Talk:Globalization/Archive 4

Is the US a net importer of crude oil?
I noticed that a graph implying that the United States is dependent on oil imports has returned to the article. Is it still valid? Hasn't the US achieved its goal of energy independence with shale fracking, which will presumably be phased out with carbon neutral fuel? 70.59.16.167 (talk) 06:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * USA is still, as of 2012, a net importer of crude oil, though it did become a net exporter of petroleum products: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_neti_a_epc0_IMN_mbblpd_a.htm  Fracking is still seen as a net detriment to the environment and unlikely to replace imports in the near future. Meclee (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Should the graph be updated to reflect recent years? 70.59.16.167 (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * It would be good if someone could do this, however, I do not have time to do a new graphic or find a new un-copyrghted graphic myself. Meclee (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Movement Tactics
Is it me or is the battle of seattle a little biased? it doesn't seem right... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sawerchessread (talk • contribs) 01:38, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Biased in what respect? Meclee (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

New round of editing
I will shortly begin a new round of editing to better integrate new information added and continue the process of improving existing text. Any suggestions are welcome. Meclee (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Copy editing seems good for the moment. All dead links fixed, to-date. The article still has widely varying ref styles.  With 319 refs, this could take some time to try to fix.  I will work on it as I can this summer.  Anyone who would like to help with this is welcome! Meclee (talk) 21:04, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

New neutrality discussion
I would like to restart the debate on Neutrality. I'd say nearly 1/3 of the entire article is on the negative/criticism side. The criticism section is supposed to be a summary of criticisms, this is a laundry list. Those that edit this page have to know what they are doing and should stop.EzPz (talk) 04:50, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are more sections on the criticisms side, primarily because the literature covers similar criticisms under different names. Most of those sections a fairly short, though.  If you have some new "proponents" material you would like to see added or new topics to be covered, please edit and add new material with sources or list the topics you think need to be covered here on the talk page.Meclee (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the new section on Philanthropy, which is a good idea. I copy edited it and re-worded part of it to sound less like promotional material and also added information on the Gates Foundation immunization program. I added internal links for the companies that have articles on Wikipedia and removed the Wikipedia "refs" as external links, which is against link policy (see WP:MOSLINK). I really don't think the grantee info is needed here, but am leaving it for now. I also added a "Needs expansion" tag, as more info is needed in the section. P.S.: I just realized I accidentally deleted some new sections under Global democracy, I've re-added with some copy edit.  Also, you are making extensive use of bate URLs for references, which is strongly discouraged (see WP:BAREURLS). There are several bare URL references throughout the article.  I've not had time to fix all those yet.  Please avoid adding more. Kind regards  Meclee (talk) 06:47, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The small sections I added look better after you rewrote them some, so thank you for that.. . and I'll get myself better acquainted with Wikipedia references/citations EzPz (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

main graphic
I just reverted the main graphic back to my edit. The extremely wide circles on the old graphic were really distracting and hid much of the info. I actually had a hard time reading the old version, so I spent a while tweaking everything to be more usable and less ugly. I hope most people agree that this is better Bhny (talk) 13:28, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on Globalization portal/links on the right hand side of the top of the page?
I forget what they are called, I think 'series' on pages that are just one page of a bunch of related pages. . . .I think the link for globalization is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Globalization but I'm not sure. Anywho, I think it'd look good at the top right, if there even is one. . . thoughts?EzPz (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you talking about something like the box on the page Christianity, for example? If so, those are called navigation boxes. Many are vertical such as the one on Christianity and usually paced at the top of a page.  The one for Globalization is horizontal, and those are placed at the bottom of the page, like the one on the Globalization page. Meclee (talk) 20:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A Globalization sidebar has now been created and added to the top of the article. Meclee (talk) 02:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Memetics
Having just finished reading the page, I feel as though this section would benefit from a discussion on the impact of memetic dissemination of Western culture, norms, and mores via globalization (McDonald's, Mormonism, mobile phones, etc.). Any suggestions on how that could be done? Or is that perhaps an idea for a separate page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.136.184 (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't see that a discussion of memes would greatly benefit the article. As for a separate page, there are already pages on memetics and memes. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

source or remove
The current global workforce is competitive as ever. Some go as far as to describe it as "A war for talent."[247] Ok, sure. At least this crap is sourced. We can say it doesn't violate any guidelines, while noting that it is impossible to convince a vulgar economist of rising global inequalities when their salary and therefore ideology depends upon them not understanding it.

But the following is unsourced and should be removed. This competitiveness is due to specialized jobs becoming available world wide due to communications technology. As workers get more adept at using technology to communicate, they give themselves the option to be employed in an office half way around the world. These newer technologies not only benefit the workers, but companies may now find highly specialized workers that are very skilled with greater ease, as opposed to limiting their search locally.

"As workers get more adept at using technology to communioate" As of 2012, the global labor pool consisted of approximately 3 billion workers. You are telling me these 'workers' (majority of whom are engaged in manual, slave, child, precarious, etc., labour) are using technology to communicate and giving themselves the "option" to be employed in an 'office' half around the world? Or by workers, do we mean less than five percent of 3 billion workers?

"These newer technologies not only benefit the workers" Rubbish upon stilts. 'Workers' = ?? How exactly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.84.68.252 (talk) 01:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I rewrote it. Now it isn't so objectionable, just a little banal. Bhny (talk) 03:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)


 * ✅ I agree with the IP comment, and did more re-wording. Regards, Meclee (talk) 13:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Reader feedback: you must add effects of glob... Suggestion
123.63.97.197 posted this comment on 24 November 2013 (view all feedback).

"you must add effects of globalization on rural and urban families"

Something on this could be added to the global population sub-section, particularly re: the growing number of megacities. Any additional thoughts? Meclee (talk) 15:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

✅ Meclee (talk) 20:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Removing new section: Specific Anti-Globalization Tenants Comment
This section is being removed pending numerous corrections needed to reference format and other copy editing. Also, this does not warrant a separate section from the already existing section on Critiques of globalization. Editor who added section is being notified with edit requests. Meclee (talk) 18:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The problems go beyond copyediting (tenants?) and citation formats. Much of it poses neutrality problems. For instance, it starts with "For millenniums, many anti-globalizationists believe, Earth’s millions of diverse communities co-existed in harmony with nature". Citing an anticolonial politician. It's very hard to reconcile that with the widespread evidence of environmental damage done by people who settled each land long before the relatively recent arrival of whites with cattle and rifles. bobrayner (talk) 21:05, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, bobrayner, that other aspects of the copy as it was written could be problematic, especially in relation to WP:NPOV. Nevertheless, User:Hannum7 is attempting to add some published criticisms of Globalization, so let's start with correcting the reference & citation format and go from there.  Meclee (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
 * OK. bobrayner (talk) 00:29, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Remove or rewrite the austerity section.
Austerity is not related to globalization. If one wants to talk about austerity in the context of economic globalization, that could be relevant to the article. Examples of this could be: What impact does austerity have on the global economy? The section claims that austerity is done to reduce budget deficits, does globalization contribute to this? Is increased/decreased globalization an alternative to austerity? If so - why?

Unless someone makes changes to the austerity section to include any mention of globalization, I would argue for it's immediate deletion. Nugma (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Ideally, it should be put in the context of the global financial system Great Recession as a response to it. I didn't add the section, but I'll try to add the context in the next few days. Meclee (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

✅ Meclee (talk) 20:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Energy consumption graphic
After searching high and low, this USEIA image has been the only PD graphic I could find to illustrate this phenomenon. The graph is not being presented as fact and I have added the term "projected" to the caption to further emphasize that the graphic includes projections. By definition, projections are not facts, their usage does not constitute a declaration of fact and does not violate WP:Crystal. If anyone has a documented better source of data to construct a graphic they would care to donate to the public domain, I would be most interested in seeing replace the current graphic. Please discuss changes to this graphic on this talk page before making such changes. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:32, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * File:Energy-trends.png is a good alternative with less speculation in its projections. Also, imported crude oil as a percent of U.S. consumption has fallen very far since 2003 because of fracking, so File:Imported Crude Oil as a Percent of US Consumption 1950-2003.jpg is very misleading too. Tim AFS (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * well? EllenCT (talk) 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting :File:Energy-trends.png. However, this graphic represents production and not consumption. I know the production situation has changed since 2003, but I still have not been able to locate a similar graphic that reflects that change. Meclee (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I decided to take a quick look for anything newer... the USIEA does have this new graphic:  http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/er/images/figure_12es-lg.png which I can substitute when I have time to upload it. Meclee (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

✅ Meclee (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * why do you want US-specific energy graphs in the globalization article? The US EIA data is not peer reviewed, they admit their extrapolations don't reflect reality because they are required by Congress to use all kinds of false assumptions, and their prior work proves that they are about as far from a reliable source as you can get in the field of economic data projection and forecasting. Their director admits as much at . The global production is exactly the same as global consumption. Your US specific import-export graphs belong in an article about the US. EllenCT (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It's not that I want US-specific energy graphs in the globalization article.  I want free-use graphics.  Since no one has offered to build and donate one, graphs from the US government are free-use under copyright laws. Meclee (talk) 12:35, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just removed the oil production graphic inserted by EllenCT since production is not the illustration needed. Since EllenCT continues an edit war over any use of USEIA graphics, no replacement graphic has been inserted. I have no time for edit wars. When and if I have time, I may request mediation over this issue. Meclee (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a first step might be an RFC. Let other editors weigh in too.Mattnad (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I requested an image about a year ago and got no response. I am posting another request and will leave it up for awhile before moving forward.  The image ideally would be a graphic comparing total energy or petroleum-based energy production and consumption between several countries or regions.  Enerdata is a good source of data at: http://yearbook.enerdata.net/energy-primary-production.html#energy-consumption-data.html.  Meclee (talk) 14:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

meaningless "world-space" in first sentence
I changed "integration across world-space" back to "international integration". Is there any reason to use the meaningless "world-space" hyphenation? I guess "world-space" is jargon that means something in some field of study, but we have to use standard English in an encyclopedia. Bhny (talk) 15:04, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the "world-space" term is rather obscure. It's probably best to stick to language folks recognize. Perhaps an article can be started on "world-space" to heighten awareness of its meaning and usage. That's a more acceptable way to introduce it to popular culture. This article already deals with a number of new concepts for the average reader. Meclee (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Anti-consumerism
Could you explain the relevance of including this information here? The only connection to this article appears to be that both movements oppose the behaviors of modern corporations, which is perhaps useful content but doesn't seem to me to warrant a three-paragraph section. The reference you added is a good one, but it doesn't seem to explicitly connect the two movements, so I'm not sure how it helps. Thanks!

As an aside, the reasoning for the "Inequality" rename was that there are three adjacent sections all addressing aspects of inequality. I'm not sure how that should best be dealt with, but another option might be merging them.  Sunrise    (talk)  23:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing to work on the article, but of course please feel free to treat my edits as WP:BOLD. If anything is unclear, my reasoning is always in the edit summary. :-)  Sunrise    (talk)  03:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The current wave of globalization is all about consumer goods such that consumerism is an ideology that drives globalization. Anti-consumerist thought is anti-globalization thought, though distinct in recommended remedy. Globalization would not be possible in the absence of Corporatist ideology which privileges the rights of corporations over those of natural persons.  I can add such statements with references if needed to clarify.  I am open to other suggestions but would prefer some mention of the two remain.


 * On the Inequality section, there are not three sections but one major section (Global justice and Inequality) with three subsections. The first subsection explains Global Justice and the second explains Inequality. The Gender Inequality is supposed to be a sub-section of Inequality, but I think it was promoted by accident at some point.  If the ToC were limited to 3 levels, it wouldn't show all three.  I actually expected that someone might want to add to the gender issues, which is why I gave it a separate sub-section title. I would be happy to remove the sub-title and keep the content if that would be more satisfactory.  Regards, Meclee (talk) 20:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, that makes more sense to me. This isn't described in the article, but now that I see the point, I would say it's much more important to explain the connection of consumerism to globalization before describing anti-consumerism at length. I'm not sure I would say the connection is too strong (e.g. consumerism is only one of a number of factors that drive globalization), but I see there are plenty of sources on this in a Google search - are there any you would recommend? Anti-consumerism could then be described as part of that section, though it does still seems to me like it would warrant quite a bit less emphasis.


 * On the Inequality section, merging in the gender inequality subsection seems like a good response. :-) I've also explicitly given global justice its own subsection since before it was the introductory subsection.  Sunrise    (talk)  21:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Am on my way out the door at the moment, but will make agreed changes in the next two days. Regards, Meclee (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

✅ - Thanks for the help improving this section. Let me know if you have further suggestions. Regards, Meclee (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Looks like quite an improvement - I hope we can keep working well together!  Sunrise    (talk)  08:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Excessive article content
Just leaving a note that I've been removing a lot of content from this (very long) article; I thought I would start a new section in case anyone has any thoughts or objections, and since there are probably further items I haven't found yet. In general, the content removed falls into two categories:
 * sections that have only tangential links with globalization, e.g. the section on (economic) austerity. While certainly austerity may have a global impact, it is one of at least dozens of topics of equal significance that could also be discussed. It may merit a couple of sentences somewhere, but not multiple paragraphs, and the content should be primarily based on sources that directly links the topic to globalization. Of course, the extra content may subsequently be found to be warranted if many high-quality sources on the relationship can in fact be found.
 * sections where the topic is relevant but which include excessive detail that is not relevant, e.g. an entire paragraph on the definition of tax havens in the "Tax havens" section, or the phrase "Environmentalism and environmental concerns are often represented by the color green" (and similar content) in the "Environmental opposition to globalization" section. Again, content in this article should provide sufficient context to discuss the topic usefully but focus on the relevance to the article topic. If readers are interested, the details can be found in the relevant articles - and in fact this is the purpose of having wikilinks.

The primary basis for this reasoning can be found at WP:SUMMARY and WP:UNDUE. All that said, please make sure to correct me if I accidentally go too far and remove any useful content.  Sunrise    (talk)  06:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: here, here, and here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Inequality is an economic effect, not "support" or "criticism"
regarding your revert here, I do not understand your edit summary, but I assure you I am familiar with the literature. Firstly, why do you believe that economic inequality should be described in the "support or criticism" section instead of the economic globalization section? Secondly, why did you delete the references to and graph from Ostry & Berg? EllenCT (talk) 04:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I used ((undo)). If that also deleted graphs you added in the same edit, I apologize as I did not notice that.  The other was explained in my edit summary.  First, you cannot reduce inequality to economic inequality as there are other inequalities that exist as well.  That's why the first 'main article' listed is Social inequality which, if you click on it, will give you an additional body of literature and other viewpoints.  If you wish to add viewpoints specifically related to economic inequality in the economic globalization section, I invite you to do so but please leave the criticism section as it is.  Regards, Meclee (talk) 00:55, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not opposed to leaving the discussion of social inequality under global justice, but I strongly believe that economic inequality (income inequality and wealth concentration) should be discussed under the economic globalization section, just as they are in Economic globalization. Do you have any objections to that? EllenCT (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Per WP:CRIT, support and criticism sections need to be integrated throughout articles rather than standing alone - moving content on economic inequality to the "Economic globalization" section is probably one of the adjustments I would make in the process of doing that. (The content in the edit in question is partly from an old version of the article, but the point is the same.) I agree that the graph is useful, but in fact it's still in the article where it was.  Sunrise    (talk)  01:34, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of pros and cons in the main content as it stands. I pulled out 'support & criticism' originally (several years ago) because of endless edit warring at the time trying to prove that globalization was all "good" or all "bad". It confined the edits to the end section, but I think the division of the article into the different aspects of globalization effectively defused a lot of the edit warring in the long run. If we want to go back and try to integrate the 'support & criticism' into the main sections, that's OK but we need to be careful that all sides get integrated into all aspects such that one aspect doesn't end up coming off as "good" or "bad".  Economic inequality is one facet of social inequality and we need to add current evidence that economic inequality - in combination with other factors - slows down economic growth and, in the current climate, economic recovery.  So,, add what you wish to the economic globalization section.  Regards, Meclee (talk) 02:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks. EllenCT (talk) 03:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to article should be discussed on the Talk page first
Please respect the work of other editors by discussing major changes to the article -- such as section removal or reorganization -- before making the changes. I have just reverted to an earlier version of the article because such major changes were made without discussion, which destroyed the overall structure of the entire article making some sections seem unrelated to others or unrelated to the topic. The article no longer had smooth transition from one section to the next. Also, section headings coincided with catalog categories to make finding additional information easier. Some of the changes may have been improvements but should have fit within the overall structure of the article or it should have been completely re-structured in its entirely. Meclee (talk) 04:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)


 * @Meclee: I'm just seeing this section now (well, I guess I saw it in January when I made the comment below but am only recalling it now! I guess my own edits are major changes, but please feel free to invoke WP:BRD for any particular edits you think didn't improve the article.) Looking back at the series of edits that led to this comment, I can definitely see why you reverted. However, it seems to me that there were some useful edits mixed in, e.g. the addition of the section "International education" in this edit. Do you have any objections to adding some of this content?  Sunrise    (talk)  06:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

@'Sunrise As I mentioned, I thought some of the earlier edits were improvements, but just not in context they were given and I didn't have time to sort out. I looked through the changes from 3/24 and think those were, for the most part, useful and improving. Thanks for the edits! Meclee (talk) 17:53, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Ah, looks like I missed that in your comment - sorry about that! I'll go ahead and look through the January edits. (Hopefully I will also finally get around to integrating the support and criticism at some point.) But please feel free to revert anything I do, and I'm happy to discuss.  Sunrise    (talk)  08:35, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

EU
I was just reading through the article and thought that the EU should be mentioned in the "International cooperation" section. It seemed pretty clear to me that this was right, but for some reason I can't find any source that clearly states that the formation and growth of the EU (and the international cooperation involved) is a trend/feature/aspect associated with globalization. Does anyone have any suggestions?  Sunrise    (talk)  23:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Editing this page
This page has a high number of watchers. Please ensure that you understand basic WP editing protocol (such as WP:MOSLINK) to avoid making multiple changes that another editor will have to go in and undo. Thank you. Meclee (talk) 00:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Changes to lede (Oct 2015)
This is a 2nd undo of changes to the lede made by User:83.110.19.108. First, "dimensions of globalization" refers to a specific phrase coined by Steger in a book of the same name, more directly and fully referenced in the Etymology and Usage section. Linking it again in the lede is overlnking WP:OLINK. The rewording of the last sentence changes the meaning to imply that business and trade are ONLY topics addressed by economics when, in fact, they are both addressed by other social and behavioral sciences. The same is true that implying that ONLY culture studies address identity and meaning, that ONLY politics addresses organization, governance, and ecology, etc. If you have specific objections to the (now) current wording or phrasing of the lede, please explain those objections here to work with other editors to come to consensus on re-wording as per WP:CONS. Meclee (talk) 19:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Globalization. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120822104004/http://www.cal.org:80/resources/Digest/digestglobal.html to http://www.cal.org/resources/Digest/digestglobal.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120730155329/http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/2012IndexofGlobalPhilanthropyandRemittances.pdf to http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/2012IndexofGlobalPhilanthropyandRemittances.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130610074600/http://www.zcommunications.org/chomsky-interview-by-noam-chomsky to http://www.zcommunications.org/chomsky-interview-by-noam-chomsky

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks to editors
Thanks to the many editors who helped maintain this article over the last couple of months. I was in the hospital for all two months with little internet access. Been out a little over a week and feeling better! Thanks again, Meclee (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I hope all's well with you now, . Cordless Larry (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Structure: economy, politics and culture
I have just created the missing entry on political globalization, and inspired by the discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_28, I think we should restructure this article to note that the globalization has three primary dimensions: economic, political and cultural (the latter is also referred sometimes as social or sociocultural). Refs to support this view:, (through he also adds few others - but why I am not sure, religion and sports are after all part of culture...), ,  (here the author also adds fourth category, environmental globalization and and uh, globalization of social problems), those four also also mentioned by ,  (this one also distinguishes financial globalization),  and so on. I'll end by quoting from : "'Generic' globalization can be subdivided into at least three narrower (but interlaced) processes of globalization: economic globalization, cultural globalization and political globalization". Bottom line is that while there are different typologies, the most common way to divide globalization is into economic, political and cultural, everything else is more fringe. We can also have a section on other dimensions, such as environmental. The bottom line is that my lit review of the subject suggests globalization is most often discussed in under the subtopics (dimensions) of economic, political and cultural, and our article should reflect it. Currently we have a section on economic globalization and sociocultural globalization (even through the section evidently talks about cultural globalization, and the term sociocultural globalization is much less common then cultural globalization). In summary, I suggest changing the title of that section from sociocultural to just cultural, and adding a section on political globalization. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, I am done removing most off topic content (see sections below). If you want to revert any of my edits, please provide a rationale saying that a certain section is relevant to the article, and not just by title but by its content. In addition to the classic "economy, politics, and culture" sections, I also found two other valuable sections that I moved to top level headings: one on public opinion on globalization, and another on measuring globalization. Both seem of core importance (and this is the key: all the removed cruft on tourism or Internet simply is not a core component of globalization). I haven't touched the "Support and criticism" section yet, and I am not sure I feel like doing so at all, through the "public opinion" could be merged with it. My final thoughts right now is that the Globalization list probably should go for MoS/OR reasons (key journals according to whom?), and that we may want to consider whether some other major aspects like, hmmm, enviroment, couldn't be brought in (partially by salvaging some of the content that was removed). However, I think it is vital to ensure this article does not become a gigantic list of sections that are in the style of removed content, i.e. "Globalization is connected to Foo-concept. Now, let's forget globalization and summarize the Foo-concept in question... " because whatever globalization is, its article here should not be a summary list of all Wikipedia articles that have words "global" or "international" in their titles. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:03, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Global natural environment"
This section is well referenced - and mostly off topic to this article. It mentions the world globalization six times in four paragraphs out of ten, and reads like an off-topic essay that just happens to mention the word globalization few times. There's no notable concept of Global natural environment, and if this was a separate article it would be WP:TNTed for likely lack of notability. Here it is just out of place - this article will be better of when we remove it. Any thoughts on that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:13, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, . There is a rationale for including material on global environmental governance, but this isn't it. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:17, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Global workforce
This section has seventeen paragraphs, only three of which mention the world globalization, each once. It is mostly off topic to this article. Sure, there's connection between global workforce and globalization, but why summarize this here in the form of a badly off-topic essay? I can see the term mentioned here, maybe in a dedicated paragraph, but as this is written it is just another weird section here. We might as well have sections on global citizenship or anything else that starts with global - it would be about as ill-fitting and unhelpful here as this section is. Any thoughts on that? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed as there have been no objections for over 48h: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:27, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Population growth"
This section does not even mention the word "globalization". Yes, globalization is connected to population growth - and to everything else, more or less, if one looks hard enough. We should keep this article on topic. Population growth / world population can be mentioned in some sentence, perhaps, but this section is off topic here. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed as there have been no objections for over 48h: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "International education"
This section does not even mention the world globalization. Yes, globalization is connected to international education - and to everything else, more or less, if one looks hard enough. We should keep this article on topic. International education and topics like international students and student migration (main for that subsection) can be mentioned in some sentence, perhaps, but this section is off topic here. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:28, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed as there have been no objections for over 48h: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "International sports"
This 5 paragraph section mentions globalization once in an unreferenced sentence: "Globalization has continually increased international competition in sports. " Reads like a bad student essay. Globalization is related to everything, so let's talk about sports. Ugh. I see no reason to keep this here; globalization in sports can be mentioned here, but likely in a sentence or two, and those should be referenced to a source that discus this concept. Until then, I don't see what we can salvage from this here. Some of that content could be merged to International sport, I guess. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed as there have been no objections for over 48h: . --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:30, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "International tourism"
I know I am starting to sound like a broken record here, but this page has a lot of off topic content here, added seemingly with the logic that anything with global or international in the title fits here. The sole connection of this section to this article is the unreferenced sentence "Globalization has made tourism a popular global leisure activity." This could probably be salvaged into a sentence or two, but I think the content of this section should be simply moved to a new article on International tourism. If someone wants to then mention this topic here in a referenced sentence based on the source that connects globalization to international tourism, then go ahead. Thoughts? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed - or more precisely, moved to the new stub per my proposal above, since nobody objected for 48h. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:31, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Health"
Health is yet another of multitude of topics that has a global aspect, but the section in our article - guess what - does not even mention the word globalization. This is yet another off topic section glutting this article. This time the creator(s) didn't even bother to title it intenrational or global, it's just "Health". Related articles on Global health and Globalization and disease can of course be mentioned somewhere. I thought about rewriting this or copying the lead from the latter article, but it has problems too - Globalization and disease mentions the word globalization in lead three times, and then in text, twice (not counting subsections). It seems like another essay-ish article that doesn't define its subject matter well. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Internet"
This section mentions globalization just once, saying that "Both a product of globalization as well as a catalyst, the Internet...". Another essay like section that doesn't have much to do with globalization per se. This one has the main article Global Internet usage... once more, global anything added here for no good reason. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. No objections for over a week.--<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Global business organization"
It's a lengthy section, I know. 14 paragraphs, 3 subsections... and it mentions globalization just once in the unreferenced sentence "The growth of international trade is a fundamental component of globalization." It is possible some content here could be merged to "Economic globalization" and in fact for now I'll just move all of this section there as subsections, but, sigh, it seems like another section composed of mostly off-topic content. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:45, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. No objections for over a week. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Multilingualism and the emergence of lingua francas"
This section mentions globalization only once: "Multilingualism is becoming a social phenomenon governed by the needs of globalization and cultural openness". Shrug. I don't think it's enough for a dedicated section. Like above, I am sure the articles on Multilingualism and Lingua franca could be mentioned here, but I don't think we need a section on that. But even if we do, it needs to connect better to the topic of globalization then through one sentence; this in essence is another section saying "Globalization is connected to Foo-concept. Now, let's forget globalization and summarize the Foo-concept in question... ". Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:51, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. No objections for over a week. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Global economy"
This short section does not mention the word globalization. Again, it is just a summary of the article Global economy, tackled here because who knows why. This article should not be a summary of random articles with the word global or international in titles; such concepts need to be clearly connected to the topic of globalization in their sections to justify them having a section here. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:06, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. No objections for over a week. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Global financial system"
Same as above, except this section has one sentence that mentions globalization: "This global financial system emerged during the first modern wave of economic globalization". Well, all I see here is that we can add a sentence Gbal financial system emerged during the first modern wave of economic globalization" to the economic globalization section, assuming the reference holds out for verification. All the rest of the section, summarizing what global financial system is, is, well, off topic here. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. No objections for over a week. PS. I do think that financial globalization is something to discuss here, and maybe I'll even try to stub this and restore a related section here. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Capital flight"
Look, this is a three paragraph section that yet once again forgets to even mention the word globalization. It is about as relevant here as discussing outsourcing, foreign investments, and a zillion other economic topics related to international trade. In fact, I am surprised that nobody yet tackled a section on international trade here (not that it should be done, through of course all of this should be eventually summarized under economic globalization). Anyway, as this section stands, it is just summarizing the concept of capital flight and is off topic here. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed, no comments nor objections for over a week. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Global business organization"
There is no such as thing as Global business organization, through the section main article links to International business. The section forgets to mention the word globalization, of course, and simply summarizes the concept of international business. Off topic here in the form it is written. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "Inequality
Ok, as a sociologist, I certainly think that Inequality is very important. It's relation to globalization, however, while certainly deserving discussion here, is not covered by the section, which once again summarizes the concept of inequality in general, with the only connection being "hile within-country income inequality has increased throughout the globalization period, globally inequality has lessened as developing countries have experienced much more rapid growth". Think about it for a moment: this is just saying that "While globalization has been going on, this is what happened with the inequality in the meantime". You could write identical useless comparisons for, uh, change in music trends, or evolution of women rights, or whatever. Off-friggin-topic as written. There's a bunch of literature on how globalization contributed to rise or fall of inequality, that may be better off in some section in criticism and support, and anyway there is nothing in this section to salvage for said discussion. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:16, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed. No objections for over a week. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic section "International trade"
Yes, of course international trade is an important part of economic globalization. And our section states so - in an unreferenced sentence: "The growth of international trade is a fundamental component of globalization." Then it proceeds to explain what international trade is, in the same pattern of "let's summarize a concept here after declaring it is related to globalization". Aargh. Burn this, with no prejudice and in fact a recommendation and hope that we will have a proper paragraph tying international trade to economic globalization. For now, I presume we can reference and salvage the quoted sentence... thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed, no objections for over a week. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal removal of problematic sections "Tax havens" and "Illicit international trade"
The last two sections I am tackling together, because, why not? They don't mention globalization at all and are about as off topic as anything we can find here. I am out of energy to even figure out why they should be mentioned here; they could be linked I guess from the article on economic globalization, but here, they seem to specialized to even discuss. Thoughts? --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Removed as there are no objections for over a week. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Explainer Video about Globalization
The media company edeos has produced an expainer video about Globalization under CC license http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Globalization.webm Maybe it is interesting for this article?--Edeos (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Template:Globalization sidebar
Template:Globalization sidebar has been nominated for deletion. Opinions are welcome at Templates for discussion/Log/2017 November 22. – Uanfala 20:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)