Talk:Global city/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

People are changing the GaWC list. Everything after Washington DC in row 6 has been added on this page and differs from the GaWC report. And Dublin has been added to row 4. Was this discussed on this talk page, or with the GaWC authors? --DeanoNightRider 12:49, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

  • where's sydney?

Contents

pre-Contents text

Dunedin???

Why is Atlanta on there? Its just an airport! :D I agree that the list part is very subjective, and should probably be removed Tezkah

What is happening here is exactly what was expected. Everyone is now adding their own favourite cities to this list. After all on a list like this there is always a city just below the cut-off line, so why should it not be included?

If you go and look at Category:World cities you will find all sorts of other cities. Should Jerusalme be here? And if Jerusalem why not Cairo? And if Cairo why not Mecca? And if Mecca why not Nairobi? And if Nairobi why not Dar es Salaam? And so on for ever.

I believe that this article is inherently POV and should be removed. DJ Clayworth 13:46, 8 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How about we leave Tokyo, London, Paris, and New York--which, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe are for most people beyond dispute--and not have a list of other cities at all? The main body of the article, without the list, is useful. K. Gibson

I support the addition of San Francisco to the list. It may not have an enormous population or have hosted the olympics, but it certainly has the rest of the qualities, and sometimes to a larger degree. If not considered a world city, than it atleast deserves mention as a good god damn candidate for being one in the future, pending population growth and olympics status. - Augur

I?d keep the list as it was before. The article gives clear, relatively objective criteria for what is a  ?world class city? The list that I saw here about a month or to ago (August 2004) previously seems to be an accurate listing of the few dozen cities in the world that really meet this criteria. In the example above, Cairo, Mecca and Jerusalem meet the criteria and I added them to the list; Nairobi does not meet a couple of the tests (base for international financial institutions, major international airport, and international cultural facilities) and other cities, less so. This is not to say that Nairobi and Dar es Salaam, aren?t great cities ? but it would be fair to say they are more regional than world centers. As to not offend people?s sensibilities I thought describing the lists as ?candidate cities? make sense (JoeConsumer 10/08/04).

I've added four more cities to the "prinicipal candidates" list since many of Asia's largest cities are underrepresented and Brussels' position as the headquarters of many international organizations is enough to be acknowledged as an international city. The Asian cities is question are Seoul, Beijing, and Shanghai; all cities on or near the Yellow Sea, as you might notice, but the main reason I chose them as the Asian world cities is the fact that all of them are equal to Tokyo's size and population, and all occupy important positions in the world's economy and culture.

OK, I?m beginning to see how touchy of a topic this can be. Here?s what I did. I reverted back the article text so it now reads that New York, London, Paris & Tokyo are the traditional *western selection*. After that, the text acknowledges that yes, there is some subjectivity to this, and a person?s geographical / cultural background will determine what their list is. I agree that Pac Rim person (including me) would likely add Seoul, Beijing and Shanghai to their list, the other examples remain. I?ve eliminated the principal candidate category, to be as objective as possible I broken the ?candidates? list by down continent and alphabetical order ? there is no other ranking. I?ve added the line at the top of this list, stating that the cities below are generally believed to meet all of the criteria above. I also strengthened the criteria so that candidates (a) must be the center of a metro area with a million persons plus (b) have an international airport that is a major hub for international carriers (c) must have a name and cultural institutions that are world renown. I sincerely hope this established a more objective basis for this page that favors no region or culture (JoeConsumer 10/08/04)

I added "or most" to the candidate cities' description. Not all of the requirements are met, most often the olympic host status, though that is rather insignificant. Why is that even included as a mandatory requirement for World City status? It should be an optional thing, nothing special or major. Might I suggest that we create a semiformal rating system to rate each feature and, depending on how a city does on that rating, based the world-citiness? I propose adding an extra feature to class a city by: population density. Also, if we use a rated method, we should include some system by which, if a city has an excessive rating in one feature, such as an extremely large population, their requirements in the other features are not as high. - Augur

I agree that the requirement to have hosted the Olympics doesn?t really apply so I?ve ?demoted? that point to be portion of the text. I agree in principle with the point system you suggested. Ideally, I wish there was a neutral third party that developed such a ranking system, as you suggest, that we could reference in this article. However, I?m not sure how we can implement and maintain such a points system in Wikipedia  ? it would be relatively complex and every fact would be open to scrutiny and contention. Looking at the history of this page, many debates were started when one city was ranked higher another which some interpreted (wrong or right) as promoting one culture/country/people over another. Personally, I?m a big believer in keeping it simple. I think for the purposes of the article, let lay down some relatively simple, objective criteria (large populations, international influence and participation), which only a few dozen (at the most) cities would meet. Let?s just have one group of "candidates", and we?ll put them in alphabetical order. That way, I thing we preserve a good list of ?World Cities" most people would subscribe to (Joe consumer 10/13/04)

If there needs to be a neutral third part, then let's just CREATE one. Here, I declare the founding of the Society of Megalopolitan Nomenclature (and the nomenclature itself would be Standard Megalopolitan Nomenclature). Done. Now let's get to defining some stuff. Nevermind the debates, we can do this offsite or whatever. If we keep the SMN distinct from this particular article, and only reference is as ONE possible rating method, then it shouldn't be a problem. -Augur

Fine, than let?s do that. I did look at your criteria and scoring system below. I would suggest modifying it as follows. I?m a big believer in the KISS principle (keep it simple) as people can follow the logic and the objectivity of the system is clearer. Also, I think it will be very easy to get the following information for the city.

-Proposed Criteria Revisions:

Items 1,8,9,10: Total number of international tourists per year
Item 2: Number of embassies
Item 3: Total population of the metropolitan area or conurbation
Item 4: Total international airline arrival/departures (all airports in metro area).
Item 5: Total miles freeway (defines a limited access grade separated highway)  plus the total mileage of rapid transit systems.
Item 6: Total number of foreign residents
Item 7: Number of stock exchanges

At this point I would give all items equal weight. The score for each item would be the (total for the candidate city / city with the highest value). i.e. let?s say if Mexico City has the world largest population at 30 million, and the LA area has 15 million, Mexico City would have a score of 1.0, LA would have 0.5. Multiply all 7 items, you?ll get the score for each city. As opposed to having minimum value, I would simply limit the list to the top 30 or 50 candidates, as world cities are pretty much the ?best of the best? Augur, I would love to work with you in detail on this. Perhaps we could both develop our own version of the spreadsheet, and compare notes. I will probably start with the 100 largest world cities in the Metropolitan Area article on Wikipedia, and whittle my way down. I hope its appropriate to post here; I?m actually in the SF area and you can reach me at joeconsumer@msn.com (JoeConsumer 10/14/04).

Post by Augur
1809 gmt-5
14 October 02004

I like your revisions. I wanted to do a normalized system like you suggest, but I couldn't figure out how we'd do that with yes/no type situations. I like the way you handled those types of situations (number of flights, number of embassies, etc.). I'm going to add consulates to the list besides embasies, because embassies tend to only be in capitals. I'm also going to use the number of international airline flight passengers instead of just the number of international tourists. I think this works because it includes the locals who travel abroad, which definitely is a measure of the city's worldliness, as well as the number of foreigners travelling to the city.

I suggest we have two methods, one with the vital statistics of the city formulated into a kind of code, and another with the ratings. We can also have an average to define the overall "worldliness". I'll try to classify my personal favorite city, NYC proper, as an example:

NYC-16.7-6-8.1-106-660-3.2-3

Breakdown:

International commuters: 16.7 million

Embassies/Consulates: 6

Population: 8.1 million

International flights: 106 thousand

Mass transport: 660 miles of rail (freeway information unavailable??)

Foreign-born residents: 3.2 million (40%)

Stock exchanges: 3 (AmEx, NYSE, NASDAQ)

We could also use a tagged code, like so: NYC ic:16.7m ec:6 p:8.1m if:106k mt:660mi fr:3.2m se:3

Oh, and instead of Society for Megalopolitan Nomenclature, let's change nomenclature to Classification. It sounds better. heh. We should also think of some way to keep itnernational corporations as a feature, as well as theaters, etc. since the tourism isn't a guarantee of cultural quality.

  • I?ve been trying to build a prototype sheet I will eventually share on this site. Population, airport and embassy/consulate statistics were fairly straightforward. The metrophiles in Wikipedia made the transit information pretty easy to find. You have to sort through city and regional tourism boards to get the city figures but there there. Freeway miles per city may near impossible (might just have to leave transit), I?m also trying to find a good source for foreign born residents. I would love to factor in businesses but I don?t want to use US ?Fortune 500? lists because of the inherent bias, perhaps there?s a world 500 list. I?m not sure how to get good quantitative data on such things as theaters. If anyone has any thoughts or ideas ? email me (JoeConsumer 10/16/04).
  • It's a difficult thing to do, yes. We need to perhaps contact the metropolitan tourism associates or the city itself to find the information we'd need. - Augur (17 October 02004)

Nomenclature Proposal

Post by Augur
1355 gmt-5
14 October 02004
Proposal for Standard Megalopolitan Nomenclature:

- 10 categories:

1. International familiarity
2. Active participation and influence in international events and world affairs
3. Large population
4. Major international airport
5. Advanced, extensive transportation infrastructure
6. Large community of foreign born residents
7. Large international corporations and/or major stock exchanges
8. Various cultural institutions and venues such as film festivals and premieres, a lively musical scene, theatrical plays, art galleries, and museums
9. High proportion of non-chain retailers and eateries, upscale boutiques and hotels, and trendy nightlife
10. Spectacular natural background

- Ranking for each category:

1. Proportion of international tourists per year to the city population
2. Yes or no
3. Log base 10 of the population (ex. 6 million = 10^6.78, so a city with a 6m population ranks 6.78 or rounded to 10ths, 6.8)
4. Yes or no
5. Yes or no, possibly with subcategories
6. Proportion of foreign people or people with a distinctly different cultural background to locals
7. Yes or no, or the number of large international corporations
8. Yes or no, or the number of such things
9. Yes or no, possibly with sub-categories
10. Log of the distance and mean travel time in minutes

- Thresholds and lower tolerances for highly unbalances cities:

1. ??
2. ??
3. Half-million (5.7) absolute lower limit, million (6) standard
4. Minimum one international airport
5. Yes in a majority of subcategories absolute lower limit, supermajority (2/3) of subcategories standard
6. 0.5% absolute lower limit, 1% standard
7. Minimum one international corporation
8. 1/3 of subcategories absolute lower limit, majority standard
9. ??
10. ??

Thoughts on "Original Research"

I'm not going to bore you with appeals to the "no original research" principle, but unless you guys can find any references to accepted "world city" classifications, I cannot help but see this article as a mass of mostly invented detail on a vague concept. If you do want to make a study, probably the most objective way would be to trawl through newspapers, magazines and books, and count how many times each city is claimed to be a "world city", or the equivalent in a local language. But can you please keep the article at least halfway encyclopaedic. 193.64.7.9 07:03, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Well, what we are doing here is trying to find an objective way to classify world cities and eliminate all subjectivity ? I think this would work to push the article way above the ?halfway encyclopedic? standard. Unfortunately, there are simply no third party sources that have relatively neutral criteria that we can reference. It would be near impossible to filter through the world papers for ?world city? references and resolve the biases each publication and author has. Judging by the discussion in this space, this article is very much in demand but has been riddled by the subjective nature of our differing world views. I honestly think we can develop an objective common sense criteria based on readily available facts that would be accepted by the Wikipedia community at large, and add value to this encyclopedia. What we propose is described above, transparent to all. Anybody can join this effort and propose competing criteria if they wish (JoeConsumer 10/16/04).
  • With all undue respect, Mr. Anonymous user, you're posting to a completely open source, adhoc encyclopedia about the validity of a classification system used to define something that, up until now, has gone almost completely and utterly undefined. You can trawl through newspapers and magazines all you like, but that destroys the entire purpose of classifying something as a world city. What the fuck is the point, if any city can just claim itself a world city a sufficient number of times in order to be counted? There need to be criteria, and that's what we're doing. Don't like those criteria? Make your own, put up a Wikipedia article on the system, and link to it in the World City article. Until then, you're just bitching about something without even offering up constructive criticism. And shut up with the "keep it encyclopaedic" crap. We're doing exactly that by trying to create some logical system, it would be unencyclopaedic if we were to listen to you and make an article based on completely arbitrary and pointless criteria. Thanks for the interest, but no thanks. - Augur (17 October 02004)
Europeans on average have GDP per capita at rate of Arkansas if that. The Continent is simply not as rich as North America. Yet for all their little nation states, trade, embassies, branch offices, "international" expos, fairs, and events, they simply no longer have the stuff: in wealth or population. In America, the wealth of the major 25 cities is immense, in Asia, the populations. Any statistical study including the bogus linked research group out of Europe is only as good as the imputs. Does your average middle American jaw drop when he hears the word "international" applied to some third or fourth largest Italian city? Maybe. Does your European jaw drop at the wealth, museums, schools, art, roads, houses, and power of your 2nd or 3rd tier city? It would if they ever ventured outside their provincial continent! Enough with the bogus listings of HQ Euro cities that advertise in the Economist! Bogus methodology!

Cultural geography

World city is an actual term in cultural geography.

If there's an authoritative definition from an academic discipline, one or more definitions with references could be helpful here. ishu 04:46, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I don't have any definitions handy, but material by Saskia Sassen, Allen J. Scott, Edward Soja, Anthony King, and Peter Hall are names to look to for definitions and examples of "world cities" and "global cities" (slightly different in the literature, but both pages on wikipedia redirtect to this one) from an academic viewpoint. Note that "world-class cities" is quite different, and seems to be what most of the discussion is focusing on here, especially in terms of "everybody wants their favorite cities on the list". I believe Sassen is at University of Chicago and Scott and Soja both at UCLA, all in sociology departments, so the folks looking for somebody "more prestigious than Loughbrough" might be satisfied. It's not my field, but I've done some reading (I'm a graduate student in urban planning at Michigan), and can say that the list of "alpha world cities" currently on the page are _definitely_ commonly accepted in academia as the top tier considering world cities and global cities. (And there is a rough heirarchy, though I don't think I've seen an alpha/beta/gamma naming of them.) Hopefully a somewhat helpful comment... MurphMurphy 15:45, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Adding cities to list

I propose that the following cities be added to the list, as I feel that the meet most of the criteria in the article (especially the early ones):

  • Delhi
  • Tel Aviv
  • St. Petersburg
  • Athens
  • Munich
  • Barcelona
  • Florence
  • Venice
  • Montreal
  • Vancouver
  • Boston
  • Philadelphia
  • Houston
  • Dallas

I'd like to get a response before taking any action.

Acegikmo1 03:13, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC).

  • My initial reaction is that the list currently getting on the long side (and I?ll also add the current list is a tabulation of all the previous cities added by various authors over the history of this article). My secondary reaction is as follows: Again, they are many nice places in this world. New Delhi is the capital of India, but I would argue that Mumbai occupies a greater place the world stage with its population and booming economy. The other cities you mention in the US, again important cities, but I would argue the ones currently on the list have a higher degree of participation in the world economy, politics and finance. Venice, Montreal, and Florence and great tourist destinations but they are relatively small urban areas that don?t have the same degree of participation in world events as many of the other cities. I?m not trying to rip on suggestions, and I?m by no means the sole authority here (and others, please comment) but in my opinion the cities you propose are more ?important regional and national centers? than world cities as defined above. Again, developing better criteria, per the discussion above, will help sort this out (JoeConsumer 10/16/04).
  • With all due respect, I don't think any of the four U.S. cities (Boston, Philly, Houston, Dallas) you cite meet all the criteria. I'm an American, and I don't think of those cities in the same breath as NY, Paris, Tokyo, etc. Boston is basically a big college town. Philly is your standard industrial city, not as fashionable as it once was. Houston and Dallas are basically new cities and are still finding their identity outside of oil wells and football. The U.S. cities that belong, in my opinion, are New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington D.C.

Berlin

Is Berlin really a reasonable addition to make a "Big Four"? The "Big Three" point was pretty indisputable. Berlin seems a little too regional in importance and renown to really fit the description. I'd list Rome as one of the "Big Four" before Berlin. But maybe weaker wording is in order. For instance, instead of praising four cities as the "Big Four," why not just mention that New York, London, and Paris are indisputable examples of "World Cities" in the western world? As long as you say "Big [Integer Here]," somebody's going to want to add Peoria, Illinois to the list.


No German city should be added to the top of the list. Berlin is not a major industrial center, not a transit hub, and despite a couple of first-rate museums, not really up there with the big four culturally. It has a population of 3.4 million spread out over a very wide area. Sure, there's the fascinating history and decadent reputation, but it still feels like a larger provincial city; there is no 24-hour lifestyle or anything comparable. (And before you ask, I live there and do like it.) The other possible German candidates, such as Munich or Hamburg, aren't huge cities and also belong in the second or third tier. Having said that, I'd put the potential German cities in this order: Berlin, Hamburg or Munich, Cologne, Frankfurt. I'm surprised that Frankfurt has scored as high as it does on the alpha-beta-gamma list; sure, it has a big airport and it's the German financial capital, but it's a provincial city. Surprising, too, is the presence of Düsseldorf on the list above Germany's larger cities (I used to live there). It's also home to a lot of financial-services firms, has a pretty view of the Rhine, and a very good art museum. But it's a state capital, not a global one.
BTW, someone mentioned Mecca as a possible world city. It is a closed city; only Muslims are allowed to enter, and like the rest of Saudi Arabia it lacks a free and vibrant political culture, which probably ought to be a requirement of a world city. Likewise, I am surprised that Beijing is on the list of candidates, but Hong Kong, one of the most open and cosmopolitan cities anywhere, is not. ProhibitOnions 16:26:33, 2005-08-18 (UTC)

Frankfurt

It seems that given Germany's economic weight, people felt compelled to add a German city to the "alpha" group. However, it is rather ridiculous to have Frankfurt as a "alpha" world city. Apart from the airport and the banks, there is no reason for doing so. Frankfurt is neither a major political, nor an major economic, nor a major cultural center. It's not even among the most important cities in Germany. Any German would rank at least Berlin, Hamburg and Munich as more important than Frankfurt in those respects.

I agree - leave Frankfurt off - even the Germans chose Berlin for their new capitol. Ohio is quite important and rich, but its cities are divided among Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, none of which is as important as metropolitan Detroit in smaller Michigan.

Chicago

According to http://www.lboro.ac.uk/gawc/rb/rb5.html, only two of the 27 surveys consider Chicago an alpha world city. Should Chicago be removed from the alpha list? RickK 20:46, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)

  • Sorry RickK, but there are problems with that. If we remove Chicago, why not also remove Los Angeles being another city that only has two mentions on the 27 listed? Or Singapore which is only listed once. The problem with our re-intepretation of the GAWC studies is that they used a lot of criteria in defining what a world city is besides just those authors opinions. Read some of the breakdowns by industry further down in the studdy. It's also worth noting that the same sources were used several times throughout the 27 listed (Reed was used twice, so was Sassen). As a result situations change. I don't see any reason why Chicago, Los Angeles, Milan or Singapore should be removed, as that wasn't the only criteria used. This section of the thread should be closed.

This web page here seems to be consistent with this current article. Is it really up to the members of Wikipedia to decide which cities are alpha world cities?! --Rebroad 21:10, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • In fact, that page looks as if this article was pretty well word-for-world copied from that page. One wonders what constitutes a copyright violation. RickK 05:28, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

One point in Chicago's favor: who has NOT flown around the USA and NOT heard of O'Hare International Airport (ORD)? And this could either be a point for...or against - the 1904 Olympics (if we go back to using THAT as a criterion) were awarded to Chicago, but moved to Saint Louis, Missouri to be held in conjunction with the World's Fair that was occuring in that city at the same time. Or what about using the World's Fair itself? Chicago has had two: 1893 and 1933 (and there was talk of holding a third in the 1980s or 1990s, but this never took place).

Ottawa

Surely, Ottawa the capital of Canada is more important than Winnipeg! Earl Andrew 22:02, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What is going on with that Alpha Gamma World City whatever stuff?

I don't think that GaWC stuff from Loughbrough or whatever University should be on this page because it seems to lack NPOV, at least unless and until that terminology gets picked up and used by urban studies scholars at several better-known and more prestigious universities. Otherwise we're going to have instructors at every community college putting their own idiosyncratic ontologies and theories into Wikipedia.

My concern is that the terminology fails to reflect the firm consensus of scholars who specialize in studying cities (and we should be striving for the neutral consensus view since this is an encyclopedia). For example, I just ran a LexisNexis search on the ALLNEWS file (which covers all news from 1980 onward in the majority of English-language newspapers and magazines) and the total number of articles that mention "alpha world city" is three. And yes, that's including plural forms as well.

--Coolcaesar 08:29, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


I have to agree. Its very odd.

--KevinGould 24 Jul 2005

And also, I believe were rating it (I may be wrong) on economic factors only.- Anonymous user dropping in for this one comment...

Tehran

Tehran megapolis with 15.000.000 inhabitants and full service (2 international airports, metro, numerous museums, recreational facilities, cable cars, 6 ski resorts, 800 large parks etc.) containing a huge number of large industrial centers, one of the largest highway systems of the world etc. is a world city for many years. Why is it put down the list by some? It is at least many times bigger and more equipped than Madrid. --212.238.143.99 11:20, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Although it may have the appearance of the necessary physical infrastructure, Tehran is not yet a major world city because it lacks the international financial institutions and ethnocultural diversity which is seen in the generally accepted world cities like Paris and New York. It is also not yet a major travel destination for both tourists and executives. When the big Western tour operators like Trafalgar start offering regular package tours of Tehran, then perhaps Tehran will have finally joined the top ranks of the world cities.

--145.253.152.33 17:28, 2 Jan 2004 (UTC)

confusing

why are we still using the Gawc website's ranking number style if we aren't agreeing upon the 1 through 12 number the website gave each city. If we disagree with their method, then we should develope a whole new numbering system.

Unrealistic

Since this list is nowhere near realistic, it is highly dubious. Frankfurt? One day Berlin may be a world city, but I would say that Germany doesn't have any at present, partly as a deliberate federal policy. I would say that Europe's world cities are London, Paris, Moscow and Istanbul, based on a combination their size and their significance to the rest of the world. My POV, but if the list is nowhere near what I and others think then it has little value. And note that the fact that the vast majority are in the nothern hemisphere is not a surprise; so are the vast majority of the world's landmass and the vast majority of its population. --Henrygb 03:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's probably because people feel that their city gets short shrift.

It's no suprise to see US cities dominating the list! In fact, I've lived in all three of the US cities listed here, and visited many of the other alpha cities of the world.

Some cities are a suprise though. I consider myself to be a fairly well-travelled person with a detailed knowledge of geography, and I'd never heard of Cardiff prior to reading this list; however it is considered an alpha world city, on a level with NY, London and Paris? Could this have been added by a native of this city to show their appreciation for their home? With a population of only 305,340 (according to its article: Cardiff) it's hard to believe it would have much regional signifigance, much less any signifigance on a world scale. Also, I was suprised to see Lahore and Karachi on the list. While these are undoubtedly large and important cities, they are also very poor cities which do not have a great deal of influence outside of their own countries.

Most of the alpha list makes sense though; London, New York, Chicago, Hong Kong, Paris, Tokyo... you know it's an alpha world city when it appears in the label of world-renowned fashion designers.

GaWC lsit

I'm rethinking the wisdom of having this list here in the first place, as people are screwing around with the rankings anyway. Some cities are now in a substantially different order from the actual list. I'm reverting the order to that of the original list I added, but I think the ultimate solution is to just mention the GaWC as one way of ranking cities, without actually publishing the whole list here. Anyone disagree? - Randwicked 02:02, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fine with me. I always thought having this list in this article was a bad idea in the first place, since the GaWC list is not even widely known or authoritative, and I suspected its presence would invite precisely the problems you have just described.

--Coolcaesar 04:29, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's funny, because I first heard of this list when it was adopted with great enthusiasm into my high school geography curriculum back in 1999. Seems that's the only place it's popular, though. Oh well. I deleted most of the list. - Randwicked 06:40, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I see now the trials that the page has gone through, and I apologize for re-adding the information about the beta and gamma cities. I was only attempting to correct what I perceived as a correctable incompleteness. Perhaps sometime in the future a proper list of world cities can be assembled. Rascalb 09:14, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

Looks like adding some pictures was the right idea

The page has been much more stable for the past month, ever since I added pictures of the big four world cities and Randwicked got rid of most of the controversial GaWC list.

I think seeing what a real world city looks like is enough to drive away most of the bozos who think that their own little hometown deserves to be called a world city!

--Coolcaesar 10:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone ought to change the Paris picture -- there are many better shots of that city available.

The controversial GaWC ranking is based heavily on financial activity, as obviously seen. My suggestion is that the best way to rank cities would be on the "Quality of life" index, which covers the finance or money aspect.

A good example on rating countries, and cities based on the "Quality of life" index is available at http://www.economist.com/theworldin/international/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3372495&d=2005 and http://www.mercerhr.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1173105 respectively.

In my opinion it would be difficult to dispute these findings.

--What do you mean "difficult to dispute"? The whole concept of global cities has nothing to do with quality of life, it refers to a city's importance in the global economy and worldwide culture. Some town in Norway might have an outstanding quality of life, but that wouldn't make it anything close to a global city. --Jleon 21:08, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

List of criteria

--I think we need to remove the last four on the list of criteria for being a World City. The requirement of having hosted an Olympics is really nonsensical; I suppose Lake Placid and Lillehammer are more World Cities than New York City? Also, the other three of the last four are highly subjective and don't have much to do with the topic: what sizable city couldn't claim to have a "unique cultural air", "varied retailers" and "landmarks"? --Jleon 14:18, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

--Well its been a couple of days that no one has objected, so I deleted those points and added a new one for advanced communications infrastructure. --Jleon 15:37, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

"In the West"

Fascinating point--one criteria is to multiethnic communities...yet this is specifically noted as being true for the Western World only? The fact may not be contentious, but we should at least say why the different standards. Surely many people will feel this is singling out one region of the world, and we should explain why, assuming we have good justification. ~ Dpr 07:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For example, Moscow is a very multinational city, but there are no "Chinatowns" in it becauise of litte city areas diversification. All the nationalities live in all the city areas. Couriously, there are EXIST a place called "Китай-город", which could be literally translated "China-town", but this is obviously a medieval name and percent of chaneese is the same there. By the way, in Medieval times there were ethnical areas of the city - for example "Немецкая слобода" - a German area. I think, this could not be an indicator of significancy of a city.--Nixer 19:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Metro Areas

Should any note be made of the fact that any one world city may have another large urban center in the mantle of its metro area, or at least within close proximity? It may sometimes be difficult to dissect a large urban center and localize what part counts as significant and what doesn't. ~ Dpr 07:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion to rename article

--I suggest that this article be renamed "Global city" with a redirect from "World city," rather than the other way around. I'm not sure what the case is in the U.K., Canada, or Australia, but in the U.S. the term 'global city' is by far the most common. Also, most writers in Urban Studies/Urban Planning & Urban Sociology use the term almost universally in preference to 'world city.' --Jleon 18:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Japantown?

Someone recently changed "Chinatown" to "Japantown". In world cities, aren't Chinatowns much more common than Japantowns?

GaWC

I removed most of the GaWC list again. Good lord, what monster have I birthed here? Comparing the newest Wikipedia list to the one on their website shows little to no correspondence apart from the first four, as usual. Topeka??? Ha ha ha ha ha ha! Try boosting your cities now, fools! - Randwicked 13:47, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. The ignorance of people who have never visited a true megacity is just amazing. --Coolcaesar 10:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Formatting fix for first 4 images

I removed the div tag surrounding the first 4 images on the page (London, New York, Paris, Tokyo). Since my Wikipedia preferences specify large image thumbnails, and the div was limited in width to 145 pixels, it broke formatting for me (under Mozilla Firefox in Linux), causing the article text to flow under the pictures, causing much fo the content to disappear from view. Removing the div tag seems to have fixed the problem. However, I realize that cross-platform/cross-browser compatibility for things like this can be tough, so if the formatting now looks broken for someone else, it's probably my fault and you can feel free to revert my change. :) Colin M. 06:23, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Milan's picture

Sorry, but that picture is awful. The other pictures are impressive shots of the city, and Milan's is... what, a school? A government building? There's a fountain in front, sure, but the picture isn't anywhere near as good as the others. I'm taking out the picture. Feel free to add a better one. --Matt Yeager 23:30, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Milan
Milan
Done. Gryffindor 18:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

--Um...Isn't the new picture even worse than the first one? And the one of Paris is really bad too. I mean what is that, a photo someone took after they passed out under the Eifle Tower? --Jleon 19:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi there! I changed the pictures for Milan (with the Duomo di Milano in prominence), Paris (with the Eiffel Tower at night), and NYC (with city and Central Park in view); I think they are now better than their predecessors. Whatyathink? E Pluribus Anthony 02:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I like it! Very nice. --Coolcaesar 12:02, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Lead

The first sentence of this article is one of the stupidest I've encountered on Wiki: "A global city (also known as a world city or world-class city) is a city with a somewhat arbitrary set of traits, some of which are listed below." "Somewhat arbitrary" and "some of which are listed" brought to mind a bored editor with a beer and a box of donuts and nothing else to do but add this article, perhaps in an attempt to denigrate the idea. Seriously, lead sentences need to say something and the lead here seems to state "don't bother reading it's just a bit of bullshit." Marskell 23:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I dunno who came up with that awful, awful lead-in (one would have to trace through a LOT of this frequently vandalized article's history to find who put it in) but I suspect that it was probably done as a foolish attempt to comply with the neutral-point-of-view policy. Unfortunately, it's only made the article worse. --Coolcaesar 02:04, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The list of cities

How it is possible to give St.Petersburg the same score as to Tashkent????

St.Petrsburg - is the second populated city in Russia, with world-class museums, galleries, palaces, historical monuments, wide transportation system (including 58 metro stations), the hedquarter of several international organizations.

Tashkent - is a much smaller city in the Central Asia.

Why Kiev given more score then St. Petersburg? It is MUCH smaller city.

How it is possible to place Moscow, the most populated city in Europe, after Zurich, Madrid and Toronto? The population of Zurich, for example, 30 times smaller than Moscow's.

Where is Minsk, which is MUCH larger then Taskent and about equal to Kiev?

I think, Tashkent got place in this list only because offices of PwC and Deloitte established there :-\

Really, there is evidence that Hitler used lists of this kind when planning his invasion of the USSR.

--Nixer 22:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

This list reflects the primary source data; follow the third link. Obviously there are lots of quibbles with it. Economy ranks ahead of population (note Beijing's low rank). Zurich, for instance, is home to the large Swiss exchange. Also, rest assured there is no wikipedia group urging an invasion of Russia. Marskell 18:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
So should we place here another list for comparison? I think, the first part of the article (which describes the criterias) is in contraversity with the existing list.--Nixer 18:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Why the article discribes World Class city in terms of history, culture, politics, architecture, but the list is based on financial services quality indicators only???--Nixer 12:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Hello! It'd be prudent to only cite, categorise, and list cities from one authortiative compilation – the GaWC Inventory of World Cities – and mention (or reiterate) that other authoritative lists exist and link to them. While the GaWC list is authoritative, it is not universal. I would normally advocate for including a broader summary from various authoritative sources; however, the tendency for some users to add other cities to the list (and the difficulties in distinguishing cited references from uncited ones), in combination with the annual changes (in rank) that some cities may succumb to and the 'subjective' nature of the topic, may make this prospect unworkable. Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 21:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it's all or nothing: use ONE verifiable, professional source or leave this as a stub (with very limited notations). If we allow "my list says this, no my list says that" there will be no end to it. To be clear THERE IS GOOD REASON TO LEAVE THIS AS STUB. If that's what people want I'll got for it. Mention New York and Tokyo (cause you sort of have to), provide links to various sites and leave it. Marskell 22:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi; I think I said that more or less, right? :) I think the article can remain largely as is, though; it just needs to be ... maintained in a summative, user-friendly format. E Pluribus Anthony 22:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Ok, if you want to leave this list, then re-write the preamble, which says that the status of world city depends on political, cultural influence of a city, museums, events, presence of international organizations, population, transportation, universities etc. Make it saing only that the status depends on financial services such as accounting, consulting, presence of offices of PricewaterhouseCoopers etc.
Or we could make a table with cities and places that these cities hold in various ratings.--Nixer 23:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
What evidence is there to support your contention, Nixer? The GaWC list and related article is a research, peer-reviewed treatise published by a university department in a periodical; yours is supposition.
Apparently, size (i.e., population) isn't the only gauge of what constitutes a global city. Functioning as an amicus curiae:
Athens is not a so big city now. Of course, its historical importance is great, but why not to include Babylon, Troy, Jerusalem, Carthage, Alexandria and others? We consider contemporary importance of historical?--Nixer 18:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
By consulting a list of the a list of the largest European cities, Athens is not necessarily a small-fry. Madrid (metro) is larger than St. Petersberg, though only marginally. The Ruhr is larger than almost all others, though Cologne is ranked low. Jerusalem, given its religious/cultural importance, perhaps should be in there. Alexandria perhaps lost its splendour long ago. Troy, Babylon, and Carthage bit the dust long ago.
  • Madrid is the capital of Spain; Spanish is the 4th most prevalent language spoken worldwide and is the first language in at least a dozen countries;
There is no connection to the city. If to count speakers of a language, then Beijing must be placed in the first place.
This is cited about the possible implication of why Madrid was included; as well, the GaWC took into account various factors (e.g., presence of advertising firms) when compiling their list.
Heh, what cities do you mean? :-\ And what countries are industrializing? If you mean Belorussia, it was the most developed republic of the USSR. For example, the best mainframes and industrial computers in the USSR were produced in Belorussia, also it has developed machinery, including production of the biggest in Europe heavy trucks for carriers; space and military industry.
Or do you mean Tashkent, which is really situated in an agrarian poor country? But due to presence of PwC offices (where to place them, there is no big cities in the region!) marked to have the same level as St.Peterburg.--Nixer 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I mean all of them: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kiev, Tashkent. While not the 'word of God,' all are in countries with moderate human development (some higher than others, some approaching that in the West). Industrialising is a relative term. E Pluribus Anthony 13:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
First, we here consider the rating of a city - not a country. Russia is a very big country with different conditions. Second, industrialization completed in Russia in 1930s. Trird, industrialization is in no virtual connection with HDI. Iceland - a country with second largest HDI in the world has no significant industry--Nixer 13:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes: this is an article summarising cities; I merely point out that national/global economics/financial services, etc. have a heavy hand in the GaWC assessment and, as well (indirectly), the level of human development. Many countries are big with varying conditions. Industrialisation is relative (and categorised by the IMF, et al.); while indirectly connected with human development, I believe the ex-Soviet states are characterised as industrialising states, not already industrialised ones (e.g., the West). And Reykjavik isn't on the list. But I digress... E Pluribus Anthony 13:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Heh, if Russia is not an industrial state with its atomic plants, militery industries, hydroenergetics, metallurgy, chemical industry - than what is industrial? Note, the USSR targeted to the full industrial independance. In fact, Russia is a post-industrial state. Second issue is that the number of industries doesent grow in Russia - just the opposite, there is too much especially heavy industry in the country. Plants and factories are closing, and offices opening in the same place. Industry is moving to the new industrial countries in the South-East Asia.--Nixer 17:00, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
There is a distinction between industrialised countries (in Northern America, EuropeWestern Europe, Oceania, and Japan) and industrialising countries en route to that point; the latter is again subdivided into upper-middle income industrialising countries (e.g., some of Eastern Europe (Poland, Hungary, Estonia), much of South America (Brazil), South Korea, South Africa, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and lower-middle income industrialising countries (e.g., some ex-Soviet states (Russia, Belarus), China, etc.). As well, there are primarily agrarian low income ones (e.g., Ukraine, Uzbekistan, India). Enough said.
Dont make me laugh. Oceania is industrialized? Eastern Europe is not Europe? Poland is less industrial than Tobago? Or than Iceland? :-))) You dont know, that there is a widely accepted UN classification in which there are developed countries and developing? What is criteria of your foolish classification?? Industrial production? Something else? Whats the source?--Nixer 18:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Oceania includes Australia and New Zealand; corrxn to Europe above. I am generalising to be concise; these lists are not exhaustive and this is, after all, an article about cities. I know very well the differences between developed and developing countries, which are not wholly synonymous with definitions regarding industrialisation. (Definitions also vary as to what 'development' means.) My sources include the Canadian Oxford World Atlas, "Industrialization, 2000" (p. 134) and articles indicated above. Your sources? Nada! And please refrain from personal attacks or I will take this to higher channels.
And what the connection between the indicators in your atlas (probably, annual) and the importance of the cities?--Nixer 06:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Again: I merely pointed out initially that national/global economics, financial services, etc. have a heavy hand in the GaWC assessment and, as well (indirectly), the level of human development in a particular locale. I will not repeat notions already discussed.
Again: There is no direct dependance between industriality and HDI, between GaWC index and industriality and between HDI and GaWC index. Do you want any examples? Second, I dont know what the indicators in your atlas, but they have no connection with level of industry in a country. May be, they indicate annual production growth or something similar.--Nixer 09:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
And again: I said indirectly linked. And I do not need to provide other indicators or discussion regarding industrialisation (but can), since this is largely not relevant to the topic. Perhaps you should expend more time providing authoritative, relevant lists/information regarding world cities – which you still haven't done, have you? – instead of quibbling over minutiae. E Pluribus Anthony 09:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
we don't dispute the importance or grandeur of St. Petersburg (personally, for example, I loved the movie Russian Ark) but it somehow didn't make the grade. Zurich did, owing to its financial and political importance, et al. E Pluribus Anthony 13:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Do you mean that St.Peterburg, the city, where worked Leonard Euler, Tchaikovsky, Dostoevsky, Stravinsky, Mussorgsky, Pushkin, Nabokov, Schostakovich, Lomonosov, Alfred Nobel, Mendeleev, Repin, Leo Tolstoy and many others havent political, historical and financial importance? St.Peterburg has tenth busiest metro in the world. Many of world leaders, cultural and politic figures came to the city on its jubelee, including British Queen.
Zurich has 15 times less population, there is even NO METRO in Zurich!--Nixer 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
That is not what I mean; I do not at all dispute your summary. I merely state that the GaWC list does not substantively take them into account. E Pluribus Anthony 13:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Zurich doesn't need a metro because it has an extensive light rail network instead (I was just there last month). Yes, light rail is slower and noisier and interfaces at grade with cars and people, but when built properly it works almost just as well as a metro.
Also, even though it is small in terms of geographical size and population, Zurich is ranked highly because it is home to a huge number of banks and multinational companies (just like New York), and one of the most advanced international airports in the world. I concede that this is because the GaWC study puts too much weight on the financial sector.--Coolcaesar 12:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree with this. E Pluribus Anthony 12:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Toronto has one of the most diverse ethnocultural makeups anywhere and is a nexus for financial, political, and transport activity (it also has 69 metro stations);
Washington is not the bigges city in the United States.--Nixer 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
No: NYC is, and if – given its influence all around – it doesn't qualify as a world city, I don't know what does. The example is cited to indicate the relevant importance (according to the GaWC)of each country's capitals, and Moscow trumps DC (and Beijing, et al.). E Pluribus Anthony 12:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
GaWC takes into account financial services only.--Nixer 13:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
It does not; see below. E Pluribus Anthony 13:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Alternatively, should Moscow be removed due to Bolshevism, DC due to real or perceived American hegemony, or Berlin be nixxed because it was a former seat for the Nazis and the ensuing political turmoil?
What a connection between bolcshevism and importance of the city?--Nixer 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You cited Nazism in an earlier post; I responded to that with examples. E Pluribus Anthony 12:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I meant Hitler probably had a map with GaWC rating when he thought that the USSR will surrender in two weeks.--Nixer 13:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Noted; he probably did. E Pluribus Anthony 14:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
If you can cite authoritative references to support your position, there may be grounds to rewrite the article significantly/as you suggest. But not yet.
The authors of the rating say that the basis for the rating is the activities of multinational companies, providing financial services, such as PwC, Delloitte&Touche, Ernst&Young, KPMG etc. So they dont take into account any other factors. We must place this fact in the definition of the global city or remove the list from the article.--Nixer 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
If you read the global city article, there are a number of notations indicating this. The article overall, though, is about the topic, not the list. Until a differing and equally compelling list can be produced, or a consensus established, the current GaWC one will not be removed ... in one form or another. E Pluribus Anthony 12:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The idea of using a table, though, to categorise and list world cities is interesting; I'd support such an initiative. If this is done, it should be arranged in alphabetical order or ranked by one list (e.g., but not necessarily, GaWC).
Agree, but not to be subjective, we must use existing ratings and arrange the cities in order of summary value (the GaWC list may be used too - but along with the other ratings.--Nixer 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I think the most important factors are: population, is it a headquarter of international and nation-wide organizations, the transportation system, the number of higher educational institutions and students, is it a UNESCO world heritage site.--Nixer 11:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
While I do not necessarily disagree with your position, and everyone can be rather subjective regarding this, what you and I think doesn't really matter; the article is supposed to be a summary and synthesis of authoritative information and references about the subject in toto. Our summary values would not be objective and subject to bias; any further efforts on our part to arrive at an alternate ranking would constitute original research and is inappropriate.
Unfortunately, though your position may be agreeable, you have not cited any alternate or differing – not to mention authoritative – references or lists to support your position. E Pluribus Anthony 12:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Thoughts? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 04:17, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"We must use existing ratings and arrange the cities in order of summary value (the GaWC list may be used too - but along with the other ratings)." What other ratings? Cite something equivalent to GaWC and we can consider it. We're certainly not producing OR of our own here. Marskell 12:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. E Pluribus Anthony 12:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

For example, [1] - a rating of the most expensive cities in the world. The cost of life indicates average income of the city dwellers.

1. Tokyo 2. Osaka 3. London 4. Moscow 5. Seul 6. Geneva 7. Zurich 8. Copenhagen 9. Hong-Kong 10. Oslo 11. Milan 12. Paris 13. New-York 14. Dublin 15. St.Peterburg 16. Viena 17. Rome ...--Nixer 13:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The Mercer list merely indicates and compares the cost of living in various cities, nothing else. For instance, Canadian and Australian cities are not found above (but are in the GaWC list); does that mean they are 'invalid'? No: it just means they are relatively inexpensive to live in (something noted in the Mercer report). The GaWC list deals specifically with the topic of global city. E Pluribus Anthony 13:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
GaWC rating deals with financial services and nothing more.--Nixer 13:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the GaWC also incorporates legal and advertising services. And the Mercer article mentions nothing about global city stature (I think ...). E Pluribus Anthony 13:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Summarily: you have not proved your case (at least to me, et al.), so the POV tag will be removed perpetually until you or others do. E Pluribus Anthony 17:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

The tag states that the article is being disputed, so, while we discuss it, I will bring the tag back.--Nixer 18:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
You need to authoritatively convince us of your assertions (and not be so argumentative), and have not (yet?) done so. Other user input is encouraged. I may put this to a vote, and then we can proceed on that basis. But until then and unless others object, the tag will be removed. E Pluribus Anthony 19:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Other criteria" could be a section at the end. We should not cut apart the page as it is stands. Nixer, individual criteria such as cost of living are fine enough but we have one citable source directly denoting global cities and we should use it. Further, I don't understand the disputed tag. Marskell 21:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, then we should remove all staff, describing the criterias as dependent on history, events, politics, transportation etc. Leave only those GaWC takes into account - financial, legal services, audit and consulting.--Nixer 06:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
In fact there are two options: remove the staff that in no connection with GaWC rating or add some other ratings, including cost of life, metro ratings etc.--Nixer 06:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Not necessarily: the GaWC list is not synonymous with the topic (just as nicotine is one of many narcotics), so descriptions regarding what constitutes a global city should remain. The GaWc list is only one way, though others have not been presented, to categorise them.

I suggest we compare the cities using a table similar to that is used in transport article to compare different modes of transport.--Nixer 08:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Provide relevant lists and authoritative references about the topic of global cities – and, while informative, the Mercer list isn't one of them, and you still haven't – and I'd certainly support it. As you just noted, the transport article compares different modes of transport; a world city article should compare world cities, not cost of living or specific characteristics among them unless wholly relevant to the topic. You have not done that, and inclusion of anything else would muddy the article or (by comparing figures as you suggest) may constitute original research. E Pluribus Anthony 09:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Does the transport article constitute original research?--Nixer 09:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I would hope that it is not original research, but it does not say this nor cite references (I think). E Pluribus Anthony 10:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
For example: this is wholly relevant (and already listed as a reference in the article).
Alternatively: feel free to create a 'cost of living in cities worldwide' or similar article/list and provide links!
You alone are disputing the list; if there's a consensus regarding this, the tag can stay. Otherwise, it'll continuosly be removed. E Pluribus Anthony 09:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems that the term Global city is an invention of GaWC. So we should place here their vision of the term.--Nixer 09:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think the term is an invention of GaWC; as the above noted link may indicate, it is synoymous with world city or world-class city; this is described already in the article. E Pluribus Anthony 09:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Nixer please read WP:POINT. Your removal of the intro is not acceptable. Marskell 10:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro is in contravercity with the GaWC definition of the term.--Nixer 10:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The only controversy is with you. A single person's POV does not a controversy make. Make the caveat under GaWC stronger if you like—"this is heavily weighted toward financial factors"—and add a couple of other criteria in its own section but leave the intro alone. Marskell 10:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

They take into account ONLY financial factors.--Nixer 10:23, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Yet again: the GaWC also incorporates legal and advertising services. And the topic/definition of global city and GaWC list are clearly distinguished from one another. E Pluribus Anthony 10:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Really? Then why we do put the GaWC lits here???? --Nixer 10:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Argumentative; it's a study/list by the Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network (GaWC). E Pluribus Anthony 10:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/l/o/Talk%7EGlobal_city_Archive_1_b886.html"