Talk:Global city/Mediation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments moved from Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Nixer and E Pluribus Anthony

[edit] E Pluribus Anthony's response to Nixer

Hello! The article is being disputed, but you (Nixer) have not provided any sources relevant to the topic of global cities to substantiate your claims. Marskell and I have repeatedly asked this and all that you have provided is circuitous, repetitive, fallacious argumentation with no relevant source material cited. Provide relevant sources/information and I don't see there being an issue in retaining the tag; otherwise, it just smacks of subjective opinionating and should be removed (as a concession, I added the tag to the Talk:Global city page).

Furthermore (corresponding to your points/statements):

(1) The main article (defining and providing a general overview of what a global city is) and the GaWC section are distinct and clearly defined. The GaWC used particular, clearly stated criteria to develop their lists/ranks; these are not wholly dissimilar from those defined in the section above it (and does not include notions like culture, for example), but needn't be verbatim.

(2) The GaWC list is a peer-authored treatise by 'students' (a working group) of the topic at a university in the UK and is one of numerous attempts to gauge global cities; see Global_city#External_Links for more information. It may not be agreeable to some (as it appears to not embrace cultural significance, for instance), but that doesn't invalidate it. I would support the addition of other sourced information/indicators about global cities (and summarised in a table), but not removal of the GaWC information (which is directly relevant) or supplanting it with irrelevant information.

(3) Many of your suggestions about what to include are highly subjective and not directly relevant to the topic. Cost of living – while informative - is not directly relevant to global city stature; the GaWC report does not directly indicate this. Nor are the number of billionaires relevant. Can you cite any information or sources supporting your position? Perhaps in toto these characteristics – with others – help define the quality of life in cities ... and if such a summary is available and relevant to the topic, I'm all for including it. But even that may be supposition. If you find independent value in these topics, create unique articles on each of those topics, but don't muddy the global city article with irrelevant information. To make an independent comparison of indicators (i.e., on your own) would constitute original research and is untenable in Wikipedia.

(4) I et al. wholly support adding a table comparing world cities, not comparing other characteristics that may or may not define them or be wholly relevant. Again, you have not provided any source information to substantiate a table, and to do so independently (without authortiative corroboration) would constitute original research.

In addition, during these deliberations you initiated retaliatory edits on the Toronto article. There are two references referring to Toronto's world city status on the world city page/reference section (i.e., not just in GaWC list), only one brief mention in the Toronto article, and you edited the latter in response to our discussions. While inclusion of the reference sources is not discouraged, they would unnecessarily bloat the article and the links should suffice. You also altered the rank on the template there to emphasise that Toronto was 1st ... (in Canada), when this was already stated (as part of the template). This is condescending.

In summary, while we share and empathise with your sentiments, I do not believe you have yet met a burden of proof to substantiate your position and the systematic editions to the global city article you propose.

As well: I am sure that every user has an opinion on the topic; see this repose. Relatedly, Vlad Patryshev has not provided any supportive information, either, and his contentions are just as subjective as yours or mine. I have provided or cited relevant source information, though. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nixer's response

First, where did the main part of the article came from? Is there any source of the criterias of the global cities or is it's author Wikipedia? ;-) Why do you mix such terms as "global city", "world city" and "world-class city"?

Next. If there is any source of wide-accepted definition of a global city, then I consider any information related to the stated criterias relevant. For example, if a city needs an excellent transportation/education system to become global city then I consider worldwide metro rating and number of higher educational institutions relevant.

these are not wholly dissimilar from those defined in the section above

They ARE wholly dissimilar.

[edit] E Pluribus Anthony's response to Nixer, II

First: in the very first sentence of the global city article, all three terms – global city, world city, world-class city – are described to mean the same thing (which is thereafter defined) and all the terms are interchangeable. I (shall) attempt to use global city (as the article is entitled that), but others may use the other terms. I would imagine the article (definition/description, etc.) is an amalgam of text written to this point by various users, as other (usual) articles in Wikipedia are.

Next: the GaWC list is based on the provision of "advanced producer services [such as] accountancy, advertising, banking/finance and law." This is stated clearly in that section of the global city article and in the GaWC article itself.

In addition, these are NOT wholly dissimilar from the general characteristics describing what a global city is earlier in the article, particularly:

and further down:

  • "Several powerful and influential media outlets with an international reach are based in world cities,..."

It has been acknowledged by a couple of users that the GaWC list seems heavy on economic items and light on cultural ones (present company included; see here, for a general summary). However, this does not discount the legitimacy of the GaWC list or work on the subject, nor does it make it controversial (it would if there's a general body of opinion that the GaWC list is). And the list is only one aspect of the whole article/topic.

Lastly: as cited above ad nauseum, you have failed to provide authoritative, relevant sources directly related to global cities. You provided one source (by my count) that – while informative – is not directly germane to the topic at hand: the Mercer report comparing cost of living in cities. I do not believe there is any mention in the Mercer article of global city stature or ranks. Moreover, the validity of such and similar indices (e.g., Mercer quality of life index for cities) in the global city article has been disputed previously. You have also provided a wealth of notional, subjective assessment and argumentation.

Your contention that you have provided relevant, citable information is circular and fallacious: two users dispute the applicability of your information – and, especially, your approach – and you have still not convinced us nor produced any relevant information – about global cities – since. As well, you took it upon yourself to make editions amidst our discussions based on this refutable information: you proceeded to create a table with arbitrary criteria and dots indicating ... what? Population? Subway length? Number of museums? This is original research and is prohibited on Wikipedia.

Moreover, even if your sources are (deemed to be) valid, and I really hope you can produce some, you still have not disproven the validity of currently cited (and referenced) information regarding global city stature – i.e., the GaWC list – nor have you attempted to reconcile the differing viewpoints. The burden of proof or disproof, methinks, is yours. E Pluribus Anthony 01:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Note: Furthermore, in response to what I characterise as subjective contributions by Vlad Patryshev today (e.g., many of the cities in the list are in Europe) (also see here, negative vote #9, for what another user called his "rant"), I edited them (my apologies!), and Nixer reverted them.
To that end, Catherine, I hereby request that steps be taken (as per (1) of the preceding request) to caution or prohibit all edits to the global city article by Nixer, et al. until this is resolved.

[edit] Modus vivendi

Hello! Despite some initial instability from both sides, we have both agreed to refrain from editing the global city until a resolution has been arrived at. At Marskell's suggestion (reiterating previous statements), Nixer has agreed to work on collecting relevant information and presenting it (at this workspace); Marskell and I have offered to (and will) assist him in incorporating and enhancing this information and the article.

Any suggestions regarding next steps? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 15:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, you've done the first steps, which is ceasing the antagonistic editing, and talking things over. Continue to work on the table -- I think that's a great start. — Catherine\talk 20:00, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Catherine: hi! Agreed; it was getting problematic. I think it's a good start, too; I propose an alternate approach to dually address concerns about having a table such as this and independently ranking items; also see our ongoing discussions here, particularly the very bottom. What do you think? Thoughts? E Pluribus Anthony 20:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] About terminology

"First: in the very first sentence of the global city article, all three terms – global city, world city, world-class city – are described to mean the same thing (which is thereafter defined) and all the terms are interchangeable. I (shall) attempt to use global city (as the article is entitled that), but others may use the other terms. I would imagine the article (definition/description, etc.) is an amalgam of text written to this point by various users, as other (usual) articles in Wikipedia are."

These terms have different meanings. Try to compare:

Toronto is a world class city with world-class financial, legal and adverticing services.

and

Toronto is a global city that influences worldwide.

What is true? There could be small world class town and even world class village, but it is difficult to imagine a global village.--Nixer 00:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As I noted previously, the definitions were apparently previously arrived at. I will research this additionally shortly; however, glance at some of the article references, the Talk:Global city pages, and do some online searches to find instances of similar use.
I think the definition is pretty succinct, but nothing is perfect. If there is, somehow, an inconsistency in the definition, I'm sure the definition can be refined. You need to demonstrate this, though; you haven't (yet).
As for usage, the terms do not have different meanings, depending on the context:
Thule is a world class city with world-class financial, legal, and advertising services.
This is redundant.
Thule is a global city that influences worldwide.
This is also somewhat redundant.
BUT
Thule is a world-class city with financial, legal, and advertising services.
AND
Thule is a global city with (significant) influence.
OR
Thule is a world-class city with financial, legal, and advertising services.
AND
Thule is a world-class city with (significant) influence.
OR
Thule is a global city with financial, legal, and advertising services.
AND
Thule is a global city with (significant) influence.
OR
Thule is a world city with financial, legal, and advertising services.
AND
Thule is a world city with (significant) influence.
OR
Thule is a city with world-class financial, legal, and advertising services.
AND
Thule is a city with global financial, legal, and advertising services.
AND
Thule is a city with global/world(ly)/international/significant influence.
You can also replace all instances above of 'with' with 'that has' or another preposition. However, that doesn't invalidate any of the terms used thus far; they can all be true, depending on the context and usage – and this is true of the current topic.
Also, villages (and towns) are much smaller than cities. However, note that the term 'global village' is an alternate – and not unpopular – term for the World Wide Web and globalisation of media/technology.
As well if you consult this link, for example, you will see a definition regarding 'world cities' – including concepts of 'dominance' and 'dependence' – and examples (and a map!). Moreover, other use may not be a contradiction: compare Olympic village.
I trust this is sufficient. By the way, did you glimpse at and consider my proposed list to add to the article? Comments? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 01:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution to mediation

Over time, as per the above, we've integrated conciliations in the global city article and, weeks later, no others have been integrated as of yet. A prior vote was posed (not without some difficulty) to determine if one or both of the current table and list are satisfactory and should remain or be deleted: a consensus was not reached, so both remain. Unless a groundswell of opposition is forthcoming, I believe the status quo is sufficient hereafter.

Upon attempting closure of this issue and suggesting removal of the {{globalize}} tag atop the article, N. indicated the article requires additional input (worldwization), and clarification was requested. Some days have passed and additional clarification has not been forthcoming from anyone. Given the above, I think it prudent to remove the {{globalize}} tag atop the article and have done so. As well, unless there's objection otherwise, I believe this issue and mediation to be resolved! Thoughts? Thanks for your input. E Pluribus Anthony 18:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)