Talk:Caput Mundi/Archives/2012

Caput Mundi

In admission? Is that supposed to be "in addition"? -md 84.203.33.232 (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Washington D.C

I have removed the part about Washington DC because to put it simply it is not a Caput Mundi and was not sourced. Alexsau1991 (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

London

"Capital of the British Empire, London, United Kingdom was seen as the heir apparent of Rome." London isn't the capital of anything. Westminster is the capital of the United Kingdom. Westminster is not London; Westminster is part of the defunct County of London, of which London is another part. Ime curious to know who saw London as "the heir apparent of Rome". I have lived in London (County not city) for over 40 years, and I have never come across the idea that London or Westminster or the County of London or Greater London is the heir apparent of Rome. If anything, there is some degree of hostility to Romanity, and London's architects lookked to Greece for inspiration. I reckon the statement is plain false, and the section should be re-written. Froggo Zijgeb (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are 15 bloody refs cited in the London section.... It seems like someone trying to make a WP:POINT. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradictory statements

The article says that London has the most tourists each year (with 15 million per annum), but then the New York one says we get 40 million. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Well I think both are wrong as I'm sure Paris has the most number of tourists. I'll see if I can dig any sources out. Zarcadia (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I think this is all a matter of civic pride and Londoners wanting their city to look better than our awesome city (fifteen references kind of hammers that idea home). Hmmmm, Zarcadia, the Scuba thing on your user page makes me think you might have a bias in favour of France and specifically Paris! (Only kidding =p) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 18:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Je n'ai aucune idée de ce que vous parlez! ;) Zarcadia (talk) 19:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ma français est très mal maintenant, mais je te comprends. =p I definitely think though that the references on London need to be trimmed. It's quite frankly embarassing that someone feels the need to put so many. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, have removed the following:

http://www.cwclondon.co.uk/FinancialCapital.aspx - dead link

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard-business/article-23754577-worries-lurk-as-london-takes-world-number-one-finance-spot.do - same content as independent.ie source

http://www.zyen.com/GFCI/GFCI%208.pdf - sourced twice Zarcadia (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a good start. I think three refs at most is good, though we're in no hurry ofc. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 20:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This was put back.... Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Wall Street

"sometimes regarded as" -- this thing in relation to Wall Street qualifies as weasel wording. Right? Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It's as reasonable a solution you're going to get; saying that New York is the financial capital is incorrecr and quite honestly it's embarrassing that New Yorkers still cling to this notion. It is sometimes regarded as the financial capital, but the general consensus is that London holds this crown; therefore, we can either leave the article as it is or simply remove New York's claim altogether.

Hardly an unreasonable proposal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.164.147 (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

And it's all well and good to try and purge weasel words when they don't add anything to the article, but in this case it really is the best solution. The original state of the article was unacceptable as the article contradicted itself, so if this too is unacceptable then perhaps including the notion that New York is the financial capital was an unwise move to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.164.147 (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The issue is the use of that word. Also, you're sure that you're being a Southhamptonite has nothing to do with those views you expressed? Especially this idea of London holding the title as a general concensus? I'm a New Yorker, and I realise a lot of this on everyones' part is a bit of civic pride, but I still think that statement is a stretch. And the later statement about New York not being one is just incorrect. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 01:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The use of the word is as reasonable as you're going to get without simply removing your edit altogether.

Clearly it doesn't. I'm not even from Southampton (just currently here) but I'm not a Londoner either. As such, I am considerably less biased than you.

I think it's quite clear that London holds the concensus. New York certainly doesn't, that's for sure.

I never said New York wasn't A financial capital, I merely said it wasn't THE financial capital. Those are two completely different statements.

And for the record I am more than willing to come to an agreement and say that both cities claim to be the financial capital, it's just that having such contradictory statements in the article was highly unencyclopaedic and so I made a controversial edit first to get the ball rolling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.164.147 (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, considering that you went to the trouble to find out my current location, I'm sure you'll excuse me for going to bed! I'll continue this in the morning, hopefully we can come to a reasonable conclusion tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.164.147 (talk) 02:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It is bad to have sometimes in that use though, that's the issue.

Being from NYC doesn't make me biased, lol. That's rather fallacious to say that just because someone is from a place it does automatically mean they are likely to have more of a bias in favour of it (many of those who think NYC is great aren't even from here). My only interest is in having it be accurate by the sources. My point about your possible bias was somewhat reinforced by your reinsertion of the contradictory statement about London and tourism.

"It's as reasonable a solution you're going to get; saying that New York is the financial capital is incorrecr and quite honestly it's embarrassing that New Yorkers still cling to this notion. It is sometimes regarded as the financial capital, but the general consensus is that London holds this crown; therefore, we can either leave the article as it is or simply remove New York's claim altogether." - the way I understood this is that you were saying only a few people, specifically New Yorkers still think of it as such. If you meant that it is only one of two, you should have been more clear, especially given the fact that you say the general consensus (among who exactly, btw?) is that London is the financial capital.

That's fine to have them as both as claimants to this title, but it would be best to have input from other editors.

Night, though if you don't want people to find your location, best to get an account. =p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 02:10, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes is the key word there. Sometimes it would be bad to use it like this, but not this time. lol. I didn't say it automatically made you unreasonably biased, but it undeniably DOES make you biased - and FAR more so than someone from Southampton. If you claim that I am being biased towards London simply due to me being in Southampton, then you are FAR more biased than me towards NY due to you being from NY. All I said is that I am less biased than you, so please leaern to read.

It is undeniably true that, if someone is from the city in question, they are more likely to be biased towards it. Not automatically, but the chances are there - and considering that you've written above that you think that the Londoners are trying hard to compete with your so-called "awesome city", in your own words, you undeniably ARE. It is therefore a PERFECTLY reasonable statement.

My only interest is in the accuracy of the sources. You, however, are quite clearly biased, not only due to the fact that you believe this is all about trying to compete with your so-called "awesome city" (shot yourself in the foot with that comment if you're trying to pretend you're not biased towards NY), but also because you're too stubborn to even comprehend what I've said about tourism. Sorry, but WHERE do the statements contradict each other?? New York gets more total visitors, but London gets more INTERNATIONAL visitors, which is a better indicator of which city is the most desired location. Your stubborn and blinded denial of this, as well as your ignorant assertion that this statement is contradictory, assures me of the fact that you are indeed biased towards the subject. My inclusion of this proven information improves the quality of the article, and your obvious desire to have certain facts about London omitted does nothing to reinforce your argument, but instead, reinforces mine.

I don't think it's just New Yorkers, or only a handful, who think NY is still THE financial capital. There are many reliable sources that still push the idea through, and it still has a claim in some respects. However, most sources seem to point towards London being THE financial capital, and many even vehemently claiming that NY has lost its crown. I know that sources with the same information aren't to be used, but there's about a dozen reliable sources saying the same thing over and over again. And to be fair, I did say THE financial capital, but I realise I didn't stress it too much. I can see why you might think I was denying NY being a centre of finance at all, so fair enough.

Ah good! Alright then, I propose that the article is editted to say that both London and New York have claims to being the financial capital (in their respective sections, that is). Wikipedia's all about compromise after all, so I'm happy with that.

And I don't mind really, it's something I might've done in the same situation, so no worries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.164.147 (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The objection which multiple editors (including this one) appear to have is the apparent distinction between the treatment of the citations supporting London versus New York as THE financial centre by those editors apparently favouring London (again, they will claim neutrality, but the words used don't suggest that). Speaking of which, "suggests" carries a positive connotation, while "claimed" or "claims" carries a comparatively negative connotation. Likewise, "Many" implies scores or hundreds, while "several" is more accurate, implying a number that could be approximated by our fingers on both hands. Hence, while editor 82.20.58.89 has re-worded the text more neutrally than editor 152.78.164.171 (and his probable other IP accounts differing only in the last digits), further changes regarding these terms are being made to achieve a truly neutral and identical balance as well as cohesive text.

By God, though, 6 and 12 references to support a point? I believe this is excessive and not appropriate. Two or three should suffice for each city, at most five. If TWELVE references are needed to support a point, the author clearly doesn't have confidence in his point (or has misintentions). Wikipedia should actually have a policy specifically against this, if WP:POINT does not already cover it as such. I am quite honestly not impressed with any of the references supporting either city's claim, save possibly for the latest reference favouring New York as the financial centre (the Indian financial portal reference), as they seem generally biased and outdated.

Finally, truth be told, London has forex and not much else; New York leads in stocks, hedge funds, and private equity, and has regained its lead globally in 2011 in IPOs. And if Deutsch Boerse and NYSE combine, London (even with a Toronto merger) will probably become even more marginalised from a global exchange standpoint. But this is outside the realm of Wikipedia (for now). 108.58.174.82 (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

With reference to the first point (made by a separate editor, I assume), your criticisms seem justified. Feel free to give it a go at making it more neutral.

As for the second editor, the large number of sources were included due to minor edit warring/discussions on my previous IP's talk page, where another user effectively refused to accept London's position as financial capital. There were 15 sources originally, and this was due to the 3 original ones constantly being removed; an overload was required to get the vandal to leave. I probably should have gone to ANI or something but this was quicker and more effective.

More importantly however, what you are saying is purely personal research, and a poor attempt at that... almost all of the sources used are reliable, and not only that, but the source you claim to be the most reliable of them all is actually far from it.

Furthermore, London leads in more things than that, as well as overall (supposedly). New York has not regained its crown, as numerous up-to-date sources continue to attest - it simply has a damn good claim, as does London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.78.164.147 (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Globalize

There were several related European theories (see Third Rome for details). Is there any reason this article doesn't explain the relation between these? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 17:21, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Novum Caput Mundi

Does this mean "New Capital of the World" or "Capital of the New World"? It seems if the original 'Capital of the World' was Rome, then all subsequent cities (Constantinople, London, etc) would be New Capitals of the World, but only New York both carries the name Novum Caput Mundi and is actually in the New World. MrPMonday (talk) 03:11, 13 July 2008 (UTC) . "New Capital of the World". "Capital of the New World" is Caput Novi Mundi. Froggo Zijgeb (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Novum here is in the nominative case, so the sentence means "New capital of the world". If it was "Capital of the new world", the phrase would be Novi Caput Mundi, where Novi is the neuter genitive case of Novus (New). (78.150.153.204 (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)).

As far as I known there is only a city that has the nickname "caput mundi", and this is Rome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alessandro.spalvieri (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)