Jump to content

Talk:Global city/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

Los Angeles

Its ranking is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.226.9.141 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Low quality

How happens that Buenos Aires is better ranked than Mexico City? You have to be kidding me. This article is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.140.211.106 (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

São Paulo is listed in the wrong country

São Paulo is listed as being in Portugal, but it's actually in Brazil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.122.1.53 (talk) 13:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The same for Prague: in the table, Prague is shown to be located in The Netherlands (it should be Czech Republic). 3ieneke (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Changed the flag for Hong Kong

After the hand over in 97 Hong Kong SAR was given its own new flag and does not fly the Chinese flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TomWoodhams (talk • contribs) 03:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Although Hong Kong have its own flag, the "country" aisle should say China. Changing it would probably make it more confusing.--DerechoReguerraz (talk) 11:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Changed a couple words in article to reflect the spirit of the research

San Francisco, LA and Paris were listed having smaller contributions with cultural strengths when the actual wording was with cultural bias. I changed it to the way the research originally put it. Saying bias more accurately reflects the bias of the survey towards western cities. San Francisco is not more of a global city than Seoul, Tokyo and Beijing.


The rankings are so outdated that they are pretty much useless here

Shanghai and Berlin are "minor world cities" in the same league as Minneapolis? Give me a f'ing break. The GaWC rankings are 8 years old, a lot has changed since then, these rankings should not be given such prominence on this article anymore. --Naus 18:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai gives "Primarily non-economic global contributions"? WTF??? Someone needs to be slapped. --Naus 18:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
So what should be given prominence?. AFAICS, it is only the presence of the GaWC listing that gives any kind of credibility to this article. Without them it would just become become a sandbox for boosterists. So if the GaWC rankings are no longer credible, I suggest the best thing to do is to delete the article. Perhaps that is what you meant; in which case you have my vote. -- Chris j wood 18:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I feel like this article is just an attempt to peddle a controversial study on Wikipedia. One study does not deserve an entire article. This should be a pretty basic point for people to understand. It takes hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific papers to establish a concept and consensus in the natural sciences; the social sciences should be held to no lower standards. I think this article should be renamed to something GaWC-specific, in the name of neutrality. People here who think one study can sufficiently provide an NPOV perspective, obviously have never done a single day of academic research. --Naus 18:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
You lost me there, I'm afraid. I'm not even sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. None of what you said above talks directly to my question, the tone seems to be in disagreement with something (not sure who or what), but the actual content seems to support my point. What are you actually suggesting should be done. -- Chris j wood 18:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Shanghai's stock exchange is not yet a major institution. All the most important Chinese (including Mainland) stocks are mainly traded in Hong Kong. Shanghai is much less significant than HK (which in turn is nowhere near as significant as NYC or London) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.151.245.218 (talk) 10:15, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for complete deletion of section GAWC 1999 Edition !

Reasons: a) outdated study published 8 years ago (conducted even earlier) b) 2004 Edition is available and reflects the current state c) presenting two editions is no extra information value d) The GAWC 1999 studies in general pretends to define a status of major cities but only focuses economic data. This is misleading and already resulted in a widespread citation within Wikipedia major city articles. Proposal: If there are no multiple serious arguments for keeping it, the section should be deleted within the next 7 days. all the best Lear 21 15:18, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That what is resulted now was not resulted in 1999. It's reflect ranking of how it was in pre 1999 years. It's what is happened in history, so should be there Elk Salmon 21:27, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Edit rather than delete. The 1999 survey is of significant historical importance, as the first effort to define and identify global cities as such, rather than by simple ranking of population, economic, transport, etc., data. It should be turned into a simple descriptive paragraph explaining the methodology (which it does, more or less) with a very short list, inline, of some of the cities. The table and flag cruft should go, however. The 1999 survey should be viewed as a historical event, not as a currently meaningful ranking. --MCB 03:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep 1999 is hardly out of date, IMHO. It certainly wasn't invalid then and even though I'm sure every city mentioned has changed in some way, it doesn't make it invalid now.--Analogue Kid 06:18, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete These lists are very inaccurate and were even inaccurate back in 1999. I don't know why some obviously important cities, such as Seoul, are not on that list. I would argue that not enough has happened between 1999 and 2003 for GAWC to make such drastic revisions, signalling that their earlier studies and possibly their current studies, are flawed. 75.57.113.152 19:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What are you using as a source for their "inaccuracy"? Personal opinion? If it is simply the change between the 1999 and 2003 surveys, the change in methodology is, itself, of historical and encyclopedic value. If you claim some other, more "accurate" source, cite it. --MCB 20:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is pretty obvious that this list is meaningless- Washington DC is labeled as a minor city. This is a city where powerful Institutions are located - White House, Pentagon, Supreme Court , Fed, IMF, World Bank, Inter American Bank, FAA,FDA,FCC,NIH,CIA and numerous powerful Think Tanks are located. Not a single day passes without a mention about this city in the news.Sudhirpv 21:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)Sudhir
KeepIn my own opinion the 2004 survey is biased towards services and English language media. I find it less 'accurate' than the 1999 one, but that's just my opinion. No need to delete information.

keep it is a historical refernce that can be compared to todays rankings. Creez34 (talk) 04:07, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Trimmed layout

The new layout: a) avoids massive waste of space b) allows readability without scrolling c) respects WP:FLAG policy d) deprioritized the city-ranking-table because it is not part of the term global city and therefore can´t prevail in characteristics section e) the content menue below the intro is trimmed and allows uncomplicated access. f) former 'micro' sections of GaWC didn´t had enough content to prevail as standalone sections g)compare other Wiki languages articles of 'global city' for credibility h) no content has been deleted! Lear 21 17:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. It was discussed long time ago. This is what we all came to, to avoid of open copypast of gawc texts. See talk archive. Elk Salmon 20:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Endorse, and in fact I'd perform even further compression and inline listing. The article should neither infringe on GaWC material nor be a completely overblown table with flags and ranks. Remember, Wikipedia is not determining rankings; we are summarizing academic work of others in an encyclopedic manner. This is not an almanac or global cities sourcebook -- people who want formal listings and rankings can go to the source(s). And the version that Lear 21 presented is not any sort of copyvio. (Fancy layouts and flag icons do not help with avoiding infringement.) I will restore Lear 21's thoughful layout. --MCB 20:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as per Elk Salmon. -AlexLibman 02:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Seriously...you like the complex table, waste of vertical space, and tacky little flag icons? And you do realize that the table, flags, etc. have nothing whatsoever to do with copyright infringement? --MCB 06:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Bold text I'm no expertBold text

I am not an expert on this subject matter, however, I do question some of these rankings When did Cleveland, Minneapolis, Kansas City, and Richmond, Va. become such powerful, influential, driving metropolitian cities? The last one, especially, confuses the S*^t out of me.

Is there some type of evidence that can be showed to explain how these cities get these rankings? If we are giving the three cities I just mentioned glogal city status, what about Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Houston, San Antonio, Las Vegas, etc... each of these meets some of the criteria.

Errors

When looking at the original GaWC 2004 article, table 11, lists only Brussels, Geneva and Washington, and not Strasbourg as a political and social global niche city. The wikipedia article does. What's strange, though, is that the Dutch wikipedia does not list Strasbourg, but lists The Hague instead. Personally, I think both should be incluced in the list, but the GaWC 2004 article does not. I'm not sure what the proper action is: make the section compliant with GaWC or with our own opinions. I would go for the former option. 62.251.12.169 14:38, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course we should never write anything based on only our own opinions. If the source lists only Brussels, Washington and Geneva, then we should only list those three. Personally I would say that Brussels and Washington DC are leagues ahead of Geneva, Strasbourg and The Hague in terms of being places where decisions are made that effect the lives of hundreds of millions of people, which is reflected in the fact that these are the cities with the most political journalists and lobbyists in the world. But who am I to decide on that.--Lamadude (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Old airport listings

Is there a particular reason why the listing for 10 busiest airports is five years old? Airports Council International updates their figures on airport traffic every year and is considered pretty much the main source for these figures as far as I know. Their report can be found here: http://www.aci.aero/aci/aci/file/Press%20Releases/2007_PRs/PR_180707_TOP10.pdf. I am going to replace the cities for now, if anyone has strong objections, feel free to discuss and if need be change back. Vertigo700 23:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: the note on the page about airport listings. I do not understand why one would not update the listings since the original reference gauges the exact same thing ACI does, which is passenger traffic. It's not about "biggest airports," but rather the ones with the most annual passengers. If there is something else I am not understanding, please let me know, but I don't think updating the numbers makes the article any less about cities, simply more accurate account of them. Vertigo700 23:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Air traffic

World Cities by Air Traffic has Dallas listed twice. The second entry should be Frankfurt. I am reluctant to edit the big table, so I'll draw others' attention to the error and let them deal with it. ПБХ 02:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Paris is a global city

Although Paris was deleted of the classement, the city is one of the most influent all around the world. Politic, Economic (1st business district of Europe with La Defense), and international fashion and culture life, Paris was and still is in the first four global cities in the world. That's the reason why I permitted myself to rewrite the name Paris in the Alpha Cities (full service) and in the first lines of the global cities although Sassia has forgotten Paris.

Ohio Cities

Columbus does not belong in this context. The central Ohio region is one of eceonomic decline, hence the term "rust belt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.198.125.130 (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well as a resident I can tell you that your statement is patently false. If you'll look on the page, you'll note it is the only large city in Ohio that continues to gain population, and at a pretty good clip no less. A recent study shows things are going quite well. While located in the rust belt region, Columbus has risen above the decline experienced by most other areas.--Analogue Kid 03:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Columbus does not fit, but for other reasons. It has a modest airport, no serious national or international sports presence outside college football, modest economic and population growth almost all of which is suburban or suburban-style, and little weight in terms of culture, fashion, or dining. True, the Short North neighborhood and Ohio Theater are fairly prominent, but I'd argue they are a better fit for making Columbus a regional city or emerging national city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.14.123 (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

As a former resident of Cleveland, I want to see Cleveland on this list, but my experience tells me otherwise. It's no secret that Cleveland has long been in decline. It used to be one of the largest cities in the US, but its population (in the city proper) has fallen by over half. With the possible exception of its airport and medical centers, most of its fine institutions (symphony, universities, corporations) are hold-overs from its glory days. I'd say that any given modest-sized European city (Florence, Lucerne, Valencia, etc) has more going on culturally--by a sizable margin--and would be more appropriately called world cities.

Top 10 rail systems by length

Can someone explain why Madrid is both number 5 and number 6 and why Mexico City is number 3, 8, and 9 on this list? --chemica 09:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the list article, Berlin is first not London! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.179.11.167 (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
So what is taken into account when deciding the length of track in a rail system? The London underground may be the longest single system, but other cities have multiple systems - case in point is Berlin - U-bahn: 151km + S-Bahn 331km + inter city track. But then a fair bit of this article is made up of meaningless and inaccurate lists. Hmette (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

I find the first sentence really unsatisfying (A global city or world city is a concept promoted by the geography department at Loughborough University which postulates that globalisation can be broken down in terms of strategic geographic locales that see global processes being created, facilitated and enacted.) The term isn't "invented" or primarily used by the Loughborough University, but rather is a well-known term in sociology, first coined in Saskia Sassen's The Gobal City. I think THAT should be mentioned, instead of the Loughborough University. Maarten 21:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Just traced the article history. It was User:Thomas Paine1776 who inserted that text on 4 March 2007. I concur with you that his edit was incorrect and the lead should be rewritten to emphasize Saskia Sassen's contribution. --Coolcaesar 08:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hague

Why is The Hague so low on this list? It hosts over 150 worldwide organizations.

I agree. In the legal field it is arguably the most important city in the world for international law. It is home to the UN International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, the UN International Court of Justice ("World Court"), and the International Criminal Court. It is also the headquarters of Shell Oil and home to the world-class Mauritshuis museum. A smallish city, but a world city no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.14.123 (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Major Omissions

Cities that are clearly world cities, yet missing from the 2004 list:

Dubai, UAE: One of the most important cities in the Middle East, and a center for cutting-edge architecture.
Guangzhou, China: A massive city often called "the workshop of the world" because of its intense economic growth and extraordinary manufacturing capacity.
Seattle, US: world hub for technology, aerospace, youth culture, and outdoor sports.
Seoul, South Korea: one of the largest cities in the world, and an economic and technological center.
The Hague, Netherlands: One of the most important legal centers in the world, and home to three of the most prominent international courts, as well as world-class museums.
Vancouver, Canada: Large, cosmopolitan city with heavy East Asian influence, and host of the upcoming Winter Olympics.

In addition, the following US cities clearly belong on any list that includes Denver and Atlanta:

Charlotte, North Carolina: Major international airport and second financial hub of the US after New York.
Dallas, Texas: Large American city with one of the busiest airports in the world.
Houston, Texas: Fourth largest city in the US and arguably the energy-sector capital of the world. Major international airport.
Depending on your assessment of the current state of the "rustbelt", Detroit, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh might also belong on the list.

There are certainly other cities I've overlooked. Please add them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.60.14.123 (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, the list does not give European cities enough credit. A typical European city--even one of modest size--is significantly more connected by transportation to other countries and continents than a given city in the US. Largely as a result of their age, even medium-sized European cities tend to overflow with culture including architecture, artwork, cuisine, fashion, etc. I would add a slew of medium-sized European cities to this list based on culture alone, including: Edinburgh, Dublin, Lucerne, Florence, Pisa, Valencia, Granada, Cordoba, Lisbon, Prague, Copenhagen, Bruges, Cologne, and Cannes. Doubtless there are others that have slipped my mind.

Edit: Sao Paulo, Brazil: One of the largest cities in the world is missing from the 2004 list

we can't just go around adding cities to this list just because we feel they should be included. --Lamadude (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

San Diego

I wonder why it isn't a global city yet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.170.110 (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Low quality

This article seems to rely 100% on a report from a single source and, if I may say so, a rather obscure one at that. With all due respect to Loughborough University, it's not exactly ranked among the great universities in the world. Their classification seem Anglo-centric to the extreme and its ranking seems to build on very subjective ideas. Even if the article is sourced, the source itself could very well be described as original research. For a page on the concept of a "Global City" to rely exlusively on one single source is rather POV. JdeJ (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree there is a problem here, but I think Maarten sums it up above. These concepts predate the work at Loughborough. (Incidentally, important work is done all the time at institutions more "obscure" than Loughborough. JdeJ, are you using the subjective ranking of Loughborough University to argue against Loughborough's rankings on the basis of their subjectivity? Well played sir.)Tjm402 (talk) 05:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with "Their classification seem Anglo-centric to the extreme and its ranking seems to build on very subjective ideas." The 2004 ranking seems even worse than the 1999 one. Ricardo 66.171.167.130 (talk) 08:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I recently made an edit to include economic restructuring but immediately the edit was deleted. If you read the literature especially in urban sociology, global cities have developed due to the sectorial shifts in the economy especially in industrialized cities from manufacturing to service sector outlets. Saskia Sassen, the scholar cited in this article, has contributed much to this analysis. It would be a disadvantage not to include the term in this piece. Just my views. -Parfait —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socipoet (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

First sentence

As the article now stands, the fist sentence is garbled. AnonMoos (talk) 11:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Madrid is not well considered on the list

I don't think there's 2 points difference between Franfurt or Milano, nor Zurich being categorized more global than Madrid. If you look at the requirements....

Madrid has the second longest underground system in Western Europe, second only to London, and like the fourth or fifth in the world. The new airport terminal is the biggest terminal in Europe, and the main European gate for South America. Madrid metro area, circa 6 million inhabitants, is home to many cultures, specially south-american, east-european and asian. Some of this collectives count more than 200,000, which is like 60% of Zurich's population, included on the list with 9 points.

About infrastructures, Madrid offers a state of the art urban experience. Infrastructure for cars is amazing and modern, with 4 rings of highways rounding the city, one of it partially underground (M30) in what has been the biggest engineering project ever done in Europe.

About socials, Madrid Urban density is huge, compared to London or L.A. That makes people melt together and interact way more than in a suburb-like city. Madrid is open 24h a day, with places to eat, buy, let alone party... There are very little cities in the world with traffic jams at 4AM monday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fusionvillage (talk • contribs) 17:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Editors Need To Find Data, Not Make Data

The focus of fixing this article needs to be shifted. Right now, editors are arguing about cities and their thoughts about them, which cities should be included, which cities should be moved or left out. Unfortunately, everyone's opinion is biased (most likely for their own city) and that is understandable: I would certainly have a hard time restricting my bias when ranking world cities also. However, all of that sort of talk falls under the category of "independent research" - you can't list your own opinions under the citations section. The Wikipedia members editing this page need to instead focus on acquiring different professional data than the GaWC data. The GaWC studies (both of them) should be kept on the page, because all information is useful (these particular studies indicate the level of complexity, unavoidable bias, and thousands of factors present when categorizing world cities.) However, if the current information does not suit Wikipedia's quality or neutrality guidelines, then editors need to find new information, rather than argue about their own personal convictions concerning world cities. Cornman7001 (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Why I think it is wrong to say the term global city is often associated with loughborough

I edited the article to remove the statement that the term global city is nowadays often associated with GaWC. First of all, there is no evidence to support the statement.

A quick scholar.google.com search will show that itt still is used most often in the sense of Sassen:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%22global+city%22+sassen&btnG=Search

feel free to compare this to any combination of loughborough, GaWC, etc. Also feel free to use google.com, and not the scholar engine. It is not often at all that the term is associated with Gwac, neither by scholars (economists, and sociologists) nor by mainstream media. Denizkural (talk) 09:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Studies

I think, the most recently published study should be enough in the section. After all it is only one study among Hundreds of city rankings. The section should´nt present outdated listings. Lear 21 (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the old list should be brought back. The current list is based only on "Research Bulletin 146", while the previous list is GaWC's "Inventory of World Cities". Compare also the web addresses: http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb146.html vs. http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/citylist.html. It seems clear that the old list is a significant and static compilation, while the new one is only one study among many. Moreover, the new list is simply not useful for a non-professional. What is a "subnet articulator"? What is the difference between "social" and "cultural" contributions? Korossyl (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A list from 1999 seems highly outdated in the year 2008. 92.225.24.211 (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, but at least it was easy to understand and had simple organization. As I see it, the current list is next to useless. Is there maybe something else we could replace it with, then? Korossyl (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above when this came up about a year ago, "The 1999 survey is of significant historical importance, as the first effort to define and identify global cities as such, rather than by simple ranking of population, economic, transport, etc., data. It should be turned into a simple descriptive paragraph explaining the methodology (which it does, more or less) with a very short list, inline, of some of the cities.[...] The 1999 survey should be viewed as a historical event, not as a currently meaningful ranking." It should not be simply dropped, but should be put in historical context. --MCB (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I suppose so... I like that there are those lists of various factors included below, but the GaWC list seems to be based on more factors, including global transportation connectedness (I think?). I don't know; I saw this list some months ago, thought it was very interesting and useful, and came back here recently to find it gone. I agree that 1999 is outdated, and maybe an outdated list is worse than no list at all. But I'd really like to see something new that's comparable, which I found the new list not to be. Unfortunately, I'm afraid I'm in more of a position to criticize here than to do anything constructive, so whatever is decided, I suppose I'll be content with. :)
Korossyl (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason to present a list/study from 1999 in the Year 2008. Especially when the same institute issued a study with extended indicators in the year 2004. The written content still links AND mentions the work of 1999, but repeating several lists from the same institute is hardly convincing. Furthermore it is merely one list among many dealing with city comparisons, even though the study calls itself a list of "global cities". all the best Lear 21 (talk) 15:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Korossyl and MCB. There's no justifiable reason the 1999 list should be removed. Wikipedia is not just about containing the most recent information, it is also about historical information, otherwise all these history articles should be deleted I suppose. Even in the economic field, there are many historical articles, so there is no reason to delete this list just because a different more recent list was published. What I've done is I've shortened the list in line with what MCB suggested, only giving three examples of cities with 1, 2 and 3 points. Godefroy (talk) 12:49, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree mostly with those, who think a list from 1999 is outdated 9 years later. Only the 2004 version should be in the article.KJohansson (talk) 18:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

MCB argues that a nine year old list is of historical value and should be still integrated in this article. Well, obviously many Wikipedia city article editors are not acknowledging this list as historic, because they cite this survey from 1999 as determined benchmark of today. It is obviously misleading several editors and even more important Readers.

There is no historic value, especially when the same university issues a survey about the same subject 5 years later. It is absurd to think all surveys no matter the time they where issued are of equal importance. KJohansson (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Readers are not stupid. They can see the dates, they can draw their own conclusions. Why should we hide the 1999 list? Because we think readers are dumb? Besides, removing the list is in breach of the neutrality concept central to Wikipedia I think. It's not the job of Wikipedia's contributors to decide which list is the most important/accurate. Let the readers decide for themselves. 86.212.117.29 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Alpha City/Beta City

Other pages in wikipedia link to Alpha City (ex. Chicago) or Beta City (ex. San Francisco) which redirect to this page ... but this page doesn't explain what an Alpha/Beta City is. Either the linking pages should be updated to remove the terms, or this page should be updated to include those terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.8.82.194 (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The Alpha/Beta/Gamma status derives from one study issued in the year 1999. Because the same institute in Loughborough released an enhanced study in 2004 the old one has been removed from this page, but still links to the study. Many city articles are using the outdated status in their articles. BTW, the status derives only from one, I repeat ONE study and still has become a kind of undeserved benchmark within the city-articles in Wikipedia. However it has become outdated 4 years ago...

Proposal to delete references to "Global City" in city articles

I am tired of seeing references to this "Global City" concept - a benchmark that came about through an academic's own work and has no external validity. I especially do not think that it should be included in the first paragraph of city articles. Anybody happy to see these references deleted? Kransky (talk) 13:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Agree, it is even more silly to think a list from a study made 9 years ago is of any value today. All the references in the city articles referring to alpha, beta, whatsoever are not reliable and even outdated. KJohansson (talk) 18:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like WP:UGH to me. You can't just make a decree over here that everyone can't reference the Global City concept in their articles. If you want to get rid of the references, you need to do it on a case by case basis. Nobody in their right mind would argue that London is not a Global City by almost any definition, thus it is absolutely worth mentioning in that article. The source may be 9 years old, but few of the cities mentioned would probably "fall off" a new list. If anything, the list would grow longer thanks to the growth of China and others in the past few years. Still, unless you want to go publish a paper in a peer-reviewed journal, your opinion on the validity of the subject doesn't count. I don't mean that to be taken harshly, just as a matter of fact.--Analogue Kid (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
And likewise, you cannot make a decree that states "Global City" is an acceptable form of terminology to be used in articles, when on face value the word is only used in its loosest term. Certainly I don't hear "gamma city" being used publically. There is no institution of sufficient weight and mandate that defines what are the characteristics of a global city and which cities meet the grade. I have read through the 1999 article written by Beaverstock, Smith and Taylor which defines global and other cities, and while I find the concepts interesting, it is hardly worthwhile to be used as a benchmark.Kransky (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Just because most people would agree that London is a "Global City by almost any definition" does not mean this is an important enough concept to be included in the first paragraph of London's article. What if I were to publish a report on 'Wonderful Cities' according to my own criteria of GDP, social justice, climate, driving skills and so on? And what if this eventually became just about notable enough that the Wonderful City Wikipedia article was allowed to exist without deletion? Could I then link to it from the introductory paragraph of every city listed in my report?
(N.B. I understand people's points below that this is not the perfect place to discuss this matter, but it certainly seems more efficient doing it here than, for example, on every individual city article's talk page. Perhaps there is a suitable "cities project" or category page to use instead.) Open4D (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I reckon it is a matter of fact, that the same institute which introduced an alpha, beta, gamma status has NOT repeated this kind of distinction in the year 2004. The basis of reference in several city articles is therefore outdated since 2004! That is a matter of fact. No other list within Wikipedia statistics would use material outdated like this one. That is another matter of fact. KJohansson (talk) 00:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that statements like "Los Angeles is rated an alpha world city" are firstly, unreasonably out of date, and second, not of sufficient significance to appear in the lede, even if more cautiously worded? It certainly seems like hugely disproportionate weight to put on this one source to me. Alai (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the concerns raised by KJohansson and Alai. I have studied cultural geography at the college level and the fact is that the world city terminology is simply not well-known outside of a small community of geographers and people who care about geography. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. While the world city status of a city probably should be noted somewhere in an article about that city, there is no need to use the obscure "alpha world city" terminology in the lede of an article. --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think the term "global city" is a very useful term and I think the fundamentals of the research underlying the concept is very true, and remains as true now as it ever has done. To that extent, I think the usage of the term "global city", linked to this article, is not out of place in articles - particularly in reference to cities like London or New York. In contrast, I think this whole "alpha", "beta", "gamma" malarchy is getting too specific and should probably be avoided and/or removed - certainly not referenced in the opening paragraphs of articles. DJR (T) 16:43, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
  • delete I even favour this article being deleted, just to stop this nonsense, I was reading the paris article in search of early 20th century Parisian architecture info, and stopped because of this peacock term. this is just teenager stuff, as if this is a concept used by normal people. And the Paris article instead of talking about the city uses peacock global crap in the lead. --Pedro (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  • Er, "teenager stuff"?? This is a significant concept in academic, cultural, and business circles. Have you actually read any of the works cited, or investigated the methodologies or metrics referred to? Calling this "peacock global crap" insults the editors who wrote this article, and the researchers whose work it is based on. --MCB (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, Pedro's proposal of deleting the entire article is probably a bit extreme, but he does have a point that a small number of geographers have really gotten carried away with adding references to "alpha global city" and "gamma global city" to the first or second paragraphs of various city articles.
The problem is that the concept of the global city in the particular form developed by the GaWC is really not that prominent outside of the academic geography community. It's kind of like how the concept of social construction of technology is very well-known among historians of technology (as well as some sociologists), but would get blank stares from most intellectuals. Also, it's not even a significant concept in business circles as I haven't seen the WSJ, BusinessWeek, Fortune, Forbes or Conde Nast Portfolio using the GaWC global city classifications. Even National Geographic doesn't use it! --Coolcaesar (talk) 07:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is a pointless discussion, and not the place to propose either deletion of this article (which is clearly not warranted), nor the content of other articles, which should be discussed on their own talk pages, by the editors involved in editing those pages. This thread should be closed and archived. --MCB (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think this article should be deleted, and discussing whether to remove links to this page is basically irrelevant to this page. DJR (T) 22:59, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

difference from the source

Into the article, the source for the list of cities is [1]. It is quite different from the list described here in wikipedia, why? thank you --79.10.115.208 (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

So?

The intro line reads "global city" or "world city", while the list belows clearly separes global cities from world cities. Then?--Fluence (talk) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


Montreal, Barcelona, Athens

a lot of the rankings coming out are not realistic because the statistics that are used are biased in favor of US cities. metro areas in the US are usually a lot bigger in area than cities in other countries. If the cities were given more area (Toronto would have 8 million people and a gdp almost the same as Chicago, Montreal could have 5 million people) the rankings would be different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.224.156.129 (talk) 16:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

2008 Foreign Policy study, and removal of GaWC material

Lear21 has twice removed the 2008 Foreign Policy section, and on the second removal, included in his edit summary the bizarre addition "feel free to remove the GaWC list as well". I don't know what Lear21 thinks the article is about, but the GaWC material is the core of the article, and the Foreign Policy material is a newly-published study by an exceptionally reliable source. Lear21 also attacked the FP study, calling it "flawed methodology". All the research cited in the article features economic as well as noneconomic metrics.

It is not up to Wikipedia editors to purport to critique the methodology of studies from established, reliable sources; that would be original research. Nor does the concept of a "global city" belong to one single person or organization, whether that is Loughborough University, Saskia Sassen (who, by the way, was a consultant on the FP study), or Lear21 himself. It is a phenomenon studied by a number of researchers and journalists over a number of years, who are certainly not unanimous about the set of criteria that should be considered. Removing one study (or several) because you disagree with the results or the methodology is poor editing. --MCB (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is about the "Global city" term which derived from Sassens global city concept. This concept is about economics only. The index includes 4 out of 5 non-economic-dimensions and can be considered therefore irrelevant. The survey can be considered a commercial product of a consultant firm which used the term "Global City Index" in order to gain publicity but nothing more. Not everything coined "Global City" is global city like. all the best Lear 21 (talk) 16:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
The global city concept has matured quite a bit since Sassen's early work, and as you see from the various sources cited in the article (and others that you are undoubtedly familiar with) that non-economic factors and metrics are, in the current methodology, considered to be of importance. The best known of these (GaWC) notes this prominently. While you may be an adherent of the faction which only considers economic factors in global city status, that is at present very much a minority position. Regards, MCB (talk) 05:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Alpha, Beta, and Gamma world cities

I put back a chart that was taken off, that I thought was important with the category of alpha, beta, and gamma world cities. Creez34 (talk) 20:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The concept of alpha, beta, gamma classification has been superceded by a survey from 2004 conducted by the same institute. Because other classification sources have been published as well the 1999 survey appears to outdated. I removed it again. Lear 21 (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Again, you seem to have no appreciation for the concept of historical data which belong in an encyclopedia. We do not remove items of significance regarding a certain time or place simply because they have changed, nor do we remove the results of elections, surveys, sports competitions, etc., when the event is held again. In this case the historical data is important to show not only what cities were considered most influential at the time of the earlier studies, but changes in the development of the methodology. There is no consensus to support your removal, and your continued removal of the older material is disruptive. --MCB (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The outdated survey has been critized by many editors in the past. It´s removal was demanded as well. Because this article is the source of many misconceptions and outdated citations in several city articles there seems no other way provide the current dataset. There are many other surveys and rankings not presented here dealing with city comparisons. It seems highly redundant to present a dataset which has seen an overhaul by the same institution 5 years ago. The old data was absent for several months now, no need for a reinstallation. Lear 21 (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be no point in upholding a 10 year old survey which has been superseded by another one dating back 5 years ago. We have now 2 lists, one academic (GAWC) and one commercial (Foreign policy). I can´t see the reason to put back a superseded list in a highly mediocre article. KJohansson (talk) 12:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Stupidity on steroids

This whole concept of "alpha", etc. class cities and removing the regular city, state or city, country naming pattern is one of the most mind-boggling stupid developments ever in Wikipedia, promulgated by individuals who have no concept whatsoever of what a database is and how a database should be maintained for searchability and maintainability. It probably started with someone from New York City deciding that New York, New York wasn't exclusive enough for their little corner of the world; the blight has spread and continues to spread in the Wikipedia database. Once this idiocy burns out, it will be left to some future set of Wikipedians to clean up the mess, if it can be cleaned up at all. Hey, I used to live in Cave Junction, Oregon as a kid. I think it's a pretty important place, at least in my life. Let's change the name of the article to Cave Junction! Where is this going to stop? Whoever came up with this notion should file it under "Birds, For the". —QuicksilverT @ 18:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

New 2009 GaWC data available

The list needs an update. The data and the lists are here [2]. KJohansson (talk) 17:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

What

DENVER?!?! 128.210.12.36 (talk) 07:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

São Paulo, Brazil is a Global City

São Paulo is Global City Beta. As you can see here: http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cidades_globais#Cidades_globais_Beta

Beta Global city with eight points.

I´m sorry, but Miami, FL, USA is Primarily economic global contributions?????

How do you put Miami in this list, and don´t put São Paulo with its 19 million inhabitants in the metropolitan area and with his clear and recognized global economic importance.

This article is not reliable. Need some corrections. Gives preferences to U.S. cities. See this same article in portuguese. It´s completely different.

Any explanation, i´m here: lucas@chiavenato.com.br

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.83.147.230 (talk) 01:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Our lists of global cities are taken from specific sources. If São Paul were on those lists, it would be in the article. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I noticed Paris in "smaller contribution" for the world at the same Rank than Los Angeles??? SORRY but I completely disagree. Paris had influence far before New York in the XIXth century. Fashion, arcgitecture, economy, culture... everything was copied from Paris. So I think and I ve readen many times that LONDON AND PARIS 1st had a contribution for the world. No link between Paris and Los Angeles... Then, NYC arrive in term of period after these both European capitals. Paris still have a world rank for everything. Saskia Sassen, certainly anti-France has forgotten the french capital as a Large world's contribution city and Paris as a city in the first line of the 4 world major cities : LONDON, PARIS, NEW-YORK, TOKYO (in order of appearence) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.202.61.91 (talk) 13:20, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

  • These lists are modern, and history is not the determining factor.
  • These are directly from specific sources. They are not made up or decided by Wikipedia editors.
—Centrx→talk • 15:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Please someone has to change the last table, because Sao Paolo is listed as being in Portugal, insteas of Brazil! I don't have permission to change it, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agudanna (talk • contribs) 18:18, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Billionaires List Needs to Be Updated

Here's new link from Forbes based on recent Global Billionaires List:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/10/worlds-richest-cities-billionaires-2009-billionaires-cities.html

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dms12345 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Top Rail Systems By Length

Is this category still relevant? We already have the 'Metro systems by annual passenger rides' column. Shouldn't it be replaced with something such as 'Cities by Number of Skyscrapers', 'Cities by Number of Museums', etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dms12345 (talk • contribs) 17:28, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Thes section with these alternative measures seems to be somewhat original research. The fact that Atlanta is a airport hub is minimally relevant to whether the city is a global city. This list needs to be changed into something other than "top 10 list of stuff in cities". —Centrx→talk • 16:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not top rail system, but top metro systems. Only metro is included, with no any other heavy and light rails. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Phoenix

As a former and, ideally, future Phoenix resident, I have to say that it is definitely worthy of being classified as a global city; it is the fifth largest city in America, and the largest state capital in America. There is a large international airport, PHX, which is the eighth busiest in America, and the eighteenth in the WORLD! All this considered, I think this fine city should definitely be included on this list. 71.113.244.168 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Gross Regional Product

I highly recommend to remove this column, as the data provided by PWC is very complicated, significantly outdated and does not provide a full scope of correct modern situation. Elk Salmon (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse Me! Attention!

Hey! I creaed a really beautiful table, to show the 2008 Roster of global cities. But there was a loss of session data!! I want to know WHO DID THIS?? Respond on my talk page.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

the last time I clicked the page it was completely messed up probably thats why —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.7.130 (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the section back to older version. The table is not "done" along with sections that are left empty! More importantly, it is best not to include extraneous information in the table, and simply just list the cities themselves. Please no flag icons and extraneous columns, just list the cities like the GaWC rosters themselves.--Balthazarduju (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the country columns and flag icons. The GaWC roster itself did not emphasize on national origin; if the source itself listed in that way, then the country columns and icons might be necessary.--Balthazarduju (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Airports again

I re-ordered the airport listing by total traffic -- London, NYC and Tokyo shouldn't be penalized for having more traffic than would fit on a single airport. So I re-ranked using traffic for the five international London airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City), the three airports serving NYC (JFK, Newark, LaGuardia), and the two airports in Greater Tokyo (Tokyo and Narita) and Paris (CDG and Orly). -- Marcika (talk) (talk) (original comment 6 Sept 2009)

Düsseldorf

The city's name is Düsseldorf, named after the river of Düssel, not Dusseldorf (which would mean as much as Fools' Village). please correct that. I would do so myself, but the site is closed --131.220.136.195 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.220.136.195 (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I am wondering why this doesn't show up on the page... --131.220.136.195 (talk) 09:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Detroit

Detroit or at least the Detroit Metro Area which could include Ann Arbor should be counted as a Beta World City, it's no less important than Atlanta and consider it's metro area and city which are larger in population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.53.109.140 (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


Global Power City Index

How about this? (removed blacklisted link) It is another study of world cities. Friedrichshainer (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is the source as PDF [3] Friedrichshainer (talk) 10:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Rank City Score Best category (position)
1 New York City 330.4
2 London 322.3
3 Paris 317.8
4 Tokyo 305.6
5 Singapore 274.4
6 Berlin 259.3
7 Vienna 255.1
8 Amsterdam 250.5
9 Zürich 242.5
10 Hong Kong 242.5
11 Madrid 242.5
12 Seoul 242.1
13 Los Angeles 240
14 Sydney 237.3
15 Toronto 234.6
16 Frankfurt 232.9
17 Copenhagen 231.7
18 Brussels 229.9
19 Geneva 229.7
20 Boston 226.2
21 Shanghai 2
22 Chicago 2
23 Vancouver 2
24 San Franciso 2
25 Osaka 2
26 Beijing 2
27 Kuala Lumpur 2
28 Milan 2
29 Bangkok 2
30 Fukuoka 2
31 Taipei 2
32 Moscow 2
33 Sao Paulo 2
34 Mumbai 2
35 Cairo 2

There are many similar lists done by different organizations. This study is done by an organization named Institute for Urban Strategies at The Mori Memorial Foundation in Tokyo, which there isn't many information available on them. This article has a study done by Loughborough University and a study by Foreign Policy already; is this relevant enough? --Balthazarduju (talk) 08:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Balthazarduju, I also know many city studies, but very few seem to have a comprehensive approach. The new one from Tokio has 69 different catogories and provides a broad perspective. IMHO it has similar quality to the one from Foreign policy magazine. The article in general looks not very developed, so I´d say it is better to add another study rather than having only few profound lists. Friedrichshainer (talk) 12:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I clicked the source, there are 35 cities reviewed right ? What about the 15 missing cities ? KJohansson (talk) 21:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


Text needed !

The article has surely been cleaned up massively, but the new sections need desperately written texts. KJohansson (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

True. Friedrichshainer (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sao Paulo

Within the same table Sao Paulo is written in two different ways. Please, decide for one!--Fischy (talk) 04:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

All written appropriately as São Paulo. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mistake in Gamma Cities List - Please Fix

I can't correct this myself because the article is locked.

The Gamma World Cities list omits Calcutta. I'm not lobbying or saying anything about the importance of Calcutta. I'm just saying that it is listed by the GaWC as being a Gamma World City, according to the reference listed in the footnote (http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/world2008t.html). I checked all the other cities in all the other lists, and everything else matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericwag (talk • contribs) 19:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Calcutta/Kolkata added to its appropriate section. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 23:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fix vandalism

Some vandal added Mumbay to the list of alpha++ Could someone fix it?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.22.60 (talk • contribs)

Vandal reverted. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 04:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Edinburgh has been inexplicably removed from the Global Cities Gamma Minus list, despite it being clearly present in the source. It has therefore been duly restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.219.158 (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Global_city/Archive_4&oldid=1057763159"