Talk:World financial capital

Untitled
Can any city be described as 'The financial capital of the world' and, if so, which one? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This page is for a discussion of whether any city should be called the 'world financial capital' and, if so, which one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * UK media tends to call London the financial capital of the world a lot (not that it proves anything). Does American media do the same for New York? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:14, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I do not know but I would suggest that we downgrade the reliability of UK media promoting London and of US media promoting NYC.
 * I agree. There is an oft-repeated mantra in the UK media that "New York serves America, but London serves the world". Whether it's true or not, and I'm sure we hope that that is what this discussion will discover, in the context of the national it's just a meaningless 'buzz-phrase' that is just accepted as the unquestioned truth, and not especially requiring any evidence, in a similar manner to how you might say "Brie is French". It is that sort of outcome that we must avoid on this page. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 15:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The American media refers to NYC as the financial capital of the world every day. The impression in America is that London serves Europe but that New York serves the rest (including America, of course).
 * The UK sources generally seem to be outdated and haven't kept up with the times. For example, 2008 really doesn't cut it any longer, especially when there has been a sentinel financial and economic crisis intervening.
 * Also, I myself find the GFCI surveys bizarre - where is Los Angeles, for instance? And Boston above Chicago? One generally knowledgeable would immediately question these findings.
 * I've added an excellent ref compiled by an investigator from the University of Toronto. Canadians don't carry a bias towards the United States, by any means. (In fact, the exact opposite is often heard.) This is actually a survey of surveys, a point which carries a high degree of significance.Castncoot (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * In many ways I agree about the GFCI survey, part of it would be the nature of the firms based in each city. There may be a perception among global financial players that the Los Angeles and Chicago firms are less internationally present. But that doesn't really affect the New York City v. London debate. oknazevad (talk) 03:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Castncoot, where the Canadian article that you refer to? Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/05/what-is-the-worlds-most-economically-powerful-city/256841/
 * The source is compiled by an investigator from a Canadian university.

Castncoot (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A few thoughts:
 * "financial capital of the world" is promotional
 * "frequently referred to as..." is documentating the city's reputation
 * We don't engage in debates, we just document them, so it seems the best way to go would be to just say: "according to XYZ, London is..." According to ABC New York is.."
 * It would really help to try to figure out why these cities are referred to as such. CorporateM (Talk) 21:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

So is it safe to take off the RFC Tag? MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 14:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * The only purpose of this page is for discussion of the RfC; there is no associated article. The question relates mainly to the London and New York City articles.


 * The idea of an RfC is to ask for input from the broader WP community to arrive at a consensus. It seems to me that we have a consensus here not to say that any city is the 'Financial capital of the world'.  Would you agree? Martin Hogbin (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. We don't even know what a "world financial centre" is... ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:51, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah so it's for the whole page and not just the one conversation, I follow now. MIVP - (Can I Help?) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) 11:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Hoped-for outcome
I can think of these possible useful outcomes from this discussion


 * 1) London is agreed to be the financial capital of the world by neutral reliable sources.
 * 2) New York City is agreed to be the financial capital of the world by neutral reliable sources.
 * 3) Somewhere else is agreed to be the financial capital of the world by neutral reliable sources.
 * 4) It is agreed that no city stands out from the rest to a sufficient degree that it can be given the title of 'Financial capital of the world'.
 * 5) It is agreed that the term 'Financial capital of the world' is not sufficiently well defined to be an appropriate accolade for any city or country, or it is impossible to decide without violating WP:OR.

Please show your final decisions in the 'Decisions' section below Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

London article
It is the world's leading financial centre alongside New York City

Other sources supporting London
From the London talk page

"Worldwide Centres of Commerce Index 2008". It also ranks (marginally) 1st in "Global Financial Centres 9" with the comment that "London’s position is still regarded by many as virtually untouchable".

Forbes' "World's Most Economically Powerful Cities" also ranks London as 1st.

Evening standard

New York Times themselves pay "homage to London, claiming the financial, cultural and culinary benefits now tower over those of its home city" [No date given for this ref]

Global Financial Centres Index ranks London as 1st, a significant percentage above New York, in the most recent (January 2013) rankings yet.

New York City article
New York City's financial district, anchored by Wall Street in Lower Manhattan, functions as the financial capital of the world

Criteria for assessing sources
Sources should be:

Independent
That is to say not UK sources supporting London or US sources supporting NYC.

Recent
These things can change so ideally sources from 2012 or 2013 are required.

Authoritative
Major world financial bodies rather than media sources

Factual
Claims should be based mainly on facts rather than opinions.

Discussion
So, which sources are most reliable and why? Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll throw my weight behind Forbes as it has compiled a lot of information from multiple sources and claims London as the winner. And it's American. Opinions? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Meaningless phrase
On looking through the sources it seems clear to me that there is no universally recognised criterion for deciding on the 'Financial capital of the world'. It is a vague and unencyclopedic phrase that cannot be used, without qualification, in WP. Can anyone convince me otherwise?

Even coming top, by a few percent, in a authoritative listing does not, in my opinion justify use of the term, in fact use of the term in such circumstances is completely misleading. I thiink that for any city to justify this title it should be head and shoulders above others.

Of course we might say, 'X has called London or NYC the financial capital of the world' but I do not think that doing this is helpful. We could probably find sources to say this about a dozen or so of the world's financial centres.


 * Anything neutral in tone which mentions some actual numbers of revenue? (Like forbes for one i'd imagine) Maybe this calls for being more specific and stating which financial centre makes the most money or gets the most custom as the winner? World financial centre seems a political term in either country, used mainly for bragging rights. Opinions? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Although there may be neutral measures we could use, the question is, which one? I agree that propagation of bragging rights is not the purpose of WP. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I thought this would be easy...The problem is that so many sources contradict. here New York has overtaken London for the first time in 14 years according to the Cebr - the basis for them being number one? Not income or customers...More "financial services jobs"...Something so vague that it could include pretty much anything from loan-sharks to high flying bankers. Not to mention that it has no bearing on income since all this source actually says is that New York has more call centres or bankers. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, this is like hunting jackalopes. There's really no clear, universal criteria that we can use to definitively give the title to either city, and to make such a judgement comes perilously close to original research. So I think outcome 5 is the only logical solution. Note, in both articles, that each city is a "major world financial center", and leave it at that. It's true, without giving an unverifiable clam to top spot when a)there's no way to judge it objectively and b) the only reason to put it is for the city's bragging rights, which we are not here to do, at all. oknazevad (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * But at the end of the day, it's all clearly justified and sourced. You have to call a spade a spade.

Castncoot (talk) 15:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I actually have outcome 6 - it's mentioned only on the World Financial capital article clearly and neutrally that the World financial capital is disputed. All other mentions can be deleted from articles. What do you think? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, all the arguments for London standing alongside New York City fall flat
A) First of all, it's obvious that the side side lobbying for London to be given equal standing alongside New York is shamefulley biased, with an us and them mentality, already having exposed all poor-faith pretense of a neutral discussion here:
 * A1) Martin Hogbin's comment - "New York Times " themselves pay..."
 * That is not my comment. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A11) Firstly here, the source was not the New York Times - it was the London Evening Standard quoting New York magazine, and in 2007. No wonder Martin Hogbin didn't link to the source above. Old year, and wrong source.
 * A2) Jenova's comment - "the basis for them being number one..."
 * A21) Jenova, are you serious about the Forbes source? 2008?
 * A3) The creator of this page, Martin Hogbin, has already suggested on the London talk page that he himself was interested in having London stated as the tops. It was only after he saw and perused some of the sources carefully and saw another user's comment on that page did he perhaps realize his mistake and backtrack to a neutral position, and perhaps start this sham of an article to save his city from being demoted to a clear second place.
 * I said that another editor put up a good case for this and asked for responses. Martin Hogbin (talk)
 * A31) All mentions of London precede New York on this page.
 * A32) All references for London precede New York's on this page.
 * Yes, that is alphabetical order. Nothing else.


 * Castncoot, please confine your comments to discussing the sources rather than attacking other editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

However, on the other hand,in clear favor of New York -
 * 1) The side stating New York is the tops has demonstrated no bias. Personally as an editor, I've demonstrated neutrality throughout - I could have been born and bred in Oxfordshire, for all you know.
 * 1A) London's Cebr, of all organizations, calls (in November 2012, by the way) New York the world's financial capital in a source which as I mentioned on the New York City talk page represented the LEAST strong source in favor New York - that's why I mention it - to say that it's the LEAST supportive of that point, yet still supportive as an unbiased source, with actual statistics quoted.
 * 1B) The Canadian professor in his excellent investigation, has found, and with no apparent bias (in May 2012, by the way) New York to be number one based upon an integration of five other surveys; this is probably the most constructive and telling source of all; for that very reason.
 * 1C) The Xinhua-Dow Jones source (led by Xinhua of China) (and in 2011) does an exhaustive analysis and has come up with New York as first, and not really by that marginally.
 * 1D) Google "New York financial capital of the world" and "London financial capital of the world" - currently New York garners nearly three times as many hits!!!

With nearly twice the GDP of London, its historical status as number one, its larger corporate role, the world's largest stock exchange (by a ridiculous margin), a much higher total pool of investment banking fees (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-27/london-bankers-bracing-for-leaner-bonuses-than-new-york.html), its far higher Googled status as such, its strength in all aspects of finance, and even London's cebr, of all organizations, quoting its own findings as such - but most importantly, a bevy of current, neutral, and reliable sources originating from investigators, including at least three other countries (UK, Canada, and China), and given the clearly bad-faith motive for the creation for this page (which I was obviously coerced into responding to, by pressure, but that's OK), there is absolutely no reason to change what even another London editor, ThunderingTyphoons!, described as the longstanding status quo in the London article's discussion page, at least in the New York article. There is a reason for a status quo - history does matter. And if London's position is actually weakening more recently, as the London Cebr report and other media reports indicate, then London is clearly number two and should be stated as such in the London article. In fact, the London page should be modified to read that London is the world's second largest financial center.

Sorry to the folks supporting London (and I am not rooting for either city), but those people will simply have to acknowledge the facts. The truth can be bitter.

However, as an editor who above all follows the guidelines of Wikipedia, because Wikpedia has NO guidelines disallowing contradiction between articles as is found throughout the global Wikipedia project, and in fact, accommodates this for whatever reason throught the medium, I then go to the next step in the process, which is Wikipedia etiquette - and I find nothing less than foolish arrogance when editors who have no other interest in an article except to proselytize and push their agenda WP:POV, when I have worked so hard in improving all aspects of the New York City article. The sources provided for New York also include WP:DUE weight as included in the sum total and integration of five different surveys (and therefore viewpoints) outlined by the Canadian professor - hard to beat that one for display of multiple viewpoints.

Therefore, the New York article needs to stay as is, and although the London article needs to be changed to read that London is second, I also reciprocally respect the fact that I don't edit that article and therefore would be stepping disrespectfully on others' toes to simply butt in on an article which other editors have dedicated so much time, energy, and effort themselves to improving according to the rules of Wikpedia. Give the reader two different perspectives in two different articles, and let him or her make up his or her own mind, FREELY, without coercion or pressure. That's the democratic way.

Castncoot (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I read enough of this to see my name a few times, but not why or what you're talking about. Can you sum it up non-essay style so people have the chance to argue back as it reads like a rant in all fairness. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 15:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, Jenova, no need to feign ignorance all of a sudden...

Castncoot (talk) 15:58, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not being ignorant at all. You just posted a reply bigger than the rest of the discussion combined and being dyslexic, i have no way of following it without having to read it ten times and hope i interpreted it properly. WP:TLDR in this instance. What do you think of outcome 6? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 16:03, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That's OK, Jenova, you have the right to be as shortsighted as many people often are, not to hold this against you!
 * The best solution is Outcome 7: Leave things alone, the way they've been forever, figuratively. Why do I say that? Because I myself have not been happy with the way the London article has read, forever. It should actually read that London is the second largest financial center in the world, behind New York City. Plain and simple. However, rather than whining about it or protesting it, I have tolerated it and dealt with it, because it's not an article that I have contributed to on a consistent and significant basis (if ever, perhaps), and therefore ethically, it would not be correct for me to interfere. Castncoot (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Really? Most of the sources can't even agree on what that term means. I'd much rather go with what is now option 5 where we don't make the claim that any of the two are the main financial centre, and instead mention it only on the article for Financial centre - where we say that it is currently disputed. That could solve a lot of disputes, edit warring and discussions like this, where even the sources from the biggest media sources can't agree on which it is. It also solves the issue of a judgement call from us, which could be wrong. Thanks for your good faith reply ツ Je no va  20  (email) 20:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd like to reply to some of Castncoot's points. Firstly, the issue of "bias". That users on this page are going to be biased in their thinking is inevitable, but they should not be in their actions. I personally would rather an outcome that ends up favouring London but if it comes to it I'll be glad to modify the London page to reflect the truth. Yes, it might "hurt" for a few minutes, but I'm sure we'll get over it :) I'm additionally more than happy to admit that by entering "financial capital of the world" into Google, there are significantly more results relating to New York, many of which are very recent news articles about London being "ousted" (to use their terms) by NYC as capital of finance. Similarly, I could point out that all of your contributions to this page have been in favour of New York, and by extension accuse you of pro-NYC bias, but I won't accuse you of anything because as a representative of that page (interestingly enough, as far as I know the only editor of that page on here, which is a shame) you are naturally going to want to talk about what you know. Likewise, editors of the London article, are more likely to talk about what is familiar to them. Also, what is biased about listing London first? All the points about one city should be grouped together for clarity, and it would be no more or less biased to list New York City first. What does it matter which order they come in?
 * Secondly, I'd like to point out that you weren't coerced to join in this discussion, you were invited, first by me on the initial discussion on the talk page for New York, and then by Martin Hogbin for this page. Trust me, you are under no obligation to contribute to this discussion and it is perfectly all right for you to 'down tools' and leave whenever you like.
 * Third, we shouldn't bog ourselves down with what is democratic or not. The famous phrase "Wikipedia is not a democracy" isn't just for decoration. I know that it refers to editing behaviour rather than content, but we must similarly provide a coherent and accurate account of stuff. Call it 'truth' if you will, or at the very least neutral.
 * Lastly, I don't think it's productive to talk about which editors have invested x amount of time into a particular article. This implies a sense of ownership on the part of the long-term editors and by extension treats outsiders' contributions with less value. The idea that you are somehow not allowed to make changes to a page just because you haven't put in the work is not what Wikipedia aims to promote. If you look at my edit history, for example, you will see that very few of them were made to the London article, but that doesn't prevent me from having an opinion on the subject or having the 'right' to change things.
 * One more thing, aimed at everyone contributing to this page. Since this is indeed a page on the subject of financial capital of the world, and not a London vs New York forum, we should probably be making more of an effort to examine other top economic cities.
 * Well that's my piece for now, goodnight / good afternoon to all. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 20:53, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ThunderingTyphoons!, I really do have to compliment you on your very charming answer - certainly embodying London, the city you are admittedly representing with at least some bias ("I personally would rather an outcome that ends up favouring London..."), a quaint and beautiful city with a great deal of charm itself - but clearly the second largest financial center in the world, after New York City, for all of the reasons stated above. Also, Wikipedia "etiquette", as I mentioned, is just that - we all know the actual rules. And finally, googled results for New York "ousting" London would count for both New York and London, not just New York.

Castncoot (talk) 04:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * If we're really heading into WP:Bias accusations then you're both biased. You can't decide and the sources can't agree on what a financial capital is. I find the quotes troublesome, especially "I personally would rather an outcome that ends up favouring London...", and so let's get more people in the discussion or settle with option 5? An option which doesn't violate WP:Truth or WP:OR. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Castncoot and ThunderingTyphoons! I wonder if you would both mind stating the one source that you think is most authoritative that supports your preferred city, giving reasons why that one source is so authoritative. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * You've misread my comments, I believe. Yes I would prefer an outcome to favour London but (as I thought I had made clear), that that would not impede my judgement on this page, see: "That users on this page are going to be biased in their thinking is inevitable, but they should not be in their actions." I do not care if we have to 'demote' London's status as second-best to New York, as long as that is what the sources indicate. I didn't accuse Castncoot of bias, rather I pointed out that what he saw as biased actions by some of the 'London contributors' (for want of a better word) could also apply to his own actions on this page, but that neither examples are really biased. Contributors are more likely to talk about what they know.


 * I'm not sure I see why just Castncoot and myself should do as Martin asks, rather it would be better for all contributors to this page did it, for both cities not just one. As for mine, I'll have to look over them and come back to you. Of course we need more editors contributing their thoughts to this page, instead of just four people. At risk of inviting more "biased" editors, should we be inviting the members of the New York City and London wikiprojects to have their say? Or perhaps more neutral contributors from the Cities Wikiproject.


 * And one final thing, Castncoot, thank you :) But I'm not actually a Londoner so don't really represent it or its article particularly, just have a large soft spot for it. Regards to all --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I was only asking as a way of starting the discussion in a sensible manner, based on what sources say. The two strongest sources gives us a place to start.


 * ThunderingTyphoons, what in your opinion is the best source supporting London? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Right, here goes then! Unfortunately, "best source" would imply a terrific selection of reliable and useful sources supporting London, but unfortunately there aren't. Most are too old to be of any use to us, unless somebody can argue otherwise. The only one in the list which I think is of any relevance to the post-crisis economy would be the GFCI - Global Financial Centres Index published in January 2013, which unless I'm mistaken is the most recent of all our sources and clearly shows London in the superior position. It is worth remembering though that this index is a venture pursued by a London-based company Long Finance. Not being very economically-minded, I can't work out from their website exactly what they do to make money! Perhaps somebody would like to investigate?


 * Another reference that I've found is from an American journalist writing in the US edition of Reuters 'Why London is doomed to remain a financial capital', in which is written "In any case, London will be the capital of international finance for many, many years to come". In fact, this article seems to be a direct challenge to all of the "London is doomed to lag behind NYC and Hong Kong" articles in the press at the time (November 2012). It criticises those articles and their source document for not providing references for where their figures actually come from. Hmm, sounds familiar to Wikipedians, no? I'm not sure how great this source (the Reuters article) is, being from the media after all, and it doesn't exactly go in to a blistering amount of detail in its critique, but it is written on a non-British edition of a highly respected news agency's website. So these two, I think, would be London's "champions" :P What does everyone else think? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, but I respectfully disagree with Martin Hogbin's suggestion that one authoritative source should be named for each city, as there is no logic in that statement. Also, ThunderingTyphoons!'s second ref states "international" but not "international plus domestic", or "financial capital of the world"; one must clearly include the giant American market in New York's profile as well, not just London's; and GFCI's ref has been questioned more than once on this page. Anyway, rising above these specific details, I am agreeable to leaving things as is and reevaluating the situation in a year or so. And by the way, neither is my "preferred city". However, I believe that currently the evidence in sum far weighs in favor of NYC.

Castncoot (talk) 06:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I still prefer the Forbes source, although i accept it is a bit dated. It combines a large amount of data (more than just job figures) and i think this is the direction we should be looking in. But i think this is encroaching too far into us defining what exactly a world financial centre is, and a violation of WP:OR. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 10:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree, the term is ill defined and unencyclopedic. Perhaps you could add your opinion to the decisions section below. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Let us discuss the sources
[Continued from above] All I am trying to do I to start a sensible discussion on what the sources say. I thought we could start with what we consider the strongest source for each city. That is not to say that we should not consider all the sources in time.

If you do not want to pick what you think is the best source for each city then I am happy to do so, but let us start a sensible unbiased discussion of what the sources say. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, leaving this 'for a year or so' isn't particularly productive, since we've already started. We should try to see how far we can take this discussion before thinking about stopping. I also don't see what the 'lack of logic' in supporting one source is, as long as everybody 'nominates' a source. Perhaps you could tell us what you mean Castncoot?
 * I think that in this article's context, "international" can be taken to mean 'world-wide' rather than 'specifically overseas but not domestic'. Anyway, I think people should say what they think about the source I've provided and then support / criticise others that are already in the list or elsewhere.
 * The Forbes article should hold some clout, being from a self-professed "leading source for reliable business news and financial information", but 2007 is a long time ago, and the global economic situation then bares little resemblance to the world today. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Let me re-state and clarify my point, hopefully once and for all - both WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources avoid dictating the number sources of to be provided. And it's simply common sense that artificially limiting the number of references is just plain silly - the heavier a statement, the more refs it will naturally require to support. The refs supporting New York uncontested at the top are emphatic, current, often originating worldwide, and apparently infinite in number; as opposed to those supporting London at the top, whether uncontested or tied, which as noted by ThunderingTyphoons! himself or herself above, are comparatively few, not terribly reliable, not particularly emphatic, and most strikingly, outdated in large part. Googling both cities as "financial capital of the world" is actually very telling: any statistician would agree that a three to one (or even two to one for that matter) ratio in favor of New York is statistically significant. WP:Crystal ball also frowns on future predictions as well; what matters is the present. Therefore, in summary, the burden to maintain in the London article that London stands alongside New York City as the world's premiere financial center is very heavy. However, only for the "etiquette" reasons I mentioned above, I am open to maintaining the status quo for some more time and re-evaluating the situation then. What I am not interested in is prolonging this discussion.

Castncoot (talk) 05:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Castncoot, no one is dictating how many sources should be provided or discussed but the discussion has to start somewhere. Googling is not particularly relevant as WP is based on what is said in reliable sources and for this issue we need very reliable and authoritative sources.


 * After reading through all the sources for both cities, I am beginning to agree with the consensus that that is starting to form here, which is that option 5 above is the only valid one. It is not even clear what the term 'financial capital' means and an what basis it should be determined and t is not our job to make decisions of this nature.   The situation also varies from year to year with the front runners all being quite close by most measures.


 * People look to WP for authoritative information and if we have none we must say nothing. The term 'Financial capital of the world' is a  peacock term having no place in an article of a serious encyclopedia.  My suggestions is that we stick to less contentious terms such as 'major world financial centre'. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's as much of a consensus as you're letting on. Why the rush to form conclusions when there has been little in the way of discussion. We need more people to get involved with this talk before we can come even close to deciding something, because otherwise we will be attempting to change multiple Wikipedia articles with all the authority of four editors. With this in mind, I have invited the members of the Cities wikiproject to participate. Hopefully at least a couple of them will drop by. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThunderingTyphoons! (talk • contribs) 15:36, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I only said that a consensus is starting to emerge. Two editors, in addition to myself, have clearly expressed the view that no city should be given the title 'Financial capital of the world.  Of course, other editors' views are welcome.


 * Regarding discussion I am still waiting for anyone to suggest a source which clearly shows that either city deserves the title. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Martin Hogbin, the only consesnus here is of your design. I believe both of you are acting hypocritically and in bad faith. Here are your words which I've lifted directly from the Talk:London page:

"Looking at the references for the statement that London "is the world's leading financial centre alongside New York City", there is in fact actually more to suggest that London is the one leading financial centre...." and "As no reason has been given for reverting Kishan95's edit and Kishan95 has given good supporting references, I propose restoring it unless anyone can give a good reason not to. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)"; and you were (at least initially) interested in changing that article to read as such, perhaps until you realized that many more reliable and current sources were actually indicating London to be solidly in second place. Then you began to embark upon stating this dimensionally opposite viewpoint. How can anything you state on this matter be trusted?
 * The New York City article should stay as is, and the London article should ideally be changed to match the NYC article, although I will not ardently push for that change out of etiquette concerns. And this will likely be my last comment on this matter for some time.

Castncoot (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Casncoot, please stop attacking other editors. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What you're insinuating Castncoot is that it's wrong to change your opinion. Surely it's more admirable to change your viewpoint once it becomes clear that the evidence is taking you that way rather than just blindly stick to your original opinion no matter what? And where is your evidence for me acting in bad faith? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Claiming bad faith from others or not, you still can't claim New York as the world financial capital from any of your sources without violating WP:OR and defining the term from that source right? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Decisions
Please show your decision, with reasons for your choice, here under the appropriate section. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

London
London is agreed to be the financial capital of the world by neutral reliable sources.

New York City
New York City is agreed to be the financial capital of the world by neutral reliable sources.

Please be excusing me, I was not being aware of your discussion before now. After reading through all the sources for both cities and the discussion on all the talking pages being involved, I am persuaded that New York is being the first centre and London being an afterthought. It is appearing unfortunately that London can be now called "Done-don", please be excusing my observation! MazabukaBloke (talk) 19:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * But it is not really mattering to me, because I am having a soft spot for London myself, it is being such a tidy city!   MazabukaBloke (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Mazabuka, you may have noticed the big discussion on this page. We are not WP:voting. Voting does not happen on Wikipedia and editor opinions hold no weight. Things are decided based on what we can prove here, again, not by arguing or voting. You may want to factor that into your post there. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 11:22, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Somewhere else
Somewhere else is agreed to be the financial capital of the world by neutral reliable sources.

Nowhere
Either:

It is agreed that no city stands out from the rest to a sufficient degree that it can be given the title of 'Financial capital of the world'.

It is agreed that the term 'Financial capital of the world' is not sufficiently well defined to be an appropriate accolade for any city or country, or it is impossible to decide without violating WP:OR.


 * The term is ill-defined and available sources are not particularly authoritative, are divided on the issue, and vary from year to year. For  both reasons given above we must not call any city 'Financial capital of the world' Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a purely unencyclopedic, ill-defined, inherently promotional WP:PEACOCK term, the exact type we should be avoiding, even if it weren't apparently contentious. That is to say, Even if the sources were truly heavily one sided, it should just go in favor of the more ]neutral "major financial center". oknazevad (talk) 21:28, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I endorse this view generally, and oknazevad's particularly. London and New York are important financial centers, and it's appropriate and informative to refer to them as such when well sourced (compare to, say, our treatment of City of Light or holy city). There is no inherent financial capital of the world; this is simply promotional and POV. --BDD (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * As i've argued consistently, we need a definition of the word, which the sources agree with, rather than just arguing "my city is better and these sources say so too". If we can't agree on what the term means, then trying to award it to a city is pointless Original Research. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No consensus has emerged for any single candidate; we should refrain from crowning one or the other. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  18:22, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Other
Please explain.

Discussion

 * If multiple WP:RS sources utilize a term in a formal manner, then it is WP:Encyclopedic. Furthermore, if the term is utilized in a WP:Verifiable manner, then it is absolutely fair game. There's nothing unencyclopedic whatsoever about the term "financial capital of the world", as it's been used formally, in aeternum, by august institutions.
 * Call a spade a spade. Downgrading the intrinsic significance of entities relative to their true worth in the quest for an actually false sense of neutrality would set a dangerous precedent for editorial journalism, would do injustice to the readers by depriving them of their choices to discriminate, and would corrupt the articles themselves.
 * This is why the best solution is NOT to force marriage upon the two articles but rather to continue to maintain their independence and their freedom to diverge, as long as within each article, the criteria for verifiability (which inherently includes reliability) are met.

Castncoot (talk) 01:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not true that because many sources use the term "financial capital of the world" we should use it, unqualified, here. We can, of course, say things like, 'Called "the financial capital of the world" by "The Newspaper" or by "The Financial Institution" the but I am not sure what purpose this would serve.  On that basis I would guess that half a dozen cities could say that they have been called the "financial capital of the world" by some source or other.


 * If we want to use the term unqualified (as in 'XXXX is the financial capital of the world'), we must find a uniquely authoritative source which unequivocally says this, otherwise we are forced to do out own research, firstly into what the term means, then into how it might be decided, and finally into how we decide which sources to accept. This is clearly WP:OR and is not permitted.  Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Flatly disagree. I believe I've hit the nail on the head, whether it fits anyone's agenda or not. Castncoot (talk) 15:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)


 * We don't have a definition for World financial centre that matches all the sources. This suggests the term is a title given with no proof to cities by locals or biased writers. I doubt we can give it without violating WP:OR until we have something very reliable to define it. Frankly, arguing my city is better is pointless as it violates WP:Neutral, WP:Bias and WP:OR. We need a definition of a word before we can start applying the word to articles willy nilly. Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:40, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Jenova, I believe you're way behind in this discussion, which has by the way become tired and pointless already - please read all of the comments carefully.

Castncoot (talk) 16:12, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * In another vein, if someone wants to make sense of having both the Financial Centres article and the Global cities article, have at it. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Martin Hogbin. If we want to use the term unqualified (as in 'XXXX is the financial capital of the world'), that needs to be based on sources. As far as I can tell there is no such consensus among sources. We can say "Newspaper X has referred to City Y as the financial capital of the world," but editors shouldn't be doing WP:OR to decide which city is "really" the world financial capital. Fagles (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


 * It appears no consensus has evolved regarding changing any given article. Each article should maintain the standards of its editors according to the rules of Wikipedia. Castncoot (talk) 11:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. When all other contributors say it shouldn't be used for any city, then there is clear consensus that it shouldn't be used. One person disagreeing with that doesn't mean no consensus. Consensus is not unanimity. oknazevad (talk) 15:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * a few persons. I also disagreeing with that. Generally, New York City and London is world financial capitals, and this is supported by sources. For comparison, "one of the world's leading financial centers" is Sydney, Hong Kong, Singapore etc, and also this is supported by sources. Even common sense tells Sydney and New York City is the same category of financial centers? This is nonsense. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:34, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree there is no consensus because we don't edit articles this way. We don't censor the Pedia by having RfC's among a half dozen or so like this away from article talk pages, with broad questions about phrases "that can't be used" on the Pedia  See, WP:NOTCENSORED.  We follow the sources.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with censorship. There were  notes placed on both the London and New York City talk pages asking editors to comment here.  There was a clear majority amongst those who did so not to use the term. Martin Hogbin (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * We don't 'not use terms' that reliable sources use; we contextualize them, we explain them, we paraphrase them but we don't say those words are forbidden in our articles. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could start by telling us all what the term, 'Financial capital of the world' means. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Financial capital is given meaning by the sources in which it is used. Also discussing, financial capital or financial capital in the abstract is what's wrong with this discussion; they are pretty ordinary words that will be understood by most people when used in context. They should be spelled correctly, of course.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * But different sources may (and obviously do) mean different things by the term. If we are to decide which city is 'The financial capital of the world' we must decide which source is using the correct definition of the term.  This would be OR, which we must not do.


 * We could, of course say, 'Source X calls city Y "the financial capital of the world"' but this could probably be said about half a dozen or so cities, making it rather pointless and unencyclopedic. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:22, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Disagree, again because such a statement is too abstract. One might agree to exclude, of course, depending on the evaluation of the individual source and the language of the individual article but if it is determined that it is a statement of merit from a high quality source that it is relevant, then if reliable sources say different things that is often very important.  The real world creates that conflicting information and we account for it -- we don't pretend it does not exist.  Let's assume that there are a half dozen cities that high quality RS claim are that thing, it's that claim which our readers learn from.  If someone wants to learn about Jakarta, and there is high quality RS that argue that it is the FC of W, then the reader should have that information -- we should contextualize it and give it to them. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * What if several RSs call one city the 'financial capital of the world', as is the case for London and NYC. Do we list all of them, just one, or select some? Many sources change their ratings each year or more often. Do we list every instance of this accolade? Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * In general, we mention the relevant claims that are reliably sourced and we put them in context. If it is especially important to understanding New York and London, then there should be, in general, no question of an extended discussion of it with reference to lots of RS. As for updating articles based on updated sources, that is why this is a wiki.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Are you really suggesting that we add and contextualise all 8 claims each for London and NYC? They are all supported by reliable sources as listed at the top of each page. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It could also be in the Notes or the References or a combination of prominent in text and the rest elsewhere but that is why having discussions away from the particular article are problematic. And it is not approached, a priori, by purported global "rules" which say:  Wikipedia cannot use that phrase.  Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Signing comments
Can I request that all contributors for this page sign everything they add to the page? I know it may not be practical especially in the 'factual' sections (the sources particularly), but I think it is important to know at a glance who is writing what, as is the norm on other talk pages. --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Consensus
It appears we have a clear majority for the "nowhere" option to me. What's next? Thanks ツ Je no va  20  (email) 09:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Reflist
'''Please can we keep this at the very bottom of the page so that refs can be referred from anywhere on the page. '''Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:47, 8 February 2013 (UTC)