbitrarily and unscientifically ignores this fact. The list below is therefore biased by this choice.


 * &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering: 1. AfD; 2. RfM; 3. Cleanup case; 4. Balance case. Adding NPOV was a breaking of WP:OWN.I'll say clearly - vandalism. Also - don't change ranks and priority levels to your own feeling. It is WP:NOR. Elk Salmon 16:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If renumbering is "vandalism", then so is adding line breaks. I think it's fixed, now, if you really want a literal copy of the GaWC page, in probable violation of copyright.  Adding back in the NPOV tag until User: Jcwf's concerns are addressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur Rubin (talk • contribs).
 * 1. Sign please. 2. Don't you understand? 5 wikipedians already explained it you. There is nothing to dispute. You are fully free and welcome to add more concepts and ranks, if you have trustable source to another professional research. It is understandable? As of ranks. Making every category on own line making it more pleasant for an eye, but changing priorities of categories by adding numbers is an OR. Elk Salmon 22:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What makes you think that the lc roman numerals were priorities? It's not evident from the page.  I think it would be cleaner to remove the numbers entirely.  As for the pictures, at least one Wikipedian thought they didn't belong in the article, because of the disputes.  And at least two of the editors voted "keep but cleanup", and one of them specified that meant excising the GaWC lists entirely.  And User:Jcwf gave new plausible reasons why the NPOV or balance template should be there, which you have not touched.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Read please what I've wrote above. You are very free and very welcome to add any new ranks and concepts, basing on verified sources of professional research. User:Jcwf is not a professional researcher, since mixing up terms city and metropolitan region. Even if he - his mind is WP:OR. Elk Salmon 11:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Argued by...
Maybe I'm just dense... but who has argued that "Global cities" have those characteristics? Let me further ask, does anyone else research "Global cities" aside from GaWC? shotwell 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe the answer to your second question is "not any more", although GaWC didn't originate the term. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have also requested a reference for Saskia Sassen's paper. shotwell 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to see if I can secure a copy of David Clark's "Urban World / Global City" from our local library. Hopefully, it contains something we can add to the article. --Polaron | Talk 00:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * There's plenty of stuff about the Saskia Sassen book all over the internet - I've provided a link to the publisher's page at Princeton University Press. There are lots of good sources regarding the topic - it just involves some old-fashioned reading rather than googling.   DJR  ( T ) 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

GaWC 2004 rankings
The numbers did appear on a web page, but not the one presently used as a cite for that section. The text now pointed to by http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html suggests that the 5 lines within global cities and then the 5 lines within world cities are intended to be a set of 10 ranks, rather than being 1 / NR / 2 / 1 / 2 / 1 / NR / 2 / 1 / 2. I'm not going to delete the numbers again, but they are not supported by the current reference. &mdash; Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, the second line is not in alphabetical order, although it is in the order of both the current text and the text that was originally sourcing this section. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No comment, User:Elk Salmon. I assume, since you've taken the time to revert my actions on the main page and call them vandalism, that you've had time to read this section, and are unable to refute it.  I think I need to unwithdraw the 3RR request.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Arthur don't you have nothing else to do in your life, instead of constantly vandaling this article?
 * As of GaWC 2004 - it is not in your right to define how to use their ranks. Rank follow the source with all numbers. Elk Salmon 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The text (which includes some of the same lists) is explicit that those are different types of global cities or world cities, not ranks. Just because someone put lc roman numerals in Table 11 doesn't mean that they're ranks.  (And you've violated 3RR twice so far.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The original source contain number. Not in your right to define how to interpret them. Contact GaWC if you want explanations. Vandalism is an exception for WP:3RR. Elk Salmon 07:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * He hasn't vandalized anything -- the accusation is absurd. shotwell 14:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, I suggest Elk Salmon takes a step back and thinks about what his definition of "vandalism" is. Accusing other Wikipedia users of vandalism is a serious accusation that should not be used spuriously, and I am yet to see Arthur Rubin commit a single example of what I would consider vandalism.  Please read WP:AGF and take some time to consider why its contents is policy, not just a guideline.  Perhaps consider where Wikipedia would be as a project if all users simply reverted all edits they disagreed with as "vandalism".
 * Secondly, the use of numbers in the article is extremely misleading as it suggests a degree of ranking that is non-existent in the source. The source uses Roman Numerals in standard scholarly convention to illustrate separate points -  not to depict precedence.  Using numbers in the article is therefore not only incorrect, but infringes Wikipedia policy by subliminally pushing a POV.  I have changed the format accordingly.   DJR  ( T ) 01:07, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * DJR. Constantly changing lists to own feeling is always considered vandalism on wiki.
 * This is very clearly not vandalism, and if you continue to revert it you will be blocked for violating 3RR. --Ideogram 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Roman numbering is not equal to bullets. Only GaWC in contact can explan how are they recognize their numbering. Until nobody contacted them and they have not explained it should be left as a source provided. Lists and ranks are always should be equal to source. Elk Salmon 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, I concur. But neither is your added   equivalent to a space.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:59, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Arthur. Space is a case of formatting, not of numbering. Elk Salmon 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody has explained why we're using html markup, unless there is an overriding reason to do so we should use wiki-markup because it is much simpler and consistent with all other articles. Thanks/wangi 21:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this section is inherently a paraphrase of the GaWC paper, (as anything else would be WP:OR), so we have to decide how much of that paper must be kept. User:Elk Salmon initially copied Table 11, but modified roman "i" to 1, and roman "ii" to 2, and added the   for the secondary line after the "i".  I feel that the numbers are arbitrary as indicated in the text, and should either be 1 / 2 / 3 or bullets, but clearly not 1 /  - / 2.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * GaWC is a source, we should not be copying it slavishly and verbatim — the content or data is important, not it's presentation. Using standard wiki markup we can present the same data as in the source, with the same meaning. And we do it everywhere else in Wikipedia. Ta/wangi 21:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * We do not copy GaWC text. There is a rank (ie numbers). As all other ranks it should strictly follow a source. You cannot define a type of listing for your own. It will be an WP:OR. Elk Salmon 01:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation
See Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-07 Global city. Note: I am not mediating, just alerting. :] --Keitei (talk) 00:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not the official mediator but I will try to help.

First, I advise all parties to stop editing the disputed sections during the discussion. It is not productive to simply revert back and forth.

Second, you must be civil during the discussion. Accusations of vandalism and snarky edit summaries are unwarranted.

These two points are minimal requirements for mediated discussion to even be possible. We have not even got to the point where we can decide what issues need to be discussed, yet. --Ideogram 09:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you do not stop revert-warring I will get the article protected. --Ideogram 10:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

OK. Now we cannot edit. To pass the time, I suggest we talk. Are you with me here? --Ideogram 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

San Jose
10th biggest city in the United States, the heart of the Silicon Valley -- and not a mention on this page? I'm not a wiki expert; just want to bring it up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.7.64.19 (talk • contribs).
 * If you can find a list which includes it, go ahead. We can only include sourced lists.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This gets so tedious if everyone suggests that their hometown is a Global city. As is mentioned elsewhere here, this 'project' is based on academic research that had specific criteria (even if you dispute that criteria). If considering that criteria, San Jose doesn't seem to fit the bill. It has little international name recognition, is hardly a cultural center, has poor public transport and a small airport (with only two int'l destinations, both in Mexico), etc. Many would also say that the label "the heart of silicon valley" (or the "capital" or whatever) is just nonsense coming from the mayor's office anyways...The area within a 10 mile radius of Stanford is the true "heart" of the valley (admittedly my own irrelevant opinion) Tjm402 21:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

move lists
I'd suggest moving all the lists in this article to "GaWC lists of world cities" and including a section here with a "main" template and a few examples (including a negative mention like "Some large and cosmopolitan cities like Taiwan, however, were not present in the list.") This is a violation of neither WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR and gives a clearer view of the single-sourced nature of this data. --Homunq 06:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * it was discussed and rejected already. see AfD and RfM cases. Elk Salmon 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * False. It was discussed and no concensus was reached.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For AfD an absolute consensus was reached. 18 vs 0. For RfM majority said no to move. Elk Salmon 10:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Splitting out the GaWC lists into a separate article was not rejected. It's difficult to say there was concensus, as not all the editors commented on the issue, but only you (Elk Salmon) came out against it.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither AfD nor RfM was really the right forum for this discussion, since it concerns the content of the article itself, not whether or not it should exist at this location. The fact remains though, that a large body of people find this article to be POV and that problem isn't going to go away unless some changes are made. SteveRwanda 14:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
I have protected the article as there is clearly an edit war going on. Care to describe what the issue is and see if we can sort it out here? Thank you. Cowman109 Talk 02:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Although I'm a participant, perhaps I can explain the issue, at least in regards Global City
 * User:Elk Salmon's position seems to be that the lower case roman numerals (taken from Table 11 of the reference document http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html ) are ranks which need to be included. (My counter-position to his original position with arabic numerals there is that, if we need to include the rankings, we need to include them exactly, and that the line break between Very large contribution and Smaller contribution and with cultural bias is also an arbitrary edition, and should not be included.)  My position is that the same information being in the body of that same document without numbers means that the numbers are arbitrary, and should not be included, and hence the line break should be included.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

To slavishly copy text myself, from a section above: ""Nobody has explained why we're using html markup, unless there is an overriding reason to do so we should use wiki-markup because it is much simpler and consistent with all other articles." ... ''"GaWC is a source, we should not be copying it slavishly and verbatim — the content or data is important, not it's presentation. Using standard wiki markup we can present the same data as in the source, with the same meaning. And we do it everywhere else in Wikipedia"''. Thanks/wangi 22:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Because wiki markup does not provide posibility to make roman numbering. Bulleting is an original research. An only possible equal replacement is arabic numbering. But not everyone here is in favor of arabic numbering. Elk Salmon 22:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As said before you're going over-the-top on your understanding of "OR". We are free to present the information as we wish, so long as the resulting formatting, and understanding from it still match the intent and meaning of the original data/wangi 22:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Me is not. The source is provide a numeric listing. Defining how to understand it is not in a right of someone outside of GaWC. If you remove numbers - you make own list, then original research. Elk Salmon 08:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, please! Assuming a source contained:

List of alpha global cities, in order: i.  New York ii. London iii. Paris
 * Do you really think presenting this information in prose as "The alpha global cities are (in order) New York, London and Paris." constitutes original research? We use sources as just that - sources; we do not plagiarise straight from them. Thanks/wangi 17:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The source is - . Article fully follow it. Text could be plagiarise. But rank should follow its source, not a made up out of your head. Elk Salmon 23:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the source for the disputed section is . User:Elk Salmon is slavishly copying Table 11 (except he's adding additional line breaks — if renumbering were WP:OR, then so would be adding a line break), while the unnumbered versions are legitimate paraphrases of the text of the web page; the first 5 city lists being in the section "A PROVISIONAL TAXONOMY OF LEADING WORLD CITIES". &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Arthur, as I noted in section above - soft return is equal to space. It just makes it easier to read. It is case of text formatting, not of numbering. Elk Salmon 11:51, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You inserted an HTML hard return < br / >, not a soft return. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hard return is a new container - p, div etc. Elk Salmon 01:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

the people that make those lists are genius hahaha don't make me laugh ... how can Santiago have 6 points and cities with much more culture and history like Barcelona, Buenos Aires, Berlin have 4 points; i've been in Santiago and it's one of the most boring cities in the world; it has no museums, no nightlife, nothing. Name one famous person that was born in that city.......... well and there are some more examples ... Caracas at the same level of Washington and Amsterdam. Don't you think there's something wrong????


 * It's unclear to me what the meaning of the Roman numerals in Table 11 is, but removing them doesn't add any information not in the original source, so it's perfectly fine to replace them with an unnumbered list. A numbered list would be fine, too, though that would beg the question of what the numbering means. The line break in question does not seem to change the information being transmitted, just the presentation, and it looks nice with it there.  Could someone explain what the difference between "global city" and "world city" is?  It would also be nice if the references mentioned the specific tables they came from. -- Beland 01:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Removing them breaks a whole rank as on source. Elk Salmon 19:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, even Table 11 is a numbered list, rather than a ranked list. Even if the lack of line breaks is intentional, the first unnumbered "line" is intented to be subsidarity to the first entry in that section, while the second cannot be so construed.  It's probably best to remove all the numbering, to avoid introducing data not contained in the original source.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's list with numbers. Don't define yourself please how to read it. It should follow its source. Elk Salmon

13:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to GaWC rankings in the article on the grounds of undue weight - the article is in effect being used as a promotional platform for one pretty obscure research group's ideas. The majority of the article is given over to GaWC as if it dominates the global city concept (no evidence that it does, and seems highly unlikely given common currency of term) This is close to marketing abuse of wikipedia - imagine if the rankings came from a pretty obscure commercial consultancy instead. I advocate that GaWC rankings should only be present at most as an external link (unless it can proved that the GaWC rankings are in wide circulation e.g. mainstream international press, United Nations reports, a large number of mentions in prominent international journals etc). I also advocate removal of the conference section which is simply non-encyclopedic and also verging on spam - Wikipedia is not an academic bulletin board. Bwithh 02:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This whole affair is ridiculous. We shouldnt be talking about NYC London Paris when Shanghai is rated same as Copenhaguen. I meann, please, cut the crap! What kind of nonsense is that! dyna 29 11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs).

NPOV issues
This article gives rather hefty weight to the POV of a particular research group, and readers seem to find the rankings produced by this group to be biased or incorrect. Phrases like "world-class city" and "global city" have normative connotations for many people; the definitions given in the intro to this article do not really give a complete picture of how people actually use the terms. Certainly there seem to be many competing views. People in developing countries seem to think that the fact that the Big 4 are just the biggest Western-style capitalist cities, is an indication of Western bias. That's not unreasonable if you think that population is the most important consideration. Other people have different weightings; maybe cultural influence should be the most important one, maybe air travel shouldn't count at all (to avoid bias in favor of uninteresting places that happen to be centrally located), maybe economic influence isn't important or maybe it's the only important thing...there are a million different weightings, and there's no one "correct" method. I think the article needs to have better coverage of non-Western rankings and perspectives, and of the debate itself. This means researching alternative sources. -- Beland 02:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, but no one seems to have the time to research alternative definitions besides the widely accepted GaWC definition. I'm a lawyer and I've having a hell of a time finding the time to finish my history research for Lawyer! Plus it is incredibly time-consuming just to keep various bozos from introducing original research into articles that were already in mostly good shape like State Bar of California. --Coolcaesar 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is partially nonsense - confusing definitions
After having read about 30cm of literature on the global city hypothesis I stumbled across this article - and the discussions.

The article has partially nothing to do with global cities. It has hardly any theoretical basis - besides mentioning saskia sassen in the beginning. It partially treats the idea of a cultural based world city approach that can´t be related to the economically based global city definition.

So there must be made a clear point about this - the whole introduction on "General characteristics" is not correct in my opinion. Or at least misleading.

This leads to the useless listing of cities all over the planet and the useless discussions on why my place might not be a world city / global city / whatever. Hey you out there i wish my place was one too - how about Vienna, Austria? - we are central to the scientific history of the 20th century - so why not add us to some front place somehow? - Forget about the nonsense.

I don´t wish to live in a global city anyway - and many people wouldn't if they knew about the proposed economic consequences.

Have a look at the German version of global cities - it is neat and correct.

I know there has been discussion on this but the definition of world cities and global cities by GaWC and Sassen don't match. So i think that there should be a split. Else there will be no clear Point made.

And second there should be more theoretical input here - just to deter those my city is the neatest people.

-- roman 84.114.200.191 02:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The German version of the article is far from correct. Someone added or moved cities such as Istanbul, Vienna, and Minsk. This has been in place for over a month so either there is some original research going on over in Deutschland or they're really slow to correct vandalism. Analoguekid 03:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you maybe mixed it up with the article on "Weltstadt" - I meant the one on "Global City". No Istanbul, Vienna or Minsk here. ---roman 84.114.200.191 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the link from the English article goes to Weltstadt, and there is a separate page for "Global City" in German. Perhaps this should be changed? Analoguekid 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I´m still not so firm with the theory on "World City" but it seems there should be a split in the English Wikipedia too. The GErman Article on "Weltstadt explains the difference between Global City and World City - it is not the same and this mus be taken into account here! - roman 84.114.200.191 13:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet again. Personal feelings of wikipedians are not allowed in ranks. It is OR. These ranks are based on professional researches. Elk Salmon 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can anyone translate the German articles? We may be able to pull in relevant data, if they are adequately sourced.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I can try to translate the german Article but where should I put the translation? My expression of personal feeling concerning ranks was purely cynical - I think maybe the article should point out more clearly that this is research not opinion. Maybe it will help us all to see things more clearly when I translate the German Article. roman 84.114.200.191 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A logical place for the translation would be a subpage of this talk page. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I tried to translate the article - the English is not the best - i get confused from translating so it might be a bit german not english in terms of grammar - and the Links are not set for most of the article. And I am willing to add to this as i read Sassens Book and several other articles by her and others concerning the topic. The Article is to be found under: /Temp Translation of Global Cities in German Wikipedia. Please be aware that the term "global city" is economic - rooted in neo-marxist theory. And the the term of world city is not. Thats the central point of my critique. — roman aka Rot de 00:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a definition of what is a world city to the GaWC somewhere to be found? — 84.114.200.191 18:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No rections to my translation so far? Or any Ideas? Ist there nobody interested in GC-Theory? Onyl thos my place is the biggest people? Rot de 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a joke 4
What the hell is Manila doing rated same as Barcelona, Berlin, or Shanghai? TO this day, I had never even heard of Manila! And who hasnt heard of Barcelona. I mean, pleaaaaaaase, theres a serious problem here. This article would make Wikipedia seem totally ridiculous if a newcomer saw it! First, the data is almost 8 years old, and second, the ranking is a standing joke! Its just too much! dyna 29 11 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs).


 * The fact that you haven't head of Manila before says more about your geography knowledge than about the importance of the city. I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be asking for WP:POV, and implying, that WP should be more western-centric. --Dschwen 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright so maybe i exagerated a little bit. But still Manila shouldnt be put on the same level as Shanghai!


 * Why shouldn't it? Did you even bother to read the paper? They list all criteria and provide a transparent evaluation. So you must disagree on the criteria. Well, that's tough luck, Wikipedia only reports on the science, it doesn't make or change it! --Dschwen 11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think a city like Shanghai, 8th city in the world, with 15 million inhabitants, a financial centre, capital of one of the foremost world powers, can be compared with Manila, a city of 1.5 million, centre of nothing at all. Please! Perhaps its time to think of renewing the facts, or the just deleting this all-nonsense article, because it seems to be just an endless source of trouble. Its not because its taken from a website that its hard fact! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs).


 * Oh, come on, Manila has the world's highest population density. It's got to be the center of something in order to be such a crowded place! &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, Shanghai isn't the capital of China. Beijing is. If you don't believe me, try looking for Zhongnanhai in Shanghai. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 04:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

The piece you refer to is accurately referencing a specific piece of academic research on global cities; your dispute is therefore with the academic research and not this page. If you can locate some additional research that contradicts it or gives a more informed position, why not do so? MarkThomas 15:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the people who made this academic research have never been in the cities they are researching. Common sense sais that Manila, Philippines is a big city, maybe the local hub for this non important country, but nothing else. The importance of this city in the global context is negligible. No major corporation, or international comitee or cultural institution is located in Manila. It has a huge population density, but this means nothing. It means that a lot of people have little space to live in. And Manila is just an example, among many others. My opinion is that this academic research has no validity at all and is not valid for a wikipedia article. I think it should be erased. Pedrolano 10:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

...Baltimore?
Umm...I'm sorry, since when is Baltimore the best city on Earth? That has to be a joke. Could somebody please change that, or at least verify it? Baltimore's okay, I guess, but I think I'd take London, New York, Madrid, maybe even Los Angeles over it any day. -Kingurth 23:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops. Fixed, now.  I think one of the stability bugs caused me to reinsert the vandalism when I thought I was deleting it.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Zurich?
Zurich is ranked before Geneva, although everybody knows that Geneva has more importance than Zurich? Only this fact can show that the whole article is a joke. Interesting to see Tashkent and Dresden but not Ukraine capital Kiev in this list. I mean....this is so stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ArmenianNY (talk • contribs) 04:03, January 23, 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a scientific rating you can not influence it by complaining Rot de 21:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New York and London outrank cities bigger than them?
I thought Mexico City and Tokyo had more people than New York and London. How come NY and London top the list of world cities? &mdash; Rickyrab | Talk 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * on the other hand, I read somewhere that NYC had the world's 3rd biggest Central business district or something, with only Tokyo's and Hong Kong's being larger. &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The entire point of the global city phenomenon is that some cities have influence and importance in excess of their simple population count. (Lists of the world's most populous cities exist elsewhere on Wikipedia.) Economics, trade, culture, government, and diplomacy are more an indication of a "global city" than population alone. --MCB 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I was in New York yesterday... yeah, there's a lot of the world to see in New York... &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't suppose that the Olympics Committee picked London (the New York of Europe) for 2012 because they were really pissing for New York, only to have New York turn them down? (Or is it just Sheldon Silver?) &mdash;  Rickyrab | Talk 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Global city is not about having the bigger one - its an economic theory Rot de 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Gross Metropolitan Product
One of the criteria suggested under "other criteria", but without any list based on it, is the gross product of the city/metropolitan area. This would be useful information for judging the economic significance of cities, but is not available elsewhere on wikipedia either (though there are incomplete lists under List of European metropolitan areas by GRP and Gross metropolitan product). Here is a draft list of this form, based on the 2004 data from those tables (with a rate of €1=$1.25 for 2004). Rhine-Ruhr is excluded as it does not seem to be considered a single city/metropolitan area by any of the other lists on the page. Tokyo's placement is based on the data at. Hong Kong has a lower gross product than all of these listed on its page; if anyone knows any other metropolitan areas with a 2004 GMP over $256.4 billion (the GMP of Dallas) please add it. Lexande 18:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That Gross Metropolitan Product column still needs a lot of work. (The same applies to the related US / EU articles.)  The last item is Washington, D.C. with GMP of only $276.2 billion.  Seoul ought to account for at least half (on par with population) of South Korea's $1,180 billion GDP!  -AlexLibman 01:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nominate for deletion again?
should be considered if possible. besides the rampant western bias here, there are other levels of bias operating within that, particularly in terms of the cities' cultural vs. financial impact. for example, zurich and toronto are in the same category yet truly there is no comparison here. zurich's population is barely over a third of a million and culturally is largely german and french (with italian and spanish as well). yet toronto (with 5 million living in and around it) is arguably the most multi-cultural city in the world. more languages are spoken there than in any other major metropolitan area on the planet, and the numbers of immigrant communities are not sparse-- they make up close to 50% of the population.

This has more to do with the bias of the GaWC sources so prominently cited than any bias in the article itself. The GaWC lists can be removed (since they are available elsewhere) or given less space without needing to delete the whole article. Lexande 13:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

In a way you are showing your own bias, number of immigrants was only one criteria in the article. You are also making the mistake of thinking multi-culturalism in itself will make a city more culturally prominent. Other cities also claim the most languages tag. The fact that Toronto makes a lot of this claim, rather than any other achievement, probably indicates why it isnt at the top of the list.


 * um...no. you are missing my point. in fact you are stating the opposite. i'm saying that business interests are given primacy over other criteria; i am not stating that multi-culturalism is more important nor am i saying it makes the city culturally prominent (although one could certainly argue the latter).



Retaining 1999 GaWC list?
I'm wondering what the justification for retaining the 1999 GaWC listing is. Is it mainly historical, in that it was the first overall attempt to categorize global cities in a systematic manner? Or do we plan to keep each periodic listing as we would keep, for example, the results of a decennial (etc.) census? Or should new work supersede the previous work, and we would only keep the 2004 list, and replace it when GaWC (or an alternate source) comes out with a new one? --MCB 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yeah I agree. It seems pretty senseless keeping a list that has been superseded by newer research.   DJR  ( T ) 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is critical to the article that the first list be kept. The more data we have about the subject, the better, especially considering how contested this article can be to begin with. Just because something is old does not make it invalid. The new work cannot supersede the older work because they are looking at different criteria, unlike a census which measures basically the same thing every time. --Analogue Kid 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Older work can be made invalid if the data used in the old work are no longer applicable today! If the list today goes against the common sense of most readers, then it would make sense to remove the list or create a separate article for the list. This list is one of the biggest bullshit I've seen yet on Wikipedia. --Naus 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

National flags
What do you think about replacing the national flags with city coats of arms? After all the focus of this article is on cities, not countries, isn't it? &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Not a bad idea, but do we have coats of arms for all cities? Also, many cities in North America have an official seal rather than a traditional coat of arms.--Analogue Kid 18:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * You're right, the coat of arms is a typicaly European concept. But most cities do have an emblem of some sort (COA, seal, etc.). You're also right about the problem of availability of such symbols. For some cities (like Seoul) we don't have any symbol. For some other (like Mexico City) we only have a copyrighted image and fair use would not apply to using such an image on this page. But I guess we could simply leave those few cities without a symbol. Anyway, here's what the first part of the list of global cities might look like, if we replace national flags with city emblems. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 08:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm partial towards keeping the national flags of the different countries. I think that it's a nice idea putting the city emblems or whatever, but the way it looks below...kind of makes them look like sports teams.Banpei 08:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * That's probably because sports teams' emblems are often designed to resemble coats of arms. &mdash; Kpalion(talk) 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm against the idea of coats of arms or anything like it. Principally because London as a city does not have any representative symbol - the coat of arms used below is the coat of arms of the City of London, which makes up one square mile of the wider London region.  The city should not be represented by this symbol, and by this accord no cities should be represented by emblems unless they directly correspond.  However, this is a minor issue compared to the more pressing issue of WP:FU.  Most coats of arms are copyrighted images, and WP:FU clearly states that fair-use images should only be used where absolutely necessary.  This is quite clearly not an example of absolute necessity.   DJR  ( T ) 01:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What about a picture of Red Ken's smiling face? ;-) Matthew 09:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Alpha world cities (full service world cities)
12 points:
 * [[Image:Londonwappen.jpg|30px|London]] London
 * [[Image:Us-nycsl.png|30px|New York]] New York
 * [[Image:Paris coa.png|30px|Paris]] Paris
 * [[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg|30px|Tokyo]] Tokyo

10 points:

Rome
I think the position of the city of Rome is bad calculated: should ROME be less important than Jakarta, Prague, Santiago and Caracas???? Rome is the capital of the Italian republic, a great power, it is one of the world capitals of culture, its historical center is mostly constituted above the ancient imperial architecture (when the city was the caput mundi) but is also capable to attract foreign investments, at the same time it is a modern and innovative city, it has one of the most busiest hubs in Europe and also its railway station is one of the most frequented ones of the entire continent. Rome is one of the most prefered touristic destinations in the world and hosts the Holy See, one of the most influent states on the planet although the smallest by extension. However I don't think many people looks to Santiago of Chile, Caracas or Prague to detreiment of Rome as a world city!!!
 * this is a scientific rating you can not influence Rot de 21:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Global cities
They're not the same as world cities... this article needs a complete rethink. --crafty bison —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.8.103 (talk • contribs) 10:06, February 26, 2007 (UTC)
 * I don´t have the time and the energy to dig into this article but it still is really bad. Mainly because it focusses on these city rankings done by the GaWC. The rankings are OK but I would really think about leaving them in here because they lead to all these useless discussions on whether why some city is not as highly ranked as another. All useless shit that has nothing to do with science or the contents of the Global City theory or World City Theory (which are the same as i now understood - "World City" ist the Term introduced by Friedman in 1986 - "Global City" the one by Sassen in 1991 - basing on Friedmans concept maybe she changed the Term because of all these people who sax that their place has to be a "world city" - if they knew what it is like to be in such a city with all they economic impliocations I dout they would but hey who understands economy its all about my place is the biggest poser shit here). I would propose to either split up the Aricle into "Common Assumptions on what a Wold City/Global City is", "World City Theory" and those "World City Rankings" or so. Mainly because I would really love to get all of theese Idiots who write on single Towns or Rankings out of here. Rot de 21:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll think about redoing it all from scratch, it's just a matter of finding time. --crafty bison 7th March —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.111.253.90 (talk • contribs) 11:30, March 7, 2007 (UTC)

Semi-Protection?
I hate to bring this up, but what do people think about making this page semi-protected? Every day, there are usually two (or more) generally anonymous edits where people change the order of the lists or add their favorite city. People seem to be missing the warnings about the necessary citations needed hidden in the code. I do realize that these edits are usually good-faith not vandalism. That being said, does this page warrant a lock icon?--Analogue Kid 20:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a sensible suggestion. I've lost counts of the number of reverts I have made to counterract such boosterism! Matthew 12:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed; I've semi-protected this page for now as an anon vandal target. --MCB 00:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've long thought this article needed semi-protection.  --Coolcaesar 06:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)