Talk:Globalization/Archive 3

History of Globalization

can we consider the region of the Great Alexander as a early start of Globalization we all know that he made his leaders marry Persian princesses and that he wanted to emerge the Greek and Persian Culture and create a world wide empire with Babylon as it's capital . my Question is ,can't we consider that the Great Alexander the inventor of the Cultural Globalization ? (Ali the arabic (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC))

The only problem I would see with listing that as the beginning of globalization is it seems hard to measure its impact on current global trends. The reason why the topic usually begins with European exploration into the New World and Asia is because such ventures created enduring relationships between previously isolated regions. It's for that reason this article doesn't begin with the Chinese exploration of North America, as its somewhat uncertain what lasting effects, if any, that had on China or the North American continent.Shiosai (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The article does mention the Hellenistic civilization as one of many ancient arrangements pointed to as exhibiting globalization. I'm not aware that there ever has been "Chinese exploration of North America", other than settlement waves from Asia. Certainly that would be interesting to mention in History of North America. -- Beland (talk) 04:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

-globalization isn't westernization because globalization is also the growing popularity of asian popular culture (specially of the 2 biggest developed economies of asia:japan and korea)search about the hallyu and korean dramas and pop and about the otaku subculture and manga-anime

The final paragraph in this section is disjointed.

"In the 1990s, the growth of low cost communication networks allowed work done using a computer to be moved to low wage locations for many job types. This included accounting, software development, and engineering design. In late 2000s, much of the industrialized world entered into a deep recession.Some analysts say the world is going through a period of deglobalization after years of increasing economic integration. China has recently become the world's largest exporter surpassing Germany."

The first two sentences seem to flow well enough showing the growth of globalization, but then the next two sentences suggest a decrease in globalization without any data countering the first two sentences. Finally, the paragraph ends with some trivia about China and Germany which, while interesting, has little to do with any of the first four sentences.

I don't want to delete the whole paragraph, but perhaps this community could come up with a way they'd like to end the article. Is globalization shrinking or not? Is it too hard to gauge? What do China and Germany have to do with modern globalization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by108.200.76.254 (talk) 16:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

History: Subsidies for global corporations

Is there a reference for the bullet "Creation of subsidies for global corporations" as one of the ways in which free trade has been promoted? I'm not disputing it; Just want to know, where the claim comes from and what those subsidies and subsidized corporations might be. Most of the other bullets either have links to other articles or cite references. 131.252.222.202 (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The statement "Because of the large investment and financing needs and the high risks involved with international trade, the British East India Company became the first company in the world to share risk and enable joint ownership of companies through the issuance of shares of stock: an important driver for globalization." cites no reference and directly contradicts information in the Wikipedia entry "Stock" 131.252.222.202 (talk) 01:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I reconciled the claim with stock but we still need a reference. -- Beland(talk) 04:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Stats

Some great stats "WTO Trade Statistics Questioning the Benefits of Globalization". --Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) 15:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Neoliberal globalization

Really? China and India, constituting 1/3 of Earth's population, are frequently described as being prime examples of developing countries going through globalization. Neither can be fairly characterized as "neoliberal". If these nations "don't count" then it should be clarified in the article. Then again, I see little to suggest that opposition to globalization makes such a fine distinction. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Adoption of free-market economic policies in India and China seem to align pretty well with the philosophy described at neoliberalism, and the PRC is specifically mentioned there, so at first glanceI don't see a problem. Are you questioning the part of the "Definitions" section explaining the opinion of Takis Fotopoulos? -- Beland (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

If part of neoliberal economics is reduction in government regulation, I would automatically think that China is a different case. In a similar vein, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore were also used as examples of the success of the free market, but they actually heavily subsidized industry. NicEMyer (talk) 20:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

This Page is Written Like a Grade School Essay.

Example: "Someone in America can be eating Japanese noodles for lunch while someone in Sydney Australia is eating classic Italian meatballs. One classic culture aspect is food. India is known for their curry and exotic spices. Paris is known for its cheeses. America is known for its burgers and fries. McDonalds was once an American favorite with its cheery mascot, Ronald, red and yellow theme, and greasy fast food. Now it is a global enterprise with 31,000 locations worldwide with locations in Kuwait, Egypt, and Malta. This restaurant is just one example of food going big on the global scale."

Wikipedia forever, donate now —Precedingunsigned comment added by173.26.50.61 (talk) 06:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Example: "It is too easy to look at the positive aspects of Globalization and the great benefits that are apparent everywhere, without acknowledging several negative aspects."

This needs to be written like an article, not an essay.

EDIT: Agreed; although I would call it a primary school homework assignment rather than essay. "Before globalization Americans did not meditate or crunch their bodies into knots on a yoga mat." Come on. Does anyone else want Wikipedia to be taken seriously?

—Precedingunsigned comment added by142.59.65.77 (talk) 04:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Tell me, what does an article sound like, and how is it any different from an essay? Please sir, I pray thee enlighten me on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by98.166.116.164 (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

"Tell me, what does an article sound like, and how is it any different from an essay?" It's too easy to believe this. Compare this to college writing. It is so similar. In every case it is comparable. This is not a grade school level writing. Believe me.</sarcasm>Kmarinas86 ^(6sin8karma) 20:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd love to see a reference to support the claim that "Before globalization Americans did not meditate or practice yoga." Two points - 1. 'American' does not imply a specific race, therefore surely at least the Indians living in America (and therefore Americans) were practicing yoga? 2. "Before globalization..." There is an implication here that globalization happened at a specific point in time, rather than being a gradual progression - Columns in architecture are a good example that cultural exchange has been going on for as long as there have been civilizations. —Precedingunsigned comment added by121.72.174.36 (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed: Can't use any of the information, as it lacks references. Almost nothing is referenced- info cannot be verified. —Precedingunsigned comment added by196.210.137.43 (talk) 20:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I re-wrote the section on food to sound more grown-up, and references to yoga must have been removed from the article at some point. -- Beland (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Globalization

This section is heavily biased. While it does and should talk about the benefits of globalization and the arguments, it's clearly written by someone who favors those arguments. Additionally, some of the "evidence" provided heavily violates the "correlation does not imply causation" rule. For example, the statistic about universal suffrage merely states that 65% of countries now have universal suffrage, whereas in 1900 almost none did. THIS DOES NOT PROVE ANYTHING ABOUT GLOBALIZATION. The United States, a major source of globalization, did not truly have universal suffrage until after 1950. This statistic is complete shit. And, the link to the page, which theoretically could've shown some causation, is broken. P

Agreed. I'm currently researching globalisation as a topic in my last year of high school, and the benefits are at least as many, if not more. People are blinded by the obvious cultural issues, which they turn into something that globalisation isnt. From what I understand, globalisation is the promotion of free trade to encourage growth in the whole of the international economy. —Precedingunsigned comment added by121.221.82.38 (talk) 10:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The same free trade that has brought Haiti, the least import-restrictive country in the Caribbean, to its knees? --Nabo0o (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Got a good source for that causal link? I'd love to see it. Partly because I'm curious as to how Haiti could get itself mired in serious problems that are more usually seen in places cut off from trade, whilst other countries with low trade barriers tend to have vibrant economies. Maybe Haiti is the exception that proves the rule, or something. ;-)

(it would also be a good idea to be specific about what problems Haiti suffers, whilst we're trying to link these problems to free trade)

bobrayner (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have a source at the moment but I will try to find one. You seem to be forgetting something about low trade barriers, in that very often these countries already have huge economic power that allows them the export dirt cheap, turning global competition into global slavery...

It is very reasonable to understand why countries, like for example Mexico was highly skeptical to removing such barriers, and why a large part of its farmer population turned to violence when they had no other way of resisting the pressure from across the border. As the different economic powers all over the world aren't equal, the big ones will always exploit the weaker ones.... And many people doesn't find that system very fair or attractive. --Nabo0o (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

... And a whole slew of new jabs at globalisation. Still no sources though; no good evidence.

I'm prepared to change my mind, if my beliefs are unsupported by the evidence. How about you?

bobrayner (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am, and my accusations are general and widely enough know to that this link will give the information you require: www.google.com --Nabo0o(talk) 22:21, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

You said you'd try to find a source in July, and you evidently know what Google is, but you still haven't found a reliable source that supports your claims - so you're hoping that I'll find one for you instead?

That's OK; the article can wait til you've found a good source. Wikipedia is built on reliable sources, not on personal opinion.

bobrayner (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping that the rest was pretty obvious but apparently not. Here is one source to get you started on the subjects I mentioned: http://www1.american.edu/TED/haitirice.htm All in all I don't think there is much point to this, articles in wikipedia such as this one are too important for the status quo to be radically different than the accepted opinion of authority. Authority in this case is no less than the world leaders because of their economic guidance and education. I guess I'll just have to wait for public opinion to suddenly shift like it always has, and at which point it then claims it never believed in the old ideas. I just love how people can be so hypocritical! <<<shaaaadup. --Nabo0o (talk) 15:43, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

According to which, Haiti reduced rice tariffs in 1995. Haiti was already "on its knees" in 1995 - we might have to look elsewhere for a causal relationship. The economy had, and has, multiple serious problems, which is bad news for those farmers who find that non-haitians can produce rice at a lower price with a lower environmental impact, because it's hard for them to change their production or find other jobs. The best solution to that problem isnot to hide behind a tariff barrier again, ignore the underlying problems, let food prices spiral upwards again, and prop up farmers regardless of how inefficient or environmentally damaging they are, simply because they live in one country rather than another.

I note that source suggests that corporations tried to exploit poor Haitians by deliberately selling them food at too low a price.

Still, if you're going to resort to conspiracy theories, and call opponents hypocrites because it's inevitable that they'll agree with you eventually, there's not much point in me responding further. bobrayner (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wow, okey I see you are capable of looking at that report in another way than me. I'm not resorting to conspiracy theories, and I'm not pointing at you. I'm pointing at the entire wikipedia, as well as the so called neutral point view it represents. I'm saying that it will change radically very soon, and the people who spent most time in defending the old schools of thought will eventually jump to the other side (or die of old age) and claim they always looked at it that way. This is no conspiracy, this is history. So yeah I guess this discussion/argument is pointless, but lets see how this article looks like in say, 6 years time? Be well. --Nabo0o (talk) 17:08, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The problematic content regarding voting seems to have been removed. If I read the cited article on Haiti correctly, this is simply one instance of the impact of agricultural subsidy in developed countries on farmers in poorer countries. This is dealt with under the "Critics" section, and I have specifically added a link to that article, which discusses global trade implications. -- Beland (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

An interesting paper/talk given by Joseph Stiglitz at Columbia University in 2002 at a seminar called "New International Trends for Economics Development." The paper is entitled "Development Policies in a World of Globalization," and I think it covers a lot of strengths, weaknesses, challenges. More or less, how globalization could theoretically work, but the way it's currently functioned and operating is not ideal for developing countries. Here's a link to the document. http://www.sfiec.org.br/artigos/economia/DEVELOPMENT%20POLICIES%20IN%20A%20WORLD%20OF%20GLOBALIZATION-joseph-stiglitz.pdf He mentions on the second page of that paper another talk he gave that gave a clearer connection between failures and policies in Latin America. That talk/paper is entitled "Reforming Reform: Towards a New Agenda for Latin America" given as the 2002 Prebisch Lecture at ECLAC, Santiago, Chile, Aug 26, 2002. NicEMyer(talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

English on the Internet

On checking the source for the following affirmation:

About 50% of all Internet traffic uses English.

I can't find it in the source and I doubt the veracity of the phrase will delete this in the next days.Gabriel arisi (talk) 21:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I edited this claim to reflect the source. -- Beland (talk) 05:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Subsidiarity vs. Globalization

It would be interesting of we had valid material discussing the relationship between globalization and subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is the official teaching of the Catholic Church with regards to social organization, a teaching which privileges decisions taken at the smallest possible level. The social structure of the Middle Ages was strongly marked by the doctrine of subsidiarity, and therefore some social scientists have argued that the medieval period has already gone through an archaic form of globalization. The European Union has officially adopted subsidiarity into its official structures, which still maintains a political influence to this to this day. And yet, it could be argued that globalization is the exact opposite of subsidiarity because decisions and policies are always adopted at the highest possible level, such as G-8, WTO and World Bank meetings. ADM (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think globalization favors either top-down or bottom-up decision-making. Plenty of worldwide organizations can be found in both categories. -- Beland (talk) 05:08, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of people on planes

I'm unhappy with the statement "WHO estimates that up to 500,000 people are on planes at any one time", which is referenced as coming from an article in the Guardian. I have no reasons to suspect the journalist just pulled this number out of his behind, but the lack of a real reference (i.e., the WHO, who is credited with the claim) certainly raises doubts. Apart from pointing out this obvious shortcoming, I'm genuinely interested in a real figure, so if anyone has a better source, please contribute. My searches for a similarly-phrased figure threw up nothing except the usual annoying WP mirrors. JREL (talk) 15:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Brain drain section

This section is extremely limited and deserves a more thorough explanation and analysis. Is anyone opposed to me building up this section more thoroughly?Arm379 (talk) 03:54, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I definitely think you should. Developing nations lose doubly with brain drain, losing both the person and the person/knowledge that they spent money to train. It's not a good argument for increasing educational investment if your investment just leaves. However, this might only be a problem up to a certain point. For instance, I would think that India can afford (economically speaking) a few more educated folks leaving than can, say, Ghana.NicEMyer (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Globalization as producing transnational citizenship

I am contributing to the transnational citizenship page and I was hoping those of you interested in globalization would check it out after tomorrow here:[1] Being that transnational populations could be considered a result of an increasingly globalized world, I figured it is quite relevant to this page, and being that the current transnationalism page is fairly inactive, this may be a good point from which to launch discussion. Any thoughts on the positive and negative aspects of establishing a sort of globalized citizen? There is a lot of literature on the subject, but I'd be curious to know more about general opinion. Valerie Elise (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum, but I added a link to that article from this one. --Beland (talk) 05:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

External links

I've started cleaning up the External Links section. Still more needs to be cut; I'm open to suggestions and collaboration. Academic38 (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Globalization as a condition

What about Globalization as a condition, not as a process only?--TheRedPoint (talk) 13:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I added the definition of "globalized" to the intro to point out the phenomenon can refer to either. -- Beland (talk) 05:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

Globalization is a controversial issue, but this article weighs heavily in favour of the negatives. The negative effects dominate that section, and the critics section is far greater than the advocates. MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Some good points; could you suggest any sources that we could use to show the other side?bobrayner (talk) 21:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I have a book called Rethinking Globalization which presents a very balanced argument. That would be very useful, although I dobut I'll have time to add the content it talks about. If anyone else has the book or another one that would be good.MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 13:13, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of emphasis on discussing the "positives" and "negatives" of Globalization; its consequences or effects seen with emotional or moral connotations. 

Yet for the modern scholar-atheist Globalization should just be a historical fact, without any emotions or preferences being attached. Its just the logical progression of evolutionary pressures as manifested in the social-cultural-economical global arena. A process whose consequence will be, as has always been, the fading into history of some while others will thrive towards the future. And so to be aware of globalization is to see the evolution of man, progressing towards a universal efficient destiny. A processes that has been long in the making. The history of life itself.Period.

Now, if we are a Judeo-Christian believing scholar, globalization can very well lead to tragedy. The immoral abuses and imposition of the powerful over the weak become obvious. But more importantly only within this Christian mind set does the category of immorality, and abuse make any logical sense. Because the concepts of good or bad ,positive or negative ,(which cannot rise from evolutionary forces) requires a moral law and law giver called GOD. And so, if this is the mind set of the scholar, the process of globalization actually began at Babel with Nimrod, one man controlling humanity; its commerce,culture,language,might,etc. It was considered an immoral act from the very beginning. Yet globalization has been prophesied in the bible for millennia, an inescapable, scary destiny where the freedom and rights of western civilization will be lost. And so within this thought structure globalization can be evaluated with the ethical connotations of positive and negative, good or bad. gus —Precedingunsigned comment added by97.103.232.25 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is a religious debate or subject. Ethics are similar to, but not the same as religious morals. NicEMyer (talk) 21:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

The need to view the problems of globalization from the perspective of people in the developing world.

As an anthropologist who has lived in developing countries, I am well aware of the downsides of globalization. However, I find this article offensive; not only is it obviously biased, it consists of talk of priveleged people living in industrialized countries about the problems faced by individuals living in the "third world".

It would be useful to examine the problems of globalization from the perspective of the individuals most affected. I have taken the liberty of adding a section "Positive effects" in which I talk about the increased opportunities implied by globalization (from the standpoint of people in developing countries). I have also added a section "Income Inequality" in the "negative effects" section to talk about the problems of globalization from the perspective of workers in industrialized world.

I am suggesting that this article be rewritten. It sould be less theoretical and talk more about the consequences of globalization from the perspectives of the individuals involved. And, of course, it should be less biased. Globalization has both positive and negative consequences; it is necessary to discuss both. The idea of having separate "positive effects" and "negative effects" categories is probably a bad idea.Gahuntly (talk) 13:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the "positive" and "negative effects" sections should go. Perhaps one way to deal with this would be to have an effects section broken down into sub-headings based on issues such as labour market effects, cultural effects, etc. Each of these sections could then deal with effects that are seen as positive and negative for different groups of people. This would require a lot of work though. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion: Instead of having positive effects and negative effects sections or breaking things down into various categories, why not have two sections "Impact of globalization on the industrialized world" and "Impact of globalization on the developing world". This would tend to force the discussion in the direction of losses vs. gains.Gahuntly (talk) 13:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I reviewed the sections "advocates" and "critics" and have the following observations:

First, all of the sources are privileged Westerners and there are no voices from the third world. (I have attempted to remedy this by adding a new section). Second, the level of bias is unacceptable. The section of "critics" is essentially a history of the development of the anti-globalization movement and is very much overblown.

I suggest that this section be rewritten in a way which provides some semblance of balance. If people want a history of the movement, they can follow a link. Gahuntly (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

how do you feel about the way it is arranged now, with the four frames of discourse format? I think it's better. More neutral anyways. NicEMyer (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes

(1)

I decided to take the "bull by the horns" and resturcture the sections "advocates" and "critics" All of the material is intact although I shortened my section on Bhagwati. I did add an important section which is highly critical of the polarization of the debate regarding globalization. I think a discussion of this problem is long overdue.Gahuntly (talk) 13:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I intend to start tidying up the section on Globalization and try to give it a bit more balance. I will use this discussion section to keep track of my changes.

(2)

The section "Critics of globalization" is now called "the Anti-Globalization movement". Only small fraction of the critics of globalization would identify themselves with this movement.

I would like to tentatively move most of the content out of "the positive frame" and create a "neo-liberal" section to parallel the anti-globalization section.

Ultimately neither of these sections should exist. There are already several pages on various aspects anti-globalization, and there is no need to recapitulate that material here. Furthermore, there is much redundancy; many of the themes in the section on anti-globalization is contained in previous sections.

Further changes will entail editing existing material: It needs to be organized and redundant material, along with polemical material, needs to be removed. Overly long discussions on the pros and cons of globalization need to be condensed.Gahuntly (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no section for the movement initiate by the economist Pankaj Ghemawat that says globalization is not already completed, for himglobalization is just a theory, an idea but not a reality. His book "world 3.0" explain that theory, i'm surprised to see nothing on this page talking about that very interesting subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by80.12.81.165 (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Recent changes

I haven't had chance to review all of the recent changes to this article, but I am slightly concerned about some of them. The selection of material seems a bit odd and is perhaps in breach of WP:UNDUE, relying as it does on rather anecdotal sources rather than core academic texts. For example, in the section entitled The debate in the developing world, we read that "There is a more positive opinion of globalization in the developing world, although the there is a growing feeling that globalization is proceeding too rapidly". This is sourced toa single opinion pollconducted in 2008. While I don't doubt that the poll was well designed, it's a stretch to use it for such a big claim. A few lines later we have a quote from an unidentified newspaper columnist. Surely better and more authoritative sources than this are available?Cordless Larry (talk) 14:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The more I read, the more concerned that I become. The section entitled The debate in other Industrialized countries starts with the sweeping statement "Globalization was always unpopular in the US, however the situation was different in the EU". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I will find better documentation for the third world popularity claim, although the poll is certainly sufficient ground's for suggesting that there is concern in the Third world that globalization is growing too fast.

Re; the Globalization was always unpopular in the US statement. That could simply be removed. (The unpopularity in the US was discussed in the preceeding section)Gahuntly(talk) 14:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My concern isn't only with these specific statements, but with the whole tone of the recent additions, which seems to rely on sweeping statements based on single sources. Here's another example: "Until 1989, the neutral frame was the dominant frame in newspapers articles and corporate press releases". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

RE the above: would it be better to qualify things by adding the words "According to the study by Peer Fiss and Paul Hirsch..." Re making sweeping statements with single sources, isn't that rather typical of much of this page?

Yes, that would be better. I agree that this problem exists throughout the article.Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Re the statement by the Indian newspaper columnist. The point was not that the INdian government was an agent of neo-colonialism, but rather that opponents of globalization portrayed it as such. The idea was suggested by Rajgopal's article, which is where I got the quote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gahuntly (talk •contribs) 15:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

My comment about the columnist had nothing to do with neo-colonialism. The point is that it's a single quote from a single newspaper columnist, when there are thousands of reliable academic sources that could be used instead. We don't even know who the columnist is from the article text. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point: the quote was simply an example of how globalization is portrayedin the press. And no, there are very few sources, academic or not, that discuss criticallyhow globalization is portrayed. In any case, the question is moot, since I removed the offending quote, along with my other examples.

I understand why it was there, but it read like a kind of case study, the use of which makes the article seem like an essay. Anyway, I will leave it to others to contribute to this discussion now. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I will try to identify unqualified generalizations and correct them. However, since this section deals largely with public opinion, I think it is quite proper to use polls as a source. Incidently, most of these polls have been discussed elsewhere -- this is more likely to occur in financial journals than scholary journals. I have tended to cite the interpretation of the pollsters themselves rather than use third-party interpretations. Gahuntly (talk) 16:09, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

It may well be proper to use polls, but how do we know that the single poll you have used is representative? A better source to use would be one that considered various different indicators of public opinion. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, most of these polls are multi-dimensional. They seek to correlate public opinion on globalization with concerns for economic well-being, social inequailty, etc. And no, (I suspect) they are not representative, since they are unlikely (I think) to poll residents of the Third World in rural areas. However, I discuss the urban, rural split elsewhere.

To try to summarise the overall problem, I think what I'm saying is that the article seems to be developing into a particular argument about globalisation, as if it were astudent's essay, rather than what it should be - namely, an encyclopedia article summarising the topic and different arguments about it. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no overall view and there is no conclusion. The point of the article is simply to describe how the debate on globalization has evolved in different parts of the world. There was originally some POV about the polarization of the debate being "unfortunate" however, I've removed the offending sections.Gahuntly (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

---

A further note: what I've done, essentially, is to find a number of sources that analyze the debate on globalization by attempting to identify the different players and uncover their motives. I have tried to avoid adding anything of my own or form any conclusions not implied by the sources. This article differs from others on this page only because it is more concerned with who is saying something and why they are saying it, rather than whatthey are saying. I think this is very important. In order to understand the debate on globalization, it is necessary to put the discourse in some sort of context. It is too easy just to parrot this or that position.

The only thing that seems problematic is my expansion of Fiss and Hirch’s frames and adding a fourth of my own. It might be better to remove this from the main section and add a new section that divides discourse on globalization into four categories, adding a note suggesting that this way of organizing things was inspired by Fiss and Hirch. However, this is a petty concern.

---

To change the subject, I added a paragraph in the Positive Effects section which suggests that globalization might end the “economic hegemony” of the West. I called this a positiveeffect, although, obviously, this is a matter of perspective; I was expressing a point of view. The same is true of all of the entries in these sections, by calling somethingpositive or negative we express a POV.

For example, several entries suggest that is is wrong for corporations to "exploit" low cost labor in the Third World (wrong for whom? why? who benefits? who suffers?). My suggestion, again, is that this section be reorganized in a more objective fashion. An obvious starting point would be to identify the various perspectives, e.g., global, Western and Third World, and discuss the relative pros and cons within that frame.

Of course, this would involve a bit of thought/work. Each topic suggests at least four viewpoints (West vs Third World, winners vs loosers). An easier solution would be to remove these sections entirely (along with the section on anti-globalization), on the grounds that they are, by their very nature, POV. Nothing would be lost, since the anti-globalization perspective, for example, is discussed elsewhere. The effects section, could then be reorganized in a more coherent manner.Gahuntly (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

___________

I am going to rework much of this section in light of new material. However, the following quote seems very relevant to the above debate:

Academic attempts to understand globalization … miss the dynamics of globalization as a public discourse. The public debate over globalization that occurs largely outside the walls of academia represents an important aspect of the phenomenon itself. If the researcher wants to understand the material and ideal stakes raised in the debate, then public judgments regarding the meanings and likely consequences of globalization represent an important subject of study. Thus, the researcher must enter the value-laden arena of ideology.

— Manfred B. Steger “Globalization and Ideology”, The Blackwell companion to globalization By George Ritzer. 2007.

Gahuntly (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

copyvio links

Four separate URLs at different points in the article have been tagged with {{Copyvio link}}. I'm skeptical about this. Are sources like a BBC News article on fisheries reallyhosting copyright violations? bobrayner (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. These are just normal citations. Academic38 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Ecolological impact

it is addressed under the topic of "economic liberalization"... shouldnt there be a seperate threat? --80.134.15.50 (talk) 10:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)Fraenzl

all help is welcome

As a class project, a few of us are working on the current stub page for economic globalization to bring it up to good article status. Any input would be great. Thanks!--Ler321 (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I will dig out my textbook from my class on this fall term. --Guerillero| My Talk 17:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

The work is now progressing on this and on the archaic glob. article noted below. Comments and reviews are much appreciated. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:50, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Archaic Globalization

Hello, a few peers and myself are trying to improve the article on archaic globalization. Any and all help is most appreciated!! :) — Precedingunsigned comment added by Sandere0 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Globabilization is not designed

Second sentence mentions the "goal" of globabilization. The process behind it is much more complex than someone stating that it will "increase material wealth, goods, and services" and enacting appropriate policies. Typically, the reason companies would rely on foreign inputs/sales is for price/profit reasons which may result in increases in material wealth, but that is certainly not their goal. Increased efficiencies are the side effect of self-interest on a global scale (think Invisible Hand). Purple Post-its (talk) 14:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Probable spurious tagging ...

... of multiple complaints which a superficial inspection indicates aren't warranted by current content. Opening this thread for discussion but if there's a concurring editor, propose you simply remove or replace with something § or text specific.72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I added the tags, so I should probably explain. The need for copy editing is hopefully clear. There is inconsistency of style and spelling and there are sentences such as this, which make little sense: "The spread and increased interrelations of various religious groups, ideas, and practices and their ideas of the meanings and values of particular spaces". What about those interrelations?

The article also reads like an essay rather than an encyclopedia article in parts. A good example is the following: "The analysis presented above focuses on the politicization of discourse and the way politically motivated actors represent globalization to the public; it is more interested in the process of politicization than in the meanings of globalization. It is also possible to examine discourse on globalization in terms of these meanings and their implications for the understanding issues like national autonomy and sovereignty".

Finally, the article is not neutral. Sentences such as the following are problematic in this regard: "The goal is to increase material wealth, goods, and services through an international division of labor by efficiencies catalyzed by international relations, specialization and competition". Firstly, globalisation doesn't have a goal. It is a process and doesn't have agency. Secondly, it's clearly not a neutral description to begin the article with. Sections such as the Measurement one also privilege particular sources, which is arguably also POV. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

These appear to be substantive complaints. As far as it not having agency this reminds me of Sartre's expression "totalisation without a totaliser", there's agency it's just not a natural or legal person, nation state, or even a single class. The effective agent of globalisation as it is being executed currently could be said to be totalitarian capitalism. Also, it's true the global integration of production has no goal other than itself and is the objective expression of advancing human society. The specific agency under which it is being actually carried out however is only substantially different from the accumulation process of the global capitalist class to the extent that China can still be considered a socialist state, the goal is therefore self-evidently and trivially that of the overall accumulation process of that class. May look into this more later.Lycurgus (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Neither this page nor Revolution work in WikiTrust, may also look into that later.72.228.177.92 (talk) 10:42, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Agree.88.230.30.66 (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

That is right.88.231.236.53 (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

"Copyedits"

I agreed with the tags discussed above. I hit the article with my biggest hammer, deleting more than a third of the bloviated copy. I updated and consolidated some of the references and added some more recent content, while completely reorganizing the remnants. It is out of date, full of off-topic, random detail, tonally academic rather than encyclopedic, etc. My hammer is a bit worn out at the moment, although the article is still pitiful for such an important topic. I promise to return once the headaches subside... Cheers. Lfstevens (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No single globalization

It would seem the problem here is that there is no single usage of the term globalization. It's a hot-button word used without parameters. There are at least five aspects (and probably more) of the usage of the term:

• 1. increasing intersection of economic transactions across national boundaries: "global economy".

• 2. increasing transfer of cultural content from origin to other contexts: "global culture".

• 3. increasing tendency to locate manufacturing facilities in low-wage, nationally unregulated environments or to import low-wage labor from other nations: "global workforce".

• 4. increasing tendency for industrialized nations to use the energy resources of less-industrialized nations and to emit carbon-based into the global atmosphere: "global energy depletion & pollution", perhaps contributing to "global climate-change".

• 5. increasing transfer of the ideology of 'development' and the notion that all locations on earth should 'develop' along the same pathways as the Western world (this is where the 'goal' comes into play): "global development". Meclee (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Distribution of world GDP, 1989

How is it possible for the richest third 20% to control less money,2.3%of GDP, than the fouth 20%, 2.4% of GDP??? Doesnt that make the fourth 20% richer than the third 20%? — Preceding unsignedcomment added by 67.85.3.79 (talk) 05:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

This page only talks of economic globalization

In Internet and computers Globalization means:

• "internationalization" of the media (i.e. supporting the ISO 10646/Unicode standard).
• "localization" of the ends (i.e. supporting the linguistic and cultural flavor of the user - ISO 9945-2)
• "linguistic filtering" (RFC 4647 in using langtags defined in RFC 5646 or BCP 47).

89.227.128.124 (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

books maybe ?

maybe add manuel castells (network age triology books) to thisn so ppl can dig deep and menntion many of the globalizastion writer in his book he have good emerpicel facts for each of the topic in globalzation

maybe link to cyberpunk or biopunk are not they the dystopias of a globalazeid world ?

globtroter — Precedingunsigned comment added by82.147.33.187 (talk) 15:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Major re-structuring

I propose a major re-structuring of this article into sections, after introductory sections, as suggested in in Talk:Globalization#No_single_globalization andTalk:Globalization#This_page_only_talks_of_economic_globalization above. I will be working on this in a sandbox and will look forward to any comments.Meclee (talk) 16:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

A major re-structuring of this article has now been posted as a first-pass edit. I triednot to omit material from the previous version, although there is substantial re-organization of that material, as well as some additional material added. The new organization presents opportunities to add both "pro" and "con" views of globalization in the final section (Philosophies and ideologies: proponents and antagonists) without compromising opposing positions. There are still a number of tasks remaining:

1) Additional copy-editing of the article - to find errors in grammar, etc.

2) Edit and review the "see also" section and the reading list, including deleting dead links (I have removed all, or most, dead links referenced in the article text), etc. There are too many external links and many that need to be brought into line with WP:EL.

3) Invite associated WikiProjects (above) to edit and expand sections relevant to their topic areas.

4) Coordinate additional work with those interested in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal.

Meclee (talk) 18:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Update - Have invited several WikiProjects to review and comment on the article. Meclee (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I think this is a step forward. Most importantly, the organisation into categories that have main article links and see also links. For an article on this broad of a topic, having a categorisation that provides insight into all the sub-issues and organises everything in such a way that a reader can quickly find the main topics within globalisation that they are interested in and link out to the often well developed articles on those topics is very important. This revision is a good step in achieving that. The specifics of the execution can discussed and improved, but I'm comfortable moving forward with edits on this revised version.—Zujine|talk 17:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Image request

Request suitable "global" image to illustrate article lede. Meclee (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What do you mean? The lede image should illustrate the subject of the article -- with Globalization defined as "the process or processes of international integration" -- so I'm not sure what the problem with previous lede images was. Celuici (talk) 10:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The current photo illustrates Americanization more than Globalization. It could be moved down in the article next to McDonalds in Japan to illustrate Americanization. Meclee(talk) 15:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

New WikiProject Globalization

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Meclee (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Gaps in history/development sections

Historical banking practices such as the bill of lading which made between cities should be incorporated in the article someplace. Also, some more detail about 19th and early 20th century telecommunications innovations would probably be in order- trans-continental telegraphic lines, the development of wireless radio, and such (See Telegraph). I realize this subject is a really large concept and am not up to tinkering with it myself, but point these out as items of interest to be added. IMHO (talk) 21:27, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing needed

1. General copy editing for grammar, syntax
2. Standardize references. I've been working on this (up to ^33 to-date)
3.  DoneCull 'Further reading' - the list is too long. Some reading sources might be moved to other articles. I started on this but was blocked by concurrent edit & lost work.Meclee (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Meclee (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is too long. Parts of it need to be moved off into sub-articles. Suggest moving most of history into History of globalization as a start. FurrySings(talk) 04:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

The previous editing issues have been addressed. A peer review is requested to prepare the article for GA renomination. Meclee (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Global Digital Divide

Suggest using this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:InternetPenetrationWorldMap.svg (showing internet users as a % of the population) instead, as it shows more up-to-date data and is clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kreutznaer (talk •contribs) 10:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I added the Penetration map rather than replaced. The Digital Divide is not just about internet connection. Meclee (talk) 14:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect Image Title

The title of the top image says "Eastern Telegraph Company 1899 chart of undersea telegraph cabling. An example of modern globalizing technology in the beginning of the 20th century.", but the image description says "The Eastern Telegraph Co.: System and its general connections. Chart of submarine telegraph cable routes, showing the global reach of telecommunications at the beginning of the 20th century Date 1901" and the source says "1901 Eastern Telegraph Company System Map from A.B.C. Telegraphic Code 5th Edition". Note the discrepancies in the year.88.134.74.203 (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. 71.208.7.47 (talk) 03:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikiproject Globalization

Re-assessing article to A class. This article has been substantively improved since it was delisted as GA. While it would be good if it could be re-listed as GA, this is made more difficult by the popularity of the article and its high rate of editing.