Talk:Global city/Archive 2

message: This is one of the most bizarre entries in Wikipedia. The rankings are insane, and make no sense. For Paris to be ranked above Los Angeles (I've lived in both cities) is completely insane, regardless of any procedures that may be presented to give some (false) sense of authenticity. This is OK, but this article adopts the same bias as the formulators of this idea, and is clearly not objective, nor true.
: I agree with you. Vancouver, for example, ranks somewhere with The Hague. ??????. That's just ridiculous. Vancouver is more Global than say Zurich, which is listed much higher. Then again, this is very very bizarre.
::Please see the Wikipedia core policies on verifiability, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not: WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT.  The GaWC study has serious problems, but as the leading study in this field, it is all that we can use under the no original research policy.  That is, Wikipedia can only summarize and republish findings made somewhere else, but cannot itself be used to publish any given editor's own personal views as to how to rank global cities.  Any subjective ranking of global cities here by Wikipedia editors would constitute original research.  --Coolcaesar 02:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hernlund and 24.87.73.104. Nothing wrong with points. You just both have point of view that is very centralised on America. Elk Salmon 09:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: I have to say...

message: This article is extremely biased towards Western, capitalist, Euro-centric and Anglo-centric viewpoints. (And I'm a Western capitalist myself, but if capitalism is a system that works, who needs false hype?) There is also the lack of a time perspective.  Let's face it, in 1420 China had cities over 1 million people while Europe was just a back-water.  For the past 3,000 years, China has been the most important "global" area. It's been said in Shanghai and Hong Kong that China just had a little 200-year slump.  Look at the numbers and infrastructure.  Hong Kong has more skyscrapers than any other city in the world, and the highest life expectancy of any major city.  Shanghai has 16 million people in the municipality alone, and while Westerners boost the "Western" cities by claiming "suburban" populations, the "suburban" population is not even included in Shanghai's total.  It would likely be over 20 million if the suburbs were included.
Further, this article has the bad start of blowing out of all proportion a list made by STUDENTS.  Excuse me, since when did people who didn't even graduate yet suddenly become the WORLD AUTHORITY?  By allowing this article to continue, Wikipedia continues to miss the mark of becoming a true encyclopedia. → R Young {yakłtalk} 08:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you. Though for historical perspective, Rome for example had about five million at 1st contury. It also was the most important city in the world. About the GaWC rating I vote for removal.--Nixer 09:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I somewhat disagree and we've been over this.  Instead, I propose replacing everything between the table of contents and the GaWC listing – the many criteria for which really have no cited, verifiable basis – with content like this from the "city" article, with editions: that should minimise and address any POV in usage of the term.  E Pluribus Anthony 14:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

text: This article should be expected to have a western bias...  The title is Global cities and I think we can all agree that the western world is more dominant than the eastern in a global sense.--Dakart 20:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why has the POV/bias tag been removed?

message: ===This article is worth removing===
What's the point of publishing this? What are the criteria? Promotion of Westernized bias? Humiliation towards anything that authors, or mass media or "general public" know less about? How about Mecca and Jerusalem? Do not they deserve to be Alpha #1? They are much more international than anything else. What kind of, excuse me, moron, matches Tijuana and St.Petersburg? What's so international about Tijuana? How about Ciudad Juarez? It seems like whoever did the research has no clue about culture. Could anybody just care to count world class museums and theaters?
This list is an insult for Wikipedia. I vote for removal.
This article is extremely biased and subjective, very Euro-centric, capital-centric.  The U.S. is thrown a few "bones," book honestly, The Hague, Bratislava, etc?  Then there's the rest of the world!!
:Hello.  As you can see below, this article is in a state of flux to provide a more balanced perspective.  Moreover, read the article and you will note the provisos about the GaWC list and similar assessments as being somehwat subjective.
:I'm also sure that other lists ('ranked' or not) exist for major universities worldwide: the one indicated was generated by The Times; another briefer list (with Ivy League, UK, and Japanese universities at the top) was recently generated by The Economist.  As respected publications, these – in and of themselves (as they are both British publications) – do not constitute bias above and beyond the editorialising they normally endure.  If you can cite verifiable information that substantiates why the various data presented (either in the article, or through in-line wikilinks) is biased or inappropriate, or provide similar lists, feel free to do so. E Pluribus Anthony 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I vote for removal 

message: What's the point of publishing this? What are the criteria? Promotion of Westernized bias? Humiliation towards anything that authors, or mass media or "general public" know less about? How about Mecca and Jerusalem? Do not they deserve to be Alpha #1? They are much more international than anything else. What kind of, excuse me, moron, matches Tijuana and St.Petersburg? What's so international about Tijuana? How about Ciudad Juarez? It seems like whoever did the research has no clue about culture. Could anybody just care to count world class museums and theaters?
This list is an insult for Wikipedia. I vote for removal.
This article is extremely biased and subjective, very Euro-centric, capital-centric.  The U.S. is thrown a few "bones," book honestly, The Hague, Bratislava, etc?  Then there's the rest of the world!!
:Hello.  As you can see below, this article is in a state of flux to provide a more balanced perspective.  Moreover, read the article and you will note the provisos about the GaWC list and similar assessments as being somehwat subjective.
:I'm also sure that other lists ('ranked' or not) exist for major universities worldwide: the one indicated was generated by The Times; another briefer list (with Ivy League, UK, and Japanese universities at the top) was recently generated by The Economist.  As respected publications, these – in and of themselves (as they are both British publications) – do not constitute bias above and beyond the editorialising they normally endure.  If you can cite verifiable information that substantiates why the various data presented (either in the article, or through in-line wikilinks) is biased or inappropriate, or provide similar lists, feel free to do so. E Pluribus Anthony 20:24, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: This article is worth removing

message: Keep it, and enhance it!  Why not 'publish' it?  The article in Wikipedia should serve as a point from which visitors can obtain information (all of it, summatively) about global cities.  I don't necessarily agree with all of the criteria used in the GaWC list – as much of it seems subjective (even the article itself indicates the GaWC list may be subjective) – and I'd concur with recent opinions about specific cities to include, particularly on a cultural basis: personally, St. Petersburg, Jerusalem, and Mecca (particularly if non-Muslims were not prohibited from visiting) should all be included or appear elsewhere on the spectrum.  Yes: Tashkent and Tijuana seem inappropriate candidates.
However, this does not invalidate information available about the topic and objectively presented.  Being subjective, my and other opinions are moot without substantiation.  Even though it's imperfect, the GaWC list is a peer-authored treatise by 'students' (a working group) of the topic at a university in the UK.  Neither should the article nor Wikipedia serve as a pulpit for Western/'development' hypocrisy, anti-Western bias, nor a lament for naysayers and malcontents of all stripes.  Despite all of this, no other information (to my knowledge) has been provided to substantiate various user argumentation/opinions/contentions this way or that way in an objective manner.  Until substantive – and relevant – references/information can be cited and presented (and in deference to my prior statements regarding this topic/article), the article should stay, be added to, and be improved.
Thank you very much!  E Pluribus Anthony 11:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comment: the lists provided are compilations by other orgs found online.  We are not generating or ranking the universities, just as Wp didn't rank or create the global city lists: we merely cite and present verifiable information.  If you can recommend other notable lists for inclusion, or criteria that should be included or excluded, feel free. E Pluribus Anthony 20:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  If this were a vote ... 

message: Why did you decide that only GaWC alpha cities should be depicted?--Nixer 21:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't decide this; from what I've observed over the last few months, it was customary to have only the images of Alpha cities on the article page to ensure any individual cities/images weren't being 'pumped.'  Please note: there has been alot of vandalism recently by various users, present company excluded (e.g., by someone 'pumping' Toronto, moving around Montréal and Sydney, etc.).  (Also note:, I deleted images for Toronto too.) :) E Pluribus Anthony 21:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  GaWC 

message: The picture of Tokyo linked from this page was broken. I presume it was one of the images removed in the current hunt for images without copyright information. So I uploaded my own picture of Tokyo by night. It's not a great picture, so if you've got a better one that can be GFDL'd or placed into the public domain, feel free to upload it on top of mine. I'm living in Tokyo at the moment, so maybe I'll get a chance to take a better picture than the current one, if noone else has anything better. Colin M. 23:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for uploading, it's good but. Do you think you can in the course of your stay maybe take and upload some pics of Shibuya at nite, Ginza, or pics of Shinjuku at the station? domou... Gryffindor 12:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately I'm only in Japan for a couple more days and now I'm in Kyoto. But what do you think of any of these? Just outside Shinjuku Station at night ... and another Akihabara ... another, from higher up Shinagawa Station and surrounding skyscrapers Personally, I like the current picture better than any of these because it gives a better overall feeling of Tokyo. I do have some other pictures of Tokyo that aren't online yet... most notably some good ones of Tokyo Tower. I can provide links to those too, in a week or so, if you're interested... Colin M. 22:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of Tokyo

message: In attempts to enhance the global city article and to successfully resolve a mediation regarding its contents, a number of approaches (e.g., a table and list) have been proposed to present other criteria and candidates for global cities in the article (lengthy discussion also appears above).  Which option do you prefer?  (See and vote below.)
-----
===Option [A]: TABLE – Table of the cities of the world===
Place 
Population of city  
Population of metropolitan area  
Percentage foreign born 
Cost of living 
Financial services (GaWC rating)
Metro system by lenght
Metro system by passenger rides
Number of billionaires 
1
Shanghai
Tokyo
Miami
Tokyo
London, New York, Paris, Tokyo
London
Moscow
London
2
Bombay
New York
Toronto
Osaka
Chicago, Frankfurt, Hong Kong, Los Angeles, Milan, Singapore
New York
Tokyo
New York
3
Karachi
Mexico
Los Angeles
London
San Francisco, Sydney, Toronto, Zurich
Tokyo
Seoul
Moscow
4
Buenos Aires
Bombay
Vancouver
Moscow
Brussels, Madrid, Mexico, Sao Paulo
Seoul
Mexico
Geneva
5
New Dehli
Sao Paulo
New York
Seoul
Moscow, Seoul
Moscow
New York
Los Angeles
6
Manila
Los Angeles
Singapore
Geneva
Amsterdam, Boston, Caracas, Dallas, Dusseldorf, Geneva, Houston, Jakarta, Johannesburg, Melbourne, Osaka, Prague, Santiago, Taipei, Washington
Madrid
Paris
Hong Kong
7
Moscow
Shanghai
Sydney
Zurich
Bangkok, Beijing, Montréal, Rome, Stockholm, Warsaw
Paris
Osaka
San Francisco
8
Seoul
Lagos
Abidjan
Copenhagen
Atlanta, Barcelona, Berlin, Buenos Aires, Budapest, Copenhagen, Hamburg, Istanbul, Kuala Lumpur, Manila, Miami, Minneapolis, Munich, Shanghai 
Mexico
London
Paris
9
Sao Paulo
Calcutta
London
Hong-Kong
Athens, Auckland, Dublin, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Lyon, Mumbai, New Delhi, Philadelphia, Rio de Janeiro, Tel Aviv, Vienna
Chicago
Hong Kong
Tokyo
10
Istanbul
Buenos Aires
Paris
Oslo
Abu Dhabi, Almaty, Birmingham (UK), Bogotá, Bratislava, Brisbane, Bucharest, Cairo, Cleveland, Cologne, Detroit, Dubai, Ho Chi Minh City, Kiev, Lima, Lisbon, Manchester, Montevideo, Oslo, Riyadh, Rotterdam, Seattle, Stuttgart, The Hague, Vancouver
Washington
St. Petersburg
-----
=== Option [B]: LIST – Other global cities ===
The GaWC list is based on specific criteria and, thus, may not include other cities of global significance or elsewhere on the spectrum.  For example:
*cities, proper and agglomerated, with large populations
*cities with diverse demographic constituencies
*cities based on various indicators, including:
**population, habitat (selected profiles), mobility, and urbanisation
*cities with significant financial capacity/output:
**city/regional GDP (data sets in ZIP)
**stock market indices/market capitalisation
**headquarters for multinational corporations
**financial service provision; e.g., banks, accountancy
**employment
*sites of pilgrimage for world religions
*cities hosting headquarters for international organizations
*cities containing UNESCO sites of historical and cultural significance
*cities based on quality of life or city development
*cities based on costs of living
**cities based on personal wealth; e.g., number of billionaires
*cities with significant transport infrastructure, such as:
**airports with significant passenger traffic (analysis) or cargo movements
**extensive and popular mass transit systems
**prominent rail usage
**road vehicle usage
*cities with significant technological capabilities/infrastructure
*cities with significant institutions, such as:
**educational institutions; e.g., universities, international student attendance
**research facilities
**health facilities; e.g, hospitals, medical laboratories
*cities with high endowments of cultural facilities, such as:
**notable museums and galleries
**notable opera
**notable orchestras
**notable film centres and film festivals
**notable theatre centres
**sites of major international sports events; e.g., Olympic Games sites (Olympic/tourism analysis)
*tourism throughput:
**visitors 
**economy
**events
-----
====Vote here!====
Please indicate and sign your vote below.  If a clear consensus is not reached before 30 Nov./05, both list and table, as currently structured (list above, table below), will remain in the article.  Thanks! 18:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: As noted, the list is meant to be generic (but still have structure), providing details and links to a wealth of information the table alone cannot.  As well, any notions regarding culture can perhaps be addressed by including relevant lists in the list or narratively (a list with merely cultural links is not really here or there); however, I'm open to suggestions.  E Pluribus Anthony 15:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: NO VOTING. You were invited to participate in the work during the mediation process. You didnt. Now you're trying to reconsider the result.--Nixer 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect: I did, and indicated throughout to you and also other users that a table is only one way (and not the way) to go.  That didn't stop you from participating in that discussion; it also didn't entitle you to add the table today on your own without discussion.  I'm merely attempting to reconcile and have Wikipedians judge for themselves the best approach.  If the list is voted out, I can deal with that.  And (as I said) if a consensus is not reached, both can stay. :)  E Pluribus Anthony 19:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not abstain.--Nixer 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection is noted.  And you will not remove this vote. E Pluribus Anthony 19:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I WILL. Because we worked on the table under meditation for several months, and you do not have right to remove it.--Nixer 19:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will restore the vote until hell freezes over ... or until a consensus is reached otherwise.  I am not removing anything; what part of the above do you not understand?  If a consensus of Wikipedians does not decide either way, both can stay.  E Pluribus Anthony 19:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but FULL consensus.--Nixer 19:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, and that's why various options must be presented; otherwise, we cannot arrive at or identify any consensus.  TY! E Pluribus Anthony 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Marskell, hello!  I think that's part of the point: to include (and provide info) for factors that may contribute to global city stature, while not passing judgement on any of them.  As well, it took sometime to collate all the relevant links (and they are structured logically within the list), so this section/list can serve as a resource for those who want to learn more about this and related topics, without searching high-and-low.  And one other user has provided feedback on the list, largely as is, beforehand.  I am, however, open to suggestions about modifying the list.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, M: please vote, if so inclined. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you consult the links for the GaWC list, the rationale of these "analysts" and data used is evident.  Moreover, there are adequate provisos in the article indicating the criteria behind the list.  The concept of global cities/world cities is prescribed and defined by works later in the article, and I see nothing objective in your analysis that substantiates your questionable edits.
Vote: Table Only.
If was possible, I'd vote for an unsorted list and the table.
CP\M 5:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the article still needs worldwidization.--Nixer 02:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree: however, some weeks have passed and updates to this article – as others in Wp – continue to be made by us and others.  Moreover, how specifically does this article need to be worldwidized, beyond suggestions arising from our mediation and conciliations already integrated?  We've done what we can.  Given ongoing discussions: if a proposal hasn't already been made or isn't forthcoming, there's no need for continuing to include this tag.  To that end, I believe it prudent that we agree to close/resolve this issue.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As no additional objection or substantiation has been presented, I'm removing the worldwide tag from the article.  And unless there's additional objection (and to not be premature), I consider this matter resolved!  Thank you all for your input. E Pluribus Anthony 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: '''VOTE!''' – Table/list/both/neither in [[global city]] article?

message: The GaWC list is based on specific criteria and, thus, may not include other cities of global significance or elsewhere on the spectrum.  For example:
*cities, proper and agglomerated, with large populations
*cities with diverse demographic constituencies
*cities based on various indicators, including:
**population, habitat (selected profiles), mobility, and urbanisation
*cities with significant financial capacity/output:
**city/regional GDP (data sets in ZIP)
**stock market indices/market capitalisation
**headquarters for multinational corporations
**financial service provision; e.g., banks, accountancy
**employment
*sites of pilgrimage for world religions
*cities hosting headquarters for international organizations
*cities containing UNESCO sites of historical and cultural significance
*cities based on quality of life or city development
*cities based on costs of living
**cities based on personal wealth; e.g., number of billionaires
*cities with significant transport infrastructure, such as:
**airports with significant passenger traffic (analysis) or cargo movements
**extensive and popular mass transit systems
**prominent rail usage
**road vehicle usage
*cities with significant technological capabilities/infrastructure
*cities with significant institutions, such as:
**educational institutions; e.g., universities, international student attendance
**research facilities
**health facilities; e.g, hospitals, medical laboratories
*cities with high endowments of cultural facilities, such as:
**notable museums and galleries
**notable opera
**notable orchestras
**notable film centres and film festivals
**notable theatre centres
**sites of major international sports events; e.g., Olympic Games sites (Olympic/tourism analysis)
*tourism throughput:
**visitors 
**economy
**events
-----
====Vote here!====
Please indicate and sign your vote below.  If a clear consensus is not reached before 30 Nov./05, both list and table, as currently structured (list above, table below), will remain in the article.  Thanks! 18:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: As noted, the list is meant to be generic (but still have structure), providing details and links to a wealth of information the table alone cannot.  As well, any notions regarding culture can perhaps be addressed by including relevant lists in the list or narratively (a list with merely cultural links is not really here or there); however, I'm open to suggestions.  E Pluribus Anthony 15:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: NO VOTING. You were invited to participate in the work during the mediation process. You didnt. Now you're trying to reconsider the result.--Nixer 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect: I did, and indicated throughout to you and also other users that a table is only one way (and not the way) to go.  That didn't stop you from participating in that discussion; it also didn't entitle you to add the table today on your own without discussion.  I'm merely attempting to reconcile and have Wikipedians judge for themselves the best approach.  If the list is voted out, I can deal with that.  And (as I said) if a consensus is not reached, both can stay. :)  E Pluribus Anthony 19:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not abstain.--Nixer 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection is noted.  And you will not remove this vote. E Pluribus Anthony 19:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I WILL. Because we worked on the table under meditation for several months, and you do not have right to remove it.--Nixer 19:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will restore the vote until hell freezes over ... or until a consensus is reached otherwise.  I am not removing anything; what part of the above do you not understand?  If a consensus of Wikipedians does not decide either way, both can stay.  E Pluribus Anthony 19:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but FULL consensus.--Nixer 19:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, and that's why various options must be presented; otherwise, we cannot arrive at or identify any consensus.  TY! E Pluribus Anthony 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Marskell, hello!  I think that's part of the point: to include (and provide info) for factors that may contribute to global city stature, while not passing judgement on any of them.  As well, it took sometime to collate all the relevant links (and they are structured logically within the list), so this section/list can serve as a resource for those who want to learn more about this and related topics, without searching high-and-low.  And one other user has provided feedback on the list, largely as is, beforehand.  I am, however, open to suggestions about modifying the list.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, M: please vote, if so inclined. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you consult the links for the GaWC list, the rationale of these "analysts" and data used is evident.  Moreover, there are adequate provisos in the article indicating the criteria behind the list.  The concept of global cities/world cities is prescribed and defined by works later in the article, and I see nothing objective in your analysis that substantiates your questionable edits.
Vote: Table Only.
If was possible, I'd vote for an unsorted list and the table.
CP\M 5:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Option [B]: LIST – Other global cities 

message: Please indicate and sign your vote below.  If a clear consensus is not reached before 30 Nov./05, both list and table, as currently structured (list above, table below), will remain in the article.  Thanks! 18:52, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *Comment: As noted, the list is meant to be generic (but still have structure), providing details and links to a wealth of information the table alone cannot.  As well, any notions regarding culture can perhaps be addressed by including relevant lists in the list or narratively (a list with merely cultural links is not really here or there); however, I'm open to suggestions.  E Pluribus Anthony 15:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

text: NO VOTING. You were invited to participate in the work during the mediation process. You didnt. Now you're trying to reconsider the result.--Nixer 19:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Incorrect: I did, and indicated throughout to you and also other users that a table is only one way (and not the way) to go.  That didn't stop you from participating in that discussion; it also didn't entitle you to add the table today on your own without discussion.  I'm merely attempting to reconcile and have Wikipedians judge for themselves the best approach.  If the list is voted out, I can deal with that.  And (as I said) if a consensus is not reached, both can stay. :)  E Pluribus Anthony 19:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I do not abstain.--Nixer 19:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your objection is noted.  And you will not remove this vote. E Pluribus Anthony 19:37, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I WILL. Because we worked on the table under meditation for several months, and you do not have right to remove it.--Nixer 19:44, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: And I will restore the vote until hell freezes over ... or until a consensus is reached otherwise.  I am not removing anything; what part of the above do you not understand?  If a consensus of Wikipedians does not decide either way, both can stay.  E Pluribus Anthony 19:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but FULL consensus.--Nixer 19:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, and that's why various options must be presented; otherwise, we cannot arrive at or identify any consensus.  TY! E Pluribus Anthony 19:57, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Marskell, hello!  I think that's part of the point: to include (and provide info) for factors that may contribute to global city stature, while not passing judgement on any of them.  As well, it took sometime to collate all the relevant links (and they are structured logically within the list), so this section/list can serve as a resource for those who want to learn more about this and related topics, without searching high-and-low.  And one other user has provided feedback on the list, largely as is, beforehand.  I am, however, open to suggestions about modifying the list.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 16:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, M: please vote, if so inclined. :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

text: If you consult the links for the GaWC list, the rationale of these "analysts" and data used is evident.  Moreover, there are adequate provisos in the article indicating the criteria behind the list.  The concept of global cities/world cities is prescribed and defined by works later in the article, and I see nothing objective in your analysis that substantiates your questionable edits.
Vote: Table Only.
If was possible, I'd vote for an unsorted list and the table.
CP\M 5:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Vote here!''

message: Hello!  As a consensus has not been achieved regarding the above noted issue/RfC, the status quo seems sufficient – i.e., keep both table and list.  To that end, since this appears to be a modus vivendi that everyone can live with, I am going to remove the tags atop the article and hereby consider this matter – and mediation – resolved.  Agreed?  If there are no objections, I will do so shortly.  Happy communing! :)  E Pluribus Anthony 23:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the article still needs worldwidization.--Nixer 02:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not disagree: however, some weeks have passed and updates to this article – as others in Wp – continue to be made by us and others.  Moreover, how specifically does this article need to be worldwidized, beyond suggestions arising from our mediation and conciliations already integrated?  We've done what we can.  Given ongoing discussions: if a proposal hasn't already been made or isn't forthcoming, there's no need for continuing to include this tag.  To that end, I believe it prudent that we agree to close/resolve this issue.  Thoughts?  E Pluribus Anthony 06:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As no additional objection or substantiation has been presented, I'm removing the worldwide tag from the article.  And unless there's additional objection (and to not be premature), I consider this matter resolved!  Thank you all for your input. E Pluribus Anthony 17:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC conclusion

message: I suggest we reduce the GaWC section slighty because we have added a lot of new stuff.--Nixer 18:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree: the more information, the merrier; we may need to consolidate information, but we shouldn't remove one list for another.  If anything, the description/qualifiers immediately after the table of contents (in the intro)  can stand for some 'pruning.' E Pluribus Anthony 18:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduce GaWC section? 

message: What is better?--Nixer 19:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarity, I think Mexico City, or New York City etc., should be used.  E Pluribus Anthony 20:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it because initially the table actually linked to the country; having changed one, they all needed to be, to be consistent ("to be, to be" is shurely ungrammatical!?). Marskell 08:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense! :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mexico or Mexico City? 

message: May be it would be better to highlite from top to bottom?--Nixer 20:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to the Global city#External Links section, I would suggest an alpha arrangement (based on authors/names, which is unpreferential) or -- perhaps more subjective -- one based on relevance to the topic at hand. E Pluribus Anthony 20:12, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: How about to replace the data on largest airports with this:
Source: 
*London (West End) - US$19,330 
*Paris - US$15,520 
*London (City) - US$15,280 
*Washington DC - US$14,250 
*Frankfurt - US$13,640 
*Tokyo (Central 5 wards) - US$13,400 
*Dublin - US$12,740 
*New York City (Midtown) - US$12,200 
*Munich - US$12,010 
*Stockholm - US$10,780
--Nixer 15:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What do you think? 

message: Look at this: 
:This is sufficient: I will add to the list, too. E Pluribus Anthony 15:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Data on largest seaports 

message: Man, i c des article's very pro of western, y? coz u choose da west or pro west city in top position, n i suppose dad's very rid's, ex: Manila in top 10 most population city? man, i ges u must red many book of it, i know u r American or Japanese, but don't u try 2 manipulation the fact of it..... coz we r not stupid, perhaps u can lie 2 ur fren in West, but we r Asian know abt da truth, n u can't lie dad, evry 1 in Asia know were's Most Biggest city in Asia, n dad's not Tokyo or Manila, so don't u try 2 make a foolish thing, coz dad make u lookin' as an idiot....
:Hello!  Thanks for your comments.  However, as you can see above, we have extensively discussed the issue of bias and have enhanced the article to address this.  If you can cite verifiable information regarding global cities with a neutral point of view and consistent with Wikipedia principles, please feel free to do so and discuss here.  Otherwise, please do not tag and edit the article as you have been, and repeatedly, which is increasingly appearing like vandalism.  E Pluribus Anthony 10:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Western 

message: i'm dizzy n confuse, y if i told evry 1 da truth, they call it Vandalism? wat's vandalism? da vandalism's when u try 2 manipulation da truth, dad's it real vandalism! I just wanna tell da truth! n evry 1 need da truth abt da world, not manipulative data! coz i c evry article in here not objective , they'r only us their opinion 2 make an article(very subjective)! not reality! i just wanna said if wat i'm doing u call Vandalism, it min u spoiled my human right! n dad min u spoiled da Democration......
:Wha?  Your comments and edits are wholly unclear.  You have been adding mentions of Indonesia without citing why and have been adding multiple tags atop the article without at all discussing them.  In Wikipedia, it's not necessarily about truth: it's about verifiability – we cannot verify any of your assertions, so don't add or change the article unless they can be.  And Wikipedia is not a democracy.  As well, you have been making these edits repeatedly: this appears to be vandalism or making a point.  I regret if you are "dizzy": perhaps you should see someone about that.  However, if you cannot edit the article in the spirit of Wikipedia and as above, refrain from doing so or your edits will be reversed.  E Pluribus Anthony 13:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated. I concur.  --Coolcaesar 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dizzy 

message: man, u know i'll have 2 nationality, China/USA, n i luv da 2 nation, but 1 nation make me dissapointed, u know y? coz des room! des room is very subjective n not objective, they only give da people American dream, n not give da truth, i luv USA, but i don't wanna lie, u know y? coz da truth still da truth, don't care how high ur manipulation level, n it make me dissapoint, coz des American site can't be Objective, n lose their neutral side, God bless USA n God Bless evry American! but i guess Not 4 this site..... coz American site must be objective n i suppose des site not American site....
:What? - Randwicked 13:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't bother.  Our anonymous visitor is clearly a psychotic homeless person at some public Internet terminal.  --Coolcaesar 17:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well stated; I concur (if I may be so bold). :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dissapointed 

message: Oh my God, I'm Russell Minamoto, Tokyo , Japan , 24, and its first time i ever heard that 1 site, claim themselves not democratic, wow, oh my God, are this site is communist? or this site only for fun? cause i wanna searching the truth in this site... its mean i can't search the truth in this site? if it's right, the mean is this site full of liar...... and i recomendate my other friend not to came to this site.....
:Hello!  If you consult the links above, you will note those assertions – about truth, democracy, etc. – are official Wikipedia policies and guidelines, in place to ensure that everyone can contribute appropriately.  Consensus is also one of the cornerstones of Wp, as are the "five pillars": Wikipedia encourages input, but you've been going about it entirely the wrong way.  K? E Pluribus Anthony 11:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  liar? 

message: The table clearly shows evidences  of poor stats. It is really amusing to see Buenos Aires to have a larger population than Mexico City (please check article about Buenos Aires). Also, when you get a table mentioning that S Paulo has more skycrapers than Chicago...owh.(it is sure a city with buildings, but for sure not skycrapers...I live in SP)..
Thus the table just makes the article confused without purpose. Surely GwAC uses a reasonable basis for classification (even with disagreements), but that table shows no objetive!!!
Also the subarticle Other global cities features guidelines to classify a city as a global one. But please...take a moment and compare those guidalines with the ones presented by GwAC. Pratically the same!!! Thus there is redondancy.
Cloretti2 01:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The source  says it has greater population. If you have another data, please give a link.--Nixer 00:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I have restored the list of Other global cities removed without consensus or discussion, and ill-considered of prior discussions.  The data and links in the list provide a broader treatment than the criteria in the GaWC list, and enables visitors to make informed decisions for themselves about cities listed and not by the GaWC.  Thanks!  E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 02:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: We'd better keep away from them for some time. But anyway a table is better than a biased rating.
Hello, please check infohttp://www.buenosaires.gov.ar/ (official site for the city of Buenos Aires) check for infografia and territorio y poblacion habitantes 2,970,950...enough ?Cloretti2 22:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with you, this table can contain mistakes. But this is an attempt to make an objective rating when other information in this article is purely subjective. Of course we can coorrect the mistake. Can you provide a link to any table/list of cities by population?--Nixer 23:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Non reliable table and ''Other global cities''

message: Forgive me if I'm unwittingly setting off some contentious issue, but why are there pictures of beta cities?  I seem to remember coming here before and there being just the alpha cities.  The page was much more readable in its prior state.  Adding two of three tiers is entirely arbitrary.  Why stop there?  Who's to stop someone from adding the gammas?  Having been on Wikipedia for quite a little while now, I can surmise with near-certainty that this is the work of a beta-dweller nursing a sore ego.  Alas, facts first, clarity second, pride third, no?  I say just alpha pictures are necessary, or, better still, just the Big Four.  Raggaga 03:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The added pictures (for GaWC beta cities) appear fine to me ... perhaps by including them, it will prevent more wilful additions?   Adding any more would truly clutter the article and including just the 'big four' may be counterproductive (e.g., 'NPOV').  However, the prior state/rationale (with just the alpha cities depicted) is just as acceptable to me. E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 04:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I concur with limiting the number of pictures (although I would go further and limit to just the Big Four).  --Coolcaesar 05:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in total agreement with E Pluribus Anthony (is that a first?) - the page is fine as it is: the pictures are small and unobtrusive, and there's sufficient text that they don't float off way beyond the bottom of the article. As previously noted ad nauseam, the 'big four' and 'alpha cities' etc. are not universally accepted concepts, so including others is more in line with NPOV. — SteveRwanda 16:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Although one oddity is that on my browser (Firefox 1.5 running on Linux) the images from San Francisco down are all shifted to the left. Not sure why that's happening so I don't know how it could be fixed. — SteveRwanda 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I've rectified the shift ... before recent tweaks, the article and pix appeared differently in IE and Firefox (e.g., lotsa white space). E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 17:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, image alignment now OK. The cities of the world table (with its pink box) had been shifted down massively to below whichever picture it was below, due to the clear all tag. I've now removed that, hopefully not destroying the look of the page in IE? — SteveRwanda 18:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why are there pictures of beta cities? 

message: Previous versions listed Buenos Aires as a Gamma 4 point city. I restored its position from an earlier version, however, does anyone know if it actually belongs under 4 points. The GaWC site only has it under Gamma cities. I just want to make sure that's were it belongs since someone moved it and then it was deleted. M P M 08:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 4-points Gamma City is correct. — SteveRwanda 10:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BsAs 

message: This article is useless, as it simply does not say what's a global city. It says the concept was created in 1991 by an american professor, but it doesn't say anything else about her theory about global cities. 
I looked up her book Global City at google, and it appears to me global city is a term that is supposed to describe a phenomenon of the 20th century, in which cities have acquired new roles on the world affairs. As it stands, the article does not explain the difference between ancient Rome or Alexandria and global cities of today, except that it [the article] "requires" global cities to have optic fiber and other tchnological stuff that didn't exist back then.
The article gives one definition on the introduction, and then a little after it says it's hard to define a global city. Then there's a list of confusing things, the "general characteristics"... Those general characteristics don't help at all to elucidate the concept of global city. It is not said why those specific characteristics are the ones a global city should have. 
It appears to me this article assumes the concept of global city is "obvious" and everyone understands it. Then it gives a list of global cities of today. It makes no sense, it didn't help me to learn about global cities. I suggest everything after the introduction is deleted, and the part of the introduction that says what are global cities without   saying what's the difference between those and other influent cities as Mecca, Jerusalem, ancient cities etc be deleted as well.
A.Z. 19:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What's a global city?

message: The moment I saw this Article, I initially find it very biased... Some cities in Europe where quite overrated than other cities... I can't Imagine how Brussels got 8 points, while Osaka got only 6 points... doesn't anyone know that osaka has the 3rd highest GDP of all cities in the world? only after Tokyo and New York? It deserves to be in the Alpha Cities like Singapore and Hong KOng...
How about Dusseldorf and Prague? It is of the same level with Houston, Boston and Washington DC at 6 points... but Alas! Rome, Montreal and Berlin have even lower ranks... I thought one of the criteria for judging is first name basis or be known without the addition of country name? These Cities aren't even that well-known and it gained that rank? Atlantico
:This list has been made in 1999. Outdated for sure. GaWC updated it in 2004.  Elk Salmon 14:15, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Overrating of Some Cities...

message: The images along the right side of the page are causing problems with the edit tags on each section - they're running into the table at the bottom of the article. Given my lack of experience with article layout on wiki, could someone with more knowledge take a look? I cleaned up the code a bit to make things clearer, but haven't yet made any attempts at fixing the problems. Dbratton 15:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing the article layout, Elk Salmon. :) Dbratton 22:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Formatting problems

message: Just my opinion, but I'd suggest someone more familiar with Tokyo may want to change the photo; not that there's anything wrong with it, but it's just almost identical to the shot of Paris right above it. (A night shot, centred on an illuminated triangular tower.) A little more variety might spruce the article up a bit. Sadly, I don't know enough about Tokyo to suggest or find something appropriate. Not that important, but at least it's not someone whining that $MY_CITY should be on/higher on the list! --ByeByeBaby 04:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tokyo photo

message: List isn't really accurate. Most of big companies in developing countries are not presented on marked and does not publish their financial data. Elk Salmon 10:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, then there's no way of telling how big they really are, then, is there?  The only way to objectively compare companies is to compare only public companies which have reported their financial stats under strict government standards. --Coolcaesar 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 100 biggest companies. 

message: Global cities are eligible for nomination for Release Version 0.5. Maurreen 12:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Release Version 0.5

message: Well, not exactly meanings so much as it's things it's used for; i.e. in government bumpf/advertising and vanity editorials in the Toronto and Vancouver (and by now, Calgary) papers, the buzzword being "world-class this", "world-class that", and "this is what we can increasingly expect in our newly world-class city".  In other words, it's a gee-shucks term when used this way, and has nothing to do with definition of Global City overleaf; except in the pols' and their ad companies' premises that they, too, are important.  Yeah, whatever.  We're all bored with but they keep on with it anyway; apparently the lumpen proletariat give a shit and the haute bourgeoisie and intelligentsia were bought off with pap a long time ago.  The true mark of a world-class city is when it doesn't have to point out that it is, after all....Skookum1 18:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: World-Class City has other meanings

message: This sentence is awkward and unclear: 
:The phenomenon of world-city building, albeit with slightly more success, has also been observed in Buenos Aires, Frankfurt, Sydney, Mexico City and Toronto: each of these cities has emerged as large and influential.
More success than what? Than other unnamed cities implied in the previous sentence? Can't the two sentences just be combined? At the very least, let's get rid of "albeit," which makes no sense in this context. Joel Bastedo 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World-city building: Clarify? 

message: I see from the recent history at least that there has been some vandalism. I just now made a revert. Would it be advisable to prevent anonymous users from editing?--Old Guard 02:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous Users