Talk:Globalization/Archive 1

message: 131.247.39.109 recently restored the "end matter" of the article (references, see also, etc.), but in so doing reverted a number of quite substantive changes: for example, the addition of references to Chomsky, Hardt and Negri, and Harvey that I added a few days ago in response to a tag requesting citation.  The new version also reverted other changes that, at least by my lights, improved the article.  Can we keep the end matter from disappearing without removing all of this other stuff?  Job L 18:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored references, but deleted information

message: I just attempted to add some references in the anti-globalization section, but now all of the references have disappeared—the tags themselves are there, but the article doesn't actually list the references at the end any more.  I've tried to fix this, but I can't quite figure out how.  Can somebody please help?  Job L 17:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting issues

message: "Globalization is a way to be global, worldwide, international, intercontinental." Sorry, I don't quite understand what this means. It seems important to have a clear definition (or summary of other peoples' definitions) here; on the other hand I don't feel remotely qualified to write one. --Shaydon 18:01 31 May 2003 (UTC)
:Since nobody seems to be taking care of this complaint, I tried. Hope others will join. I also think that this article would become better if pro- and anti-globalization thoughts are juxtaposed, rather than pushing all anti-globalization stuff into a separate article. Tomos 22:44, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining globalization

message: I`m confused about the impact both globalization or its lack thereof will have on cultural diversity.  Both sides (globalization and anti-globalization) seem to be claiming it as an advantage.  If the measure of cultural diversity is the number of languages present in a region or the world at one time, isn`t it possible for both to affect it positively?  Globalization encourages the sharing of cultures and potential for growth of cultures and their languages.  Anti-globalization supports national soveriegnity so as to continue a country`s culture and language(s).  Granted, a major argument against globalization is its ability to become imperial and assimilate less powerful nations under one ruling body which eliminates languages etc.  However, isolation may cause certain cultures to become extinct as they resist change.  Am I making this all to Darwinian?  Please let me know what you think.
: Yes. For a small nation, to have access to huge foreign markets can be potentionally good. For example, in Quebec we have an internal market of 7 million people. That is not sufficient to sustain a growing economy in a lot of sectors, such as cultural "industries". Having access to the US market, exporting what we produce is in fact necessary for our survival. We really depend on it. However, Quebec is a post-industrial society with a high level of education and a high standards of living. Such is not the case with the majority of countries on this planet. Mathieugp 12:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Many on the anti-globalization camp have redifined themselves as "altermondialists", because they acknowledge that an increase in trade and better communication among the peoples of the earth is in itself a Good Thing. The propaganda now says: "another world is possible", "globalization of solidarity" etc. What is a Bad Thing is the current trend of globalization, the one which is centered strickly on the economic growth of certain rich companies in certain rich countries that need foreign markets to expand and keep their dominant position in the world. What a lot of people, even when marginally informed on the subject, are against is the current development of the world, the globalization of markets led by multinational corporations who answer to themselves alone, and abuse the IMF, the World Bank etc. That thing is pure evil. Even hardcore capitalists see the danger of it, as it grows totally out of control and is outside the influence of the national policies of any country. There is a monster creating huge inequalities right now (as if the wealth of the world wasn't already badly distributed!) Mathieugp 12:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: One thing growing really fast in the new world economy are private international financial transactions. Some people, like those behind ATTAC want to regulate and tax these transactions. Mathieugp 12:56, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for answering my quesiton, Mathieugp. In the Japanese verison, I've translated only '[a]n increase in international trade' (without the comparison with world economy). The original (i.e. increase in int'l trade faster than world economic growth) may seem understanble in English, but not in Japanese. The answer you've given is helpful, but it isn't directly concerned with the (increase of) international trade. So I'm thinking to integrate your opinion into other items (financial/monetary one). (But maybe I have to translate [ATTAC]] page before that in that case). Anyway, Cheers :) Hans castorp81 00:23, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: "The growth in the world economy" means that the "Gross National Product of the World" is increasing. The unequality Trade > Economy (actually Finance > Trade > Economy) is an important aspect of Globalisation. (Nomeata 04:34, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural diversity 

message: This may just be my opinion, but how can you have a complete article on globalization without making references to Thomas Friedman and his book The Lexus and the Olive Tree? Many feel that Friedman was one of the defining figures in the pro-globalization movement.
Maybe someone just overlooked him...   --TheBlindProphet 12:25, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Friedman? 

message: I don't get it. What does globalization mean, in the context of the "anti-globalization movement"?
Does globalization mean the spread of free market economic principles, i.e., the ability of individuals to set the price at which they sell their labor or other goods and the corresponding ability to choose the supplier of goods and services they wish to obtain and to choose what price to offer for these?
If so, I'm not sure why the anti-globalizationists would oppose these abilities, unless they have some philosophical, political or other motive for inhibiting free market economics. (I've heard that anti-globalization is just the latest guise of Communism and/or the movement to spread socialism.)
And is it only the excesses and unfair practices that the anti-globalists oppose? That is, are they trying to reform the free market so that it stays free is adjusted to prevent exploitation?
Or do they seek to destroy the free market, replacing it with some variation on socialism? That is, are they protesting the excesses and unfair practices as step one in a multi-step process?
The reason I ask for this distinction is that is looks like a slippery slope, like the animal rights activists I met in Central Park who were circulating a petition about the treatment of horse-drawn cabs. The guy I talked to freely admitted that improved conditions for the horses was not his ultimate goal. He wanted to ban the use of horses altogether. (Another example is people who want to regulate the ivory trade -- not to keep poachers from making elephants extinct per se -- but as the first step in banning ALL killing of elephants for their tusks.) ----Uncle Ed (Rod Poe) 17:44, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear definition

message: I've created a  template feel free to add other important examples of postmodernism - broadly defined - in this template so that readers can gain a better understanding of the terms involved by comparing and contrasting their use over several articles. Stirling Newberry 17:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Postmodernism series 

message: I'm against aggregation of globalization and anti-globalization.
My feeling is that the anti-this-or-that people are aiming at a politically expedient label instead of their intended targets. Wikipedia need not provide a tool for people with a political agenda. Does Wikipedia include Anti-Democracy in the democracy page? How about equal time for the guys who think that the Holocaust is part of the “Great Jewish Conspiracy?”
If you don't like the IMF, that's cool. Don't like offshoring? Fine. Globalization is huge and not liking something shouldn't constitute dislike of things like open borders or the Internet or a hunderd of the other things that make up what we think of as globalization.
I must mention that I strongly endorse the addition of a section on Friedman. His "From Beirut to Jerusalem" is a not so gentle introduction to the territory surrounding globalization and "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" presents a decently balanced view. If you read just the Lexus without Beirut, you may think that he is without sufficient compassion. One may disagree with the man, but he is most assuredly not without compassion.
I can't help mention that the inclusion of Friedman would represent the best of Wikipedia in terms of using resources that are accurate, but not academic.
Bob C
Boynton Beach, FL
3-19-05
:Who said the two articles Globalization and Anti-globalization should be aggregated?  They are sufficiently different to be in different articles (the difference being in the fact that "anti-globalization" is a misnomer).  If they were more similar, then we might decide to follow the general Wikipedia policy of keeping criticism of X in the article about X, which is, as far as I can tell, what nobody is proposing.  You are wrong about the Democracy article; there is indeed a "pros and cons" section. 
If you want material on Friedman, then write it.  Chamaeleon 21:41, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, some shudra in Mumbai could write it for a fraction of the cost. You should rather consider merging this into Anti-globalization, which is better written at the moment. Something of a gloabalization proponent, --B. Phillips 13:36, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  aggregation of globalization and anti-globalization 

message: The term 'globalism' is used a few times (and it redirects here), but it is not made clear what that word means. First, it is suggested that the word refers to the economic aspects of it (I think that is meant as a definition, but then it could do with some rewriting)), but then it is added to the 'pro-section'. Which suggests that the protagonists of globalisation are mostly found among those who focus on economic factors, but that can't be right. DirkvdM 19:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is globalism? 

message: The related articles Cultural appropriation and American empire are currently nominated on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support these articles with your vote there or comment on the nomination. --Fenice 09:26, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement Drive

message: I've just come across this page for the first time (after doing some cleanup at Anti-globalization) and I must say that the "meanings" sidebar does not display well on my screen. Also, it isn't included in the table of contents, so I can't link to it at the point in the first paragraph which says "see below" (even though it seems the logical reference of that sentence fragment). Is there any objection if I move it to an actual section in the article? Mamawrites 12:10, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having heard no objections, I have made the move.Mamawrites 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  the "meanings" sidebar 

message: I remember a time when this article had a long list of external links. Where have they gone? 
217.41.240.15 14:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where Have The External Links Gone? 

message: I have spent the last few minutes editing the anti-globalization section, mainly editing writing problems. There is still a lot of work to do. I am changing "Most are reformist (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) and a strong minority is revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism)" to "Most are reformist, (arguing for a more humane form of capitalism) while others are more revolutionary (arguing for a more humane system than capitalism). Although most anti/alter-globalizationists probably are reformist, I think it is hard to say that only a small minority are revolutionary, judging by my own annecdotal experience (which is obviously not a good source). This could be my own bias as a revolutionary, so if someone can find a good source to show that only a small minority are revolutionary, put it back in. Also, there are a lot of people involved who are anti-capitalist and reformist (democratic socialists for example), so even the paranthetical comments could be revised. The Ungovernable Force 08:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the Anti-Globalization Section

message: It says that until 1950 international trade was reduced. It then says that starting in 1914 (WWI) this trend was reversed. Can the writer of these sentences correct themselves, please! Caravaca 17:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Illogical or self-contradictory timeline in introductory section

message: However, the world increasingly shares problems and challenges that do not obey nation-state borders, most notably pollution of the natural environment, and the movement previously known as anti-globalization has transformed into a movement of movements for globalization from below, seeking, through experimentation, forms of social organisation that transcend the nation-state and representative democracy. Whereas the original arguments that globalization is taking place can be refuted with stories of internationalisation, as above, the emergence of a global movement is indisputable and therefore we can speak of a real process towards a global human society of societies. Other authors have argued that we are in transition to a planetary phase of civilization; the exact form and character of the global society is contested and will be determined by the choices we make in the critical decades ahead. For example, the Global Scenario Group has outlined alternative visions of the global future, with "market forces" or economic globalization being just one option, contrasted with "policy reform," "fortress world," "breakdown," "eco-communalism" and a "new sustainability paradigm."
First of all globalization does not entail the destruction of the nation state. And on the contrary issues such as global warming and pollution have given rise to the internationalization of environmental laws: the kyoto treaty being one of them. Globalization from below, what does this mean?
"Other authors..." this is unattributed nonsense. It is a carte blanche to state anything.Firmitas 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This is nonsense and should be taken out. 

message: I made a new heading meaning and debate. I provided cogent defitions for globalization, broke it down to its three main aspects economic, political, and cultural. I also ushered in the debate on wether this is good or bad by mentioning the role of the state, corporations, and individuals in maximizing social welfare.  I believe an equal amount of space for both sides. I feel that I did not endorse neither argument but made them concise.
Those definitions are pallid rather than cogent. They provide no historical parameters and suggest nothing in particular about the actual policies and processes, especially those for which those institutions are responsible. Rather than eliminating bias you have allowed the two most powerful elite-controlled institutions to set the authoritative frame of reference for the so-called "meaning and debate." Without going into the details of IMF and World Bank policies I would say that generally the "meaning and debate" section assumes there are no mediating agents (ie: class actors such as we see in the mutually constitutive dependency between finance, multinational corporations, and political elites) that design globalizing institutions, erect policy and implement according to the prioritization of class interests. Of course the World Bank would love to have us believe that globalization is merely a process whereby "free" people "initiate voluntary economic transactions with residents of other countries" rather than admitting that it prioritizes specific transactions for a specific social stratum while indirectly and directly inhibiting the development of others, both within and between nations. Perhaps worse of all is the inclusion of the sentence, "In terms of migration white and blue collar workers may go from one country to another to provide their services" as if this was a cheery and uncontroversial fact merely "facilitated" by globalization. In a great number of documented cases this "migration" has been a result of involuntary displacement. BernardL 19:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning & Debate 

message: I removed ==Glocalization== from its own heading 
This has no bearing on the Globalization article.
A term coined by Roland Robertson, glocalization describes a process whereby the "local" is integrated into the "global". This results in a heterogenization of cultures, as local quiditties of particular areas become disseminated around the world, and cultures clash with newly introduced cultural concepts, ideologies, practices, and so on. One keen example of glocalization is that of museums. Museums take local culture and history and prepare them for mass consumption, especially among tourists. Such manufacturing of local culture for mass consumption results in heterogenization, rather than homogenization, because it introduces, rather than supplants, the local culture.
Glocalization is an opposing theory to that of "grobalization", a term coined by George Ritzer to identify globalization with cultural homogenization. Here, the manufacturing of cultural artifacts is taken to involve the homogenization of such artifacts, so as to be apt to be consumed by many consumers around the world.
Within the contemporary debate about globalization, the debate regarding glocalization-versus-grobalization is widespread. There have been major proponents of both, and each theory carries with it its own set of differing interpretations. For example, Appadurai is a proponent of a theory of hybridization, which may be associated with glocalization, whereby there is occurring an overall heterogenization of cultures, and a creation of new cultures resulting from clashes among various -scapes.
While the dispute has yet to be fully reconciled, each theory carries with it its own pros and cons. Furthermore, it is certain that globalization cannot be viewed as a unidimensional phenomenon. Indeed, the study of globalization carries multiple theories, especially with respect to the cultural dimensions of globalization, regarding the characteristics, and entailed processes, contained within the contemporary process of globalization.
:The issues as to whether globalization entails a homogenization or heterogenization of cultures is very important... not necessarily to me personally, but academically. It is a crucial question regarding the nature and consequences of globalization. By explicitly mentioning this issue, the notions underlying various anti- and pro-globalization movements are more directly perceivable. This allows people to question, or notice, otherwise latent presuppositions. Studies of globalization often focus on the cultural and social impacts of globalization, especially with respect to homogenization or heterogenization. Perhaps this should be made more explicit in the section above quoted, but it is ridiculous to assert that the issue of cultural homogeneity so central to studies of globalization has no bearing in a globalization article. I will await further comment regarding this, and modify the section, before adding it back into the article. Regards, Drifter 02:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed glocalization and put in Other Uses

message: This article on a related term is nominated as AfD.  I've taken a first stab at rewriting, and have voted to keep, but improve.  If anyone here is interested in voting and in improving the article, help would be appreciated.  Thanks.--Beth Wellington 19:25, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Walmarting]] 

message: The reason I moved the new quotes from the Meaning & Debate to the anti-globalization section is that the Meaning & Debate section serves as only a brief sumation of the issues. When I wrote this summation I made sure that for every 1 sentence explicating globalization there would 1 sentence explaining its critique. In this manner we would get balance in presenting both sides of the argument presented together as the globalization question to the reader. 
However, the person who inserted this paragraphs were huge and were simply dedicated to presenting an argument against globalization. Frankly I had already written about the issues he augmented. By adding these paragraphs which are half the size of original Meaning & Debate section clearly presents an unbalanced point of view.
This is not pride of authorship, or an agenda driven edit. I found the graphs well written, sourced and informative. However, since they dwelve deeper into the issue they should be moved to Anti-Globalization Debate. I found it so good that I put them first on the section. Firmitas 01:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paragraphs moved to anti globalization section. 

message: There's a cited source listed in the pro-globalization thread that states that inequality between countries has decreased, but according to the IMF it has increased.  Globalization: Threat or Opportunity?  Wasn't sure what to do about that.
:Note that in too is my answer. --Robdurbar 07:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decrease in inequality. 

message: I have requested this page be looked at for cleanup. The introduction is bulky and the entire article is really hard to read. MyNameIsNotBob 07:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't agree that a definition of "intensification of consciousness" is unnecessary. I agree with Bernard that the term is far from straightforward. If we mean increasing awareness of other cultures (which you appear to refer to, Sebastian), then this should be explained and referenced. It's also far from accepted that it is this component of 'globalisation' that distinguishes it from 'internationalisation', although that is an interesting view that should also be elucidated and referenced. These are precisely the sort of issues that need to be clean-up to make a good article.--Nmcmurdo 22:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd also like to probe a little behind the confident assertion that Roland Robertson "first defined" globalisation in 1992. How widely accepted is this view? --Nmcmurdo 19:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for cleanup 

message: Because of what I believe are numerous critical deficiencies I have removed the paragraph that was recently added to the front of this article.
"== General characteristics of globalization ==
Economic globalization,  (i.e. the aggregate change we observe in our factories, storefronts, indeed generally across our economies and lifestyles) is caused by four fundamental transactions in the global economy. These transactions can be described as flows to and from different places.
** People (i.e. Immigration, Migration, Emigration,Birth Rates, etc.)
** Capital (i.e. Foriegn Direct Investment, Aid, Equity, Debt, Credit, etc.)
** Energy (i.e. Oil, Natural Gas, etc.)
** Security (i.e. Security Forces, Armed Conflicts, WMD Proliferation, 4GW, etc.)
The movement of people around the globe, while also spreading disparate cultures and religions, is an essential part of the global economy. Immigration into industrailized countries will be essential in replacing the large number of workers expected to retire in the next few decades while also increasing the standards of living for many of those workers."
Rationale for deletion:
1. The paragraph makes several authoritative declarations, for example enumerating what are the "four fundamental" characteristics but provides  no references, it therefore constitutes original research. 
2. The paragraph about the movement of people around the globe has a serious 'North/"first world"' bias. The implicit assumption is that globalization is a benign force directing the rest of the world to solve problems of "first world" generational attrition. The assertion that it must "also (increase) the standards of living for many of those workers"  is POV, I wouldn't be surprised if it is copied from an IMF propaganda leaflet or a similar source of uncritical propaganda (the World Bank at its worst, Tom Friedman, rightwing think tanks, etc.) A lead-in describing "general characteristics" if necessary at all, should give the reader some bearings on the subject without the foisting of POV preconceptions and unquestioned assumptions upon them. BernardL 13:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph Removal 

message: Editors interested in this topic might like to take part in peer review on a new version of Global justice I've been working on. Cheers, --Sam Clark 11:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer review request

message: The Global Economy covers the economic component of globalization but not as well as the main article JQ 08:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are right. I would say in other words that globalization is a wider concept than economic globalization, a restrictive one. An article on economic globalization,, global economy, or whatever is needed, and some texts from the generic article "globalization" should be transfered to it, instead of merging everything which creates confusions. The most caricatural one is using the very narrow and bureaucratic IMF definition. --Pgreenfinch 08:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I propose a move of The Global Economy to Economic aspects of globalizationJQ 07:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: The last paragraph under the anti-globalization movement subheading is littered with extra characters and misplaced words. Please clean up to keep originally intended message.
--
The typos and grammar are so bad, I can't even tell what the original message WAS. It might as well just be deleted and started over from scratch. Senatorpjt 21:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typographical trash 

message: First of all, the area before the TOC should be a summary. It is much too big. Some of it should be moved to the rest of the article.
Also, there is a lot of broken links and wiki syntax, which may be the result of vandalism, I haven't looked at the article's history. --Ortzinator 19:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Upon reaching this page, the first thing I see is a KFC in Kuwait. Is it not biased to place the thought into people's brains that commercialism and franchising, is the proper way to  globalization?
--OneRyt 11:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Multinational corporations are an important and highly notable component of globalization, and the KFC in Kuwait is a very illustrative example. I think it's entirely appropriate as an illustration of the subject. Seraphimblade 11:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that the balance of the article is biased toward a discussion of Economic Globalization -- focusing on trade, corporations, etc. The article would benefit from an improved introduction, situating Globalization as a centuries long process that has accelerated dramatically in the past 50years, discussing the origins of the term. Perhaps Economic Globalization is a sub-section. The discussion of the "anti-globalization" is also too narrow and show the bias toward understanding globalization mostly in market terms. OrionK 18:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Globalization, as understood by most people (that I have ever heard of), is usually in reference to Economic Globalization. I have rarely, if ever, heard it used in a way that excludes such. In fact, until I saw these comments, I didn't even think that it could have meaning while excluding the economic from its definition. I agree with Seraphimblade. GaelicWizard 05:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Exclude? We are talking about balance, not exclusion -- no need to polarize the issues. Economic Globalization is one important aspect of the the term Globalization. If you spend most of your time in business circles or among Economists you might assume they are synonymous terms. But if you spend time with sociologists, historians, global justice activists, etc. you'll learn that the term refers to a complex of phenomena with economic, cultural, political expressions. As an encyclopedic article, I still think we need to have balance, introduce the term at its most general level and then explain its various elements. OrionK 15:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

text: You're inserting personal bias and your own subjective interpretation into the discussion. In fact, globalization as it is understood as a real and measurable effect throughout the international community is seen in economic terms and corporations are a known vehicle of economic globalization; this is how the concept of globalization is largely defined during international summits, and by those who protest against "globalization". A KFC in Kuwait is indeed an appropriate and illustrative example of the modern concept of globalization. Blacksun1942 01:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Blacksun, you are showing the limited circles you travel in. Globalization is not a purely economic phenomenon, nor is it defined in these terms alone. The cultural transformations, blending and mixing of ideas, the advent of communications technology, the cross-boundary air and water pollution, the mounting climate crisis, are all features of our globalizing world. The upsurge of global civil society activity is often pointed to as part of globalization. The many global conference convened by the UN on human rights, environmental, migration, and other issues extend well beyond economics. To the extent that this article focuses on economics as synonymous with globalization it is myopic and un-encyclopedic. Clearly economics is a major ASPECT of globalization -- increased trade and new global trade regimes, removing barriers to capital flows (but keeping strong barriers to labor flows), etc. tell me my friend, you know what you could be, why do you worry all the time what you should be 15:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: Uh, when I go to this page I see a big picture of male genitalia and can't revert it.  All earlier edits seem to show it.  Looks like some weird virus.  Anyone else get this.know whow to undo it?  FAST!  Avraham 09:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: gone now.  Thanks whoever did it!  Avraham 09:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: An anon removed all of the intro and the templates here. Since there were a significant amount of edits since then, maybe someone could fit it back in somehow. --Ortzinator 04:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Meh, I did it. --Ortzinator 17:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro 

message: How is everyone, if you are interested in adding information and globalization and a study done on teenagers, I believe one of the first studies ever to exam teenagers in Lebanon, Azerbaijan, New York City, and the Philippines please reference this link. I would do it myself but it seems any time I add ANYTHING to wikipedia it gets deleted no matter how relevant it is... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.125.200.178 (talk) 03:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teenagers and the future 

message: When I go to this page there are vandals written on the first part of the topic. I tried to edit it but to no avail. But the vandals disappear when I log in. The vandals does not look good on a topic that is quite important so can anyone remove it? Thanks in advance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.215.118.5 (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I think that the KFC picture is the totally wrong image of the idea of globalization.  It would be better to have not a picture at all than this one view of globalization.  A picture of the world would be atleast something if there is a need for a picture. 149.150.236.88 18:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: I have edited the beginning of the article as the introduction was rather long-winded and needed splitting into separate sections to make navigation, and reading of the site much easier. Bencgibbins 12:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean-up

message: I find the this paragraph hard to decode. The last two claims are without references, and I suggest they be removed unless references are provided. What is the evidence for these claims?
The "First Era of Globalization" began to break down at the beginning with the first World War, and later collapsed during the gold standard crisis in the late 1920s and early 1930s. Countries that engaged in that era of globalization, including the European core, some of the European periphery and various European American and Oceanic offshoots, prospered. Inequality between those states fell, as goods, capital and labour flowed freely between nations.
Specifically, what does it mean "countries that engaged in that era of globalization"? What is a "European American and Oceanic offshoot"?? What is meant by "prospered"? It is doubtful that "goods, capital, and LABOR" flowed freely -- they hardly do so now after decades of trade talks. Also, inequality between European nations and their colonies hardly fell -- what is this last sentence referring to? 
I will remove it unless those who object provide references and clarify the intended points. tell me my friend, you know what you could be, why do you worry all the time what you should be 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section: Unsubstantiated Claims

message: though it is mentioned in the article that the term was coined in the latter half of the 20th century, the name of the person who who coined it is not mentioned. some people attribute it to Edward Said, is it correct? 
maliha —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.2.148.26 (talk) 05:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  who coined the term? 

message: although it is mentioned in the article that the term ws coined in the latter half of 20th century, the name of the person who coined the term has not been given. some people attribute it to Edward Said, is it correct?--210.2.148.26 05:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  who coined the term? 

message: They are not the same, but one is redirected to the latter if one searches the former. It should be changed or noted. 
http://www.theglobalist.com/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2392
:Duly noted, whoever you are.  This is an important distinction that the article should clarify: namely, that "globalism" refers to an ideology while "globalization" refers to a state of affairs, a set of processes, etc.  Job L 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but both are related. An advocate of globalization is likely someone who also beleives in globalism. Signaturebrendel 07:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  globalism and globalisation are different