Talk:Global city/Archive 3

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

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  I'm sure there must be historical documents on top cities, say, in each span of 30-50 years for the last 200 years, and then perhaps going back 1000-3000 years ago in 200 year increments.  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thread_title: Too many outdated sub-lists

message: Please, when I see that San Fransisco,Brussels and Caracas as cities more important than Montréal and Beijing I just wanna cry. Re-do this article or completely delete it because it is a big lie.
<BR><BR>
I absolutely agree. Face the facts: Brussels is not nearly as important as Beijing. Caracas is not nearly as important as Montreal. Who do they think theyre kidding? This article is a big, fat joke! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs) .
Seoul isn't even on the second list. Somebody should delete these lists.
Flamarial 18:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This list is going nowhere

message: Stop deleting the photo of Montréal on the side and the changes I've made in the list since Montréal made an ascension since this page was made.
:Not according to the source is hasn't. - ҉ Randwicked ҉ 03:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally don't think that Montreal is a city as important as Madrid and Mexico city.  Montreal is not a financial centre compare to Toronto locally and internationally.  Can you tell me where the exchange centre is in Montreal?  how about its volume of exchange?  how about investment from foreign companies?  how about the infrastructure for transportation and the volume of logistics?  I think Montreal is even worse than Vancouver. leungli 03:17, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

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

message: This is what the bottom of the page looks like at high resolution (1920x1200). All the edit links are somehow clustered at the bottom. Opabinia regalis 01:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no necessary to screw up the article. The only thing was needed is adding two lines that was deleted by vandal. Reverted it to original state. Elk Salmon 01:14, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting issues 

message: How about Philadelphia being lower than Houston or Miami? Philadelphia is a world class city once again. It has bounced back. It is a leader in the arts. No city, with the exception of New York, is as well known for its arts scene. No city in the US has more Public art for example. It is also the home to a burgeoning restaurant scene which includes the finest French restaurant in America. Also Philadelphia has many more historical sites than Houston and Miami combined. Philadelphia is a pioneer in its wireless network which is designed to bring internet connection to the masses.
Answer: I think the research is about how important a city is in globalization, not how great my city is because we have arts. For example, many cities on the list are big harbour areas or big economic areas. And sign your posts. --Krm500 00:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out Houston's page. See for yourself why it deserves to be higher up in the rankings. --Rodeojava 03:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a joke: Part 2 

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

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

message: Given that this is an article about cities, not airports, wouldn't cities by annual air passenger traffic be a more relevant measure than airports by annual passenger traffic?  There's a source for this at http://www.iaurif.org/en/doc/studies/airports/INTRO.pdf giving the top 10 rankings, as at 2002, as being London, Tokyo, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Paris, Los Angeles, Dallas, Frankfurt, Houston.  This properly reflects the way that large cities may be served by multiple airports. Matthew 23:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much. I've searched for this info long time.--Nixer 23:14, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy to help!  I can't claim all the credit, though - this information came up on the London page originally! :-) Matthew 23:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you. BTW, that table about airports was initially inserted by me as temporary solution while we do not have the appropriate data. The data on cities was planned from the very creation of this table.--Nixer 23:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airports by annual passenger traffic 

message: OK, I'm from Liverpool and naturally I'm totally biased and think it's the greatest city on the planet. However, how on earth can Birmingham, Manchester, Glasgow & Leeds be granted of having some some evidence (whatever that means) of becoming global cities yet Liverpool doesn't seem to have a case? More emphasis is needed on how the points system which yielded this result was formulated and by whom. Gary Parks
::All the details are provided in the relevant links - for example the 1999 edition.  I personally feel that given the nature of copyright infringements etc., it is not unreasonable to suggest that the reader follows the link for more detailed information about the calculations etc. - such details are probably too complex to incorporate into an article such as these.  I have no comment to make regarding Liverpool - perhaps you should take it up with Loughborough University - we sure as hell can't do anything about it here!  DJR (T) 14:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have a distinct scoping issue here:  is this article about the concept of a "world city" (which is the more usual term, I'd have thought), or is it about GaWC's world city research?  The fact that the article title is global city/world city would strong suggest the former is the desirable outcome;  that the article is entirely about the latter, and even seems to imply that the two are synonymous, strikes me as a huge problem with the current version (and smacks of an article-jack by way of people boosterising their own research).  But one we sure as hell can do soimething about...  Alai 21:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While true, there is an inherent problem in that the use of the term in its general context is one of the most POV issues plausible.  GaWC appears to be the only real research that is available on the subject, and accordingly it is the only justifiable basis for any of the content on this page.  Given this, it is important that it is constantly referenced in order to ascertain verifiability of this information under no original research.  DJR (T) 11:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hum. I would tend to say that if the only credible research is that from GaWC then maybe there just isn't enough real academic debate on this subject to justify us having an article, or at least an article with this title, at all. Perhaps we should retitle the article GaWC research on the concept of the Global Worl City. That would certainly take the heat out of the boosterists who incessently try to hijack this article to proselytise their favorite city. -- Chris j wood 15:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that thought, it certainly would make clear that this isn't original research as people seem to think at first glance. We should probably try to think of a more succinct title for the article, and then have Global City and World City redirect. Perhaps it could be Globalization and World Cities Study Group, with a link to List of GaWC World Cities. Of course I'm one to say that as my fair city already made it to the list (albeit with 1 point). Analoguekid 16:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a joke? UK Edition 

message: It's in the one point section and the four point section, I don't know which is correct.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian8710 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 October 2006.
::Well spotted!  Kansas City should be a one-point city - see reference 4 for details.  DJR (T) 14:43, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas City appears twice on the 1999 list 

message: Assuming the article will be kept (which now seems likely, assuming the copyright problems can be resolved):
Is this article describing cities (for example, Los Angeles) or metropolitan areas (Los Angeles)?  Whichever it is, we need to standardize the links.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These terms don't mean the same thing in each country so it's hard to make a definite policy. In general I imagine we're talking about the urban/metropolitan area though. "Cities" themselves are often political entities which don't correspond that much to the social situation, e.g. City of London is only one tiny part of London (the whole of which presumably constitutes the global city). SteveRwanda 15:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  The United Kingdom, unlike the United States and most other places, does not have a veiable definition of a city in the international sense of the word.  At the same time, "metropolitan area" is pretty much as ambiguous as anyone cares to make it - especially in the case of somehwere like London. The definition of city in this article is, presumably, the same as the one that makes London (not just the City of London) a city - there is no technical definition for it but it is universally accepted as fact.  DJR (T) 11:03, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cities or metropolitan areas? 

message: What the real issue seems to be is that this is an article about how the GaWC defines what a world city is. There seems to be much uproar about people's cities not being included as a world city, but the page is only including those named by the GaWC. I would go as far as to suggest that this article be renamed and altered to an article more directed the GaWC, and this title used for the broader concept of what a world city is.Moe 10:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An article about the "broader concept of what a world city is" would be wholly unfeasible as anything in it would violate WP:NPOV and WP:NOR.  In order to exist (and avoid violating WP:VERIFY), any information must be based on verifable sources, and only one such source appears to exist - the GaWC.  The Global city article can only exist in Wikipedia if it is entirely based on verfiable, professionally researched information.  DJR (T) 11:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not true - there have been many studies done over the years on this issue, including all the references listed at the end of one of the GaWC pages here. The problem, of course, is that they're not on the web which means someone needs to go and find the books to provide us with useful citations. I can't do it because I don't live in a global city so have no decent library available... :-) SteveRwanda 13:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The topic of world cities is a genuine academic subject that exists outside of the GaWC, although you might not know it from reading the article. It doesn't even mention Peter Hall, the originator of the term. - EurekaLott 19:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sir Pete is one of their "Honorary Founders", so I assume in the puff-piece-speak of this article, that increases their "ownership" of the concept, rather than any way mitigating it.  (I'm not aware of his career as a Loughborough researcher in the fluffier end of human geography, mind you.)  It's also a mistake to suppose that only academic work have any place here:  the phrases are part of non-academic and non-specialist discourse, independent of GaWCs supposedly universal canon list, and should be discussed in that context, too.  One would hardly argue that only academic sources were appropriate for computer, for example (a topic which it's possible to treat of with a mite more rigour, I dare say).  Alai 17:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was no consensus to move —Mets501 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What are we talking about?? 

message: Add  * Support  or  * Oppose  on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.
*Oppose. First, the article is about more than the GaWC and its conferences; if needed, perhaps the conference material can be spun out into another article. Second, it is a Wikipedia convention to use short common names for things -- the items people use in conversation, informal writing, the media, and will look up. A long, unwieldy name is not a good article title unless that is the most common name for something. Please read WP:NAME, a summary of which is, "Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature."  Plus, the longer name can be added as a redirect, as can things like "GaWC". --MCB 22:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid I don't quite understand this. If you favor moving the GaWC material to another article, your vote should be "oppose", no? That would leave this article as a general article about the global city concept, and the GaWC material in its own article, appropriately named. Am I missing something? Thanks, --MCB 16:21, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A non-GaWC citation for the term being notable would help, even if GaWC is the only detailed source.  Otherwise, the notablility of the term is derived from GaWC's notability, which seems inadequate for secondary notability.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't agree more.  However, there is no point moving a page about a commonly used concept just because there is only one source that has made an in-depth study.  Regardless of the source, the concept still exists.  What needs to be done is not moving the page, but changing the article so that it is less of a narrative about GaWC's research.  DJR (T) 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Arthur. This is invisible comment for the people who has no clue what is this article and lists about. So comment is more easy for them. No need for pictures following all ranks. There are already almost 2 dozens of them. It is not a visible comment. Also. There is no WP:OWN in the article. Pictures are part of 1999 GaWC edition. And it is not only section in this article. Also - it is editor actions are WP:OWN, not existing of only source. Right now you using everyway to strip GaWC lists ignoring fact of source existence. It is WP:OWN. Please leave this article. Your actions will only lead to nowhere. And please read again what have said DJR, Coolcaesar, The Way and others and what, the same, i am repeating as well. Elk Salmon 17:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed your note on the picture list the first time.  If the pictures are actually from GaWC, then we may have a copyright problem, in addition to the possible copyright problem I mentioned about the lists and GaWC's criteria.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 12:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The pictures are not from GaWC - you can see that by clicking on them and finding out that half of them are featured pictures.  DJR (T) 12:42, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Unless it was deleted from the talk archives, the hidden commentary at the top was never discussed, hence it is incorrect to say that there is consensus on it.
User:Elk Salmon's version:
----
PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING:
* Consult http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html and http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html for the point ranking. 
* Do NOT arbitrarily add cities or move them around.
* The images on this pages are sorted by
 1. Number of points
 2. Alphabetically for equal Number of points 
----
My latest correction so that it's not established that GaWC "owns" the article:
----
PLEASE READ BEFORE EDITING:
* Consult http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html and http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html for the GaWC point ranking.
* Any city lists included in the article must be from a published source, specifically referenced in the article. 
* Any city lists should reflect the ranking supplied by the source, and alphabetical within groupings considered equivalent by that source.
* The images on this page should be in the same order that the cities appear in the article.
----
I see no consensus to User:Elk Salmon's version, even if it has been stable (which I can't easily verify).  Any comments?  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The hidden comment is from this edit in April by me. I was made in frustration after reverting (and seeing reverted) countles uninformed additions and modifications of people who'd rather see their pet town further up this percieved popularity list, instead of reading the article and trying to understand it. Of course GaWC doesn't own the list but the comment was meant to be concise and had to point people to an off-wiki source. Anyway the new version is great. --Dschwen 18:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't mean to imply that the hidden comment was added in bad faith, although I may have thought that.  I guess (my) latest version is about the best we can do in that section unless some non-GaWC material can be found for the article and/or the lists spun off to a GaWC article.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 06:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hidden summary 

message: As expressed by several commentators in the recent afd, this article appears to have been colonized by a particular research group at Loughborough University or at least there is undue weight given to them. This verges on abusing Wikipedia for self-promotion. This article is very likely to significantly boost the Loughborough research group's profile in the discourse through this being the no.1 hit for  "global city" on google, plus all those wiki mirrors of course.
This is comparable to corporate spam abuse of Wikipedia..
Sassen's  "seminal" work still just gets a passing mention in a single short sentence while Loughborough occupies about 50% of the article without any evidence that their rankings/surveys are notabily influential. We also have a section on an academic conference at Liverpool Hope University which also demonstrates no notable influence whatsoever. Academics go to conferences all the time. What's so special about this one? I'm tempted to be bold and wade in with a root and branch reworking of this article. Bwithh 02:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current first line is especially jarring in the way it makes a huge, unsupported claim for discursive authority in a hedgy turn of phrase:A global city and world city, or world-class city, is a concept introduced by a group of academics including the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC), based primarily at Loughborough University. Bwithh 02:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't see how WP:NPOV could be applyed to this article. GaWC is balanced source. Their rank and are based on the vast research. Elk Salmon 07:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that the article presents GaWC as the main fount of "global cities" research -  a huge claim without any evidence. . .This is unbalanced coverage of this subject, tantamount to promotional abuse of wikipedia for the interests of GaWC Bwithh 19:45, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to neutralize the lead sentence now but the rest of the article still needs a thorough reassessment of GaWC content Bwithh 19:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a small point of bias: why only look at e.g. Amsterdam and not at the conglomeration of the Randstad that it makes part of? This a pretty arbitrary choice. Only conglomerations that have grown from one nucleus are then 'global city'. If they have grown from a number like The Hague, Rotterdam Utrecht and A'dam, only part of them is taken into consideration
Jcwf 23:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's just your opinion. Personally I see these two ranks as very well educated and very well balanced. They are also based on big researches. It's not a personal opinion of publishers, like Mercer's best city for life. Elk Salmon 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is a matter of badly defined research. (yes I am a researcher, no not in this field). Research should not be based on arbitrarily chosen delineations. Parameters must first be well defined, otherwise all you do is bias your own outcome. Science has fallen in that trap a great many times and that is certainly not just my opinion A pertinent example of the bias that is already there is that the greatest maritime port of the world -one of the parameters that is supposed to define a global city- is Rotterdam and this city hardly figures on the list. If the Randstad is considered together (including R'dam's port and A'dam's airport, it may well outrank a city of lesser importance like London. Is that perhaps the reason for making such arbitrary choices? 
Jcwf 14:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance tag

message: Tying the image list to alpha and beta cities in GaWC 1999 is absurd, even in a hidden comment.  I have no objections to tying city lists to their respective sources, guaranteeing that they are in the same order as in their source (even if the only source is GaWC), but tying the images to a specfic list is void without discussion.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like you it or not it is most widespread research and very well balanced. Arthur, you have lost AFD, RFM and article concept cases. Please just stop it. You dropping now into WP:OWN Get a life and stop terrorizing this article. And don't forget about WP:3RR. Elk Salmon 15:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: By the way. The 86021485 version you have reverted to, was a vandalized version. Elk Salmon 15:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reverting.  It wasn't vandalised, and the pictures being supposed to be the alpha and beta cities from the 1999 GaWC may have been what you intended, but it hasn't been in the article in the hidden section for some time.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 15:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You again reverted it to vandalized state of 86021485 revision. Also don't accuse wikipedians in something that they haven't done. Check WP:FAITH. I have to remind you that you have lost AFD, RFM and Cleanup proposal. So your actions are WP:OWN now. Don't forget also WP:3RR rule. Elk Salmon 15:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why is changing from 1. / (blank) / 2. to 1. / 2. / 3. vandalism?  Even if the original is wrong, it's the equivalent of correcting a typo.  And there is no discussion of alpha / beta, while the pictures being in the same order of the text is a simple guideline which can be applied regardless of how the article evolves.  I'll revert it again if within 3RR.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This revert war is a) disruptive; b) petty; c) does not even concern the content of the article.  This is an encyclopaedia - not a photo gallery.  If people want to see pictures of the relevant cities, they can click on the links or use Wikimedia Commons.  The inclusion of the images do nothing to make the article more encyclopaedic, and if anything detract from its credibility by implicitly violating WP:NPOV and WP:NOR and act as a catalyst to WP:3RR and WP:POINT violations.  Thus, I have acted unilaterally and removed the images and the hidden reference to them.  Please concentrate on improving the content of the article rather than attempting to simplify its contents into a list of images.  DJR (T) 17:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the removal of images is an improvement, as there have also been revert wars in the past as to which image was used for New York City.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image list 

message: Maybe I'm just dense... but who has argued that "Global cities" have those characteristics? Let me further ask, does anyone else research "Global cities" aside from GaWC? shotwell 23:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the answer to your second question is "not any more", although GaWC didn't originate the term.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I have also requested a reference for Saskia Sassen's paper. shotwell 00:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's plenty of stuff about the Saskia Sassen book all over the internet - I've provided a link to the publisher's page at Princeton University Press.  There are lots of good sources regarding the topic - it just involves some old-fashioned reading rather than googling.  DJR (T) 03:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argued by... 

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

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

message: I'd suggest moving all the lists in this article to "GaWC lists of world cities" and including a section here with a "main" template and a few examples (including a negative mention like "Some large and cosmopolitan cities like Taiwan, however, were not present in the list.") This is a violation of neither WP:NPOV nor WP:NOR and gives a clearer view of the single-sourced nature of this data. --Homunq 06:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: it was discussed and rejected already. see AfD and RfM cases. Elk Salmon 06:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  False.  It was discussed and no concensus was reached.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  For AfD an absolute consensus was reached. 18 vs 0. For RfM majority said no to move. Elk Salmon 10:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Splitting out the GaWC lists into a separate article was not rejected.  It's difficult to say there was concensus, as not all the editors commented on the issue, but only you (Elk Salmon) came out against it.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Neither AfD nor RfM was really the right forum for this discussion, since it concerns the content of the article itself, not whether or not it should exist at this location. The fact remains though, that a large body of people find this article to be POV and that problem isn't going to go away unless some changes are made. SteveRwanda 14:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  move lists 

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

message: After having read about 30cm of literature on the global city hypothesis I stumbled across this article - and the discussions. 
The article has partially nothing to do with global cities. It has hardly any theoretical basis - besides mentioning saskia sassen in the beginning. It partially treats the idea of a cultural based world city approach that can´t be related to the economically based global city definition. 
So there must be made a clear point about this - the whole introduction on "General characteristics" is not correct in my opinion. Or at least misleading.
This leads to the useless listing of cities all over the planet and the useless discussions on why my place might not be a world city / global city / whatever. Hey you out there i wish my place was one too - how about Vienna, Austria? - we are central to the scientific history of the 20th century - so why not add us to some front place somehow? - Forget about the nonsense. 
I don´t wish to live in a global city anyway - and many people wouldn't if they knew about the proposed economic consequences.
Have a look at the German version of global cities - it is neat and correct.
I know there has been discussion on this but the definition of world cities and global cities by GaWC and Sassen don't match. So i think that there should be a split. Else there will be no clear Point made.
And second there should be more theoretical input here - just to deter those my city is the neatest people.
-- roman 84.114.200.191 02:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The German version of the article is far from correct. Someone added or moved cities such as Istanbul, Vienna, and Minsk. This has been in place for over a month so either there is some original research going on over in Deutschland or they're really slow to correct vandalism. Analoguekid 03:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you maybe mixed it up with the article on "Weltstadt" - I meant the one on "Global City". No Istanbul, Vienna or Minsk here. ---roman 84.114.200.191 11:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, the link from the English article goes to Weltstadt, and there is a separate page for "Global City" in German. Perhaps this should be changed? Analoguekid 22:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I´m still not so firm with the theory on "World City" but it seems there should be a split in the English Wikipedia too. The GErman Article on "Weltstadt explains the difference between Global City and World City - it is not the same and this mus be taken into account here! - roman 84.114.200.191 13:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yet again. Personal feelings of wikipedians are not allowed in ranks. It is OR. These ranks are based on professional researches. Elk Salmon 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can anyone translate the German articles?  We may be able to pull in relevant data, if they are adequately sourced.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can try to translate the german Article but where should I put the translation? My expression of personal feeling concerning ranks was purely cynical - I think maybe the article should point out more clearly that this is research not opinion. Maybe it will help us all to see things more clearly when I translate the German Article. roman 84.114.200.191 18:22, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  A logical place for the translation would be a subpage of this talk page.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tried to translate the article - the English is not the best - i get confused from translating so it might be a bit german not english in terms of grammar - and the Links are not set for most of the article. And I am willing to add to this as i read Sassens Book and several other articles by her and others concerning the topic. The Article is to be found under: /Temp Translation of Global Cities in German Wikipedia. Please be aware that the term "global city" is economic - rooted in neo-marxist theory. And the the term of world city is not. Thats the central point of my critique. — roman aka Rot de 00:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

text:  Is there a definition of what is a world city to the GaWC somewhere to be found? — 84.114.200.191 18:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No rections to my translation so far? Or any Ideas? Ist there nobody interested in GC-Theory? Onyl thos my place is the biggest people? Rot de 21:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article is partially nonsense - confusing definitions 

message: What the hell is Manila doing rated same as Barcelona, Berlin, or Shanghai? TO this day, I had never even heard of Manila! And who hasnt heard of Barcelona. I mean, pleaaaaaaase, theres a serious problem here. This article would make Wikipedia seem totally ridiculous if a newcomer saw it! First, the data is almost 8 years old, and second, the ranking is a standing joke! Its just too much! dyna 29 11  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daniel Montin (talk • contribs) .
:The fact that you haven't head of Manila before says more about your geography knowledge than about the importance of the city. I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be asking for WP:POV, and implying, that WP should be more western-centric. --Dschwen 21:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why shouldn't it? Did you even bother to read the paper? They list all criteria and provide a transparent evaluation. So you must disagree on the criteria. Well, that's tough luck, Wikipedia only reports on the science, it doesn't make or change it! --Dschwen 11:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, come on, Manila has the world's highest population density. It's got to be the center of something in order to be such a crowded place!  —  Rickyrab | Talk 04:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, Shanghai isn't the capital of China. Beijing is. If you don't believe me, try looking for Zhongnanhai in Shanghai.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 04:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is a joke 4 

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

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

message: I thought Mexico City and Tokyo had more people than New York and London. How come NY and London top the list of world cities?  —  Rickyrab | Talk 04:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: on the other hand, I read somewhere that NYC had the world's 3rd biggest Central business district or something, with only Tokyo's and Hong Kong's being larger.  —  Rickyrab | Talk 04:13, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The entire point of the global city phenomenon is that some cities have influence and importance in excess of their simple population count. (Lists of the world's most populous cities exist elsewhere on Wikipedia.) Economics, trade, culture, government, and diplomacy are more an indication of a "global city" than population alone.  --MCB 05:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was in New York yesterday... yeah, there's a lot of the world to see in New York... —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't suppose that the Olympics Committee picked London (the New York of Europe) for 2012 because they were really pissing for New York, only to have New York turn them down? (Or is it just Sheldon Silver?)  —  Rickyrab | Talk 18:34, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Global city is not about having the bigger one - its an economic theory Rot de 21:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New York and London outrank cities bigger than them? 

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

message: I'm wondering what the justification for retaining the 1999 GaWC listing is. Is it mainly historical, in that it was the first overall attempt to categorize global cities in a systematic manner? Or do we plan to keep each periodic listing as we would keep, for example, the results of a decennial (etc.) census? Or should new work supersede the previous work, and we would only keep the 2004 list, and replace it when GaWC (or an alternate source) comes out with a new one? --MCB 18:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree.  It seems pretty senseless keeping a list that has been superseded by newer research.  DJR (T) 00:45, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is critical to the article that the first list be kept. The more data we have about the subject, the better, especially considering how contested this article can be to begin with. Just because something is old does not make it invalid. The new work cannot supersede the older work because they are looking at different criteria, unlike a census which measures basically the same thing every time. --Analogue Kid 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Older work can be made invalid if the data used in the old work are no longer applicable today!  If the list today goes against the common sense of most readers, then it would make sense to remove the list or create a separate article for the list. This list is one of the biggest bullshit I've seen yet on Wikipedia. --Naus 18:16, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retaining 1999 GaWC list? 

message: What do you think about replacing the national flags with city coats of arms? After all the focus of this article is on cities, not countries, isn't it? — Kpalion(talk) 15:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad idea, but do we have coats of arms for all cities? Also, many cities in North America have an official seal rather than a traditional coat of arms.--Analogue Kid 18:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, the coat of arms is a typicaly European concept. But most cities do have an emblem of some sort (COA, seal, etc.). You're also right about the problem of availability of such symbols. For some cities (like Seoul) we don't have any symbol. For some other (like Mexico City) we only have a copyrighted image and fair use would not apply to using such an image on this page. But I guess we could simply leave those few cities without a symbol. Anyway, here's what the first part of the list of global cities might look like, if we replace national flags with city emblems. — Kpalion(talk) 08:30, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm partial towards keeping the national flags of the different countries.  I think that it's a nice idea putting the city emblems or whatever, but the way it looks below...kind of makes them look like sports teams.Banpei 08:35, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably because sports teams' emblems are often designed to resemble coats of arms. — Kpalion(talk) 12:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm against the idea of coats of arms or anything like it.  Principally because London as a city does not have any representative symbol - the coat of arms used below is the coat of arms of the City of London, which makes up one square mile of the wider London region.  The city should not be represented by this symbol, and by this accord no cities should be represented by emblems unless they directly correspond.  However, this is a minor issue compared to the more pressing issue of WP:FU.  Most coats of arms are copyrighted images, and WP:FU clearly states that fair-use images should only be used where absolutely necessary.  This is quite clearly not an example of absolute necessity.  DJR (T) 01:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about a picture of Red Ken's smiling face? ;-) Matthew 09:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National flags 

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

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

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