Talk:Primate city

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primatecity is a country's largest city- ranking atop the urban hierachy- most expensive of the national culture and usually the capital as well.

From what I'm taking in my developmental geography classes, what is being discussed on this page is the rank-size rule. Primate cities are large cities in (generally) developing countries that were once under the influence of colonialization. The cities are generally much larger than any other in the country and find themselves situated in areas relative to shipping routes (Port cities, etc). 64.110.216.133 22:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Does Russia really have a primate city?

I'm not an expert, but I would question Moscow status as a primate city since St. Petersburg seems to rival Moscow as a cultural center.

[edit] I would have to disagree with the above

The article is somewhat correct in that a primate city is "a major city that works as the financial, political, and population centre of a country". Now as far as being twice as populous as any other city, I don't belive that is true of a primate city.

Also, if we use this definition of a primate city then New York is not quite a primate city, because the political center is Washington D.C., and the cultural center of the US is debatable. Some would say Hollywood, California. --69.162.69.17 16:27, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are New York and Sydney primate cities?

This paragraph seems to indicate that they are not primate cities:

"Some examples of nations without a primate city, would be that of the Brazil, whose largest city and financial centre is São Paulo, its political centre is Brasília, and its cultural centre is located in Rio de Janeiro; Australia, whose largest city is Sydney but its political centre is Canberra; and the United States whose financial centre is located in New York City, its political centre in Washington, D.C., and its cultural centres are widely dispersed, though the conurbation BosWash may act in many ways as a kind of primate city, fulfilling many functions fulfilled in other countries by a single city. Additionally, New York, São Paulo, and Sydney have close competitors as their countries' largest cities (Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro, and Melbourne).

However, both New York City and Sydney appear in the list of primate cities.

--Ldrhcp 19:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

They're not national primate cities, like that of Australia and the US, but they apparently are the primate cities of their respective political divisions (New York State and New South Wales). I don't really agree with adding political divisions to the list, since most major cities are the primates of this, but it should still be mentioned. -- SmthManly / ManlyTalk / ManlyContribs 00:13, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Karachi

I took out Karachi from the list on account of the fact that Islamabad is the capital.

[edit] Canada

i believe Canada should be included in the list of countries without a primate city, considering there is no completely dominating city in canada, politically, economically, or culturally

[edit] Egypt

One could make a case for Cairo not being a primate city, as Alexandria, although not as mediagenic and populous as Cairo, is tremendously important economically, culturally and historically, in the past especially, but even still at present, as well as rivalling Cairo as an internal national tourist destination, being an affordable seaside resort. It is also one of the main ports of the Mediterranean.

[edit] Belgium

Brussels, although headquarters of the EU and NATO, is not necessarily a primate city. The lesser known city of Antwerp is the largest Flemish city (the largest population group of Belgium) and is culturally and historically as important as Brussels. It is also the hub of the northern Belgian urban area known as the Flemish Diamond, which in total has as many inhabitants as Brussels. Even for the southern part of the Netherlands, it serves as a commercial and cultural hub. Antwerp is also by far Belgium's biggest harbour and one of the most important in Europe, rivalling Rotterdam. Antwerp is one of the most significant diamond trade centres of the world, rivalling Amsterdam. Besides, if Belgium is taken as part of the Benelux, then Brussels is definitely not a primate city.

I would still say Brussels is the primate city in Belgium. Look at the definition of primate city in this article: A primate city is a major city that works as the financial, political, and population center of a country and is not rivaled in any of these aspects by any other city Brussels is the financial centre of Belgium (it has the stock exchange, major HQ's of banks etc) it definately is the political centre of Belgium, being the capital of Flanders, of Belgium and the host of many EU and NATO institutions. The population criterium is a little more vague, since the city of Brussels, much like the city of London is very small. But in the most common definition of Brussels it has over a million inhabitants, whilst Antwerp has 450.000, so it has more than twice the population. Another problem with the population is that Northern Belgium (aka Flanders + Brussels) is so small and densly populated that most of the Urban areas are connected with eachother. Seven million people in around 15000 km² is comparable with for example the San Francisco bay area, both in size and in population. The definition of "primate city" becomes a bit less relevant in these densely populated areas. The train from the center of Brussels to the center of Antwerp takes only 33 minutes.Sure Antwerp is a major port and diamond center, but that doesn't weigh up to the central role of Brussels in Belgium I think. The historical importance of Antwerp doesn't really matter in this definition. --Lamadude (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Another example is the very central role of Brussels in Belgian transportation. It is the center of nearly every big train connection, both domestic trains and high speed trains and has with Brussels Airport the by far the biggest aiport in the country. It also is the cultural centre with the biggest museums etc --Lamadude (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Japan

I seriously disagree with the assetion that Japan is a country with a primate city. Although Tokyo is the largest amalgamation of population & finance and the center of government for the country, the Osaka-Kobe corridor in the Kansai metropolitan area has around 19 million people alone, and there are over 26 individual cities with over 500,000 people. Osaka is also considered a Gamma world city. In addition to the clear importance of the Osaka region, the Nagoya area has 9 million inhabitants, and there are least 10 more distinct metropolitan areas in Japan with more than a million people each, many of which are known internationally, such as Fukuoka, Hiroshima, and Sapporo. This article is very contradictory in many places, but it almost certainly rules out Japan. Though Tokyo is by far the most important city in the country, it is not the only large urban area, containing only about 28% of the country's population. Just because the capital is the largest city, I would argue, does not by default make it a primate city. Catsonmars 22:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Japan is listed as both having and not having a primate city. I added a {{contradict}} template as I am not well-versed enough in this subject matter to edit it properly. -- R'son-W (speak to me/breathe) 19:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article lacks important things

- In what field does the term "primate city" arise? It seems like a specialized technical term. - Is there any controversy about whether the term refers to a useful category? It seems like there might be. - How old is the term? Who came up with it? - Citations please! Mark Foskey 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States

I refrased the first paragraph, which showed blatantly POV in favor of the northeast, when Chicago and Los Angeles (as well as some other cities to a lesser degree) are clear contenders for the position of cultural and financial centres alongside New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington. For this reason I believe the rephrasing is much more NPOV, accurate, and encyclopedic. --Harel Newman 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

I've removed Cardiff in line with the dispute resolution at Talk:Cardiff#Third_opinion Pondle (talk) 09:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't keep adding Cardiff, or Belfast for that matter, until you can find a source. Personally, I can find no sources describing Cardiff as a primate city and only one describing Belfast as such (then in historical context - [1]). We have disputed this previously and sought 3PO resolution so I don't see why we're still arguing about this? Pondle (talk) 22:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But the thing is, none of the cities on the page are sourced, so if you want to remove Cardiff or Belfast then you should delete the whole list. Otherwise you are giving undue weight. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not solely responsible for the accuracy of Wikipedia - it's a collaborative project! If you feel that other cities are describely inaccurately, please challenge them as well. Other editors have debated the status of various other cities as you can see above. Pondle (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

But the article is already tagged as citations needed. Cardiff and Belfast are no different. Why aren't you removing Salt Lake City, Utah or Naples, Campania for example? Please adhere to a neutral point of view Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I dispute your claim that Cardiff is a primate city (and I'm dubious about Belfast) - I am not disputing other cities where I do not have sufficient expertise / interest to comment. In the absence of a reference to support your claim, it seems to me we are simply arguing about our own interpretations / opinions, i.e. original research. Pondle (talk) 22:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well you should know that when a fact is doubted o n Wikipedia, we tag it as citation needed. So I'm going to reinstate them pending a citation (see tag at top of page) Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree to compromise (retaining your edits with a dispute tag) for the moment, but unless you or someone else can provide a reliable source in support of your claims in a reasonable timeframe, I will eventually challenge and remove your opinions in accordance with policy. At that stage you can escalate to dispute resolution if you're not satisfied. Pondle (talk) 23:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is that the burden of proof lies with the user including content, and not the user challenging it. Therefore it is for User:Welshleprechaun to provide the necessary citation. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 00:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I did not introduce it into the article. The dispute arose when I added that Cardiff is the primate city of Wales to Cardiff. Welshleprechaun (talk) 11:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you didn't introduce it, but you did reinstate this content after my previous challenge, and you have supported the inclusion of this material in all our previous discussions. Pondle (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Pondle is right on this one. It doesn't matter whether you're introducing, reintroducing, merging, splitting, or even vandalising. In all cases, if an edit seeks to add information, the editor performing it should be ready to back it up when challenged. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 18:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting how the only two users to challenge this show strong evidence of coming from Swansea Welshleprechaun (talk) 21:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Please engage with the substance of the argument rather than attempting to distract people from the issue at hand. You have no justification for implying POV and I regard this incivility. Remember that attempting to discredit other users is regarded as a personal attack. I have assumed good faith in my disagreements with you and I would hope you would extend the same courtesy to me. We are all trying to contribute to a better Wikipedia. Pondle (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we though? Because I do believe that your opinion of Cardiff influences this and some previous edits. Welshleprechaun (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm just upholding Wikipedia standards here - you're the one making a claim for the status of your favourite city without a reliable source to back it up. In that context, accusing me of POV really is a bit rich! Pondle (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)