Talk:Second city

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Northern Ireland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Northern Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.If you are a member of the project, please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low-importance for Northern Ireland-related articles.
WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Northern Ireland tasks: Places: Mussenden Temple and Downhill Demesne, Devenish Island Monastic Site, Killyclogher, Derryvore Landmarks: The Skerries (Northern Ireland), Black Pig's Dyke, Helen's Tower Parks and gardens: Events: Ulster Cup, Ulster hockey People: Alison Campbell, Paul Charles (novelist), Paula Clamp, Max Clendinning, Colin Cooper (academic), Newton Emerson, Lucy Evangelista, Robert Hall (doctor), Shauna Gunn, Sophie Hoopman, H Douglas Keith, Charles Michael Lavery QC, Henry Lavery, Francis Maginn, Jim Malley, Catherine Jean Milligan, Phillip McCallen, Robert MacDonnell, Joseph Tomelty, Gayle Williamson, Zane Radcliffe, Professor Richard Rose, Brian Baird (newsreader) Newspapers/Magazines: Fortnight Magazine 'Schools/Colleges: Glenola Collegiate School, Our Lady and St Patrick's College, Belfast Boy's Model School, St. Columbanus' College, Streets: Rivers: River Bush, River Mourne, River Moyola, River Roe Organisations: Industrial Development Board, Forest Service Northern Ireland, Rivers Agency Northern Ireland, Invest NI, Roads Service Northern Ireland, Child Support Agency (NI), Boundary Commission for Northern Ireland, District Policing Partnerships, Compensation Agency, Office of the Oversight Commissioner, Electoral Office for Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Housing Executive, Central Services Agency, Northern Ireland Blood Transfusion Service, Census Office in Northern Ireland, Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency, Cameron Commission, Hunt Committee, Stanley Leisure, Ormo, Sunblest (currently re-directs) History: Rose Report, History of Armagh, History of Newry, History of Lisburn Buildings: Belvoir Park Hospital, Guildhall, Derry Major topics: Geography of Northern Ireland, Geology of Northern Ireland, Integrated Education Edit or discuss this list.

Archives

/Archive 1 (UK discussion) /Archive 2 (UK discussion, plus a small point on Chicago)

UK Second City The UK paragraph confuses the UK with England. Glasgow still has a strong claim t be te seond city of the UK.

Contents 1 Mexico Second City 1.1 The case of Monterrey vs. Guadalajara 1.2 Guadalajara Second city 1.3 IMPORTANCE 1.4 A little research wouldn't do us bad 1.4.1 Historical importance: Puebla 1.4.2 Guadalajara in the twentieth century and the development of Monterrey 1.4.3 Monterrey's case 1.4.4 Personal comments and conclusions 1.5 Updated proposal for sub-article 1.6 TIPS 1.7 I'm Agree 1.8 Propposal 1.9 Exactly 2 Hello 3 Brazil 4 Comments left on Second city 5 France 6 Gambia 7 Concept of page 8 Czech Republic & Brno 9 United Kingdom 9.1 'Request for Rational Debate' and 'Towards a Consensus' 10 New Zealand. 11 Finland 12 Monterrey links

[edit] Mexico Second City

It is a common misconception that Guadalajara is Mexico's second city in importance, simply because it is the second most populated. According to many rankings in economic performance, cultural significance and political influence, Monterrey has a greater significance than Guadalajara. Plus, the statement is sourced in the Monterrey page, while there is no source for a "second city" statement for Guadalajara. Hari Seldon 02:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Guadalajara is and has been the second most important city in Mexico since 4 centuries ago, in the history this two cities built the entire nation that you know and live in right now. Why Guadalajara is the second most important city? For the cultural, historical and economic influence in the country, i remind you that Monterrey begin to be important 8 years ago when the power of the industry bloomed the city after the events of 1994 in Guadalajara. The place that Guadalajara have in Mexico is definitly, please do not confuse own concepts with real facts. I remind you that erase and remove original content from wikipedia articles it's a vandalism act, so please i ask you a litle bit of etic and civism. Your theory would be logic if all the sources from Monterrey would't have your edits. Send you greetings and i would recomend you don't remove the original contect of this article again. if any suggestion, question or something to share please contact me. (Raveonpraghga)

Please, don't make this personal.

A few centuries ago, Teotihuacán was Mexico's Second City. Should I replace this page with a link to Teotihuacán? Welcome to the XXI century! First of all, you are gravely mistaken saying that Monterrey began to have influence "8 years ago". Please review the history of "Grupo Monterrey", historical data on its economic power in the country, and particularly, in its financing and accords with political parties. Secondly, I have sourced data by INEGI and at least one economic ranking of Latin America saying that Monterrey has three of four criteria listed by this page that Monterrey is Second City. If you disagree, fine, then source your claim. Please do not edit with unsourced material. Such activities is considered vandalism, and more so when your summary does not accurately define what you have done (such as saying that you changed "ortography" when in fact you have changed a substantial and important part of the text. Hari Seldon 15:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

As of this point, Raveonpraghga has erased my edits. He supplanted sourced material with unsourced material, refusing to discuss or reach consensus. Furthermore, he has threatened me that if I edit he would request my IP be blocked. I request assitance to settle this matter. Hari Seldon 01:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The case of Monterrey vs. Guadalajara

"Criteria for second city status include population size, economic or commercial importance, political importance, or some cultural sense", says the text. I have provided sourced material that backs the claim that Monterrey is Mexico's second city, but they have been deleted by Raveonpraghga with a threat, so I am reluctant to change it back.

I will, however, make an analysis of my data with whatever data Raveonpraghga has provided in our last encounters:

The criteria, stated in the text, are population, economic importance, political importance, and cultural importance:

• We start with population. There is no argument there. Guadalajara is Mexico's second largest metro area, while Monterrey is Mexico's third. Population wise, Guadalajara is bigger.
• Economically, an analysis made by America Economica (which was one of my sources) stated that Monterrey is among the top 5 best cities for doing business in Latin America. In that top 5 no other Mexican city appears... not even Mexico City. In some areas, like security, standard of living, GDP per capita adjusted to purchasing parity, etc..., Monterrey is the #1 city in Latin America. Meaning that no other city in Mexico, or any other city in the 40 countries of the sub-continent have better economical statistics. Furthermore, for economical importance, Monterrey has 3 (of 9) companies listed in the IPC index (for the Mexican stock market). Those companies are CEMEX, Coca-Cola Femsa, and Vitro. Guadalajara has none. Other important Monterrey-based companies include Gruma, Soriana, Cervecería Cuahutemoc Moctezuma and all other Femsa subsidiaries (including Oxxo), Grupo Multimedios, Hylsa, IMSA, COPARMEX, and many, many others... Furthermore, three of Mexico's 10 top banks originated in Monterrey (Bancomer, Serfin, and Banorte). Of all Mexican top banks, only 1 is owned by Mexican capital, and that is Banorte, based in Monterrey. Without a doubt, Monterrey is Mexico's financial and economical capital.
• Politically, of the last 5 Presidents of Mexico, one (Carlos Salinas de Gortari), was educated in Monterrey. Also educated in Monterrey where Luis Donaldo Colosio and Manuel J. Clouthier. Vicente Fox's cabinet had many people originally from Monterrey politics, including former Secretary of Education Reyes Tamez, and former Secretary of Economy and of Energy, Fernando Canales, and Former Secretary of Energy Fernando Elizondo. Monterrey also educated the current US Secretary of Commerce. By the way, I don't remember the UN Conference for Finance and Development being held in Guadalajara... it was held in Monterrey, as was the OAS summit (previous to the one in Argentina). There is no argument, Monterrey has a greater political influence in the country than Guadalajara.
• Culturally, sure, Guadalajara has Teatro Degollado, Hospicio Cabañas, and Mariachi music to offer... but how long ago where they created? Monterrey, on the other hand, has more, and more recognized, spanish rock and pop bands. Monterrey has produced, in the past 5 years, more movies than Guadalajara. Finally, if we take into account cultural statistics, like attendance to museums, nominally, Monterrey has more museums and more attendance than Guadalajara, despite Guadalajara having more population. The statistic was provided in the source I contributed. Furthermore, 2 out of 5 of the most important media outlets of the country are originally from Monterrey (Reforma and Milenio). None is from Guadalajara. Education-wise, ITESM is the most prestigious private instution in the country. ITESM is based in Monterrey, and pioneered Mexico into the Internet era, it was this institution that hooked Mexico to the internet for the first time, and its servers still hook Mexico to the Internet backbone. So, for cultural variables like music, movies, museums, education, and internet connectivity, Monterrey is more influent in the country than Guadalajra. Even in philosophy, Alfonso Reyes (from Monterrey) is one of Mexico's most important and honored philosophers. Who is the philosopher from Guadalajara?

So, in three out of four criteria, Monterrey is better positioned than Guadalajara. I sourced that claim. I am sorry, but I believe that, unless substantial sources can be provided, Monterrey should be the one in that list instead of Guadalajara. Otherwise, please argue: state your arguments, sources, and lets reach a compromise and consensus! Hari Seldon 01:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mea culpa, let me make a correction. The current US Secretary of Commerce, Carlos Gutierrez, was educated by the ITESM in Queretaro. Though Monterrey and its educational system had great influence in the education of this US Federal Official, he was not educated in Monterrey. Hari Seldon 02:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This looks rather like original research to me. Surely one or other of these two cities is referred to as being the second city in general parlance? If not, then perhaps it needs to be recognised that the situation with regard to Mexico's second city is not clear cut. Matthew 13:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always heard Guadalajara as Mexico's second city, and Monterrey as the third. The article currently seems to be pushing a POV with regard to Monterrey, and engaging in novel synthesis to do so. john k 21:20, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guadalajara Second city

Dear Hari Seldon this article was created 3 years ago, and you didn't even know about the existence of this article until i told you about it you started to change and remove the content of this article, i repeat you that is vandalism, and you keep on doing that, certainly you didn't listen my advices, so this will be just question of time. The matter of second cities will be polemic in some countries sometimes, but this is certainly not a point of polemic this a personal problem, not even when you put external links to "sorce your claims" Guadalajara es the second oficial second city in importance since more than 4 centuries ago. I have a lot of time to write about the big diference and the philosophy of Mexico to give a city the importance they deserve, but i've realized that would be not enough for you to stop removing this article that has been made based in official sources and you have changed it few days ago. Everybody knows that guadalajara is the second most important city such as Rio de Janeiro is the brazilian second one or Shangai in china or Osaka in Japan, that is an unrefutable fact. Please stop remove the content and dont take it that personal, we know your city ita an amazing city and probably in a few years will be more important than it is right now, but this is the present and after Mexico city Guadalajara keeps being the second, that is something that the entire Nation, and world knows even for a litle bit of general culture. Greeting for you and take care (Raveonpraghga)

Everybody knows that guadalajara is the second most important city such as Rio de Janeiro is the brazilian second one or Shangai in china or Osaka in Japan, that is an unrefutable fact. - rather controversial. I'd be willing to stake money on the fact that many people haven't heard of either Guadalajara or Monterrey, unlike Rio de Janeiro, Shanghai, or Osaka! Somewhere like Acapulco, however, probably is widely known.... Matthew 13:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is a controversial issue, and given the data that Heri Seldon has provided it could be said that Monterrey can be considered as the second city. Now, that would be a recent development, since traditionally, Guadalajara has been considered the second city. (Though, sorry to upset Raveonpraghga it has only been during the 20th century. From colonial times all the way to the 19th century, the second most populated city and the first industrial center was Puebla [1]). Now, today, Monterrey and Guadalajara could be considered as second cities. --Alonso 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Though this data is not new and Monterrey's importance is no recent development...

Raveonpraghga: you made it personal. You attacked me, threatened me, accused me of vandalism, and now, try to impose your own wikiality without any sourced claim. Now, I am willing to talk and reach consensus. But I will not be willing if you continue your PERSONAL attacks on me and continue to erase my SOURCED contributions.

Matthew... "Everybody knows" is not a good enough encyclopedic, academic reason to add content to wikipedia. For example, ever since I've been growing up I've been taught that Monterrey is as important as the capital. Of course, "everybody (in Monterrey) knows" this... Should this be part of wikipedia, or should sourced data be preferrable?...

And since you have sourced data pointing to the importance of Puebla, and I have sourced data pointing to the importance of Monterrey, then surely Raveonpraghga can provide sourced data pointing to the importance of Guadalajara, and we can create a subsection for this article pointing to the different contributions that each city makes to the great country of Mexico.

If, on the other hand, compromise and sourced material is not an option (particularly for you, Raveonpraghga), then lets just leave this page as it is... with sourced material taking precedence over unsourced.

Hari Seldon 16:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Point is, neither side has shown anything that shows either city to be being considered the second city. For instance, you've wheeled out some numbers, on a page in Spanish that I don't understand, and hence that may or may not show Monterrey to be the city with the second-largest economy in Mexico, but it's then a leap of reasoning to go from this information to Monterrey being the second city of Mexico. For me, this constitutes original research, which is frowned upon by Wikipedia. Matthew 20:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Matthew, my argument is that I didn't do "original research" because I did not research those numbers. I simply source them to come up with the next logical conclusion. So, it may be frowned upon in Wikipedia, but, it is better than having an unsourced, possible false claim. I have said over and over again that I am willing to compromise, that I believe that talking will solve this issue, however, I don't see Raveonpraghga or anybody else with ideas or proposals... Hari Seldon 20:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is my proposal. We eliminate Mexico from the "Other countries" list, and we add a "Mexico" subsection. I have a draft in my sandbox. Please discuss additions, corrections, or other ideas here. I would love to reach consensus on this issue soon. Hari Seldon 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it to be original research because your conclusion does not necessarily follow from the premise. By all means go ahead and say that Monterrey is the city with the second-largest economy, as there is a source to verify that. But, as I have written, it does not necessarily follow from this that it is considered the second city. Chicago is considered the USA's second city despite not being the second largest or (I don't think) having the second-largest economy. Hari Seldon's idea of a subsection for Mexico seems reasonable enough, given that there's no agreement. Matthew 00:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IMPORTANCE

Ok let's begin to give this a sense and let's share our information and start to land this point. Lets begin for the criteria:

The second city of a country is the city that is (or was) the second-most important, usually after the capital or first city, according to some criteria.

Guadalajara is an actual oficial Second city and was since the foundation of the fisrt two kingdoms in America out of Spain.[1] In the present world keeps being the second and oficial second city, for an actual and OFICIAL source this is a link to the National oficial Presidence of Mexico who in each article they asume to Guadalajara like the second city of the country Presidencia de la Republica (This is a spanish web page so i translated here the words of the own governor of the state of Jalisco giving a press conference in this city about the new deelopments with the Mexican President Vicente Fox in April 2006 ); "To the beginning of my government I promised people from Jaliscco to continue with the efforts to provide with water to the metropolitan zone of Guadalajara, tackled by who have preceded me in the high responsibility of being a governor of the state. Recapturing the above mentioned previous initiatives, evaluating the alternatives in the matters of the new available information and stimulating those projects with major possibilities of solving the serious problem of supply and clean water of the second most important city of the country".

Here there is another National Presidencial Page (you dont even have to speak spanih to notice how the list of cities in the Presidence page is in order like: Mexico City, Guadalajara, Monterrey.) [[2]] and same in the U.S. Government pages where the order is the same [1] and same with the rest of the world perception: [1]

Let's go on: Criteria for second city status include population size, (Guadalajara is the most populated city in the country after the capital)[1] List of metropolitan areas by population economic or commercial importance: 1.Guadalajara has the most important comercial status after the capital while Monterrey has the same importance in industrial matter (Guadalajara was the industrial center of the country 10 years ago before Monterrey) In economic importance (here is the deal where people from Monterrey based the importance of Monterrey by the GDP per capita wich not even the most impotant city is in the first 5 cities)List of metropolitan areas of Mexico as a Capitalist country the economic importance of Mexico is based in the capital. The distribution of economy of Guadalajara is better proportioned even tha in Mexico City and even better than Monterrey, that means that rich people in Monterrey are concentrated in just few families.

political importance :The oficial headquarter of the political national government after the capital is Guadalajara where is placed the second legitim copy of the mexican constitution and has all the political structures to host the principal government in war or emergency case.

cultural sense. The entire nation is defined and foucused in the culture from Guadalajara wich is the richest cultural city in the country, headquarter of the most important worldwide cultural events [1] the place of the first university in the country, Guadalajara is the headqurter of the Catholic Church in the country(unfortunatly),the representation of Mexico is based in the culture of this city (wich doesnt defined a place to second city but is one of the most potential facts to give a city a national importance) the historic sense of the city wich the entire nation is based in Mexico city and Guaalajara,another advantages that could compare perfectly both cities are the new projects (The highest building in the country and Latinamerica is in contsruction in Guadalajara[1] the city will have aGuggenheim,

Since it is often difficult to draw a precise boundary where cities end, deciding which city is second in a country is not always straightforward. If the cultural definition is used, then the choice of second city is highly subjective and a matter of opinion rather than fact. In many countries, more than one city might have a legitimate claim to being second city, depending on the definition or criteria used.

To make a litle more sense i invite you to read the two cities articles so you can realize and try to land an idea about the importance Guadalajara, Monterrey, in the other hand the user Hari Seldon who is certainly from Monterrey has been removing the original content of the article wich is against the Wikipedia rules. I've been studing history of America (the whole continent)since i was 17 now im 23,i've been following the development process of the American continent cities 6 years of my life be cause of my career, and i know the mexican development and its process very well, if you can found some information about it that would be great you can help me to make this articles keep real facts. If you guys have some more information or want to comment about this, contact me or post your arguments here, greetigs everybody! (Raveonpraghga)

Thank you for ignoring my comments again. I don't know why do you ask us to post our arguments if you ignore them completely.

Deleting without consensus is not a wikipedia guideline. See Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information.

I am not arguing that Guadalajara is not an important city, but certainly an argument against it cannot be ignored. This argument, by the way, is not just mine, and it is supported in several books I've been consulting recently.

Influence goes beyond legal boundaries. The law may say that Guadalajara is second city in case of an accident in Mexico City, but it doesn't state the actual influence that the city has on national politics, nor does it state the economic or cultural influence. Those change day after day, that is the reason this is so subjective. I said previously that I would agree to a compromise, but you have not even looked at my claims. You want to impose a freeze state in which forever and ever Guadalajara would be the most influential city of Mexico for all time, regardless of the fact that not even national boundaries have stayed the same since Mexican independence (much less demographics, or other criteria)... I mean, sure, the second copy of the constitution may be held in Guadalajara, but what influence does Monterrey have when it is the host of the nation's internet connectivity? These are not arguments that can be ignored, considering there is no hard-source to prove without doubt that any of the two are indeed Second City.

Another flaw you make is that you source your claims with wikipedia entries that you helped edit, and that are not sourced in that article. when you say "The entire nation is defined and foucused in the culture from Guadalajara wich is the richest cultural city in the country", you are wrong, first because the richest cultural city in the country is Mexico City, by far and no matter what criteria you use to measure it. Secondly, how do you measure culture? By artifacts, by exposure to it, by output, by sociodemographic behaviour? Culture is an incredibly complex issue and I have given 5 examples of how Monterrey surpasses Guadalajara in terms of culture (pop music, movies, media, internet, and education). Again, we can agree that it is a complex, subjective issue, but from there we need to build upon a compromise, something that you have consistently avoided.

Please see my sandbox and my proposal. Feel free to add your newlyfound contributions and source them adequately. I am sure we can come to an agreement. Hari Seldon 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, you say that the largest building in Mexico outside of Mexico City is being built in Guadalajara. Currently, the already built largest building outside of Mexico City is Torre CNCI, in Monterrey. There have been projects to build a larger tower than Torrena in Monterrey, and it is all a matter of capitalization for the project to take off. Building heights are so subjective and change so easily it cannot be an adequate measure of a city's culture. Hari Seldon 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

You further say that "the capital in Monterrey is concentrated in just a few families"... Well, not according to GDP per capital data. Please prove it with sources.

Notice that I never disputed that Guadalajara had more population than Monterrey... however that is just one in 4 criteria....

Please also source that Guadalajara is the second "legitm" capital after Mexico City. I was not aware of this fact, and I am from Mexico...

About Fox commentaries, are we to accept the personal opinion of a man who said that José Luis Borgues was a great writer? Of course, as former President his opinion carries weight, but it is just an opinion. It wasn't meant as an official statement of "second city". Hari Seldon 00:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

GDP per capita does not provide any information about how widely spread wealth is. john k 21:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A little research wouldn't do us bad

OK. I have delayed my response since I was trying to organize some of the ideas and data that I wanted to share. Both of you, Raveonpraghga and Hari, know that I, personally oppose any subjective statement such as this, and that I would rather go to specifics. Yet, if we are ever going to settle by adding a section about Mexico's case like Hari Seldon proposed (and I agree), I will try to engage in this debate by providing (hopefully) an objective and (hopefully too) neutral contribution. Please, I kindly ask you both to take the time to read what I will write, so that the discussion could be directed (whether you disagree or not) to specific points instead of rambling over and over, over the same issues.

First, I would like to say that both have made some good points; yet, both have also made far-fetched and preposterous claims as well. Let me explain:

[edit] Historical importance: Puebla

Raveonpraghga has made the claim that Guadalajara has been the second most important city since colonial times. That is far from true. Puebla was the second city and the first to industrialize throughout the colonial era and all through the 19th century too [[3], [4], [5], even in 1914 it was still considered the second city in the country [6]. Puebla was the first city (after Mexico city) to have a printing press [7], the first to have a theater [8], and a library (the "Biblioteca Palafoxiana") [9] (founded in 1646 making it the first public library in the Americas). Its political importance cannot be undermined. It was not the Battle of Monterrey that decided the fate of either the Mexican-American war nor the French Intervention (though it was important, it was not politically strategic). In both occasions the fiercest and necessary battle, had to be fought in Puebla, the second military bastion of the country [10]. The fact that Zaragoza was born in Monterrey doesn't speak of Monterrey's political importance. It was the fact that the battle had to be fought in Puebla, which speaks of its importance. Even, at the beginning of the 20th century, Puebla's population still surpassed that of Guadalajara and Monterrey [11].

Now, before you misunderstand me, I am in no way saying that Puebla should be considered the second city in Mexico, because nowadays it is not. I am simply trying to bring some balance, especially after some of the unfounded claims about Guadalajara's being "always the second city" in Mexico. Simply, not true. And also its importance did not "die out" after the independence (as Hari's sandbox proposal seems to suggest) but in the 20th century.

That a big battle was fought in Puebla has a great deal to do with Puebla's geographical location between Veracruz and Mexico City. Guadalajara was out of the way, and so, obviously, would not have been as important militarily in either the conflict with the French nor that with the Americans. Which isn't to argue w ith the basic claim, just with some of the factors you are claiming in support of t his. john k 21:26, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Guadalajara in the twentieth century and the development of Monterrey

It was, however, Guadalajara, and not Monterrey, which became the second city in many aspects, for most of the 20th century, at first industrially, but then culturally and obviously in population. By 1910, Guadalajara's population had surpassed Puebla's [12], (p.3). Guadalajara's industrial rate of growth until the 1960's was higher than that of Monterrey [idem, p. 4]. It wasn't until the 1980's that, the economic and social changes produced a geographical-economic reorganization, as the North benefited from changes in trade and politics (a gradual change from import substituting to free trade that culminated in the 1990s). In this period Monterrey engaged in an industrial reengineering (or "restructuración") that enabled the city to position itself in the international arena [13], while Guadalajara focused on the mid-size and inter-industry production. Nonetheless, both Guadalajara and Monterrey are considered "vortexes" of the polycentric and hegemonic regions in Mexico (West and North). [idem]. Even though Guadalajara is nowadays the third city in volume of industrial production (after Monterrey) [14], it is still the second in trade exchanges [idem]. Other sources claim that Monterrey's industrial massive development began as early as in the 1970s [15] (p. 55).

Guadalajara's position as a cultural hub in Mexico is still widely and internationally recognized as it is host of the most important literary event in the Spanish-speaking world (Feria Internacional de Libro de Guadalajara), the only International Festival for Cinematography in the Country (and awarding event), the "Culture Festival Month", as well as the International Gathering of Mariachi Music and Charreria.

If it were just by common (mis-)conception, Guadalajara is usually considered (whether it is true or not) the second city in Mexico (however subjective it might be). A simple Google search with the words "second city in Mexico" reveals that, at least "traditionally" Guadalajara is considered the second city [16]. This of course, never constitutes a proof of the veracity of the statement. It only shows how common that (mis-)conception has become.

The idea of a "second city" is a purely subjective one. It is not a "misconception" to call the second largest city in a country the second city, because the latter status is an unofficial one which is based entirely on, er, what the "common conception" is. There's no possible way to make an objective judgment on this issue. If everyone says Guadalajara is the second city, then it is, whether or not Monterrey is "really" a more important city. john k 21:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monterrey's case

Monterrey has positioned itself, and like I have said, in recent years (since the last quarter of the 20th century) as the second most important industrial hub in the country (although its early industrial development and the birth of those industries that were to become some of the most important transnational agglomerates took place at the beginning of the 20th century). If it were just by mere size of GDP, Nuevo Leon's contribution to national GDP is the third largest (of 7.4%, behind the Federal District with 21.8% and the State of Mexico, with 9.5%, arguably, the majority of which belongs to the metropolitan area of Mexico City) [17], and, arguably, the great majority of the production takes place in Monterrey and/or its metropolitan area (home of almost 90% of the state's population). It is, like Hari pointed out, the best city in which to do business in the country, as reported the Chilean Magazine "América Economía" [18], it enjoys the highest standard of living and the third highest income per capita in Mexico (the highest goes to San Pedro Garza-García, even though América Economía incorporates all conurbated municipalities into Monterrey in their report, and the second highest, is obviously, Mexico City with 17.696 USD [19]). Moreover, ITESM has become the avantgarde in education, not only in Monterrey, but all through Mexico with their system of satellite campuses. Given all these data, Monterrey could be considered as the second city in the Mexico. I will not repeat the some of the arguments that Hari has already exposed and referenced related to Monterrey.

[edit] Personal comments and conclusions

Monterrey, based on what was exposed, is the second most important industrial hub in the country while Guadalajara is, the second most important cultural hub in the country. I don't think number of people attending a museum really matters; what matters is the magnitude of the events and festivals being held in the city (in the same way, number of industries wouldn't really matter, but their contribution to GDP, impact and influence on the country as well). As for internet connectivity, I would consider it to be part of the better infrastructure that Monterrey enjoys (and maybe speaks of a higher standard of living) but I honestly do not see its relation to art and culture. In terms of education, it is the School of Business of ITESM which has been ranked as one of the best in the world. In the same way, it can be argued that the School of Medicine in Guadalajara is much more recognized than that of Monterrey (it is the only Mexican Medicine school to receive a recognition for its "outstanding" education by the president of the US [20]). So I think we cannot determine which is best in education. The most we can say is that both excel. Also, whether a politician, artist or scientist is born in a specific city, that does not necessarily speak of the importance of the city. It is the place in which they find the resources to excel that speaks of the importance of a city. That is why artists move to those cities that would enable them to present their portafolios to the world, whether they were born in Waxahachi, TX, or Paris, France.

Hari's sandbox is a good first draft. I find it however, too long, and excessively focused on Monterrey. It briefly mentions the accomplishments of Guadalajara. Cancun's influence is irrelevant (it is only the first (not second) most important tourist destination, it has no other accomplishments in economics, culture or education). Puebla's section is imprecise. Given the data that I have provided, it was still regarded as the second city, economically, culturally and politically at the beginning of the 20th century. I should be corrected, but not expanded, after all Puebla is not even contending as today's second position. Two or three sentences that explain that it was historically considered the second city (and why) will suffice. The rest should be focused on Guadalajara and Monterrey.

Ohh, and the statement "some argue that Monterrey has displaced Guadalajara as the second city" should be referenced. I could say it. Hari could say it, but unless some scholar can say it, I think the sentence should be eliminated. It would be better to say, "both could be considered as the second city" or, "both could be considered second city in specific areas" [industrial vs. cultural]

--Alonso 05:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The Battle of Monterrey was decisive for many things, it was not THE decisive battle, but it certainly helped shape the outcome of the Mexican-American war. What I wrote in the sandbox is not intended to demonstrate that Monterrey has always been second city, merely that it has made important contributions throughout Mexican history and, recently, they have become more pronounced.

I will source the last claim that some argue that Monterrey is contesting Guadalajara's title.

I will change the Puebla statement.

I will add information to the Guadalajara paragraph. I did not have much information available to me, but was actually expecting a research like J Alonso's to add. I find it important that all of us contribute...

I hope we can find consensus soon. Hari Seldon 07:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated proposal for sub-article

With new information contributed by J Alonso, I've deleted parts of the Monterrey text and added to the Guadalajara text of my proposal for a sub-article on the relative importance of the two cities, Monterrey and Guadalajara. The claim by Raveonpraghga that Guadalajara is "the oficial headquarter of the political national government after the capital is Guadalajara where is placed the second legitim copy of the mexican constitution and has all the political structures to host the principal government in war or emergency case." is something I would like very much to add to this text proposal, but do need a verifiable source to do so.

Please, look at the updated proposal in my sandbox. Tell me what you think. When we are all in agreement, I think we can modify this page and settle the conflict!

Oops, forgot to sign... Hari Seldon 08:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TIPS

Ok, everything is going well, Hari: your proposal is still very Monterrey, do you know what i mean? In the first lines i think the word disputed should not appear, because there is not a real fight between governments trying to seetle an oficial second city, i think that is a very matter of regionalism. We could change that part for something like "Currently the title could be deserved for Guadalajara or Monterrey as well, each one focused in a different national aportation" or something like that. We should add as well a very important and real fact wich is that Monterrey has not a real and oficial title of second city, however the city would deserve it for its actual economical aportation due to its industrial power wich is the second industrial city in the country after Mexico city. In the matter of culture i think there's really not a very important cultural aportation from Monterrey, the city is not precisely a really cultural city nor a national cultural contributor, before Monterrey there are several cities with real aportations and cultural power such as Guanajuato, Celaya, Merida, Puebla, Morelia, San Miguel de Allende or even Queretaro, San Luis Potosi, Oaxaca or Chiapas, so in cultural sense there is not a dispute between these two cities. I also think its too much about Monterrey wich takes more than the half of the entire box and claims things that are not a really potential reasons to consider the city like a real opponent in some facts like: However, Monterrey has recently contested the title. wich oficial source claim that fact? The industrialization of the city during the 20th century set the grounds for Monterrey's expanding influence in the nation's economy, culture and politics. In the 20th Century the influence of the nation's economy doesn't belong exclusively to Monterrey but guadalajara as well, as i said before is a very wrong claim that Monterrey is a cultural influence in Mexico and the politic influence is not exclusively for Mty either, if some mexican presidents studied in Mty schools then that would be a due of education influence wich is not exclusively from Mty either. Post-revolutionary politics where greatly influenced by the economic power of Grupo Monterrey and other companies from the city. The leadership of industrialist Eugenio Garza Sada in the national economy set the stage for the creation of ITESM, the most prestigious private university in Mexico. (Here there is another litle thing: Guadalajara is one of the cities with more chioces and diversity of education, is also place of the first university in the country, the first public university after Mexico city and the university with most number of students in the country after Mexico city, and one of the first jeuists universities in America, the place of the Panamerican university after mexico city,etc) ITESM hooked Mexico to the internet in the mid 1980s and this created an important shift in national culture That is a technologic aportation not cultural. You can not claim things such as: Monterrey also produces two of the five most widely read media sources in Mexico. One of them, Grupo Reforma, was created from El Norte, a newspaper that pioneered with free speech and democratic, independent, media coverage in the country. El Norte has been considered one of the most influential media in the nation. At first sight be cause the influece of the Grupo Reforma-El norte is based exclusively in Monterrey not in places like Mexico city or Guadalajara where the concept of journalism are very oposite and where the most influencial newspaper are El universal and El Informador respectively and is not even a pioneer in the rest of the northwest of the country where PULSO in San Luis Potosí, VANGUARDIA in Saltillo LA CRÓNICA in Mexicali, FRONTERA in Tijuana are the pioneers in each region and those newspapers do not belong to Grupo Reforma-El Norte. Grupo Reforma-El Norte is important for the presence that covers almost the entire nation but not in the fact of free speech and democratic, independent media coverage where in cities like Mexico City and Guadalajara the Grupo Reforma-El Norte newspapers have been considered non-neutral and with strong strategics of own convenience. At the turn of the century, Monterrey is the top business hub for Latin America that is a fact, but Sao Paolo is the one in "the top". its cultural output includes a substantial part of Mexico's pop culture, including music and movies. Due to its economic importance and cultural significance, Monterrey also exerts great influence in national politics. Cultural matters are not based in pop at all, pop doesn't have a cultural sense or influence in Mexico if that would be the case There are even more music aportations from Mexico City and even from Guadalajara. Another big mistake is the claim about movies, Guadalajara have the 3 most prestigious Film schools in the country and the only Aidiovisual Arts University along with mexico city. Guadalajara is the city with more film productions after Mexico city, the 60% of the National productions that are not related with foreigner support are supported by Alegro Productions wich owner is Jorge Vergara. And not even mentioned the Guadalajara Film Festival or CHROMA that we all know the importance and support for the national cinema.[1]. The politic matters we've talked about that already. For these reasons, some argue that, in the 21st century, Monterrey has displaced Guadalajara as Mexico's Second City. Once again, this sources DO NOT claim or say the strictly sentence THE OFICIAL SECOND MOST IMPORTANT CITY IN MEXICO or they don't represent at all an oficial source for being most of them sources made by people from Monterrey.

Ok, let's begin with fixing all this, so we can conclude with an agreement. Greetings i'm going to try to give some aportations to the box as soon as i can so we can conclude this soon. (Raveonpraghga)

I would like to add more Guadalajara material, but lack sources to do so!

Instead of using the word "disputed", how about using the word "contested"? Lets keep things simple and to the point.

Indeed, since we have recognized that "Second City" is not an official title, and since an official document naming either "Second City" cannot be found, the best we can do is simply state that, in some opinions, Guadalajara is second city, and in others, Monterrey is, and then list the reasons that support these opinions.

The sentence that says that Monterrey's influence expanded in the 20th century is not exclusive of the conclusion that Guadalajara's influence also expanded. In fact, the Guadalajara paragraph seems to support the conclusion that the city also developed.

"Cultural matters are not based in pop at all"... Again, this is a matter of opinion. Pop culture is, after all, "the cultural elements that prevail in any given society" (according to the wikipedia article Pop Culture)... Evaluating cultural influence is the most subjective issue because culture can mean many things...

So, is the internet a technological input or a cultural input? Think about how the internet has changed pop culture in Mexico, and cultural behaviors in the country. Think about the internet's cultural influence. If it is negligible, then why argue in Wikipedia? My bet is that, if you are online in Mexico, Wikipedia is brought to you through Monterrey. Is this not a significant cultural influence?

Unfortunately, you source does not support the claim that "Alegro Productions" pay for 60% of movie productions outside of Mexico City... Besides, "production" is not just about who pays for the film... It also takes into consideration creative inputs, and places of filming. For example, I wouldn't argue that "Y tu mamá también" is a Guadalajara production, since most of the realization of the film was made in Mexico City.

In fact, I believe that most of your claims are based on a dispute of our conceptions of culture. It seems to me that, when you talk about culture, you mean "high culture", or rituals and artifacts associated with avantgarde expression or entertainment (i.e. theater, art, classical music, etc...) However, culture not only includes "high culture".

According to the wikipedia article Culture, it can be defined as "the way of life for an entire society". As Mexican society changes in the 21st century, ask honestly, which has been more influential in defining the new way of life, Guadalajara or Monterrey? Monterrey helped shape the free capitalistic market-oriented economy which we have, it promoted the democratic values of free speech, it funded and influenced conservative politics that have shaped Mexico since 2000 (earlier if we listen to the current government opposition), it made promoted the North American Free Trade Agreement (in fact, a President from Monterrey, greatly influenced by Monterrey capital interests, shaped the Mexican negotiations). NAFTA promoted much of the maquiladoras that make Guadalajara today the "Silicon Valley of Mexico", and make available to many mexicans goods and services that were previously unavailable. I would say that Monterrey's influence in the change of Mexican way of life has been more than significant. Monterrey has been the leader.

A book called "De Regios y Chilangos" explains quite plainly the differences in values and beliefs that Monterrey inhabitants generally have with the rest of Mexico, mainly, Mexico City. (The books also argues that Monterrey displaced Guadalajara as Second City "long ago"... it was published in 1999). These different values are permeating more and more into everyday Mexican society, and the reason for it is Monterrey's greater influence in the economy, in the media, and in pop culture. Pop culture shapes, and expresses, the current way of life of a society, and if Monterrey is producing more pop culture than other Mexican cities, and is the largest producer outside of Mexico City, it can be argued that, indeed, Monterrey has a greater cultural influence.

Granted, measuring this is complex and subjective, and that is why my proposal doesn't say that "Monterrey is the leading cultural influence in the country", it simply states that there is substantial cultural output, and lists what it is, and let the reader make its own conclusions.

Hari Seldon 11:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

About your arguments against Grupo Reforma... well, Reforma is a controversial topic all by itself, namely because its journalistic values are different than those of the rest of Mexico. Interesting that you note that El Universal is the leading Mexico City journal. I happened to write about this just a few weeks ago and, guess what? I found that Reforma leads El Universal... This may explain why El Universal copies so much about its journalistic style from Reforma... About Mural, well... Mural in Guadalajara is not widely read and I know that, and Reforma knows that. In fact, Mural is read in Guadalajara as much as Palabra is read in Saltillo, which considering the population differences certainly point to the conclusion that Mural is a gigantic failure. (Note to unknowing editors: Grupo Reforma is a newsgroup that encompasses four newspaper: El Norte in Monterrey, Reforma in Mexico City, Mural in Guadalajara, Palabra in Saltillo)...

However, the Reforma argument is not to state that it is the most widely read... Merely that its influence is quite important. So important, in fact, that the opposition candidate for the national election accused the newsgroup openly of being against him (and blamed it in part for his defeat). Reforma is frequently quoted and referenced by politicians and businessmen throughout the country and even outside of Mexico. Its influence in daily politics cannot be denied. El Norte pioneered democratic-style journalism (it was the first newspaper in the nation to publish election opinion polls --in the 1970s--, and to watch elections in Mexico). Its owner once told me that one of the greatest tools that the 1970s government had on the press was control of paper, and, he added, that El Norte was influential in making Carlos Salinas de Gortari accept the importation of paper for newsprint, impeding the government from further control. The story may or may not be true, but it certainly is an example of what values this media haves, and how succesful it has been in disseminating them across Mexico. Today, the country is democratic, and one of the contributors inarguably was El Norte. The extent of the contribution may be argued, but the fact that it was made cannot.

So, yes, Reforma is a controversial issue, and I would point it as a perfect example of how the difference in values make people from Monterrey feel too proud of the importance of their city while people from outside of Monterrey (within Mexico, and mostly from Mexico City) feel they are better, or that Monterrey is wrong. The city of Monterrey is a gigantic Mexican counter-culture example in almost all its components... Private museums, private "public parks" used for races, private hospitals, private universities, democratic organizations since the 1980s, different journalistic styles, different architectural styles, different acceptance of outside influences, different food, and a great respect and consideration for the private sector. Some of these things are considered demonic by inhabitants of Central Mexico, yet Regios are very proud of them... I think that the success of Monterrey has been in making their values more accepted in other parts of the country instead of succumbing to accept the rest of the country's values. In fact, I think that the whole Monterrey argument resides in this sentiment of proud in its Mexican counter-culture. Unfortunately, I don't have sources for it, but it is a reasonable conclusion...

Hari Seldon 12:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

To summarize my past paragraphs on Reforma and how it summarizes the competition of pride of the city with the rest of the country, it can be argued that Monterrey is not really competing with Guadalajara to be "Second City", it is competing with Mexico City to be "First City". The influence of the capital, however, is so vast to make this comparison unrealistic in any standard other than the economical. However, it is this pride that drives the argument that Monterrey is more influential than Guadalajara: Guadalajara is "Second City" of traditional Mexico, while Monterrey is "first city" of "the new Mexico", the argument may go, and therefore, Monterrey is above Guadalajara. I think that summarizes the argument. Hari Seldon 12:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Argh. I hope you had read all what I had wrote and not just skimmed through it. Hari, you are now far overstrecthing your arguments. Monterrey, even with all its industrial attributes cannot compete for the title (if there is such a subjective thing) of "first city", even in economics. Industrial GDP alone of Mexico City far surpasses that of Monterrey, not to mention that the capital the commercial hub of the country. Mexico city (not the metro area) produces 25% of the nation's GDP, by adding the metro area, this figure will jump to 34%. I have no figures for Monterrey, but the whole state of Nuevo León produces only 7.4% of GDP. The assumption of Monterrey becoming the economic hub is preposterous. Yet, I have heard many a regiomontano make the same claim.

I tried to focus all my research on broad matters, not on the details; and on data, not on opinions. Reforma may well be the one of the most important newspapers in the country, but it is definitely not the only one and any claim that Reforma is "better" than Universal, el Informador, or whichever other newspaper you want to add to the list, is merely an opinion or a matter of taste or even political preference. But one newspaper does not make a city the "cultural hub" of a nation. Nor does access to internet (like I said that only speaks of the better infrastructure that Monterrey has or how industrialized it has become). Moreover, counter-cultural values, if might be honest with you, is a biased argument. If you had ever visited Yucatán, you might see how industrialized Mérida is, and how they strongly (even more than regios) oppose the culture of the capital (I even heard in a radio station: yucatecos, no dejen contaminarse por los inmigrantes capitalinos, conservemos nuestra cultura...). I guess the same would happen almost anywhere in the nation. Monterrey has no exclusivity in their dislike of chilangos. And even if they had it, that doesn't make it a cultural hub. Artists, moviemakers and poets do not go to Monterrey to excel, they go to Mexico City (first and foremost) then to Guadalajara. (Actually, painters go to Oaxaca, but that is another story).

Your claim about NAFTA promoting the industrial development (and maquiladora) in Guadalajara, is also wrong. Please read the section before, where the sources (not me) show Guadalajara's industrial development of the 1940-1970s.

I wish I had more time... but that's it for now. Please let's be a little more objective with our arguments. --Alonso 15:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, J Alonso, I did read through all that you wrote and I hope you find it reflected in my proposal in my sandbox. What I said in this talk page about Monterrey and the "first city", I did make it clear that, as you said, Monterrey cannot compete with the title. I also made it clear that it was my opinion (and therefore is not reflected in my proposal).

So, to make it clear, my proposal tries to focus (and with your help, will focus even more) on the generalities that can be objectively sources, while, in contrast, what I presented here is 100% a matter of opinion.

Now, going back to opinions, "economic hub" can refer to two things: production of goods and services center, or financial center (flow of money and financial instruments). In the case of goods and services, the issue is subjective because, even when 25% of production is made in Mexico City, one has to ask, whose companies produces those goods and services? Of those companies that are not foreign owned, at least half are from Monterrey... In the financial sector, Mexico City has the most power mainly because of three reasons: the central government directs financial policy from Mexico City, the Mexican stock exchange influences financial flows from Mexico City, and the banking system is basically defined and regulated from Mexico City. There is no argument there. Howevere, again, whose money is being traded and whose money is affecting and shaping the financial arena of Mexico? If we take out portfolio investment from foreign countries, you'll find that Monterrey is the decisive factor again.

I tried to not make the claim that Grupo Reforma (the whole, Monterrey-based group, and not just the Mexico City paper) is better than other media. I just tried to state that it is influential and has been greatly influential in the life of the country. El Informador may be very influential in Guadalajara, but I haven't seen it affect policy nationwide, nor El Universal, which is a relatively more recent development. This may change, however.

The argument of the "cultural hub" does not refer to one or two factors, but of all of them combined and its impact on national affairs. Yes, the Internet demonstrates that Monterrey has a better infrastructure, but it also demonstrates that Monterrey (particularly, the ITESM) DEVELOPED this particular infrastructure for the rest of Mexico, and the effects of it in national affairs (and culture) are incalculable.

The difference between Yucatán and Monterrey is the success that Monterrey has had in expanding its regional values to the rest of the country, while Yucatan may not have had the same success... My point is simple: Monterrey has been incredibly influential in the rest of the country and that is what drives the pride. It is not the "counter-cultural" values by themselves, but the success in penetrating the national culture.

Artists, poets, and moviemakers are "high culture", which in itself, as I have argued before, is not the main component of culture... The main components are values, beliefs and attitudes, and Monterrey has exported them quite succesfully to the rest of the country.

By the way, artists, poets, and moviemakers who go to Mexico City (or Guadalajara, or Monterrey, or Oaxaca, or anywhere else) might soon find themselves going to the USA or Europe. Indeed, Mexico is not a strong producer of "high-culture" by any means. It might have had its golden era, but it is not a constant thing. The only constant is that Mexico City's output outranks by far that of any other city in Mexico. I have no argument with that either.

I did not claim that NAFTA was the EXCLUSIVE source of development for Guadalajara, but it certainly had a profound influence. That is the main point of Second City: "influence". Guadalajara might be great (and I am pretty sure it is), but for all its economical might, its influence in national affairs, or the national economy is not as profound as that of Monterrey, or, by far, that of Mexico City.

Again, I remind you, that here I am posting opinions and that these opinions are not part of my proposal. What I sought to do was explain a bit the source of the regiomontano pride and the real reason why Monterrey feels it deserves to be Second City. Hari Seldon 17:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. And thanks for making the distinction between opinion and facts. We can go on for hours arguing over and over about opinions (especially about the success of "exporting" of values). But what matters here are facts, and facts must be the foundation of our opinions, whether the latter diverge or not. However, at the same time, your opinions have the appearance of facts. For example, you are arguing that half of all companies in Mexico City are owned by Monterrey. I can't tell you myself whether that is true or not, but that would be called a fact (if true) or a lie (if false) but not an opinion. An opinion would be "I think it is the second city".

Now, speaking of the proposal. I still think is unnecessarily long (interested in trying to prove or make a point about Monterrey). I specifically oppose two sentences. First, I object to the sentence "the title is disputed...", because a subjective title like this is not disputed, and I find the word "disputed" too strong and unnecessary. Secondly, you are still making the claim that "some argue that, in the 21st century, Monterrey has displaced Guadalajara as Mexico's Second City". No scholar has ever argued anything about any "displacement", and most of all, your sources not even corroborate the statement: your first source is an airline industry (Mexicana), not a scholar authority in the matter (at best, it is only an opinion), your second source states that Monterrey is the second largest city, it does not mention anything about displacement as a second most important city; in fact, and from what I read from the .pdf paper it refers to area. And this is true, the Metropolitan Area of Monterrey is larger than that of Guadalajara, even if its population is smaller. But I find that using this as a source to claim a displacement in overall importance academically weak. Your third source suffers from the same weakness as the first, it is a news agency. If you click on the link to Google search results that I provided in my discussion above you will find hundreds of similar "sources" (news agencies, travel agencies and the like) stating that Guadalajara is the second city. Using these sources to make a claim for Guadalajara or Monterrey is, at best, academically weak, at worst, dishonest.

If you let me indulge into making my own proposal it would be simpler but factual:

Since colonial times and all through the beginning of the 20th century, Puebla was considered the second city in Mexico; it was the first to industrialize and the second most important cultural and academic hub. From the 20th century onward, Guadalajara has been traditionally considered as the second city given its rapid industrialization and population growth. It has become the second most important cultural center hosting prestigious international literary, music and film events and has been selected to be the "Cultural Capital of the Americas" on one occasion and is considered a vortex in industrial growth in the West in the same way as Monterrey would be in the North of the country. Nonetheless, since the last quarter of the century, Monterrey's has engaged in an industrial reengineering that has positioned the city in the international arena as the second most important industrial hub in the country with the presence of important transnational conglomerates. Having being labeled as the best city to do business in Latin America by Forbes, and enjoying the second highest income per capita in the country, it has also played an important role in the technological and educational modernization of the country.

I avoided any contentious phrase, I focused on facts, I didn't focus into details (as if I were trying to prove something by naming specific people, industries or institutions). Now, the reader can truly make his own opinion without us suggesting anything (like "Therefore, some argue that Monterrey has displaced..." why not say "However some argue that Guadalajara hasn't been displaced"?). Most of all I avoided the (false) claim about "displacement" and "disputing" stuff. After all we are not scholars to make any assessment or claim (that would be original work), and we have found no academic sources to prove either way.

--Alonso 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Agree

Hey Alonso that make sense for me and its very neutral, but i still doubt the discussion about this two cities cause i've never seen, read or heard about this suposeed displaced of second city, as i repeat that is a "regiomontano" matter created and disputed by people from Monterrey. In a national opinion as i said before if there would be an emergency alarm the national presidence will not move to Monterrey but to Guadalajara. However this discussion is open to learn more about wich point would make Monterrey to be considered as a potential second city, as i repeat again the aportations of the city are not exclusive of Mty. Hari i really, really think that you should read and learn more about culture wich not necesarily is fouced on industry or Pop music or Thechnology matters and i really don't want to think you have not an idea of what you're saying but what you really wan to mean with "Mexico is not a strong producer of High culture" and that "Monterrey has expanded its regional values", what you really want to say with that, in my opinion you are the one who is really influenced by an almost blind regionalism, that maybe doesn't let you see that the culture is one of the most precious values that the mexicans could have and the meaning is deeper than pop music, industry or such. If you to Puebla you will see what mexican culture means, if you go Mexico city, Guadalajara, Merida, Guanajuato, you will realize that the influence of Monterrey is your very own conception. Well, i think the Alonso propossal should contain the cultural diferences between the diferent regions of the country as well, and should definitly contain that Monterrey is not an oficial city but the people from Mty has been claim this title since a few years ago basing this to the fast economic growth of the city (wich is true). Cause there is not a real fight as i said before, between governments or something. The last line says something like technological and educational modernization of the country, i would say thecnologic and education based in thechnology, cause there is not a real educational aportation out the thechnology matter. I'm preparing with the aportations of everybody a new box i will show it to you guys as soon as i can, how ever i think the Alonso's one is like the base. (Raveonpraghga)

I think you should tone down your comments, Raveronpraghga. You are bordering on ad hominen attacks to Hari, in violation of basic Wikipedian etiquette. Moreover, you are discussing with personal opinions, not with facts (it really doesn't matter whether you think education should be based in technology or not, and you better think that one again... technology is part of education in the 21st century, but we want to discuss facts not opinions). Whatever text gets written down in the proposarl must not reflect your personal opinion, nor mine nor Hari's, and it should avoid declaring outright any city as today's second city. And I don't think the proposal should be expanded to include regional cultures; that is not even related to the article. This article is about a second city, the section should speak about the situation in a matter as neutral as possible without expanding it unnecessarily. --Alonso 00:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Alonso i think you're exagerating my tone, i've never been rude or have atacked Hari, im trying to put in the table his conceptions about culture wich are one of the most potential matters that Mexico would take to consider a city like an important city, when i erite i think is be cause we are discusing about the theme, and i was giving my opinions about your psopossal and Hari's propposal wich are opinions based on facts of course. (Raveonpraghga)

Raveonpraghga, I have felt you attacking me directly in a number of times. Your claims have not been supported by sources or any other forms of data other than your own personal opinion. Ofcourse, I am not immune to having a personal opinion, but I try to leave it aside when writing the proposal. In addition, I submit my proposal to the scrutiny of this talk page (other editors) because I recognize that I am not perfect. You should try and do the same.

J Alonso, I've been busy, but will consider your proposal and arguments soon. Thank you. Hari Seldon 02:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Raveonpraghga, your attitudes make me feel like my opinion on Monterrey being a "counter-culture" of Mexico have some substance... Hari Seldon 02:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Propposal

Hari, i'm sorry if you have felt a litle unconfortable about my opinions but i really think you have been very focused on your city, with no neutral fundaments and with a strong sense of regionalism, for some comments you've said before. I'm trying to give the articles the an objective character, and try to contribute in some things i have knlowedge to argue. Alonso, i think your propossal it's i would add some facts and make shorter the text, how about something like this:

Since colonial times and all through the beginning of the 20th century, Puebla was considered the second city in Mexico; it was the first to industrialize and the second most important cultural and academic hub. From the 20th century onward, Guadalajara has been traditionally considered as the second city given its rapid industrialization and population growth. The city is the second largest urban aglomeration and has become the most important cultural center hosting prestigious international literary, music and film events, has been selected to be the "Cultural Capital of the Americas" and is considered a vortex in industrial, comercial and development growth in the West in the same way as Monterrey would be in the North of the country.

Althought there is not official title that settle Monterrey as second city, since the last quarter of the century, Monterrey's has engaged in an industrial reengineering that has positioned the city in the international arena as the second most important industrial hub in the country with the presence of important transnational conglomerates. Having being labeled as the best city to do business in Latin America by Forbes, and enjoying the second highest income per capita in the country, it has also played an important role in the technological and educational modernization of the country.

What do you guys think? (Raveonpraghga)

The English could do with a bit of sanitising - for instance, I'm not sure 'vortex' is the word you should be using, and what exactly is re-engineering? - but this certainly looks as though it would be neutral enough to avoid serious objection. I think it would benefit from citations for points made; for instance, there must be a citation available to back up the mention of Forbes. Whether or not it's correct, however, I don't know enough about Mexico to say! ;-) But is Guadaljara really a bigger cultural centre than Mexico City? Matthew 12:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Vortex could be replaced with "hub", I think that's the idea, or in any case simply "center". Here's a definition for Reengineering (quite popular in Mexico), though we can use the word "restructuring", which was, after all the original word in the pdf paper that I cited. No, Guadalajara is not the most important cultural center in Mexico, it is the second (after Mexico City). That sentence should be corrected. My original proposal used the phrase "second most important cultural center".

I don't agree with the sentence "Although there is not official title that settle Monterrey as second city". There is no official title for any city (neither Guadalajara or Monterrey), no government institution "grants" these titles. It is merely a tradition or popular convention based on the characteristics of the city (as the article states). Moreover the sentence implies that Guadalajara "owns" an "official" title that Monterrey "hasn't been granted". I would eliminate the sentence, yet in doing so, we pretty much go back to my original proposal. --Alonso 17:20, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, your corrected phrase "It has been selected to be Cultural Capital of the Americas" is also wrong. Why did you eliminate the second part of it "... on one occasion"? It was only selected for 1 year, not forever. In any case the sentence could be rephrased as "it has once been selected as the Cultural Capital of the Americas...". And I will also like to add, it wasn't Forbes that ranked Monterrey as the 1st city, it as Fortune Magazine, and it was for the year 1999 [21]. --Alonso 19:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Raveonpraghga, it is not your opinions that "make me uncomfortable" as much as your previous accusations, threats, and behavior in the wikipedia.

I agree with most of J Alonso's and Majabl points.

Furthermore, the economic influence of Guadalajara is, in my opinion, greatly exaggerated. There is no denial that it is an important economical and manufacturing hub, but it isn't the most influential by any means. Just look at the type of companies that are headquartered in Guadalajara versus the type of companies that are headquarted in Monterrey. Cemex, the Monterrey-based company, recently bought the second largest concrete producer in the world in a multi-billion dollar deal that reshaped the way the WORLDWIDE (not just Mexican national) Construction industry does business. Cemex is trying to do the same now by buying out Rinker, an Australian company with significant influence in the US. The financial and economical implications of decisions made by companies based in Monterrey, like CEMEX, but also FEMSA, Axtel, Soriana, HEB, Terra Networks, BANORTE, Grupo Alfa, Gruma, Coparmex, and many many others are a lot more influential for the national economy, and sometimes the regional (Latin America and North America) or even the global economy than any company from Guadalajara. Just look at the indices in the Mexican Stock Exchange! How many Guadalajara-based companies are traded in the NYSE vs. how many Monterrey-based companies? Most companies in Mexico are either based in Mexico City, or Monterrey, and if we eliminate Foreign-owned or government-owned corporations, Monterrey leads the nation's economy! There simply cannot be a reasonable comparison with Guadalajara, in the same sense that, as pointed a few comments before, there can be no reasonable comparison between Mexico City and Monterrey in terms of culture.

However, as pointed earlier, this is an opinion, and should not interfere with the proposal. Here are my comments on J Alonso's proposal, which seems to take lead:

• We should not list the cities cronologically in order of appearance, rather, in order of relevance to the reader. For example, perhaps it would be best to menction Guadalajara and Monterrey first, since they are the most recent contestants to the title, and then mention Puebla at the end as a side note that adds context, precising that during most of colonial times and until the early 20th century, it was considered second city.
• In honor of avoiding further disputes over opinions, and to keep it short, lets just point to the facts: "Guadalajara has been considered Mexico's second city for most of the 20th century because of it is the second largest metropolitan area in terms of population, and because its great cultural significance. Guadalajara is also an important hub. However, the economic development of Monterrey have led some to express the opinion that this city is Second City. Monterrey was ranked in 2005 as the best city in Latin America for business, and the presence of the ITESM, the highest ranked private university in Mexico, and is Mexico's third largest metropolitan area".

I believe that the above is backed by the many sources we've provided already. The order puts Guadalajara first, because the Monterrey "phenomenon", if you will, is recent, and because Guadalajara is still most associated as second city by non Mexicans, and by Guadalajarans. (Informally, I have to say that I did a survey in Mexico, in three cities: Puebla, Mexico City and Toluca, and almost 90% of respondants said that they believe that Monterrey is more important than Guadalajara, but of course, that is unadmissible research for wikipedia).

So, what do you think? Are we approaching consensus?

Hari Seldon 22:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Adding to my opinion on economic influence, check this out: Companies based in Guadalajara vs. Companies based in Monterrey. The lists are incomplete, but they do give an idea on which city has more "economical influence"... Hari Seldon 22:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

'Hub' looks much better than 'vortex'! I misread the part about re-engineering - I read the sentence as being that Monterrey's economy has grown because it engages in re-engineering (ie that there are large re-engineering firms that have grown the economy) rather than because industry has been restructured. Also, I'd have to advocate that you use 'centre' rather than 'center' as a precedent already seems to have been set for this on the main page - see the Canadian section. Matthew 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, here is my version of the proposal:

Throughout most of the 20th century, Guadalajara has been traditionally considered as the second city given its rapid industrialization and population growth. It has become the second most important cultural centre hosting prestigious international literary, music and film events and has been selected to be the "Cultural Capital of the Americas" on one occasion and is considered a hub in industrial growth in the West. Nonetheless, since the last quarter of the century, Monterrey has been recently called Second City. Reasons for this may include that it has engaged in an industrial restructuring that has positioned the city in the international arena as the second most important industrial and financial hub in the country with the presence of important transnational conglomerates. Having being labeled as the best city to do business in Latin America by Fortune Magazzine, and enjoying the second highest income per capita in the country, it has also played an important role in the technological and educational modernization of the country. Since colonial times and all through the beginning of the 20th century, Puebla was considered the second city in Mexico; it was the first to industrialize and the second most important cultural and academic hub.

What do you think? Hari Seldon 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I've done some research (so inadmissible, yet so much fun!), of the 137 companies traded in the Mexican Stock Exchange (BMV) 82, or 60%, is from Mexico City or its metro area, while 25 or 18% is from Monterrey. Only 10 are from Guadalajara (7%) while 11 are from other parts of the country. Three are listed as being headquartered outside Mexico (USA, Spain, and Luxembourg). It is to be noted that of the 82 companies based in Mexico City, about 10 are not originally from that city (like, Corporación Durango). However, it is a common practice for companies originally from cities with low infrastructure to have an investors relations office in Mexico City and declare their location as that. Still, it doesn't affect the fact that Mexico City dominates the Mexico Stock Exchange.

Yet it does provide a comparison: Monterrey has 2.5 more companies in the Mexican Stock Exchange than Guadalajara. Hari Seldon 00:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I prefer having a chronological order, starting with Puebla. Chronological order makes more sense to me, making the the flow of ideas easier to follow. Otherwise the Puebla stuff just feels like a last-minute and out of context addition, like if somebody just added that last sentence recently to make a case for Puebla. I see you still insist in saying that "Monterrey is called Second City", and by adding "reasons for this" the paragraph again seems a defense of Monterrey. What I wanted to do in my original proposal, but I guess I didn't convey it properly, was to specify in which areas each city is the second city: culture for Guadalajara, industry for Monterrey (while at the same time acknowledging the industrial development of Guadalajara and the important role of education of Monterrey). I rather do that instead of saying "this one is the second but now the other one is fighting for the title". It's not a matter of culture alone that makes a second city, and it is not a matter of industrial GDP alone either. Why the need to vie for such a subjective position? Can't we just imply that the two are a second city, in their respective areas of expertise instead of fighting? Anyway, I would also change "labeled" for "ranked", and a few grammar and spelling corrections here and there and it's good to go. --Alonso 01:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Exactly

The chronological order makes sense to the point of the explanation. Th point is to show the reasons that makes both cities important in its areas respectively. Is convenient to define as well that Monterrey is a pioneer in the technological and marketing education, and Guadalajara is in the same way in arts, medicine, and social science. in case this: "it has also played an important role in the technological and educational modernization of the country" is needed. In matter of culture maybe i was misunderstood or i didn't convey it properly, i was trying to to explain is that Guadalajara is the most stronger city in matter of cultural influence cause its a fact that Tequila, Mariachi, and Charreadas are the strongest cultural representation of Mexico, do you know what i mean? Greetings, i'm glad we're settling an agreement. :) (Raveonpraghga)

Raveonpraghga, your vision on culture is sad and extremely limited. Yet, even if that is your only vision on culture, then Guadalajara would not be the strongest influence, it would be Puebla, or Oaxaca....

If you prefer cronological order, that's fine with me... I don't find it very convenient for the reader, but if that is how you like it, then so be it.

If you want me to not call Monterrey "second city" or state that some have given this opinion, then I can only ask the same from Guadalajara, since this is not an official title. However, I would like to note that both cities have been called "second city" in numerous opinions, so, stating that "some have expressed the opinion that GDL/MTY is Mexico's Second City" is not far from facts, and it doesn't have to be non-neutral, if both cities are granted the same leniency (i.e., you can say that Guadalajara is cultural hub, which I contest but not enough to argue about it, if you can say that Monterrey is the economic hub, which, as I have proven, is true... Monterrey is not "a power of the north", a financial and economical decision taken by companies in Monterrey would be felt nationwide.)

So, here is the revised proposal:

Since colonial times and all through the beginning of the 20th century, Puebla was considered the second most important cultural and academic hub. It was the first to industrialize.

However, throughout most of the 20th century, Guadalajara has been traditionally considered as the second the second most important cultural centre hosting prestigious international literary, music and film events and has been selected to be the "Cultural Capital of the Americas" on one occasion. Given its rapid industrialization and population growth, Guadalajara is considered a hub in industrial growth of Western Mexico.

Nonetheless, since the last quarter of the century, Monterrey has engaged in an industrial restructuring that has positioned the city in the international arena as the second most important industrial and financial hub in the country after the capital, with the presence of important transnational conglomerates. Having being labeled as the best city to do business in Latin America by Fortune Magazzine, and enjoying the second highest income per capita in the country, it has also played an important role in the technological and educational modernization of the country.

What do you think? Hari Seldon 17:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

How can you contest Guadalajara's position as the second cultural center in the country? Besides the proposed Forum of Cultures for 2007, what other international cultural event has Monterrey ever hosted (in literature, music, arts and film industry)? Number of pop band records? How about the renown of Tapatío bands and musicians (like Maná, or Carlos Santana)? And while ITESM is internationally renowned and has played an important role in Mexican secondary and tertiary education, it is by no means the only one, and its area of renown is limited to business and engineering, not the humanities and arts, social and natural sciences, economics or medicine. I just want to bring some perspective to some of the "opinions" that are being exposed here. This is not a contest to prove that Monterrey is better, specially given how subjective this thing is. If you read the section on the US does it ever say "Los Angeles contested Chicago's title as the second city"? It merely points out in which areas each city is the second, while acknowledging that the "title" has been a traditional nickname of Chicago.

I had originally opposed the phrase, "some argue that Monterrey is now the second city..." (beside the reasons exposed above), simply because there was no verifiable, reliable and academic source to substantiate the claim. Like I said, an airline tourist agency, a news article not related to the subject but that briefly happens to mention the phrase, and a personal non-statistically random survey are not reliable sources. If you google the phrase (with quotation marks) "second city in Mexico", you will get 47 results of which 41 refer to Guadalajara, 4 to Puebla, 2 to Los Angeles and 1 to Monterrey. These "sources" (similar to the ones you provided) would "proof" that Guadalajara outranks Monterrey. Of course not all these sources are academic, and of course that will never make the title "official", it only makes it "common", or if you will, "traditional" (and hence my proposal said... "Guadalajara has been traditionally considered the second city").

Yet, in doing this little research I found what I had asked you to provide: an academic source. Of the few academic sources that google throws back for "second city in Mexico", some refer to Guadalajara, yet one of them happens to mention (let me cite) that "Monterrey is the second city of Mexico on every barometer of urban modernization". (From JSTOR, a database of academic papers, mostly only accessible through accredited universities, though this particular paper happens to be universally accessible). Whether this "barometer of urban modernization" includes arts and culture, it is debatable, yet at least, amongst the many diverse academic opinions there is one that seems to make a claim about Monterrey. That's a good source. =) We can include it on the proposal.

Therefore, polishing our re-re-revised proposal, adding some new stuff, and making a few spelling and grammar corrections here and there, here is a (hopefully) final version:

Since colonial times and all through the beginning of the 20th century, Puebla was considered the second city in Mexico; it was the first to industrialize and the second most important cultural and academic centre. Throughout the 20th century, Guadalajara has been traditionally considered the second city given its initial rapid industrialization and population growth. Nowadays, it continues to be the second most important cultural centre hosting prestigious international literary, music and film events. It was selected to be the "Cultural Capital of the Americas" on one occasion, and at the same time remains as an important services and industrial hub for Western Mexico and the third in the country. Nonetheless, since the last quarter of the century, Monterrey has engaged in an industrial restructuring that has positioned the city in the international arena as the second most important industrial and financial hub in the country after Mexico City, with the presence of important transnational conglomerates. Having being ranked as the best city to do business in Latin America by Fortune Magazine, and enjoying the second highest income per capita in Mexico, Monterrey has also played an important role in the technological and educational modernization of the country. In (all)some aspects of urban modernization Monterrey is the second city in Mexico.

I believe most of the statements are substantiated now, and if necessary, they could be referenced. It gives full credit to Guadalajara's achievements as well as to Monterrey's achievements, and follows a logical chronological order. What do you guys think? --Alonso 22:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm agree, hopefully this could be the last one, but with this exception: ' I would add litle words like these up^^ (The added words are in black and the deleted words in bracket. To more logical sense. What do you think? (Raveonpraghga)

And about this: Raveonpraghga, your vision on culture is sad and extremely limited. Yet, even if that is your only vision on culture, then Guadalajara would not be the strongest influence, it would be Puebla, or Oaxaca....

Well just for a general information about me I'm from Andalucia an autonomus comunity in the province of sevilla in Spain, i studied Art History and i have been in every single part in Mexico studing its history and development, in my career the terms of culture are highly defined and well supported. You think that my vision of culture is sad and limited every comunity thinks about culture in a diferent way that is the essence of the culture. Of course if Oxxos, Bronco, Gloria Trevi, Pop, Lola la Trailera and control machete means culture for you that is certainly OK that is your culture and there's no doubt about it. I never was disputing your sense of culture, i was arguing about the influence and the culture of the entire mexican nation wich is diferent. I'm open to talk with everybody americans, frenchmen, japanese and understand its culture. I've never said your vision of culture was so poor even when you were trying to claim it. Anyway, i didn´t know that puebla was considered a national cultural icon nor Oaxaca i might have been reading the wrong books my entire life. Of course Puebla, Oaxaca, Merida etc etc etc. could be a honorable representation of Mexico, but trust me (this is nothing but the true) out of Mexico if we would rank the cities as cultural aportation Mty wouldn't be in the 100 fisrt places, this is not a bad intention you should open your eyes to found the real nature that makes our cities powerfull in all senses, if you don't see your lacks they will never be covered. (Raveonpraghga) Greetings

Raveonpraghga, I happened to study organizational culture, and based on that I emmitt my opinions on culture: Of course, Oxxos, Pop and Lola la Trailera signify culture because they define constantly and significantly the general attitudes, values and beliefs of Mexico. In fact, Oxxo has been more influential in shaping the values of Mexico than has been, lets say, Jose Clemente Orozco. Orozco's paintings are thought provoking... for those who have the training to understand him... Instead, Oxxo's ubiquity, prices, and influence on the relations of trading goods and services are BY FAR more influential on language usage, time usage, values and expectations of Mexicans nationwide than Orozco could have possible wished for his own work. If Orozco had been able to transmit his message as succesfully as Oxxo has been able to transmit theirs, Mexico would indeed be today a completely different country.

My contention on the influence of Guadalajara's culture is defined precisely because of the generally accepted definition of culture (focused on values, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors, and less on paintings and other rituals and artifacts) and both city's influence on them, particularly in the last few decades. I can argue that Reforma helped re-shape the way Mexicans understand their media and their politics, but I cannot argue that Mariachi music or tequila helped re-shape the way Mexicans understand anything. Rituals and artifacts help express an identity, but they do not help define it. Monterrey's output, which is comparable to Guadalajara's if you include those things that are influential yet you dismiss so quickly, has been a lot more sucessful in defining present-day Mexico's identity than Guadalajara has been. This can be easily measured with appropriate humanistic reasarch techniques. However, I don't have the resources to do a nationwide research, nor do I have the motivation since research is unadmissible in Wikipedia. However, my educated intuition (educated with my studies and with my exprience working all over the country) lead me to believe that what I say is not without basis.

By the way, J Alonso, what I said above are the basis of my contention against Guadalajara's cultural influence, but since it appears to be the consensus opinion that Guadalajara is "more influential", lets just let it go and not argue about it again...

Your proposal, J Alonso, is agreeable with me, and would only recommend to source the claims. In my experience, sourced claims are better protected against vandalism. Since this endeavor has taken a lot of time already, I would be most interested in avoiding as much future vandalism and reverts as possible after consensus has been reached.

Hari Seldon 23:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Raveonpraghga, I don't agree with the way you edited J Alonso's proposal. You had been asked to not edit other people's comments on talk pages! Additionally, your proposals are unsourced, targeted to make Guadalajara's position look stronger than it is, and are not in honor of POV.

In honor of NPOV, I reproduce J Alonso's proposal, which I support:

Since colonial times and all through the beginning of the 20th century, Puebla was considered the second city in Mexico; it was the first to industrialize and the second most important cultural and academic centre. Throughout the 20th century, Guadalajara has been traditionally considered the second city given its initial rapid industrialization and population growth. Nowadays, it continues to be the second most important cultural centre hosting prestigious international literary, music and film events. It was selected to be the "Cultural Capital of the Americas" on one occasion, and at the same time remains as an important industrial hub for Western Mexico. Nonetheless, since the last quarter of the century, Monterrey has engaged in an industrial restructuring that has positioned the city in the international arena as the second most important industrial and financial hub in the country after Mexico City, with the presence of important transnational conglomerates. Having being ranked as the best city to do business in Latin America by Fortune Magazine, and enjoying the second highest income per capita in Mexico, Monterrey has also played an important role in the technological and educational modernization of the country. In all aspects of urban modernization Monterrey is the second city in Mexico.

Hari Seldon 23:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Raveonpraghga, the reasons I oppose your changes are:

There is no sourced material to say that Guadalajara is the "third" economical hub of the country, other than my own research, which is inadmissable.

There is no sourced material to point to say that Guadalajara is an important services hub. In fact, my own inadmissable research point to the contrary.

J Alonso's reference states that "In all aspects of urban modernization Monterrey is the second city in Mexico." If J Alonso can reference this claim, then I will agree to that... To the PRECISE wordes in the reference. However, I am even more inclined to not call any city "Second City" and let the reader infer this. In any case, the issue is not important enough for me to have a position other than this: either opinions on "Second City" status for all are stated and sourced, or opinions on "Second City" status for all are not stated at all. It would be unadmissible for me to have only Puebla, or only Guadalajara, or only Monterrey, or a combination of two but not the third be called Second city after all the discussin it has caused.Hari Seldon 23:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Ohh, I see your point on the broadest sense of what culture is (and then how Monterrey would fit in). I mean, on the broadest sense of culture, even my XBox is culture. Yet I believe that the concept of "cultural capital" in the sense discussed here (arguably) refers to the arts, humanities and media. But even if you want use the broadest meaning of culture, I wound still be hesitant in saying that Monterrey has redefined cultural values in Mexico. For one thing, Mexico is an extremely diverse and a multicultural country. Moreover, neither pop music nor the Oxxo concept are indigenous to Mexico, but to the United States, and then on the other hand, the rest (like Lola la Trailera and other types of music) might well fit a more socially-stratified or regional subculture that does not necessarily fits in the south. I believe that the Mexican (overall national) identity and values (regardless of social class) and those that distinguish Mexico from the rest of the world, are mariachi, tequila and charrería, and not necessarily the ubiquitousness of Oxxo's. Probably most of the references in relation to the position of Guadalajara within Mexican culture refer precisely to that. But, hey, I am not an expert in sociology or cultural anthropology.

Now, I was rather confused on what you were trying to say with you rather not calling any city "second city". Does that mean that you rather take the new reference about Monterrey out? I mean all claims on "second city" can be referenced (historical for Puebla, cultural for Guadalajara and industrial and financial [and urban modernization] for Monterrey). But maybe I misunderstood your point.

Oh, also, I didn't understand what you were saying by "my inadmissible research". Wikipedia does not accept original claims, that is true, nor original research (say if you conduct your own survey). But I wouldn't consider the research you did on companies traded in the Mexican Stock Market inadmissible, after all they are facts, you are just presenting the facts in a different way. Or, say, if you take the percentage of GDP (or dollar value) that corresponds to services of both Guadalajara and Monterrey, and based on that say that Monterrey is a larger service hub, I think it would be admissible, because again, you are stating facts.

Now, Raveonpraghga, I also oppose your changes. The first two, unless you can reference them, should not be added. The last one (changing all for some) betrays your bias against Monterrey. The reference clearly says so, and if you ask me, personally, I agree, Monterrey is probably the second (and it probably rivals Mexico City) in urban modernization in all aspects. But hey, that's not my opinion, there is a reliable reference. Changing it to "some" might be showing your unwillingness to accept facts that do not necessarily fit your point of view. I wasn't willing to accept personal opinions, but I am more than willing to accept academic papers of experts that say so. I would rather leave the proposal as it is.

--Alonso 02:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

J Alonso, I used the Oxxo example because it was the one provided by Raveonphraghga, but we can find other examples of cultural influence... for instance, the education system. In the broadest sense, yes, even your xBox constitutes culture, and it is incredibly significant: determining the way kids grow up nowadays, I would say it is crucially significant! Yet, xBoxs come from Seattle, not from Monterrey or Guadalajara...

What I meant with rather not calling anyone "Second City", is that as properly sourced as they maybe, these titles are still only opinions. I believe that it is more useful to the user to find only facts in wikipedia and him/she make his/her own opinion based on the facts. Of course, that the opinions have been expressed is a fact, so my only concerned is that such expressions be framed as such in wikipedia. The fact is not that Monterrey or Guadalajara "are second city". The fact is that some consider them to be so.

About research, well, I am just too tired to continue discussing these things, specially when we are so close to a consensus solution. I am not saying that Monterrey is a bigger service hub than Guadalajara. I am merely saying that Guadalajara is not particularly a service hub. The 10 companies from Guadalajara traded in the BMV are: Agro Industrial Exportadora (food transformation), Convertidora Industrial (transformation of plastics), Grupo Azucarero México (sugar production), Grupo Aeroportuario del Pacífico (Service: managing the Guadalajara City Airport), Grupo Embotelladoras Unidas (production of softdrinks), Grupo Financiero FINAMEX (Service: Financial), HILASAL Mexicana (producer of paper towels), Consorcio Hogar (Home building), Grupo Simec (steel production). As you can see, very few companies are in the service industries (2 of 10). Most of the services that Mexicans use come from Mexico City, and very few from other parts of the country.

Hari Seldon 04:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Again i think i was misunderstood, let's put it simple the WHOLE modernization of the country do not correspond exclusively to Monterrey i hope you can understand that, for example the first heart transplant in the country was made in Guadalajara, and the fisrt craneum-encephalic surgery, the first comercial center in Latinamerica, the fisrt zoo in he continent with a preservation of animals close to extinction, The fisrt private university, the invention of the color tv, in the present is the only city with node highways system in the country, the first in have prjects like a JVC Center, Torrena, Centro cultural Universitario, or Leon who is the first in having a railroad modern system, or Puebla to be the fisrt in renovate the transport servives in the country for a faster economical developmnet and the recent telescope (the most powerfull in the world) as if Mexico city, so again the modernization of the country is not an exclusive matter of Mty has big contributions in SOME as same as Guadalajara that is why is better the word SOME and im not based in my opinion but in the actual facts.

And please DO NOT confuse the literal way of culture with the real way of culture, like an example when somebody says "the art of kill" is a very literal way to use the word art, wich doesn't mean kill has a real artistic character, the same way with culture, when somebody says: "Shopping culture" the word culture is being used in a literal way, cuz shopping doesn;t have a real cultural character. In one word: the culture is not on sale nor you can buy it

How can you compare the CHROMA festival, FIL, International Mariachi festival, the international contempo dance festival, International film festival, and city that has host so many international fairs like the Cumbre de las naciones unidas, asamblea eucaristica, or being the sub-host of music festivals such as loveparade, mutek or Sonar. How you dare to compare Jose Clemente orozco with an oxxo, any example could not make a sense for that fundaments. Why you try to reject all the time the succes matters of Guadalajara City? why do you try to rest value to the unrefutable cultural influence, why you try to give sense to your own fundaments or to your own city fundaments when we are talking about a whole country?

Again GRUPO REFORMA-EL NORTE is not an influencial media group, do not confuse presence with influence, grupo reforma have presence in some cities in the country but i will repeat you that they only have influence in Nuevo Leon.

I'm kind of tired too, that Hari is trying to dispute all the time fundaments that try to look Mty the best in all senses, i will repeat you if you can't see your lacks you will never cover them.

Why you should be proud about a government that keep the economic wealth of the city in very selected cores of richness, and the rest of the young people that can't afford TEC or ITESM are envoloved in gangs copy of american subcultures cause they have not chance for people who can't afford private schools in Mty, and learning material "culture" feeling proud to adopt american modernization systems wich spoils the litle identity that Mty could have like city, people who believe that superstores, pop music, pop group movies and gosip magazines are the most prod identity of culture of a nation, and that justify the drug trafficking, the organized deliquency with a page in a bussines magazine claiming to be a safe city, there are thing to work like in all cities in the world like the exaggereted polution of the metropolitan area, the really bad transport services and urban roads or the way the industralization is ending with the natural reserves of the state.

As you see your city is not perfect to anothers eyes, a litle sense of reality would be really good from people from Mty. that have an exaggerated regionalism product of a imperial-capitalist government (PRI) who has governed the state for a long time.

Monterrey has never been called Second city but the regiomontano people motivated for a strong regionalism and that's it.

Fisrt avoid claiming that Mty es the second most important metro area in the country in the principal article of the city. Alonso you contributions have been really important to settle this opinion, who in the rest of Mexico is a fact the position of second city but particularly in that city called Mty they prefer self-call the city as the second. My contributions to this matter are done, i don't have on mind to keep arguing with a person tha prefer to see his environment like the best probably cause he doesn't know other. I have to travel, my contributions will a litle less in Wikipedia but not in this article. Good Wishes (Raveonpraghga)

Yet again, Raveonpraghga, this is another example of you not reading the arguments of others. Apparently you didn't notice the fact that J Alonso has a source for the Monterrey quote which apparently is so controversial to you.

The WHOLE modernization of the country do not correspond exclusively to Monterrey. No one is advancing that hypothesis or opinion. I am simply stating that Monterrey's contribution of that modernization was higher than Guadalajara's. There are many other non-regios, Mexicans and non-Mexicans, businessmen, academicians, and others who agree with that conclusion.

The first commercial center in Latin America? Where did you get that information?

How about the first private museum in Mexico? Or the first private hospital, or the first non-religious medical school (in Mexico)?

The invention of the color TV a Guadalajara invention?! Now thats just laughable! Color TV was invented by Guillermo Gonzalez Camarena in Mexico City while working for XHGC. His invention was so succesful in Mexico that he sold his research to an American company who patented it... Indeed, what an achievement!

The first in projects like (list of projects)... You obviously don't get out of Guadalajara much... Have you even been to other cities within Mexico at all?

Art is part of culture, not WHOLE culture. It would be like saying that all that matters in soccer is the forwards... Well, goals are nice, but if no one is defending, you are certainly going to lose the game!... Art is an expression of culture, and culture is values, beliefs and attitudes.

And so, what is so wrong with comparing the achievements of Jose Clemente Orozco with the achievements of Oxxo in matters of culture? Is it that your narrow, proud, view don't allow you to look beyond your conceptual (possible regionalistic) bubble?

"Do not confuse presence with influence", you say when talking about Reforma. I would encourage you to read the recent history of journalism in the country, and would also encourage you to take this, your advise, when considering cultural output and economic "development" of Guadalajara...

I come to you and present arguments, sourced material, and research. All that you can offer, Raveonpraghga, are the same unsourced opinions that do not take into consideration the arguments of others. It is not my fault that Monterrey is better than Guadalajara (or rather, it is not my fault that I've done a thorough job proving it while you have just written too much with low quality and no sources).

"Why you should be proud about a government that keep the economic wealth of the city in very selected cores of richness", you ask... First of all, is not "Why you should", it is "Why should you"... I am beginning to get very tired of your lack of english writing skills... Secondly, your implication that Monterrey's government does that demonstrates the complete lack of understanding you have of the city. In Monterrey, we believe that wealth is not a right, it is a privilege that has to be earned. over 55% of ITESM students are granted PRIVATE scholarships, and only a handful pay the price. The number of students with scholarships at ITESM is higher than that required by law. ITESM, at least in Monterrey, believes that in order to study in that institution, being able to pay is not enough. I graduated from ITESM, and most of my class and friends graduated with a scholarship. The "very selected cores of richness" that you menction account for over 60% of the metropolitan area's territory. It doesn't seem very selective to me, rather evidence of a higher GDP per capita with a deep problem of a poor periphery that is common to any third world city. But I would like to see Mexico City or Guadalajara claim (with sources) that 60% of its territorial area accounts for high standard of living population.

"Feeling proud of adpoting american modernization systems"... Well, here again you fail to understand the value of the city. ITESM is the one being copied by American systems. Same goes for some business practices too... Monterrey's influence extend beyond Mexican borders. There is nothing wrong with adpoting styles that are better. It is better if you innovate beyond! Monterrey's phase of "adpoting" is now moving to the phase of "innovating"... Guadalajara, on the other hand, seems to be still in the "I am too proud to change" phase...

"Product of a imperial-capitalist government (PRI) who has governed the state for a long time." Now that just angers me. Monterrey was fighting for democracy while Guadalajara was still clapping to Lopez Portillo. Again, no insight on the way Monterrey politics work. You don't even know the way the city's government is distributed by party or has been distributed for a long time! You don't even recognize the contributions that Monterrey gave the PAN, ignoring completely that Manuel J. Clouthier was educated at ITESM (and probably funded by Monterrey business)!

After reading your comments I find appalling how little you understand the way Monterrey works, and how much opinions you can make without any serious research. I do agree that the Monterrey style might not be appealing to everyone (it certainly is not appealing to you, but in great part it is because you understand so little of it). You ask that we "avoid claiming that Mty is the second most important metro area"... Well, there is a source to back that up. What you are asking is that we conceal the source to satisfy your own regionalistic pride. I don't see why my regionalistic pride is so wrong while yours is so brave... Indeed, I would respect it more if you provided sources or research to back it up!

Hari Seldon 10:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is going nowhere. I believe we have a decent proposal, backed up by serious sources; we are not stating opinions, were are stating facts (even though the "title" itself is subjective). Can we just focus on discussing whether we accept the proposal or not, instead of discussing about "regional" pride? I consensus is not reached, we can turn to voting (it is still acceptable if consensus fails). I would rather have us three (since only the three of us are participating) say "we accept [or not] the proposal", and then leave all other regional discussions to our talk pages. --Alonso 16:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I am already in agreement over your proposal, J Alonso. I've only asked that the paragrapgh be referenced in the main page, because referenced sections are harder to vandalize. Hari Seldon 17:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Its been days since any activity here... Whats going on? Hari Seldon 17:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I've been waiting for Raveonpraghga to respond. I didn't want to insert the proposal and then have him come back and complain that he didn't agree to it. But, at the same time he did say he was not going to contribute anymore to this article. Let's wait 7 days starting from his last intervention. By then, we can assume he will not contribute anymore and we will insert the proposal. --Alonso 17:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds prudent to me... Hari Seldon 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi everybody i'm new on wikipedia i was looking for the second city in Spain and i found this, i born in Monterrey and i´ve studied in guadalajara so i have a bit of knowledge about the topic, i hope it could work for you guys. First of all, it is truth that Guadalajara was the second most important city in the colony times, a person mentioned before that it was Puebla, but Puebla was the second most important city in the New Spain let´s rememeber that Guadalajara didn´t belong to the New Spain but to the New Galicia Kingdom, wich were two diferent kingdoms with diferent ¨governors¨(Hernan Cortes and Juan De Onate respectively) depending by the King of Spain. The new Galicia was the second most important kigdom out of spain in America and Guadalajara was the second most important founded city in those times, and a very potential contrincant for the already super developed New Spain's capital wich always represented a competition for both, and they were invloved in more than 3 historical wars, one of the last wars was between the revolution and the independence where the take out big part of the territory of the kigdom included Nayarit, Colima,Sinaloa, San Luis potosi, aguascalientes,Zacatecas, Marías Island ,Isabel Island, Tres Marietas and the Farallón La Peña to make them independent comunities until the independence war, being Nayarit one of the most important teriitories of the New Galicia and the last to become a state in the nation. It's true that a lot of big contributions have come from Guadalajara, (even the color tv was discovered by a tapatian in Mexico city)about the cultural importance it is actually not a matter of discuse, believe or not Guadalajara is the most important cultural hub in Mexico for having the same or even more number of cultural events in the city (if you compare the magnitude and the importance of both cities definitly Guadalajara could be the winner) and also hosting the most important cultural events in the country, in cultural matters is a fact that Monterrey is not a national competitor. But Monterrey is a very special point of industrialization, education, comerce, economy and modernity in the north of the country as well as GDL is in the west. The position that represent each city in the country is significant. For raveinpraga or whatever it is , let me tell you that there are a lot of programs In MTY for involve young people into school, we know we have polution, transport, city-identity, gangs, nature destruction , drug traffic problems etc. but hopefully step by step we are working on that to become in a perfect city. For hari Seldon or whatever it is, people from guadalajara is called tapatio not guadalajarians.

Well hope it could work see you guys

Regiabeauty

First of all, I know that people from Guadalajara are called Tapatíos. I was just having fun...

Now, 68.229.63.236, your novelty into wikipedia seems quite interesting, as it appears you have been active since Nov 2nd, editing this, and other articles, comitting general acts of vandalism (destroying page content) and other edits in the Talk pages of User Raveonpragha, User Nethency, and User Dina, the articles, Guadalajara Jalisco, Lorena Ochoa, Pet Shop Boys, and Susana Dosamontes.

Indeed, it is quite a history, and apparently much more reliable tan the sweet little stories you tell us about the history of Mexico. However, since you are new to Wikipedia, I must inform you that there are general policies that are in effect when editing. Some of the most important are source your claims and assume good faith. Now, since your IP may be used by more than one person, I will assume good faith and assume that you are indeed new and that all those other edits were not done by you. So, I'll give you a chance and appreciate your comment, if you can source your caims, (which look suspiciously similar to those of Raveonpragha... but I'll ignore that for now)...

Now, here is a small answer to part of your arguments:

You say about Monterrey that "we know we have pollution, transport, city identity, gangs, nature destruction, and drug traffic problems"... Well, you say it as if Guadalajara or Mexico City did not had these problems! (Well, first of all, City Identity is a very funny member of that short list)... Recognize that Mexico is a Third World Country, and all cities HAVE these third world problems, and yes, of course the city of Monterrey, and all other Mexican cities, are working very hard to correct these problems. In the particualr case of Monterrey, the government of the State spends a lot of money in reaching out for gangs, and getting them involved in the community through arts and sports. Young-people gang violence is not a big problem in Monterrey as it is in other cities. On the other hand, drug trafficking violence is a very big problem, though a recent one, and hopefully a short-lived one. Since you have lived in Monterrey, you probably now that the Governor of Nuevo Leon recently advanced to Federal circles, like the National Conference of Governors, a Security Plan that would, hopefully, stop drug violence in the country, and particularly, in Nuevo Leon.

I hope you are a long term, honest, constructive contributor. Hari Seldon 10:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Hseldon. And I will like to add that you need to review a little more about history. Nueva Galicia was not a separate kindgom. New Spain ecompassed Nueva Galicia, Reino de Guatemala (or Captaincy General of Guatemala), Captaincy General of Cuba, Captaincy General of the Philippines and the provinces of Nuevo Santander, Nueva Viscaya, (later on the Captaincy General of Yucatán) and Nuevo Reino de León and the territories of California and New Mexico. All of these were governed by the viceroy of the New Spain.There were only 3 viceroyalties (virreinatos) within the Spanish Empire: New Spain, Peru, and La Plata. Other provinces, regions, captaincies and "kingdoms" (which were ruled by "governors" not kings) were under the supervision and administration of one of these three viceroyalties. No viceroy was ever assigned to Nueva Galicia, because it was not a viceroyalty, it beloned to the New Spain. Puebla, was indeed, the second city of the virreinato of New Spain. --Alonso 16:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Ohh, and the last state to be admitted to the Union was not Jalisco. All New Spain territories (except Cuba and the Philippines) formed the independent Mexican Empire. When the republican government was established, the CG of Guatemala (i.e. Central America) seceded. --Alonso 16:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, i came back, alons@: You should review the comments i've posted again and review history of the New Spain as well, i said that Nayarit was the last area of the New Galicia to become a state, and i said that area and some more i mentioned before were part of the New Galicia, the most important and capital city of the province of the New Galicia kingdom was Guadalajara a kingdom with some autonomy by rights of the new Spain wich means New Spain was the official viceroyaltie of Spain but as hariseledonio ask me to source my claims or something source your claims about Puebla and source your claims about The New Galicia kingdom had not autonomy in the New Spain 1 if yo speak spanish i was just reading this, wich is kind of interesting. I found that the main bisphoric of the New Spain was settle in New Galicia as well. Bye regiabeauty

I've read the article, it makes no menction that Nueva Galacia was a kingdom separate from the Viceroyalty of New Spain. "Some autonomy" may constitute the same degree of autonomy that present-day states have with respect to a Federal Government. In the same category, the Nuevo Reyno de León, administered by Monterrey, probably had the same degree of autonomy as "Nueva Galacia"..

I would ask you that before you ask about sourcing claims, as a new comer to this long discussion, please review all of the arguments and sources we have previously provided. You'll see that J Alonso has provided more than enough sources to back up that claim. Additionally, J Alonso is not contesting that "Nueva Galacia" had no autonomy in the new spain, merely that it was surrogate to the authority of Mexico City, as was all the other administrative regions of the Viceroyalty...

Additionally, New Spain had many bishoprics... That one was settled in Nueva Galacia is hardly any indication of anything.

But most importantly, what is your point with all of this?!

Finally, if you speak english, I would ask you to write adequately.

J Alonso, how about tomorrow we update the article page and end this discussion?

Hari Seldon 21:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The point is that monterrey is not the second city of Mexico and you need to source your claims fisrt not about PIB, GDP, etc, you have to source an official text wich claims very specifically that Monterrey is the second city in Mexico. You have posted many contributions with no official sources, based on tourism agencies web sites and webpages FROM MONTEREY, the discussion is not settle until you give a good reason why should the article include a "self-title" to this mexican city? I've been having problems in another webpages when i try to explain that Mty is he second city, nobody is agree, be cause there is not an official reason to say that. In many countries the highest economy hub is not specifically the fisrt or second city. This discussion had no sense since the begining trying to fight between two really diferent cities. What for? When you found an official source to claim that Mty could be a potential second city this discussion will proceed. Kisses regiabeauty

I will if you source an official, government edict that pronounces any city in Mexico "second city". The current consensus is that "Second City" is not an official title. Please, CAREFULLY read and consider all arguments PREVIOUSLY presented. Hari Seldon 00:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

You please read all aurguments previously presented, and show me an official web page that claims that MTY is "second city" in Mexico, or like i said show me wich of your voluptuary arguments is an official argument, and not a tourism agency webpage from Monterrey. And consider that if you source your claims we can make an agreement. Like regio you should be proud of the things we've done as city and we shouldn't fight for a title, that dosn't belong to us. cheers! Regiabeaty

Regiabeauty:

• I do ask you to read all the discussion above. By reviewing your arguments, it seems you haven't. I will repeat, for the sake of closing this argument, some of the points already made. "Second city" is not an official title anywhere in this world; it is not a title granted by any government institution or international organization. It is, merely, a title that reflects the position of a city of a country based on its characteristics, and for the most part a title that has some tradition within a country. You will never find an official web page claiming anything about Monterrey anymore that you will find one claiming it about Guadalajara; simply, because it is not an official title of either city. At most it would be a traditional title. Even though it is traditional, or colloquial if you will, it is based on very specific characteristics, which amongst many, include economic power and today economic power is measured in GDP.
• Secondly, the agreement was settled amongst the participants of the discussion. Of course, you are invited to participate and even challenge the agreement. Yet, it is not ethical to challenge it if you have not at least read the discussion above and the several verifiable sources provided; otherwise we would be repeating the discussion over and over again, with no end, every time a newly-registered user comes and repeats arguments that have been already discussed before.
• Thirdly, if you had actually read the proposal you would have find out that the title is not given to any city at all. Nobody is saying "Monterrey is officially the second city". Nope. It acknowledges the historically proven fact (please see sources) about Puebla (and please do review a little bit of history about the New Spain); it also acknowledges the traditional position of Guadalajara as the second city in the 20th century, and it acknowledges Monterrey's current position as a strong city, in many aspects, stronger than Guadalajara. It makes claims that are substantiated in papers (like "urban modernization"), yet it never emphatically and explicitly assigns an "official" title, because there is no official title for any city at all. The reader will find a historical title, a traditional title, and a current strong city with a strong position that may well be considered a second city. Simple. Please read the proposal.
• Since your arguments present no substantiated challenge to the proposal, I would say we proceed, as planned, an insert the text into the article on Dec 16 (7 days after Ravenprapgha's last contribution). You might continue to challenge it, and we will continue to discuss it here on the talk page. If you present important information that needs to be corrected and added we will change the text. But if you present false (and unreferenced) interpretations of history, they will not be added.

• --Alonso 04:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

December 16 is here. I am adding the subsection to the article. Lets continue to discuss details, but I think we arrived to a very productive consensus solution! Hari Seldon 16:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazil

Seems odd to me that Brasilia, the capital, isnt mentioned. The idea that Sao Paulo is the first city and Rio the second could equally be swapped around, certainly Rio is the more famous city internationally. I have removed Brazil, we need this one to be thoroughly sourced if it is to be re-included, it strikes me that it should be Brasilia and Rio as first and second and while that doesnt do justice to Sao Paulo perhaps we shouldnt include Brazil in this article, SqueakBox 17:27, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Removing Brazil won't do, as every country has a second city. If you think Brasilia's non-omission is particularly controversial (I don't, in the same way that I don't think Canberra's omission is controversial), the thing to do would be to flesh out a section for Brazil. Matthew 18:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I have swapped Rio, far and away the most famous city in Brazil, for Sao Paulo, marginally the biggest, SqueakBox 19:53, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert in Brazil, but as far as I know, Sao Paolo is the economic and cultural center of Brazil. Even if Rio is more famous or widely known abroad, that wouldn't make it the first city, would it?--Dúnadan 07:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

We ought to have sources for this. Rio is the former capital, and my understanding was that it was more of a cultural center than Sao Paulo. But I am also not an expert. Can we get some sources cited on this? john k 21:32, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments left on Second city

Moving these here from the main article on behalf of User:89.241.149.98:

Can't really edit, but I was born in Manchester, I have lived for 10 years in Bimingham and have returned to Manchester. Without a shadow of a doubt, Manchester is NOT the UK's second city. Birmingham is. And as a Mancunian, the above entry in Wikipedia is quite wrong. Manchester is smaller than Birmingham as a city and also smaller than Bradford, Leeds, liverpool, Sheffield, bristol, Edinburgh,Glasgow....need I go on? User:89.241.149.98 19 December 2006

Isn't Berne the Capital of Switzerland? User:89.241.149.98 19 December 2006

Also isn't Lyon the second city of FRance despite Marseille being larger? User:89.241.149.98 19 December 2006

[edit] France

As the anon above says, I have always seen Lyon listed as France's second city, for historical reasons, if nothing else. And while the city proper of Marseille is larger than Lyon proper, the Lyon urban and metro areas are considerably larger than those of Marseille. john k 21:34, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gambia

Are we really listing two suburbs of Banjul as the first and second cities of The Gambia? That seems rather perverse. john k 21:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

If you have better, sourced information, you are welcome to modify the article. Hari Seldon 22:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The current information is not sourced. I contest it, and suggest removal until a source can be provided. john k 16:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concept of page

It seems to me that this whole page is ridiculous. There is no agreed definition of a second city - it is a totally subjective concept that just provides an excuse for lots of settlements to have a slanging match. Couldn't we just put a brief outline in that 'second city' is merely a boast some cities like to make that is impossible to verify, and delete all the lists? Otherwise it won't be too long before we have pages of arguments on what Austria's fourteenth city is, and should the number of ice-cream parlours be given more weight than the position of the local football team.....--86.31.225.220 20:18, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Being the second largest city or conurbation is hardly an unverifiable boast. john k 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

But look at the first line of the article: 'The second city of a country is the city that is (or was) the second-most important, usually after the capital or first city, according to some criteria.'

If this article is about the second-biggest cities, it should be renamed and rewritten, and the problems (despite ambiguities over what defines a city's boundaries) should be resolvable. But as the definition stands, its completely unverifiable, and pure POV what constitutes a second city.--86.31.225.220 21:52, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the article is very problematic. john k 22:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. Most of the page looks like someone's "original" research. Pavel Vozenilek 14:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- first of all, the "criteria" for a second city is totally ambiguous. A second city could be based upon anything-- second city in terms of population, popularity, economic importance... there is no way to officially determine a "second city". The only example I can think of is something like this. In the US, Washington state, the capitol is Olympia, but by far the most popular and often visited city is Seattle, Another beef I have with this article is the US section: "In the traditional use of the term second city, there are only three cities that could be considered: Chicago, Washington and Los Angeles." "Washington"? Washington D.C.? What about New York? --Smh219 07:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

New York City is the FIRST city of the United States, at least as far as this page suggests. Therefore it's ineligible to be the Second city. The only criteria upon which NYC isn't America's "first" city would be politically (Washington takes that criteria hands down). In every other respect, NYC is first - the basis for Chicago's nickname is that it was the "second" city to NYC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.235.102 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If a "second city" is hardly an unverifiable boast (on all criteria: population, economics, etc.), then why have dozens of users wasted thousand of bytes discussing that X is the second city of W and not Z, ad nauseam? --the Dúnadan 18:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree too - this is an article about a pub debate and is completely unencyclopedic. What next, articles on Best Clint Eastwood film and Most important European country? Demograph 21:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Czech Republic & Brno

I have yet to hear anyone in the Czech Republic to talk about Brno as "second city". While it is second the largest city the concept of "second city" as presented on here in the article is unknown among Czechs. Pavel Vozenilek 14:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Historically, during Austria-Hungary (late 19th century, early years of 20th c.) the German speaking minority in Czech lands (later called Sudeten Germans) saw Liberec (Reichenberg) as the counterpart to the mostly Czech inhabited Prague. This may be considered, up to some point, as the past "second city".

I guess most of the page was created mechanically, w/o knowledge of the locality. If this page is kept then every listed "second city" should also provide sufficient context information. Pavel Vozenilek 15:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United Kingdom

Followed on from Talk:Second city of the United Kingdom.

[edit] 'Request for Rational Debate' and 'Towards a Consensus'

In an attempt to reach a consensus, how about we:

• WP:AFD or Redirect the Second city of the United Kingdom (as suggested by Mike33)
• Use the following text (as suggested above by Ngb):

"Birmingham has generally been described as the second city of the UK since around the First World War. (refs to Hopkins, news media) More recently, it has been claimed that Manchester deserves the distinction (refs to poll) and has occasionally been described as the second city in published media. (refs to news media)

Since the formation of the UK, Bristol (ref), Glasgow (ref), and Liverpool (ref) have all also been seen as the second city, and indeed Glasgow was often described as the second city of the entire British Empire in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All three cities were prominent because of their economic importance, especially the central role which they played in overseas trade, and are still some of the largest cities in the country."

All opinions more than welcomed - please lets all work towards getting this stabailised soon. Sprigot 20:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This text is almost exactly what it used to be and nobody had a problem with it back then until you and other users came on with their "third city" rubbish which lead to the article becoming the mess it is. Therefore this text is fine so long as refs are balanced in numbers and not excessive as they already are. Although I dispute the wording of Birmingham has, it should be Birmingham had as it currently implies it still is generally considered the second city but then contradicts itself by saying Manchester now is often thought as. XAndreWx 21:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are wrong. In the same poll that that Manchester had a majority for second city, it also had a majority for third city. And most people round the world reckon Manchester as the UK's third city, which I really think it should be content with, as in fact, Manchester ranks as the ninth city in the UK in terms of size, even being beaten by Liverpool. TharkunColl 23:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This article (like it's UK sister page) should be Deleted. What'll be the next pages? Third city, Fourth..., Fifth..., Sixth... etc. Like the UK version, this page could be a 'battleground' for editors (and who needs that). GoodDay 23:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it appears TharkunColl has travelled the world asking the opinion of everyone on where they think is the second city of the UK. You must speak plenty of languages then to have travelled around so much... You can't seriously make claims that "most people round the world reckon Manchester as the UK's third city" a few Asian news services saying it does not mean that is the world's opinion. The media does not control the world. XAndreWx 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Second city of the United Kingdom is a clear elaboration of Second city and as such it is perfectly acceptable to have the main points etirated on Second city and have a Main article type banner there pointing towards Second city of the United Kingdom. As far as the quality of the articles go, I leave it your hands, there is however no convention stipulating it should be merged into. When a section of an article increases and becomes the bulk of it a demerging occurs. I know you guys are discussing the veracity of Manchestaar or Brummingham being the second largest cities (whilst I'd be more concerned at them being poor choices of residence /endhumour) but the solution was to merge and as such I thought I'd provide some input. Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons 14:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Zealand.

A few things.

First, under the Australia section it says Canberra is comparable in importance/size to Wellington is New Zealand, which is a total misrepresentation as Wellington is far more important culturally/whatever to NZ and is very nearly the second largest city population wise.

Second, in the table of "other countries" it lists Christchurch as the "second city" of New Zealand, a claim that is highly debatable so I'd suggest either changing it to read "Christchurch or Wellington" or adding an additional section on NZ to the main article.

202.0.43.162 07:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Finland

Turku got two alternatives Oulu and Tampere. Which I deleted. And this is why: Even though Tampere and Oulu are growing cities with high profiled science, research and education as well as Turku, there are also things that makes Turku more nationally significant. Not only the history, but the fact that Turku really is a port of Finland being a second most significant logistic hub. Tampere and Oulu much more self focused though important of course, but Turku still holds several national traditions and is also center of Finland in religious sense, so there are several reasons to say that Turku is second city of Finland, and all reasons aren't even sorted out here.--jertique I (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Monterrey links

Near as I can tell, the IP address is right in removing the second portion of the Monterrey section. The two links cited as sources do not work. One says "no page found", the other is apparently a newspaper archive, "not authorized". With no link, there is no citation, and that part of the section has to go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason that User 170.131.131.253 has been reverted previously is because of repeated failures to explain the removal of content when asked. It is a very welcome change that the editor is now including a reason for content removal in their edit summaries as this will allow other editors to verify the changes as genuine. Road Wizard (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

He was trying to give reasons today and was still being reverted by editors who didn't check the links. I agree he should have been clearer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)