Talk:Global city/Mediation

message: Hello!  The article is being disputed, but you (Nixer) have not provided any sources relevant to the topic of global cities to substantiate your claims.  Marskell and I have repeatedly asked this and all that you have provided is circuitous, repetitive, fallacious argumentation with no relevant source material cited.  Provide relevant sources/information and I don't see there being an issue in retaining the tag; otherwise, it just smacks of subjective opinionating and should be removed (as a concession, I added the tag to the Talk:Global city page).
Furthermore (corresponding to your points/statements):
(1) The main article (defining and providing a general overview of what a global city is) and the GaWC section are distinct and clearly defined.  The GaWC used particular, clearly stated criteria to develop their lists/ranks; these are not wholly dissimilar from those defined in the section above it (and does not include notions like culture, for example), but needn't be verbatim.
(2) The GaWC list is a peer-authored treatise by 'students' (a working group) of the topic at a university in the UK and is one of numerous attempts to gauge global cities; see Global_city#External_Links for more information.  It may not be agreeable to some (as it appears to not embrace cultural significance, for instance), but that doesn't invalidate it.  I would support the addition of other sourced information/indicators about global cities (and summarised in a table), but not removal of the GaWC information (which is directly relevant) or supplanting it with irrelevant information.
(3) Many of your suggestions about what to include are highly subjective and not directly relevant to the topic.  Cost of living – while informative - is not directly relevant to global city stature; the GaWC report does not directly indicate this.  Nor are the number of billionaires relevant.  Can you cite any information or sources supporting your position?  Perhaps in toto these characteristics – with others – help define the quality of life in cities ... and if such a summary is available and relevant to the topic, I'm all for including it.  But even that may be supposition.  If you find independent value in these topics, create unique articles on each of those topics, but don't muddy the global city article with irrelevant information.  To make an independent comparison of indicators (i.e., on your own) would constitute original research and is untenable in Wikipedia.
(4) I et al. wholly support adding a table comparing world cities, not comparing other characteristics that may or may not define them or be wholly relevant.  Again, you have not provided any source information to substantiate a table, and to do so independently (without authortiative corroboration) would constitute original research.
In addition, during these deliberations you initiated retaliatory edits on the Toronto article.  There are two references referring to Toronto's world city status on the world city page/reference section (i.e., not just in GaWC list), only one brief mention in the Toronto article, and you edited the latter in response to our discussions.  While inclusion of the reference sources is not discouraged, they would unnecessarily bloat the article and the links should suffice.  You also altered the rank on the template there to emphasise that Toronto was 1st ... (in Canada), when this was already stated (as part of the template).  This is condescending.
In summary, while we share and empathise with your sentiments, I do not believe you have yet met a burden of proof to substantiate your position and the systematic editions to the global city article you propose.
As well: I am sure that every user has an opinion on the topic; see this repose.  Relatedly, Vlad Patryshev has not provided any supportive information, either, and his contentions are just as subjective as yours or mine.  I have provided or cited relevant source information, though. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: E Pluribus Anthony's response to Nixer

message: Hello!  Despite some initial instability from both sides, we have both agreed to refrain from editing the global city until a resolution has been arrived at.  At Marskell's suggestion (reiterating previous statements), Nixer has agreed to work on collecting relevant information and presenting it (at this workspace); Marskell and I have offered to (and will) assist him in incorporating and enhancing this information and the article.
Any suggestions regarding next steps?  Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 15:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you've done the first steps, which is ceasing the antagonistic editing, and talking things over.  Continue to work on the table -- I think that's a great start.  — Catherine\talk 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Catherine: hi!  Agreed; it was getting problematic.  I think it's a good start, too; I propose an alternate approach to dually address concerns about having a table such as this and independently ranking items; also see our ongoing discussions here, particularly the very bottom.  What do you think?  Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 20:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''''Modus vivendi'''''

message: Over time, as per the above, we've integrated conciliations in the global city article and, weeks later, no others have been integrated as of yet.  A prior vote was posed (not without some difficulty) to determine if one or both of the current table and list are satisfactory and should remain or be deleted: a consensus was not reached, so both remain.  Unless a groundswell of opposition is forthcoming, I believe the status quo is sufficient hereafter.
Upon attempting closure of this issue and suggesting removal of the  tag atop the article, N. indicated the article requires additional input (worldwization), and clarification was requested.  Some days have passed and additional clarification has not been forthcoming from anyone.  Given the above, I think it prudent to remove the  tag atop the article and have done so.  As well, unless there's objection otherwise, I believe this issue and mediation to be resolved!  Thoughts?  Thanks for your input. E Pluribus Anthony 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resolution to mediation