Talk:Mexico City

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mexico City is included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection, or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version. Please maintain high quality standards and, if possible, stick to GFDL-compatible images.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Cities, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Cities on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Geography article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article comes under the purview of WikiProject Mexico A WikiProject to improve coverage of Mexico-related topics

Contents 1 Demographics 2 Headline text 3 Some people seems to have the monopoly of some pages in Wikipedia. Unfortunatly as this one 4 Not only Nahuatls and maybe a little more than 17 milion 5 The Olympic Games of 1968 belong in the Sportssection 6 In the history section, NO MEXICAN REVOLUTION, but 68 massacre? 7 Satellite Photo 8 Definition & Population 9 How reliable are the census figures? 10 Chief of government removed from office 11 Kidnappings 12 Misc. 13 About Mexico being the largest city in the world.... again 14 Too long? 15 Copyright status 16 Area of metro area 17 A municipality founded in 1521 by Cortés???... 18 Again population figures 19 pictures 20 Colonias 21 No location map? 22 About Chilangos 23 UNAM 24 "Financial Center of Latin America"? 25 Demographics descriptions 26 Colonia Noche Buena 27 Railways 28 Mexico City Economy 29 Colonias 30 Mexico City Centrism 31 Reopening the merging discussion 32 Nomenclature for cities vis-à-vis metropolitan areas of Mexico 33 Repeated changes

[edit] Demographics

The section named demographics seems to be incorrect in particular the figures for European Immigrants and Jews.

The National CengdfgsInsertformulahere--209.152.2.31 14:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC) is the only dataset that provides information about national origin. This data set does not have information about etic ancestry so the figures for immigrants will include only foreign born people. For the case of Jews the Census includes a question for religion, however this population might be composed by Mexican born Jews (in some cases third generation) so_{Subscript text}

[edit] Headline text

dsdfgItalic textsdffgBold text its imprecise to clasiffy this population cohort as immigrants.

The section migh include some figures about indigenous population. The census does not have information about ethnic origin however it has statistics about spoken native languate. Actually this is the only way that enable us to estimate indigenous population.

I have the strong feeling that the numbers presented in this section does not correspond to the Censu figures so I hope to fix this section in the future, howver in anybody is interested in doing this work the National Census can be accessed through the national statistics office INEGI www.inegi.gob.mx

--Boboxford 00:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Bobxoford

[edit] Some people seems to have the monopoly of some pages in Wikipedia. Unfortunatly as this one

Hi. Well, even when I think wikipedia is a great source an idea which I promote as a tech geek I am really disapointed that some pages, like this one, seems to be property of whom has all the time to daily erase all possible changes that other makes even if it they are well intended and documented apportations. This guy who seems that has something like a bot or script to back all changes to the version he wants does not see that this could be dangerous for Wikipedia and the Mexico City page itself since other guys could do the same changing every second this page becoming in a field of war changing everyday. I challenge that guy to discuss oppenly who is him and tell the people who make changes to the page why he is so inflexible to accept them and play to be the owner of a public page mainteining its content exactly as he wants.

[edit] Not only Nahuatls and maybe a little more than 17 milion

Not only Nahuatls were on the native population when the "mestizaje" happened. Also see that some official U.N. numbers claim that Mexico City and its Metropolitan Zone has more than 22 million inhabitants. The miscounting of mexican population has been an usual practice from ancient governments to manipulate elections. Even when this problem is not more present, Inegi could have herited some procedures considering also that it is difficult to count some population in poverty. For those that claim that Mexico City and Metro Area cannot grow because it is sorrounded by mountains, you must see those zones as Cuautlitlan, they are on the top of the mountains and beyond, but yes, the satelite image was superposed with other mega cities and it was found that it was difficult to state that it is the biggest due the different shapes of all cities. For that reason I think is a better choice only to say that it is one of the biggest. For thos who thinks New York City is bigger, I am not sure, I know I can walk all through New York City (I have walked half Manhattan in something like an hour) but sincerely I doubt to make it from Milpa Alta to Santa Fe (even when I have walked from San Pedro de los Pinos, near Mixcoac, to the University City -UNAM-, moreless in an hour also). I can also say that I can walk through all Paris in about two hours, but not counting its Metropolitan area (Paris has something like 2.5 million, but 11 million with its Metropolitan area, the "banlieues". Something similar in London. I have walked both, the Tamesis and the Seine rivers at London and Paris respectively and almost completely (at least the half) from on side of those cities to the other (not including the Metro again). After all I still think that Mexico City is the biggest, but certainly I do not know many other big cities... yet.

One can also argue that population figures tend to be inflated by local officials (especially in the poorer municipalities) in order to get more funding from the government, and thus the real population figure might be a notch lower than people are lead to believe. This was a widespread practice during PRI times and it wouldn't surprise me if it were still going on. In fact, that is one of the main reasons why the INEGI was recently made (like a month ago) an autonomous government entity, to prevent it being influenced by politics. As you can see this issue can be argued both ways. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 00:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Olympic Games of 1968 belong in the Sportssection

Why put that in history, when there is a section dedicated to Sports? Organize accordingly please

[edit] In the history section, NO MEXICAN REVOLUTION, but 68 massacre?

I think that in the history section of the article there is a big mistake ommiting the mexican revolution which was a major event in the history of the country. The 68 events were important, but nothing in comparison to the revolution.

Mexican revolution is a country major event and not just concerning to Mexico City. On the other hand, 1968 massacre was an event in Mexico City and the great local universities involved, mainly the UNAM and the Politecnico, both national schools located at Mexico City. This is the wikipage of Mexico City.

[edit] Satellite Photo

There isn't enough room now for three photos and a table in the article, and this photo is the odd man out. Somebody can add it as the article begins to bulk up.

[edit] Definition & Population

see maps [1] / [2]

Definition of the city/conurbation: This page (citing the Programa de Ordenación de la Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México, sounds pretty official) makes the following divisions:

• Distrito Federal (=DF, 16 boroughs)

• Zona Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México (ZMCM) = DF + 34 municipalities (Acolman, Atenco, Atizapán de Zaragoza, Chalco, Chiutla, Chicoloapan, Chiconcuac, Chimalhuacán, Coacalco de Berriozábal, Cuautitlán, Cuautitlan Izcalli, Ecatepec, Huizquilucan, Ixtapaluca, Jaltenco, Melchor Ocampo, Naucalpan de Juárez, Nextlalplan, Nezahualcóyotl, Nicolás Romero, Papalotla, La Paz, Tecámac, Teoloyucán, Teotihuacán, Tepetlaoxtoc, Tepotzotlán, Texcoco, Tezoyuca, Tlalnepantla de Baz, Tultepec, Tultitlán, Valle de Chalco Solidaridad & Zumpango)

• Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México (ZMVM) = DF + 34 municipalities above + another 23 (Amecameca, Apaxco, Atlautla, Axapusco, Ayapango, Cocotitlán, Coyotepec, Ecatzingo, Huehuetoca, Hueypoztla, Isidro Fabela, Jilotzingo, Juchitepec, Nopaltepec, Otumba, Ozumba, San Martín de las Pirámides, Temamatla, Temascalapa, Tenango del Aire, Tepetlixpa, Tlalmanalco, Villa del Carbón, & Tizayuca (Hidalgo))

Other pages refer to a smaller "area metropolitana":

• Area Metropolitana de la Ciudad de México" = DF + 11 municipalities (Atizapan de Zaragoza, Chimalhuacan, Coalcalco, Cuautitlan, Ecatepec, Huixquilucan, La Paz, Naucalpan, Nezahualcoyotl, Tlanepantla, and Tultitlan)

Using 2000 census figures from here gives populations of:

• DF = 8,605,239
• DF + 11 (=AMCM) = 15,159,386
• DF + 34 (=ZMCM) = 17,809,471
• DF + 57 (=ZMVM) = 18,368,610

[edit] How reliable are the census figures?

Good question.

Some people have argued that the population in Mexico City's urban area is greater than 30 million. That is not so. If, as they argue, 35 million people live in the conurbation, and only 8 in the Federal District, then 27 million must live in the surrounding areas in the state of Mexico. Yet, according to the National Institute of Statistics (INEGI), the population in the state of Mexico is 13 million. The difference between 27 and 13 million is so big as to be considered statistically insignificant. Even if government figurates are not accurate, a mistake of that sort, (a difference of 15 million!) is simply not plausible. A figure of 27 million for the population of the state of Mexico alone would also be statistically inconsistent with the rest of the data of the country's population. It is interesting that there have been overstatements in the population of almost all important urban areas in Mexico (sometimes overly exagerated).

Mexico City has prided itself of being the most populous city in the world, and in fact it is! There is confusion in terminology. When speaking of "cities", a reference is made to the area that is governed by one mayor. For example, Buenos Aires conurbation has a population of 13 million, yet Buenos Aires City, or Capital Federal (the equivalent of the Federal District in Mexico), has a population of a little more than 2 million. A similar argument goes for conurbations such as London, New York, LA and Tokyo. In this sense, Mexico City is the most populous "city" in the world.

There are municipalities with official populations larger than that of Mexico City within the limits of the Federal District. An example could be the city of Moscow in Russia, which, even excluding the territorially non-contiguous borrough of Zelenograd has recorded over 10 mln. people in the 2002 census compared with 8.6 mln. for Mexico City in the 2000 census. Like Mexico City, Moscow City is a single entity governed by a single elected mayor and a city council. While it is further subdivided into administrative districts, the same is true of Mexico City with its 16 delegaciones (borroughs). If anything, it could be argued that Mexico's delegaciones have larger autonomy than Moscow's Administrative Districts. Thus, Mexico City cannot be called the largest municipality in the world. It should be noted that metropolitan Mexico City has a larger population than metropolitan Moscow, which on any definition has never had more than 13 mln. people. It is simply that Moscow has a greater proportion of the population in the central municipality.

Overall, the article has numerous errors, from huge exaggerations of the size of immigrant communities (for instance, the 800,000 Jews reported exceeds at least tenfold the largest serious estimate of the entire Jewish population of the country, etc.) to minor bummers on the transit fares (the public buses - except for the Metrubus - charge the same two-peso fare as the metro and the electric transport, not something "barely above". The selection of universities to be mentioned is, to say it mildly, somewhat idiosyncratic (while UNAM, ITAM, ITESM, are definitely worthy of mention, it is hard not to miss, say, the huge IPN and UAM), To sum up, a very low quality article.

[edit] Chief of government removed from office

Legally speaking it is not clear until this moment if he was removed from the office, thus it isn't a fact, just an opinion.

By now it is pretty clear he's staying in office. He might quit in order to run for his party's presidential candidacy, but that's another issue altogether. -Rune Welsh 03:05, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The largest city by disctrict is Seoul not Mexico city

[edit] Kidnappings

From my experience most kidnappings in Mexico City occur to middle class people. In a "express kidnapping" a person would be forcibly taken to an ATM to empty his bank accounts. From this kidnappers can get the anywhere from US$300 to $1000, but usually not much more. Then they would leave the victim in a random place far away from where he was picked up. The whole thing lasts about 1-2 hr.

High class people are seldomly targeted now because many of them already hire private security guards. High-profile kidnappings still happen but not as often as they used to.

-Rune Welsh 03:18, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Misc.

"but also from the social values which encourage wealthy individuals to display their status through posessions, rather than invest their money in job-creating business." -- it happens that i mostly agree with this sentiment, but it's rather biased nonetheless, and should be reworded.

[edit] About Mexico being the largest city in the world.... again

Please note the discussion above concerning population figures (and the statistical implausibility of a population of 38 million) and also please note that Mexico City is not the largest in the world in terms of area (as it is mentioned in the article). Compare it to the area of New York or of Tokyo-Yokohama. Remember that the conurbation of Mexico City is surrounded by mountains that limit its expansion (and increase concentration of pollution) in fact, a population of 38 million in such a small area would imply a higher population density, which would imply dense residential zonings, that is, high-rise buildings; yet (see www.emporis.com), Mexico city has even less high-rise buildings that Buenos Aires, and almost a third of Sao Paolo's).

Also, please note that an "ellipse" of 60 km E to W and 40 km N to S does not equal an area of 5000 sq. km!!! Not even a rectangle (greater in area than the ellipse) would have an area of 5000 sq km (60X40=2400 for a rectangle, which is the greatest possible area of any geometrical form of 60 km max witdh and 40 km max length).

And if mathematical and statistical jargon does not convince you, try Google Earth to see the satellite images of the conurbation, and you will crearly see Mexico City's geographical extension is smaller that proposed, and can easlily be compared to Tokyo, New York, Buenos Aires, even Dallas (cities that no do not have geographical limitations, i.e. mountains, to limit their expansion).

just checked emporis: 3,749 high-rise buildings in Sao Paolo; 1,478 in Buenos Aires; 2,482 in Tokyo; 896 in Mexico City.--J.Alonso 19:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC) ohh and 5,866 in New York; 1,502 in Chicago --J.Alonso 19:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Now compare this to the Area expanded in Toluca, Puebla, and Hidalgo and there you go!, with the grater mexico city, it really is the largest in the world. It does have the largest highrise in all Latin America, and the zone of Santa Fe has a sea of highrises that supass most latin American cities including Buenos Aires. unsigned comment by 67.180.197.23 (talk • contribs)

and http://www.inegi.gob.mx says that pop. in DF is 8 605 239 (2000), and metro area aprox. 19 million... also see http://www.conapo.gob.mx (Consejo Nacional de Población). --J.Alonso 19:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Have you checked the total area including the municipalities that make up the Metropolitan Area? And, yes, there aren't that many high-rise buildings because the city is located in an earthquake-prone area. My dad worked as project engineer in Torre Mayor for some time and he once told me that the construction code for high-buildings in the city is a b**ch at it makes such projects far too expensive than most companies are willing to pay. -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 20:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Total area of metro area (including municipalities...) is supposed to be 60 X 40 (which is 2400 sq km). I mean, if these figures are wrong, and the total area does sum up to 5000 sq km (which I doubt), then at least the "60 X 40" argument in the article should be eliminated (It is an obvious math 101 error). As for the small numer of high-rise buildings b/c of earthquake related restricionts, yes, after the 1985 earthquake that killed more than 10000 (officially), 40000 (unofficially) the government set up very strict codes, but again, it does make the point that if there are just a few high-rise buildings (and the city is not able to grow "upwards"), the city's pop. density wouldn't be, and in fact IS NOT, as high as in Buenos Aires (which is 13,676) , and NY(10,292), which again makes the point that population estimations of 30 million are simply not realistic. --J.Alonso 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Too long?

I say this article is too long in all the wrong places. It tells us the whole story of Obrador, and gives us the whole Lonely Planet-style warning about taxis, but doesn't even mention UNAM and can't squeeze in a satellite picture? I think we could learn from the Spanish Wiki article. Perhaps some of the sections could be minimized into a summary, and their previous content moved into other pages, like Urban Problems of Mexico City, Politics of Mexico City, Transportation in Mexico City. - Eric 11:53, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, though I like the catalan article better, as well as the french article; these two are very well organized (though the first article is very concise) and give info about architecture, transportation, sports, education and geography --J.Alonso 16:28, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status

The image of Polanco and the Lake of Chapultepec is impressive. The author uploaded it himself, and allows free use of it. Why does it have a sign that says that there is no information on its copyright status? --J.Alonso 00:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Area of metro area

I found the area of the metro area of Mexico City according to an official source, the Secretaría de Medio Ambiente del Distrito Federal, (SMA). According to the SMA the Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México (ZMVM) is formed by the 16 delegations of the DF and 18 conurbated municipalities (municipios conurbados). The areas are: 1,486 km² of the urbanized area of the delegations and 2,054 km² of the 18 conurbated municipalities; which gives us a grand total of: 3540 km². Also, according to this report (published in 2002), the population of the ZMVM in 2000 was a "little more than 17 million" (se estimó que en la Zona Metropolitana delValle de México, residían más de 17 millones de habitantes para el año 2002; en conjunto, la población de la ZMVM representa cerca del 17% del total nacional, p. 26). [The .pdf file of this publication can be downloaded at: [3]. Click on "Descargar ahora", and you will download a compressed file (.zip).

I don't know what to think of this publication, because it considers the ZMVM to be formed by DF and only 18 municipalities... in contrast to what was said above in this page (57 municipalities). Does anyone else have other sources so that we can compare or corroborate these data? --J.Alonso 17:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A municipality founded in 1521 by Cortés???...

Mexico City is not a municipality founded in 1521 by Cortés, for God sake! "Mexico-Tenochtitlan" was founded by the aztec empire in 1325. It has always been the same city, Cortes never re-founded the city or something like that, Mexico city has been the Mexico city founded by the aztecs since... well, since ever. And I know.. because I live here, in Mexico City... And I go to school and I know the history of my own birthplace... THIS ARTICLE IS WROOOOONG. Thanks. --DunkelMeister 00:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. He set up the ayuntamiento which certainly didn't exist in Aztec times. Also, you seem to miss the fact that "municipality" is an administrative unit. And please don't shout in your post, it's considered bad form. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 00:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in 1521 the Spaniards founded in Coyoacan The "Ayuntamiento de México", in 1524 they change the seat of the Ayuntamiento to the Mexico City, that the own Spaniards called "Mexico Tenustitan". Expression that it changed in the year of 1585 in which it stayed as "La Ciudad de Mexico". That information appears in the official site of the Gobierno del DF, here. Again, they never re-founded the city, is been the same city since the aztecs establish in there, the Spaniards only start calling it different. The Mexico City of the Spanish occupation and the Mexico city of the aztec empire, is the same Mexico city.

This websites stablish clearly that Mexico City was founded in 1325:

The wikipedia article "Historia de la ciudad de Mexico" in spanish

Official site of the "Centro Historico"

The Official site of the "Secretaria de Turismo del Gobierno del Distrito Federal"

Believe me, the aztec foundation of Mexico-Tenochtitlan is considered as the official foundation of Mexico city.

And sorry, I forget that the capital letters are considered like shouting (if you say it for that)... I dont mean to. Oh and sorry if my english is not very good. --DunkelMeister 13:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read the history section further down in the article it clearly says that the original Aztec city was founded in 1325. The fact under discussion is that the municipality was stablished by Cortés in 1521, which you just acknowledged yourself above. I fail to see exactly what is what you want. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 15:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"Mexico City was originally a municipality founded in 1521 by Cortés in the middle of the now drained Lake Texcoco on the ruins of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, and its lesser-known twin city Tlatelolco."

What I am saying is that Mexico city was not originally a municipality founded in 1521 by Cortés, Mexico City was originally the capital of the aztec empire founded in 1325.. the Aztec city and the city after Cortes built the ayuntamiento was the same... Cortes didn't came one day in 1521 and said: "I found and name this municipality "Mexico City".. no, in 1521 when they built the Ayuntamiento they even continue callen it "Mexico-Tenochtitlan" so it was still the Mexico-Tenochtitlan of the Aztecs.

And what I want is that you (cause you dont let anyone to do a change) get clear that "Mexico City" was founded in 1325, that Mexico city was ORIGINALLY The capital of the Aztec empire founded in 1325 and not the municipality founded by Cortes... thats all.

As of the city being the "same", one could argue that Tenochtitlan was pretty much dismantled and built on top by the conquistadores... but that's beyond the point. The article mentions what you want in the history section. The article on Tenochtitlan does as well. The municipality, an administrative unit, was stablished in 1521. It's all quite clear.

Also I want to ask you to keep things civil. Acusing me of "not letting anyone to do a change" is a pretty serious accusation given that we just started to discuss things here. You haven't even attempted to edit the article so it's not like I have reverted any of your changes, either. So please calm down. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 19:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the Mexico City as a municipality and as an administrative unit, was stablished in 1521.

you are saying that: "Mexico City was originally a municipality founded in 1521 by Cortés in the middle of the now drained Lake Texcoco on the ruins of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire"

But again, Mexico city was originally The capital of the Aztec empire founded in 1325 and not a municipality founded by Cortes, yes, Mexico City as a municipality was stablished (not founded, Cortes didn't re-founded the city, thats why I say that the city is the same) in 1521 by Cortes, But that is not the origin of Mexico City.

Originally Mexico City was the capital of the Aztec empire founded in 1325.. Then, 200 years later Cortes stablished Mexico City as a municipality.

If you are trying to say when Mexico city was stablished as a municipality, write: "Mexico City as a municipality was stablished in 1521 by Cortés..." or something like that.

---

Sorry, but Mexico City was not "originally a municipallity established by Cortes"... I agree with DunkelMeister. Mexico City was founded in 1325 by the Aztecs. Period. There's and should be no argument about it. I will not change the article for it seems it would be seen as offensive on my part, but I would ask the contributors to consider the comments and make an effort to revise it. I really find the whole "introduction" of the article quite misleading. --Agurza 01:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By the same token it is misleading to say that "Mexico City" was founded in 1325. Tenochtitlan was founded in 1325 by the Aztecs, and that is explained in the history section further down the article.

This article focuses on Mexico City after the Spanish conquest being a substantially different period in the history of the city. That's why we have different articles for Byzantium, Constantinople and Istanbul, for instance. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Agurza, Mexico City and Tenocthitlan (México-Tenochtitlan) are one and the same city, even if one was built upon the ruins of another. This has been the case of dozens of cities in Europe like Rome, or even Budapest that changed names several times (but not their dates of foundation). Besides even if there are different articles for Byzantium, Constantinople and Instanbul, the article of the latter says that the city was "founded by Greek colonists..." and later renamed, and renamed again. So is the case with Mexico City; it could be said that it was a city "founded by the aztecs" and later renamed and constituted a municipality during the colonial times.

Moreover, the date of the establishment of an official Spanish municipality does not constitute the "date of foundation". (After all it had a form of "municipality" and self-government before the Spanish arrived, why is this not recognized?) Several cities in Spain and New Spain did not receive the minimum status required to have an "ayuntamiento" (i.e. municipality), the designation of "Villa" instead of "Pueblo", during the colonial times, and yet they had a foundation date, some even dating back to the Roman times (in Spain) and not the date in which they were allowed to have an "ayuntamiento"in recent times. --J.Alonso 04:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Mexico City and Tenochtitlan are two completely different things. It's not like a simple change of name such as in the case of Constantinople renamed Istanbul in 1930. I have great admiration for the ancient Nahuatl culture, but Tenochtitlan was simply razed to the ground, its people slaughtered, its civilization assassinated, and then the Mexico City that was founded by Spaniards afterwards was an entirely different city built by people with an entirely different culture and mindset. Furthermore, don't forget that there were two cities on the island where the Spaniards built Mexico City: those were Tenochtitlan and Tlatelolco. So what does justify using the founding date of Tenochtitlan? why not using the founding date of Tlatelolco? The best is to use the legal foundation date by Cortes, even though none of us like the man, but that's another story. Hardouin 03:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I slightly rephrased the controversial sentence in a way that will please everybody I hope. Hardouin 04:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the reprharsing will please everybody. First, you are right, Mexico-Tenochtitlan was destroyed and a new city was built on top of its ruins. Yet, I've checked several encyclopedias and World Almanacs and Mexico City's mayoralty web page, and all say that Mexico City was founded in 1325 as "Mexico-Tenochtitlan". As of yet I haven't found a single article or source that states that Tenochtitlan and Mexico are two completely different things (and I would very much like you to refer me to such an article). How many other cities, like Corinth have been destroyed and desolated, and then rebuilt again by totally different people, with totally different mindsets, and different religions I might add? I think a better rephrasing would be "It was originally founded as Mexico-Tenochtitlan.... and then destroyed....", or we could speak of a first and a second foundation. But still, you need to consider that not ALL the residents were slaughtered; some survived and continued to live in the same city, even if their homes were "remodeled".

Secondly, Mexico City was not built on top of Tlatelolco, but on top of Tenochtitlan, and these two settlements remained separated by water even after the conquest; the first was known as Santiago Tlatelolco, while the latter continued to be called Mexico-Tenochtitlan or Mexico (city was just its rank whithin the Spanish Empire, superior to villa and pueblo. It was after Mexico's independence, that it became known in English as Mexico City just to differenciate it from the country but that is a different story). The lake was not completely filled (or dried, or whatever method they used, and of course with the exception of the small areas of Xochimilco and Texcoco) until several hundred years later (and since they Spanish had destroyed the dikes, they city had recurrent floddings until they were rebuilt in the 1700's [Enciclopedia de México]). That is why using Tlatelolco's founding date is not justified, any more than using Oak Cliff's founding date for Dallas is justified.

Thirdly, the city continued to be called "México Tenustitlan" for many years after the conquest (according to [4] and when it was given its coat of arms, it was called "Tenoxtitlan-México" (bear in mind that in Maedieval Castilian the x was pronounced /ʃ/) [5]. This speaks of some sort of continuity, even if the city was "won" (the verb used by King Charles V of Spain in the above link), destroyed, conquered, annihilated or whatever verb you want to use.

--J.Alonso 04:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

If by 6/5 nobody makes any comments (a month after I wrote the above) I will make some changes according to what I exposed there. Please comment. --J.Alonso 16:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Again population figures

Can't a single area of the article be blocked, without blocking the whole article? Again, they changed population figures to 26 million, based on the "recent census". I have complained, and complained, and complained that people only invent their own estimates of population figures, and yet again another user comes and gives his own appreciation of what the population figure should be, and then says it comes from a "recent census". Please, check the 2005 preliminary results: [6]. (And I must remark: preliminary, as of march 2005, INEGI has not reported all the results of the 2005 census). Given these results, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE for Mexico City's population to be 26 million!!! See, 14 million live in the State of Mexico, 8 in the Federal District: if EVERY single municipality in the State of Mexico is part of the metropolitan area (which is not the case, only 40 municipalities are part of the metro area), then the population would be 22 million. Now, according to the most recent definition of Metropolitan Area for the Greater Mexico City, only 1 municipality in the state of Hidalgo should be incluced, but even if you include ALL THE STATE of Hidalgo (with a population of 2,3 million), then this huge illusory metro area with have a population of 24 million, which is even less than the 26 million figure that has been reported in this article. Therefore, according to the TRUE most recent census, (and please note that the population in the metro area HAS NOT YET BEEN REPORTED, but only data of each state separately), population of Greater Mexico City CANNOT BE 26 million. Having said that, I would recommend reverting to the last available official figure (the 2000 census). --J.Alonso 04:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've done. I've reverted to 2000 census figures, and added references. Please revert future vandals if you spot some. Hardouin 03:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] pictures

Is bullfighting still popular in Mexico City? I've only been there once but I am kind of surprised it isn't mentioned aside from the picture of the bullfight ring. If it is, maybe, someone can include it under a Culture section? Just a suggestion. M P M 06:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What have you done to this page?

What happened to the pictures? Why did you move them and why many in the gallery don't appear?Carlosr chill 14:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonias

That's a section that really needs to be improved, not only in this article but in each one of the colonias because most of them are too short and/or sound more like a tourist guide than like an encyclopedia or don't exist. Some pictures wouldn't be bad also. Carlosr chill 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree we need to work out that out, I can help and also there are some places that there are not even so called "colonias"

[edit] No location map?

I'm surprised this article hasn't got a map locating Mexico City within Mexico. -GTBacchus^(talk) 11:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Second that. A map with the city regions would be valuable, too. –Zinjixmaggir 19:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

One might use this one: Image:Mexico DF in Mexiko.png which indicates the D.F. within Mexico but the exact position of Mexico City cannot be seen very well. As to the city regions we have Image:Boroughs of Mexican Federal District.png, giving the borders of the boroughs without naming them. I don't know if that would really be of any help for the reader. --Proofreader 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About Chilangos

Actually the world "chilangos" refers to people who go to live to Mexico City. People born in Mexico City are often called "capitalinos" or "Defeños".

Sorry, I'm mexican and know than "chilangos" is actually used as despective name for any people than living in Mexico City. Sorry for my beginer english. Thanks. - Xammoh Pacheco - 20 January 2007, 17:47 GMT

Where is the dictionary to back these claims? Hari Seldon 18:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, for starters, I live in Mexico City, so here's my 20 centavos... In my personal experience, I have never encountered Chilango used in a disrespectful way- nor have I found it limited to people that immigrated to Mexico City (quite the opposite).

An exhibit at the Mexico City Museum (near Pino Suarez) discusses the possible origins of the term chilango, and suggests the most likely explaination comes from a Spanish-ization of a native nahuatl word referring to the hair style of the pre-Hispanic inhabitants of the region (if I recall correctly).

Also, from my observations, the less-popular term Defeños (D.F.'ers) is identical in meaning to chilango, referring to either any Mexico City resident or a person originally from Mexico City. In fairness to Xammoh Pacheco, the city is known for its diversity of urban slangs, so chilango may very well be considered derrogatory within neighborhoods on the outskirts of town, or in other areas where I have little experience.

How could we possible reconcile one interpretation of colloquialism vs. another without broadsiding the no original research concept? While my Larousse and Doubleday Spanish/English dictionaries fail to include chilango, we are fortunate that my back-breaking 10 kilo 1994 Oxford Spanish-English Dictionary (thank you Carlos) graces us with a definition:

chilango -ga adj. of/from Mexico City.

There. settled.

- Eric 10:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UNAM

The article says that UNAM is "one of the best universities in the world." I don't want to hurt anyone's pride -- perhaps it is. Nevertheless, it's POV and it doesn't belong in the article.

Mexico City is an important financial center of Latin America and virtually every foreign and domestic corporation has operations in the city. It produces 25% of Mexico’s $815 billion Nominal GDP ($1.1 trillion in PPP GDP) making Mexico City alone the 30th largest economy in the world. In addition, it is one of the most important cultural centers in the world boasting more museums than any other city. It has the fourth highest quantity of theaters in the world after New York, London and Toronto.

The link doesn't correspond with Mexico's GDP ranking, When I click on the link, Mexico is listed in 13th place and not 30th.

---

This refers to the "city" I think. I guess what they mean is that if the city was a country it would have the 30th largest economy in the world. Mexico as a country is 11th or 13th depending on the source.

[edit] "Financial Center of Latin America"?

On the article concerning Mexico City, it's said that the city is the financial center of Latin America, because it's GDP (nominal) is about 200b USD. Howerver, it's usual in Brazil to read that Sao Paulo is the actual hub of the region and the article of SP states that the city's GDP (probably PPP) is 500b international dollars (by this standard, Mexico City's GDP would be about 300b intl.$). So, once SP's GDP is clerly superior to that of Mexico City, shouldn't the "title" of financial hub of Latin America belong to SP?

I do not believe the size of the GDP is an issue here, actually it is irrelevant, however given that Mexico’s economy as a whole has minimal interests in Latin America and, as far as I can tell, the Mexican financial markets are not really tapped by other Latin American countries for financing I agree that it does not really makes sense for it to be mentioned as Latin American financial center or hub. Mexican financial markets are mostly domestic. The same could be said about Sao Paolo, however that is an issue for that talk page. --LS1010 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree and disagree with LS1010. I agree with you in that the size of the city's economy (GDP) is irrelevant to determine if a city is a financial center. A city might have a larger GDP simply because it is a bigger industrial hub. It is the number and importance of financial institutions that make a city a financial hub, not the amount of goods and services produced. Now, I disagree with LS1010 in that Mexican financial market are not mostly domestic, but international, and many American financial institutions that operate in LA have their regional headquarters in the Mexico City. --Alonso 14:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And many others have their regional headquarters for LA in Sao Paulo...

Sao Pulo's stock exchange (BOVESPA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovespa) is the largest in Latin America. What else do you want?

You should be asking yourself the same question, what do you want? What is exactly your point? A childish rivarly between Mexico City and Sao Paolo? Do you simply want to convince us that Sao Paolo should should be "awarded" the nomination of "financial hub"? Let's be rigurous. First define "financial hub" Which characteristics should a city possess to be considered a (not the) financial hub? GDP is nonsense, as it was explained above. Now, speaking of the stock market, does BOVESPA trade only local stock or can Argentine, Peruvian, Venezuelan and Mexican stock be traded there, to make it truly an international or Latin American hub? Is it the only stock market, or are there several (as it is the case in the US)? Moreover, does simply having the largest stock market in LA (in area? points? amount traded in dollars?) make a city the financial hub (and I presume that was your argument)? What other things, besides GDP and stock markets, do you think are really important? --Alonso 04:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I want to start world war III by questioning this article on wikipedia. Seriously now, my point is: Wikipedia is a rigorous project (your term), therefore we should deal with acurate, precise definitions. When someone writes on this webpage that "Mexico City is the financial center of Latin America", when it clearly isn't (by that I don't mean that SP is the hub of the region, I don't think there is one), the very principles of this project are at stake. All I'm trying to say is that we shouldn't insert dubious information on wikipedia. I'm for erasing this part of the article and I'm exposing my reasons, that's all.

Point well taken. Yet I believe that experts in the area can find those characteritics that make a city or a region an industrial, financial or cultural hub, be it national (Sao Paolo is the financial hub of Brazil) or international (where London could be considered the financial hub of Europe). It wasn't the "possession" of the title that I disagreed about, but the reasons you had provided for arguing against it (GDP and Bovespa). We should probably do a little more research in professional financial and economics journals. We might be surprised to find that nowadays it is not MC nor SP but Panama City or the rapidly emerging Santiago de Chile. --Alonso 19:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised about Panama City. In fact I believe it's going to be the next Hong Kong. Really, i wouldn't doubt that at all!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking_of_Latin_American_cities

This ranking considers only the GDP of the municipality, not the entire metropolitan region, therefore is not a very good source.

So what? Haven't we discussed about GDP already? --Alonso 03:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

yes, yes, i was only answering another post. i definetly need to get me an account...

This discussion is going nowhere. I've been to both cities (in fact, I'm doing business in Brazil right now) and well, Sao Paolan's may have built a larger and richer city, but they were so focused on making money that they forgot to make it a pleasant place. Mexico City is a beautifull city with all the nice small green streets and large boulevards. But yes, I think in a few decades time noone will question sao paolo to be the financial center (and ugliest city) of the region, but Mexico City will still be much more interesting of a place from a foreigner POV.

Yes this discussion is going nowhere, because you are not providing any solid foundation for your position other than personal qualitative arguments. "Larger", "richer", "more beautiful", "no one will question" are not solid academic arguments but mere ungrounded qualitative comments. If you wish to analyze economically and quantitatively your position, we would be able to discuss this in a constructive way. --Alonso 22:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, dont forget, this not some kind of "share-your-experiences" tourism website, this is an enciclopedia, this is not about personal "feelings" towards your favourite tourism destination. It's not about comparing cities based on subject issues either. that's the reason why i'm changing the name of this section (wich i created).

I should not forget? Who's been talking about "share-your-experiences" tourism comments (sic)? Not me, but you!! --Alonso 23:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

ok, there seems to be a little confusion here. it wasn't me (the guy who posted this section the first time, the guy who is questioning the fact that mexico df is the financial heart of LA) who posted this stupid comment about "this discussion going nowhere", I'm the one saying this is not some kind of "share-your-experiences" website to the guy (or she-guy :) )who is comparing cities based on their beauty, not you, Alonso; We're on the same side here! (ok, now that I learned how to sign posts I'll start doing it) 201.78.136.49 00:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, my bad. I'm sorry. Thanks for signing now! =) --Alonso 22:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics descriptions

A couple of small comments on the demographics description. First, the article says

   There's also a large community of Arabs (especially from Lebanon)

I'm not an expert on the matter but my understanding has been that the majority of Middle Eastern immigrants to Mexico were Maronites from Lebanon. As such they presumably would mostly not be Arabs (i.e. although there is a large Arab community in Lebanon today, some of which have converted to Christianity, the majority of the Christians are not ethnic Arabs although, of course, they do speak Arabic).

Also, in categorizing the "immigrants" it is not clear what precisely is meant. That is, are these categories referring to countries of origin, ethnicity, or what? As a specific example, the reference to "Jews" is unclear. Does that mean people who have immigrated from Israel, any Jewish person who has ever immigrated to Mexico from any location, or just anybody who calls themselves a Jew? Because of that ambiguity it is unclear if the other categories mean people who have actually immigrated or people who are descended from those immigrants. Without being more specific in the article the categorizations are unclear and could be interpreted as slightly xenophobic or racist (I'm guessing these numbers were based on some "official" statistics but regardless of the source you should make sure the information is "meaningful").

That aside, it would be interesting to see a discussion of the non-immigrant demographics as well.

--MCorazao 10:20, 01 August 2006

Yes the majority of Middle Eastern immigrants to Mexico were Lebanese. I didn't know that Christian Lebanese were not ethnically Arab (i.e. Middle Eastern), but I can assure you that the majority of the Lebanese surnames in Mexico are Arabic (Kuri, Jalhile, Abaid, Abed, Karim, Nacif, Salem, Jammal, Farah, Abud, Caram...). I have heard a couple of stories of some Lebanese friends' grandparents that they converted to Catholicism upon their arrival to Mexico, and some even changed their surnames to Spanish ones. The problem is that there is very little information about ethnicity and immigration in Mexico. You might want to visit the Centro Mexicano Libanés website for more information: [7] --Alonso 20:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, (and again, I'm no expert) "Middle Eastern" is not the same as "Arab." The Arabs are just one ethnic group that happens to have dominated much of the Middle East (so much so that even non-Arabs often speak Arabic). From what I know the Maronite Christians consider themselves descended from the Phoenecians, not the Arabs. In fact I believe they adopted Christianity when they were part of the Roman Empire, long before the Arabs ever arrived, not from the Crusaders as is commonly thought (although there are some other Christian groups that were converted by the Crusaders). But generally they do have Arabic names (e.g. my Christian friend from college is Marwan).

In any event I don't know much about the Mexican immigrants but I had heard before that most Lebanese immigrants to the U.S. and Latin America are Christians (I think many convert from Maronite Catholicism to Roman Catholicism when they come over, of course). But presumably you know more than I do. --MCorazao 10:20, 01 August 2006

[edit] Colonia Noche Buena

I don't think we should include that one in the colonias section. First of all the statement about the HDI is unsourced. Second, it's not even nearly a known area and it doesn't have an important building, a landmark or anything. Carlosr chill 01:58, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Railways

I think I'm right in saying that Mexico City is by far the largest city in the world not served by intercity (as opposed to metro) passenger trains. Might be worth a mention somewhere. Loganberry (Talk) 02:17, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico City Economy

Where it says that mexico city has a $815 billion economy, is that 815 pesos or 815 U.S. dollars?

Neither one. If the Mexican GDP PPP is US$1 trillion or Nominal GDP a little more than US$700 billion, that of Mexico City cannot be US$815 billion in neither GDP PPP nor nominal GDP. According to INEGI Nominal GDP of the Federal District was MXN$1.5 trillion in 2004, roughly US$0.15 trillion (or 150 billion) [8]. --Alonso 04:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colonias

There are probably thousands of colonias in Mexico City, which have no legal status whatsoever; a simple gated community of 4 streets could be a colonia. I think it is wrong to briefly mention in 2 sentences the 16 delegaciones which are the legal autonomous political subdivisions of Mexico City, while devoting a section to talk about a carefully selected list of 16 colonias. I think the delegaciones section should be expanded (at least to include a list of the 16 delegaciones, their origin, and their political structure and functions). The section of colonias should be eliminated; the concept, however, could be defined in the Demographics section or in a Urbanization section. --Alonso 20:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

No response. I will make the pertinent changes myself. --Dúnadan (formerly Alonso) 22:25, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After the restructuring, the list of colonias has been moved to Colonias of Mexico City, and just a brief summary was left in the section of Boroughs. --Dúnadan 06:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mexico City Centrism

This article suffers from the worse ill that Mexico (the country) has: Mexico City Centrism. Many statements in this article make it seem like all the country revolves around Mexico City, and though for structural reasons, some things do, it is unfair to exaggerate. Examples:

• Two paragraphs in the economy section menctioning how great the economy is, without menctioning the disparities in wages, the informal economy sector, the overburdening subsidies financed by the rest of the nation, and even an excuse as to why State of Mexico is growing economically.
• I recently removed an adjective, "amazing", from the wording. "Mexico City produces 25% of the economy! Amazing!", as if centuries of centric-government history had nothing to do with it, and as if Jalisco and Nuevo Leon, who combined have less than 50% the population, produce another 25% of the GDP... It isn't amazing, it just is. (NOTE: I meant to say, the Guadalajara Metro Area - 5 million - and the Monterrey Metro Area - 4 million - have combined less population than the Mexico City Metro Area - 19 million -, and produce about the same percentage of GDP. Of course, I did not check the preciseness of this claim, but I believe I am in the ballpark...)
• Unfair comparisons, like the one I removed about how Mexico City alone "would be the Nth largest economy". But the comparison should be between cities (New York, LA, Chicago, Miami, etc... and then Mexico City)... This comparison in particular makes it look like Mexico City alone is the whole economy of Mexico, which isn't so.
• Unsourced material. The cases are too many to place examples.
• Not up-to-date information that makes it look like the city has more than it does. Mexico City has not been the home of the Diablos Rojos (baseball) for a few years now. Is it so bad to only have one baseball team?
• The transportation section starts of with how amazing the Metro system is, but it never menctions who pays for this transportation system.
• The same section also menctions how huge the Mexico City airport is, but it does not menctioned that virtually all flights are always delayed because of the excess in traffic, and that the overburdening centralization of the airport's operations are a flaw that the Federal Government wants to correct, and not something to be proud of.
• "Hoy No circula" a scheme? Since when is an Official Government Program designed to protect the environment for all Mexicans at the expense of the comfort of a few Mexico City residents with cars a "scheme"?
• About UNAM, this discussion I've had elsewhere. Where are the sources to international rankings (updated) of performance by students? Where are the sources about who pays for this "marvel"?
• In the Media section, sure, menction Grupo Reforma and other media groups, but why not menction that many of them are not origianlly from Mexico City? Did you know that the inventor of color TV was from Guadalajara, and that the first TV station in Mexico opened in Monterrey?
• Funny that in the Urban Problems section no one menctions "fiscal deficits", "informal economy", "illegal taxis", "excessive centralization"... Most disturbing is the fact that the section talks about police reform, and then talks about the Federal (NATIONAL) police and ignores the local (MEXICO CITY) police. Its like the writers confuse the nation with the city!
• Chilango denomination is unsourced.
• Most disturbing even is that the article contains the myth of the "niños heroes" despite it being found to be false and removed from SEP books by Ernesto Zedillo when he was Secretary of Education. Again, this problem is part of the "lack of sources" problem.
• Mexico City HOSTED the FIFA WORLD CUP? All by itself?! Amazing! I thought that the FIFA WORLD CUP was hosted by the whole country!

I understand that the article focuses on the city, but it is unbearable to read the article and see that it tries to convince the reader that the city encompasses the whole country, when it doesn't. There is no menction in the article about how the city relates to the rest of the country, and how its history is linked to the history of the rest of the nation, and, most importantly, how the city is DIFFERENT from other cities in the rest of the country, its uniqueness, and its peculiarities. Why resort to unsourced myths and outrageous adjectives to convince the reader about the greatness of the city, when the truth is even greater and more beautiful than the myth? Hari Seldon 07:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not claim authorship for most of the content in this article, I only restructured it, and added the Political and administrative divisions sections and a couple of paragraphs on the Economics section. But let me try to answer a couple of the concerns exposed above, in a way as neutral as possible, given the historical animosity between the capital and provincia, and how each perceives the other. I will respond to all the points in the same order Hari exposed them:

• True, positive and negative factors of economic growth should be added to the articles of all cities in Mexico. However, neither wage disparity nor the size of the informal sector are unique or in anyway different (in size or percentage) of what they are in the rest of the country. The burden that DF expenses put on the federal budget has indeed been a matter of national concern (and preposterous claims have been made as to how much money is sent to the capital vis-à-vis the states), but I have no relevant source neither to confirm nor to discredit them. After all, it is the Congress of the Union (in which every state plus the DF are equally represented based on population) who approves, changes and modifies the national budget based on the projects planned in each particular state. So far, silence is better than providing unsourced claims, but I do believe that it would be very interesting and illustrative to say how much of the federal budget is actually going to the DF vis-à-vis the states.
• "Amazing" as a qualifier is not moral (neither good nor bad) it just expresses the surprising fact that a single city produces 25% of the 14th largest economy in the world. Crime could be amazingly high and so would be happiness. But a more adequate adjective can be used instead. Now, Hari, you were right, the source hadn't been added, and it wasn't the .pdf paper I was telling you about. The source is here [9], and it is not 25% it is 21.8%, whereas that of Nuevo León is 7.4% and Jalisco is 6.3%. Definitely, whether it is amazing or not, it is not 25%, and we should change that information. Now, please note that 21.8% of Mexico's GDP is attributed to Mexico City proper (DF) and not to the whole metropolitan area. In other words, only 8.7 million people produce 21.8% of the GDP, which is much, much larger than NL and Jalisco combined (11 million that produce 13.7%). So, neither in GDP nor in GDP per capita, and not even by combining two states, could you get the same amount that a single city of 8 million produces. That is why it is "amazing". But like I said, alternative adjectives could be used.
• I don't find the comparison of Mexico City to countries misleading. The comparison simply says that Mexico City's GDP is indeed larger that GDPs of entire countries. True, it might also be the case with NY or LA, but I still don't find it misleading. And I still don't think that by saying that [only] 21.8% of Mexico's GDP is produced in Mexico City people would think that Mexico City alone is the whole economy (100%) of Mexico. But if you wish, the sentence can be rephrased.
• About the unsourced material; I agree. You can add the {{citation needed}} template if you find a claim that needs to be referenced, or list them here in the Talk:Page.
• About the base-ball team; well if it is not in Mexico City, let's just remove it. I don't believe the author considered it was "bad" to have only one team. I can't assume anything on his part. Facts are facts. If they are not a DF team anymore, let's remove that information.
• About the metro, I assume you mean the subsidy on transportation. I am not surprised if the federation subsidizes DF's transportation, at least legally, DF is a federal district whose budget is (or was) administered by the federation itself (again, it is the Congress of the Union who approves it, and all states are adequately represented in the Congress). Nonetheless, it should be interesting to note the size of the subsidy vis-à-vis the federal budget. Total budget for 2007, for example was 2.17 trillion pesos (or in Spanish terms, 2.17 billones de pesos, i.e. 2.170.000.000.000). If the metro subsidy only represents, say 1% of the total budget, then it is not a heavy burden for the federation. Whether it is fair or unfair... well that is another issue.
• About the airport. The section does say that the airport's traffic exceeds its current capacity. It doesn't use the negative terms you suggest (i.e. a "flaw" in policy), but it does state what the problem is and what the gov't has done and is doing to improve the situation (building a second terminal, and a decentralization of flights into a Group of 5 nearby Airports). Btw, as far as I know, there was no policy of centralization of flights into a single airport; what I know is that very few airports are as capable of handling international carriers in the country. For example, I read on a newspaper that American Airlines canceled its direct flights Dallas-Puebla and diverted them to Mexico City, simply because Puebla's airport couldn't handle the task. And that included a lot more than just having physical infrastructure; the main problem was logistic infrastructure and a problem with the local labor union of "maleteros".
• About the Hoy no circula. I didn't understand your point. I don't think the paragraph gives a qualifying opinion (good or bad), it simply states what it is and why it has been implemented. (If the word "scheme" is misleading then "program" could be an alternative). In any case, the main problem with environmental pollution in the Valley of Mexico is not the amount of cars (4 million) or industries (50,000) but its geographic location (a basin closed on 4 sides that does not allow high current winds to disperse pollutants). In Environmental Economics (I once did a paper precisely dealing with this issue), there is a thing called "Contingency valuation". To put it in simple words, environmental concerns are studied under an economics cost-benefit analysis. Since, for the most part, all technological improvement programs have already been implemented (an efficient vehicle emission inspection program, according to the World Bank, plus gasoline that meets US environmental standards and diesel that exceeds European standards), the last resort to attenuating pollution was a "control policy" or "usage control policy". The benefits on health (avoiding respiratory and cardiovascular problems, and increase in health risks, and a quantified reduction in life expectancy; all monetized) are compared to the perceived costs (or lack of comfort) of not using a car on a day. Evidently, benefits far outweighed the costs, and the policy was so "justified". The majority of Mexico City's environmentally concerned resident (at least during the 80s) in fact demanded the government to take action. Whether it is fully efficient or not (control policies are usually not as efficient as a tax-incentive policy) that is a separate issue. But, like I said, I didn't understand your point. Could you please elaborate?
• About UNAM, I agree with you. What was agreed in other discussions should be applied here. For the most part, I would rather have a descriptive paragraph (this is what it is) and not a normative paragraph (it is unfair or it is bad.). And I agree, sources should be added.
• Media refers to what media companies are located in Mexico City. Whether TV was invented by a tapatio or whether the first TV station was built in Monterrey, that is a different issue. This article is about Mexico City, not about Mexico (country), or Guadalajara or Monterrey. Grupo Reforma originated as El Norte in Monterrey (as far as I know), but their offices are now headquartered in Mexico City. If you believe that it is important to say that the founder of Grupo Reforma is from Monterrey, then add it. But the section only lists Newspapers and news agencies headquartered or published in Mexico City, regardless of where their founders were born or if the origins of the agency can be traced to another city.
• About urban problems, I fully agree with you. Not all articles about cities have a section on urban problems (see Los Angeles, Buenos Aires, New York City, Madrid for comparison), but if we are going to include it, we should definitely write a more comprehensive and adequately sourced section.
• About the World Cup, I agree with you. I believe it was just a misunderstanding. The sentence reads: Mexico hosted the Football World Cup in 1970 and 1986. Azteca is the only stadium in the world to host the final match of the Football World Cup twice. "Mexico" here, refers to the country not the city, yet the way it is structured is confusing, since users (like it happened with you) understood it was referring to Mexico City. This sentence needs to be rephrased, into something like this: "Given that the country has hosted the World Cup on two ocasions, Mexico City is the only city in which two final matches of the World Cup have been played". However, not that I think about it, Germany and Italy have also hosted the world cup on two occasions. Were the final matches played on different stadiums in these two countries? Is the claim about Azteca actually true?

--the Dúnadan 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan:

I wasn't blaming you for the apparent mess the article is in. I was simply listing a few things that could be better.

• The federal budget could be quoted for this. The last time I saw something about this was a couple of years ago, still an ITESM student, people from the SHCP presented the States that paid more taxes and the States that took most from the budget. DF was in the middle of the taking and was in the top of the giving, compared to Nuevo Leon and Jalisco who were at the bottom of the taking and also at the top of the giving, and compared to Chiapas and Oaxaca who were at the bottom of the giving and at the top of the taking. In short, I think it would be very useful to specify that the apparent wealth and infrastructure in a given state (an in this case, in Mexico City) has nothing to do with the real economic output of any given city.
• Subsidies are a big problem in Mexico City. WTO reports condemn subsidies in water supply. And of course, the metro system, the fair comparison should not be what % of the Federal budget goes to finance the Mexico City metro, but a comparison with what % of the Federal budget subsidizes the metro system in Guadalajara and Monterrey, and of course the fact that other prosperous cities like Puebla and Mérida lack a metro system all together. In essence, taxpayers from Guadalajara, Monterrey, Puebla and Merida (and the rest of the nation) contribute to subsidize the Mexico City Metro, but Mexico City taxpayers DO NOT contribute to the local metro system of other cities.
• "Amazing" is an adjective, and I think that the quality of the article can be improved by avoiding adjectives, except when the adjective is specifically referenced from sourced material.
• Again, in the airport part, a reminder that airports depend on the federal government, and that only very few are privatized would be useful. The reader must know that the Mexico City airport capacity, centralization, and problems are caused by improper policies by the federal government and because of a lack of free market conditions in the air business. Of course there are very few other airports in Mexico that have a capacity comparable to that of Mexico City's airport, but that is due to political decisions and not due to any market condition or any real (lack of) need or desire to invest.
• For the "hoy no circula", calling a Government Program a "scheme" is a negative connotation weasel word. Lets pretend that I call the President's Tortilla Price Stabilization Pact a "scheme" instead of a "Government Program". You see the difference? Weather or not the program solves anything or weather or not cars are the pollution problem, that can be discussed int he "Hoy no circula" article, but I see no reason why this article should denigrate it by calling it a "scheme".
• For UNAM, I will be working on it.
• The media section in this article is a mess. Because I particularly like it, I suggest we take this subsection as an example
• Now that I think about it, I don't particularly like the idea of having an "urban problems" section. Each area of life of a city (transportation, security, media, economy, culture, etc..) has its corresponding problem (traffic, crime, centralization, pollution, degradation, etc...) I believe it would be more useful to include a comprehensive NPOV view of each area of the life of this city instead of writing a turistic brochure, and then a separate subsection listing the setbacks.
• About the World Cup: France, Italy, and Germany have also hosted the World Cup in two occassions. However, all three countries had at least 60 years in between their hosting, and Mexico only had 16. Thus, Estadio Azteca functioned in both World Cups (1970, 1986), while the other countries built new stadiums for their second world cups, and thus, the Estadio Azteca (why call it Azteca Stadium?) is the only Stadium in soccer history to host the FIFA World Cup Final twice. This is true and can be checked at http://www.fifaworldcup.com/. This should be added with more precision, including your proposed precision on differentiating Mexico City with Mexico, the country.

I am sorry, I got a little carried away, but it was late at night. I will look to this article with more objectivity and contribute as I can. Hari Seldon 23:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

If you think this article is a mess, man, you should have seen it before I restructured it =) Anyway,

• I really don't see the relevance of adding the federal budget information in this particular article. Maybe we should add that on political divisions of Mexico or economy of Mexico. I mean, if we add it here, why not on, say, Colima? I think it is a national issue, not necessarily a local one.
• About metro, you are right in that it is heavily subsidized. Yet budget management is a little more complex than that, and remember that DF is a federal district, and as such it is administered by the federation (Congress) and enjoys certain prerogatives as a capital. Things will be different if DF is transformed (as some have suggested) into the 32nd state of the Union. As far as I understand it, the Congress assigns a specific amount of money to the states, and they are responsible for administering it directly. That is, the Congress of the Union does not assign a specific amount for Nuevo León's transportation (much less to Metrorrey). The administration of the state's budget is Nuevo León's prerogative and Nuevo León decides whether to subsidize transportation or not in the same proportion as the capital. As a federal district, that is not necessarily the case with Mexico City. So, in a certain way, Mexico City's taxpayers (top givers, middle receivers) do contribute indirectly to the local transportation systems of other cities. Now, the fact that poorer states are assigned more in proportion to their contribution, whereas richer states are assigned less in proportion to their contribution, is not surprising within a federation or confederation. Just think about the massive transfer of money from the richer countries within the European Union (most notably Germany) to the poorer countries. Call it economic interest or altruism, it is quite normal. What Mexico is missing, however, is local fiscal autonomy: the states have very little fiscal autonomy and are therefore almost absolutely dependent on the transfers assigned by the federal budget. But I think this wouldn't be the place to talk about that. We can (and probably should) elaborate on this issue in the economy of Mexico's article. And we could also talk a lot about subsidies, a very interesting subject indeed... but I will refrain from doing so now. =)
• If you want to eliminate the "amazing" adjective (or the alternatives "remarkable", "notable", etc.) from the 21.8% percentage of GDP, I have no problem with that at all. However, beware... we must not arbitrarily choose to eliminate "amazing" and yet insist on saying that the airport policies are "improper". Either we qualify or we don't. And like I said before, airport centralization as a goal in itself has not been the policy at all. And even if it had been an indirect effect of mismanagement, the fact that it is no longer the case (with the creation of Grupo Aeropuertuario) is much more relevant.
• I believe the media section can be improved. However, the section does make a point (whether it is fair or not, that's another issue): the majority of the media industry is headquartered in Mexico City. Your example on media in Monterrey shows the available TV local stations that belong to a greater corporate network. It would be equivalent to say that Dallas has channel 4 and it belongs to Fox. As a local TV guide that is useful, but what is more relevant is the city who serves as the headquarters of Fox. That city would be indeed a media hub, whereas Dallas wouldn't. Think of CEMEX, for example. There are CEMEX cement manufacturers in different states in Mexico. But what really matters, is that CEMEX is managed from Monterrey (or its metro area). But definitely, the section could be expanded and improved. Btw, this is not necessarily the space to discuss it, but I find the claim that Monterrey is an important producer and broadcaster of media and entertainment in Mexico somewhat untrue. After all, in other states, no single Monterrey channel or TV show is ever broadcasted nationally at least on open-air television.
• Now I understand what you were saying about Hoy no Circula: you don't necessarily like the world "scheme". Let's change it to "program" or "policy".
• And for the rest, I totally agree with you. Should we proceed to change those things (21.8% of GDP (not 25%), worldcup, UNAM, urban problems)?

--the Dúnadan 01:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan:

• The relevance of adding federal budget information is to add context. Indeed, Mexico City has very impressive structures, but who pays for them, how often and with what quality they are mantained, and who does it must be added to add context, and particularly in a city as important as Mexico City. For the record, I totally would favor (if information is available) to add the same context in the Monterrey metro. In short, impressive structures are worth impressive amounts of information in wikipedia: who pays for it and how it is mantained are important information.
• As said above, the purpose is not to qualify (by using adjectives) but to add context (by using available information on everything that is relevant), for example, (in the airport case) government policies that designed the air traffic problems, and government, and business policies that are supposed to help solve them.
• Though, definetely, we should expand on this in the article "economy of Mexico".
• "After all, in other states, no single Monterrey channel or TV show is ever broadcasted nationally", well, it isn't the place to discuss it, but I'll answer anyway: maybe you haven't heard about Grupo Multimedios, who, though it isn't a national network, it is a network that reaches many states, particularly in the north, and yes, Multimedios produces TV content (and the "Milenio" newspapers). Added to this, TV Azteca and Televisa produce local content for all the north-east from Monterrey. Aditionally, broadcasting is not exclusive of TV, but also includes radio and internet, and media also includes newspapers. In this case, Monterrey, through Reforma and Milenio, and through Terra Networks, Multimedios, and Grupo Radio Alegria, produces quite a bit of media content that is consumed, to a different degree, in wide areas of Mexico, though perhaps not nationally.
• I agree to change what we have agreed upon, except UNAM, because it is a touchy issue and I would like to work on it first (getting sources, choose the wording, etc...) Hari Seldon 04:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid you might have missed my point about the budget. Or maybe it was me who failed to understand your point. You keep on saying that it is important to say who pays for Mexico City's impressive infrastructure. My answer has been: the federation. The same federation that pays for Guadalajara, or Monterrey services, since no single state of the Mexican federation has full fiscal autonomy. Whatever major project is planned for any state, it has to be presented every December before the Chamber of Deputies who, amongst themselves, ravage for the limited resources and distribute at will. Even in the US, where states do have much more fiscal autonomy, who paid for the DFW airport? It wasn't Texas. It was the US federal government. In the same way, I don't find it any more surprising that Mexico city's metro or Metrorrey were financed by the federation way and beyond each city's fiscal contributions. True, I have heard many an accusation about the federation "sustaining" the capital, but given their contribution to GDP [21.8%], and the fact that they are a federal territory, I really fail to see the relevance of what is commonplace in financing projects in almost every other country in the world.

Now, forget about the huge initial capital investment for building the systems, and let's talk simply about maintaining them: if DF taxpayers are top givers but middle takers then they are in fact maintaining their system with less money than what they contribute to the federation. Therefore, it can't really be argued that the states pay for Mexico City's infrastructure maintenance; they do it themselves indirectly, and with "less money". The confusion here arises due to the fact that since all financing comes through the federal budget, people often assume that the federation pays for everything, without considering how much money each constituent federal entity is providing in the first place. Hence my use of the word "indirectly".

As for Monterrey's media, I had never heard the word broadcasting used for internet and newspapers (only for radio and TV). But, I am not the expert in communications or journalism so I take you by your word. Still, TV Azteca and Televisa produce local content in almost all state capitals, and Grupo Multimedio's scope is regional not national, hence my concern about the phrase "Monterrey is a major broadcaster...in Mexico". But let's set aside this discussion for a while. Let's tackle one thing at a time.

--the Dúnadan 06:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC) PS By the way what do you think about merging DF with Mexico City, which according to the 44th article of the constitution, they are one and the same thing. In the Spanish wiki, after a long debate, is as agreed to merge them. Just like there is only one article for Washington and DC, I believe there should only be one article about Mexico City and DF, otherwise we are just repeating information about the same thing. --the Dúnadan 01:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Dunadan:

• I agree on merging the Mexico City with the DF article. If they are constitutionally the same, then they should be the same in wikipedia
• I don't intend to add the "who pays for it" as a criticism associated with the claim that "the states pay for Mexico City's infrastructure" (though they indirectly do). I want to add it for context purposes: these projects are not private, they are maintained by the government, but not the local government (in the case of the airport), but by the Federal government, therefore any decision on these critical infrastructure are not taken by the city's inhabitants or their immediate representatives, but by the Federal Government which represents the whole nation. Though it may not be uncommon for "certain" projects in other countries, you must admit that the case of Mexico City is rather unique because here it is not just "certain" projects, but MOST projects which are financed and controlled by the Federal government. It wasn't the government of Mexico City who decided to expand the airport; it was the Federal government, whereas it was the State of Nuevo Leon who decided to expand Metrorrey, and then seek Federal support. There is the difference in autonomy.
• You misunderstood me, broadcasting indeed refers to radio, TV, and to a lesser extent, the Internet, but not to newspapers. However, "media" does refer to newspapers. My original wording was that "Monterrey is a major media producer in Mexico", perhaps it was changed to "broadcaster", which I don't entirely agree, because broadcasting occurs almost entirely in Mexico City, even if content is produced elsewhere. Broadcasting has to do with the action of transmitting the media, and by the most technical definition, even content produced in Mexico City is transtmitted to a Monterrey station (narrowcasted) and then "broadcasted" in Monterrey to the local auditorium. Indeed, there is no national broadcaster in Mexico by the most technical definition, but a more lax definition would include only Mexico City media. However, my original point was not about broadcasting, but of media production and distribution, if you wish, feel free to change it in the Monterrey article.

A common challenge to the GDP claim exists. Remind me to tell you about it later. I have to go.

Hari Seldon 16:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add my 2 cents:

• Mexico City’s airport is controlled by ASA (Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares) which is a Federal entity, therefore it’s budget is proposed by the Federal Government to the Chamber every year.

• Mexico’s City subway is controlled by STC (Sistema de Transporte Colectivo) which depends from the Government of the Federal District. The decision of whether the ride costs 2 pesos or whether to build more subway lines rests entirely on the GDF and not the Federal Government.

• The City's budget is determined as any other state, its share of federal funds (from federal taxes such as VAT and other federal funds) and local taxes (eg property) The federal government does not assign a special budget for local works.

• If the decision to merge is taken, some attention should be paid to clean up the article, and some links since some of the information seems to refer to the whole metropolitan area.

Finally, this discussion is becoming too much a Mexico City vs. Monterrey, why don’t we drop this comparison? --LS1010 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Comparisons are helpful because they are points of reference. If you want to have another point of reference I would be happy to. Indeed, I believe that this particular article should have in Tokyo its reference point (simply because the cities are most similar). In this particular case the reference point is needed because the article requires so much cleanup. We need a standard of high quality so we know where to shoot. I have worked in the Monterrey article and that is why I included it many times as a reference point, but the intention has never been to make this discussion a Monterrey vs. Mexico City discussion.

Please note that in Tokyo Subway and Narita International Airport various paragraphs notes who has the responsibility on what in each particular of the subway and the Airport. This information about subways and airports is useful to readers and should be added, if not in this article, at least in the articles about the Mexico City subway and the Mexico City airport. My plea has nothing to do with a comparison with Monterrey, simply with the fact that this information is useful. Indeed, the fact that the Mexico City airport is controlled by ASA, and that the Mexico City subway is controlled by STC should be added. Additionally, since fables and myths about the Mexico City budget are so commonplace (indeed, so much that even I believed in them), the fact that the Federal District's budget is determined as that of any other state should be added to this article and properly sourced. It should help debunk some myths, and that also is useful to the reader.

Hari Seldon 00:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I also believe comparisons are useful, even within the country. And I knew that Hari knows a lot about Monterrey, so it was fair that he compared to what he knows about. Nothing personal was assumed on either side, I am not from either city anyway. Hari, I get your point, and I agree. How do you suggest we rewrite that paragraph? I was thinking something along the lines of "Having been historically chosen as the site of most infrastructure projects in the country [sometimes as the expense of the development of other cities], Mexico City's metro is one of the most extensive metro systems in the world with... ... In spite of the fact that the initial investment was financed by the federation [as most major projects are in the country] the metro's budget is managed locally by STC" The stuff between brackets is optional.

LS1010 I agree with you, the article should be about the city and not the metropolitan area, and if the decision to merge DF and Mexico City is taken, definitely, DF should redirect to Mexico City. The only section in which I think it is valid to talk about the metropolitan area is the environmental concerns, in that it is a joint problem, caused by the whole conurbation, affecting the whole conurbation, and the policies to attenuate the problem are set for the whole conurbation, probably in the demographics section we should briefly mention the metro area, with a link to its own article Greater Mexico City. Other than that, the article should focused solely on the city proper.

--the Dúnadan 01:05, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Hari, There is one very important financial difference between state governments and the GDF, sub national debt. When a state issues bonds or contracts debt with a local (commercial or state owned) bank the debt is guaranteed by its own payment capacity, usually using “Participaciones federales” (basically the federal funds). Therefore, the states’ local congress has to approve it. In the case of the GDF, since it is a federal entity and not a state, the debt is implicitly guaranteed by the federal government, so any debt has to be approved by the federal chamber of deputies and no the local assembly. If you remember that was one of AMLO’s complains during the campaign that any overindebtedtness should in any case be the responsibility of the Mexican Congress and not his.

• What does this means? That there is an implicit subsidy to the city’s debt, at the cost of the city's financial autonomy.
• How important it is? There is a debate in the financial community on whether the use of “participaciones federales” is a proxy to an implicit guarantee by the federal government to the states’ debt or whether the expectation that in the future the GDF will have full financial autonomy has an impact on the basis points over the sovereign Mexican debt that it has to pay for its debt.
• If you ask me, as of today the GDF indeed has a subsidy from the federation at the expense of the states, that is reflected on its credit rating and should be noted in the article, I do not know where, but it is a legitimate complain of both the city (for its lack of financial autonomy) and the states (for an implicit subsidy paid by the federation).

--LS1010 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed interesting. We should definitely add that information in the article, possibly in the Political and administrative organization section. I don't know if the use of the word "subsidy" is economically correct when a federal institutions assumes the debt of its constituent entities. Moreover, as far as I understand it, even if the state issues debt locally, the federation acts as the guarantor in case of default. In any case, I agree on the inclusion of this information. In order to avoid possible vandalism, is there a way we can add a reference to it? --the Dúnadan 20:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, everything is very interesting. I am just landing from a long trip and will be unable to edit today, but I'll be following on and try to contribute maybe in the weekend. Greetings! Hari Seldon 00:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reopening the merging discussion

I will start restructuring this article according to some of the things that I have commented above (and many of which I received no response). My first proposal is to merge the Mexican Federal District article with this one, as it was done previously in the Spanish wikipedia, and for the reasons that were discussed there. The merge was justified by using the constitution which clearly states that Mexico city and the Federal District are one and the same thing (art. 44). That is, they are coextensive and function as one administrative or federal entity. --Dúnadan 22:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

After a recent long but very constructive argument in the Spanish wiki about the status of Mexico City vis-à-vis the Federal District, it was agreed to merge both articles based, most importantly, on the 44rd article of the Mexican constitution which states, verbatim, that "Mexico City is the Federal District, seat of the powers of the Union and capital of the United Mexican States" [italics mine]. This article, reformed in 1993, aimed to end the discussions about which entity engulfed the other, and established their synonymity. In other words, these are not two separate concepts: Mexico city is organized politically as a federal district, a capital to the federation. There is only one governmental institution for the city, which is, the government of the DF, which is subdivided into boroughs or administrative divisions. They are, therefore, a single entity constitutionally and administratively. --the Dúnadan 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• agree - Articles such as Benito Juárez, D.F. are using an incorrect nomenclature, as they are not autonomous municipalities (municipios) of the Federal District; for example, all addresses in Benito Juárez are written: Delegación Benito Juárez, México, D.F; that is, delegaciones are a subdivision of Mexico City too. The nomenclature México, D.F. does not imply there are other cities in D.F. nor that DF engulfs Mexico City. There is only one, and the same city: Mexico City; in the same way the nomenclature Washington, D.C. does not imply these are two different concepts and for most practical purposes are treated as the same entity; here at Wikipedia, there is only one article for that city. --the Dúnadan 03:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• I agree on merging the Mexico City with the DF article. If they are constitutionally the same, then they should be the same in wikipedia :Hari Seldon 16:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• agree - They are one and the same. "Mexican Federal District" should reroute to "Mexico City" --Tomalak 22:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• I oppose - Mexico City is bigger than the Federal District, "engulfing" municipalities of the State of Mexico and one municipality of the state of Hidalgo. Mexico City goes further than the limits of the Federal District, and thus, places like Satélite are considered part of the city while they're not part of the Federal District.--Irish Scott 10:36, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You are confusing the concept of Mexico City with the Metropolitan area of the Valley of Mexico (Greater Mexico City). Tlalnepantla, Ciudad Nezahualcóyotl, Chalco, Ecatepec, Naucalpan are all independent cities. To put it into perspective, Plano is not Dallas, even if it forms one single conurbation with it; its like saying that Los Angeles city includes Long Beach. Each one is a separate entity. Or, to put it in other words, the constitution clearly defines Mexico City to be only the Federal District ("La ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal..."). If Mexico City extends over the Federal District then even that municipality of the state of Hidalgo is the Federal District, which is a contradiction. --the Dúnadan 05:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Then why does people who live on places like Satélite or Huixquilucan say they live in Mexico City? I know that administrative-wise it is different. But all those other areas (Naucalpan, Nezahualcóyotl, etc) are considered part of the city. They don't say: "hey, I live in the city of Texcoco". In that case, there should be a Coyoacán City and a Tlalpan City article. Anyways, the Article for the Metropolitan Area in here is rather poor. --Irish Scott 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

They can say they live in South Africa for that matter, but what they say is not what it the truth is. If you ask them to show you their credencial para votar, or their predial or the title to their homes (escrituras de la casa) they'll say they live in Naucalpan, Estado de México, not in Mexico City, D.F.

Coyoacán, on the other hand, is part of Mexico City. Why? Because Mexico City and the Federal District are one and the same thing. Coyoacán is not a city, it is not even a municipality. So, Coyoacán is part of DF too, part of Mexico City. If the constitution is right [obviously] and Mexico City and the Federal District are one thing [that is what the constitution says, not me], then Naucalpan would be DF not estado de México... and again we have a contradiction.

The example of Plano is really not conclusive. The opposite could be said for London or Paris. The city of London, specifically, has a population of about 10000 people. I'm not actually against a merge, but historical legal borders of a city do not constrain common perception, which in the case of a fluid entity like a metropolis, is the relevant topic and that which is percieved to be Mexico city should also be covered in any merged article. Scott.wheeler 19:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to compare two similar jurisdictional situations. I do not know the administrative second and third-level administrative structures in the UK. And I do know of the existence of alternative definitions of what constitutes a city vis-à-vis third-level entities. (In Chile, cities transcend comunas, and are therefore not limited or explicitly defined). In Mexico, like in the US, cities, municipalities and metropolitan areas are very well defined.

The case of counties in the US and municipalities in Mexico is quite similar, in that cities are contained within muncipalities but are not transmunicipal, even if they form a single conurbation, and each city has its own autonomous body of government (city hall in the US, ayuntamiento or presidencia auxiliar in Mexico), Moreover, there is no transmunicipal government entity, but merely metropolitan comissions on specific areas (i.e. transportation, environment, and even zoning), integrated by representatives of the elected officials of each municipality. In that sense, in spite of forming a single conurbation, Plano retains its jurisdictional autonomy and is not considered part of the city of Dallas. It is the same case with the adjacent municipalities to Mexico City. Naucalpan residents elect their officials to govern them (and elect the governor of the state of which they are part of), but do not elect any executive official of Mexico City.

The concept of urban area or metropolitan area in Mexico is defined as the integration of cities/municipalities that heavily interact with each other. As such, metropolitan areas are distinguished from cities. It is precisely because of this that there have been very few projects to address issues for the whole metropolitan area of Mexico City (mostly limited to the environment). Because municipalities have no jurisdiction over other municipalities, many of the transmunicipal projects of urban areas have to be administered either by the state government of which they are part of, or by the federal government.

Now, if common perception is an issue, this common perception is far from universal and depends on the location of the interlocutors. For example, if a Las Colinas resident is asked about his city of origin by a New Yorker, he'll probably say in Dallas, or more properly in the Dallas Metroplex, since very few people know where Las Colinas is located or even if it exists. But, when in the metroplex, they will clearly say, I live in Las Colinas, not in the city of Dallas. I have to admit that until recently, Mexican demographic authorities sometimes used ambiguous terms to refer to cities (i.e. localidades). I think it would be wrong to continue to spread a misconception about what constitutes a city and a metro area in Mexico. I believe we should clearly define what the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City (or the Metropolitan Area of the Valley of Mexico) in this article.

--theDúnadan 20:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing inaccurate about what you've said, but it kind of misses the point. The defining characteristics of a city are its people, history and culture, not it's formal boundaries. That's local politics. ;-) Just for kicks I just checked city. The first couple of sentences read, "A city is an urban area that is differentiated from a town, village, or hamlet by size, population density, importance, or legal status. When people refer to cities, they generally include the suburbs in that." Also note that Plano is mentioned by name four times in the Dallas article (not counting the two in sideboxes). The legal divisions are naturally relevant, but to imply that they are the sole criterium for the contents of a city is silly. Things needn't always be so precisely defined. Scott.wheeler 05:24, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Then I don't understand your point. I won't object the fact that the article could include relevant information about the whole urban area of which Mexico City is the core (as long as it clearly distinguishes which is which, after all aren't encyclopedias supposed to be about accuracy instead of spreading misconceptions, especially in cases where cities are well defined?). However, that doesn't invalidate the fact that Mexico City is the Federal District, and that for a more accurate description of the cities that conform the urban area there is another article called Greater Mexico City,which could be further expanded if necessary. The whole purpose of this discussion is whether to accept the merge of two concepts that are constitutionally considered to be the same entity, regardless of the fact that the article could include (and to a certain extent it already does, if you read the geography, economy and demographics sections) information about the metro area, in the same way the Dallas article talks about many of the adjacent cities that form the urban area, but it is evident (even in the sideboxes) that they are not par of the city of Dallas itself, but part of the metroplex. However, if I had to make comparisons, I should have chosen Washington, D.C.: no separate article for the District of Columbia, and the city is the core of a larger urban area of which there is a separate article, Washington Metropolitan Area. --theDúnadan 15:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It is quite simple: the constitution says DF and Mexico city are the same, the statute of government says Mexico city and DF are the same thing. Whatever else the residents say, its inaccurate. --the Dúnadan 23:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know their adresses say Estado de México. Still, if Satélite is not Mexico City, then Las Torres de Satélite shouldn't be a landmark of the city. Merging these two articles means taking valuable information that belongs to the Mexico City just cause it isn't in DF. I'm not completely against merging it, but I do think that there are differences.

Anyways, if you do merge, where will all the information about Mexico City oustside of the DF limits go? Just to know. Thanks. (By the way, Delegations are considered to be similar to municipalities). --Irish Scott 02:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Las Torres de Satélite aren't a landmark of Mexico City, but of the metro area. No, merging these two articles wouldn't take valuable information that belongs to Mexico City, because... it doesn't belong to Mexico City in the first place (Mexico City is constitutionally only DF). There are no differences between Mexico City and DF, constitutionally, legally, administratively, the are the same entity. And thirdly, I have reread both Mexican Federal District and Mexico City and I didn't find any information about Las Torres de Satélite, or any other information about stuff outside México City, so I really don't know that do you mean by "all the information outside Mexico City". If there is, let me know, and we will delete it, or I will specify that it refers to the metropolitan area outside Mexico City.

And again, it seems you fail to understand... it is an oxymoron to say "all the information about Mexico City outside DF", because there is no Mexico City outside DF. You are disregarding the constitution and the statute of autonomy (Mexico City=DF). The last time I traveled to Mexico City, it wasn't when I came to Naucalpan that I saw a sign that reads "Bienvenidos a la Ciudad de México". It was after I crossed the limits of DF (after Toreo, through Periférico) that I found a sign that says "Bienvenidos a la ciudad de México", so there is no confusion even amongst residents about to what is what, Naucalpan is not Mexico City, and neither are the other 40 independent municipalities. True, they form one single conurbation called "Area Metropolitana de la ciudad [valle] de México", but this metro area is integrated by several cities (just like New York, or LA) one of the cities is Mexico City (DF), the others are Naucalpan, Ciudad Neza, etc. --the Dúnadan 04:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh about delegaciones vis-à-vis municipalities, both are second-level divisions, but they are not the same. For a full description of their differences and competences see Municipalities of Mexico. --the Dúnadan 21:05, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I get what you mean and I'm not so against the merging anymore, but I still have my doubts. I'll put you this example. The municipality if Huixquilucan lies to the west of Mexico City. It has a little town called Huixquilucan de Degollado (you have to actually take the highway to get there), which is where the town hall is located. Then if you go a little to the east, you will find that there is an area that limits with the Distrito Federal. This is where some high class neighbourhoods are. So, if this areas of Huixquilucan (I think La Herradura and a part of Bosques de las Lomas are there), aren't considered Mexico City, then they're part of Huixquilucan de Degollado even though you have to take the highway to get there and are actually adjacent to the Mexico City part of such neighbourhoods? That's what you make it look like. One municipality can have more than one population center or town or city. Such is the case of some of the municipalities of the metropolitan area. The way I see it, There are areas of huixquilucan that are part of Mexico City, whilst there is another part of the municipality that isn't part of it. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear. I put a link to a map just so you understand what I'm trying to say better. I still think there are some areas outside the Distrito Federal that are a part of Mexico City.(http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1218/huixquilucandw6.jpg) --Irish Scott 12:37, 05 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes you made yourself clear, but not completely accurate. No, the area within the municipality of Huixquilucan that is adjacent to Mexico City, in spite of being adjacent, is not Mexico City. They don't pay local taxes to the Federal District, but to the state of Mexico. True, there are areas, or "poblaciones" within Huixquilucan that are not adjacent to Mexico City. But neither the adjacent, nor the separated areas are part of Mexico City. One of them is adjacent to the conurbation, the other is not, but both are part of the municipality of Huixquilucan, Edomex, and not part of the Federal District=Mexico City. The fact that an area is adjacent to the Federal District does not make it automatically the Federal District=Mexico City.

It might be useful for you to read CONAPO's publication on metropolitan areas and municipalities: [10]. You are still mixing up two different concepts: Mexico City and metropolitan area of Mexico City. There is absolutely no area, territory or urbanization outside the Federal District that is Mexico City. Mexico City is only the Federal District. Now, there is a conurbation, megalopolis, or metropolitan area called the Metropolitan area of Mexico City which refers to the whole urban territory inside the Federal District and outside the Federal District. In that sense Huixquilucan belongs to the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City, but not to Mexico City proper. Now I hope I made myself clear.

--the Dúnadan 20:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge Similar to situation with the US capital of Washington and the District of Columbia which do not have separate articles. --Polaron | Talk 23:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
• Support merge --Ancheta Wis 19:38, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support merge Although I believe that it makes sense to merge, we should also discuss the possibilities being discussed at the Monterrey talk page Talk:Monterrey about Monterrey (municipality) and Monterrey Metropolitan area. Namely merging the the Mexico City with Greater Mexico City, since Mexico City is commonly used to refer to the metro area as a whole (you can ask people from Interlomas, Satelite, Bosques, La Herradura, etc. which city they live in, the answer will (almost) never be Huixquilucan, Naucalpan, etc.) or make Mexico City redirect to Greater Mexico City and have a link to the Federal District. Personally I do not favor these options, but they should be explored, the Dúnadan and Hari Seldon are part of that discussion and can update us on it (they have some valid points).

--LS1010 21:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

By the way, most (if not all) the information in the article Mexican Federal District is already included in the "Mexico and the Federal District" section. The question about merging should actually change to: should we simply redirect Mexican Federal District to Mexico City? Given the opinions expressed above, I assume the answer is positive. --theDúnadan 00:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nomenclature for cities vis-à-vis metropolitan areas of Mexico

Ok, so I think that the debate centers on nomenclature, precision, and currency of use. When talking about big cities and large metropolitan areas, currency of use will almost always be that inhabitants of any part of the metro area will refer to living in the central city (i.e., people from San Nicolas will say they live in Monterrey, people from Glendale say they live in Phoenix, people from Zapopan say they live in Guadalajara, etc...). The currency of use is important, because culture is always built from down up (i.e., from the people up to the intellectuals).

However, Dunadan is concerned (and rightly so), that by going with currency of use, we neglect precision. In fact, Monterrey is a municipality, and part of a 10-municipality metropolitan area, in the same way that Mexico City is the Federal District, and part of an inter-state metropolitan area. Currency of use will have us say that Monterrey is the 10 municipalities, and Mexico City is the Federal District plus several municipalities in Edo Mex and Hidalgo. However, this is not entirely precise. And imprecisions are unacceptable in any encyclopedia.

Therefore, my proposal is writing articles that have precise title names (i.e., "Distrito Federal", and "Metropolitan Zone of the Valley of Mexico") and have accurate information on both, but also have the common term redirect to the what currency of use refers. We all know that when most people talk about Mexico City they mean the Metro area, so let the article called "Mexico City" redirect to the most commonly used meaning.

Of course, each article will emphasize that they are related. For example, the Distrito Federal article will should menction at the introduction that it is part of the Metro Area, and the Metro Area article should say that it is centered (or driven by) the DF.

This way, we satisfy both the need for precision that the encyclopedia demands, and in the same way allow for the resolution of the currency of use issue.

Editors, what do you think?

Hari Seldon 21:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking and rethinking about the proposal, and unfortunately I still differ on the approach. Hari Seldon has appropriately summarized some of my concerns about to which "common name" should be used for what (city proper, metro area). Since this discussion has been going on in three different talk pages, let me summarize my opinion and add those points that are balancing my opinion into opposing Hari's approach:

• Precision: we must distinguish between cities and metropolitan areas in the same way governmental institutions do in Mexico (namely INEGI and CONAPO). In Mexico cities are differentiated from metropolitan areas, and both are well defined. Specifically, cities are not transmunicipal, and while some cities are coextensive with the municipality they are part of, in many occasions municipalities can contain more than one city. In that sense, municipalities resemble American counties and differ drastically from Chilean comunas. For the sake of being precise, like Hari said, we must use the appropriate titles for each article (e.g. Metropolitan area of Monterrey). But precision should go further, the title officially (in all official documents) refers to the city, and not to Monterrey. When INEGI and CONAPO talk about the city, they simply say Mexico City, when referring to the metropolitan area, they appropriately say "Metropolitan area of the valley of Mexico". Out of normative precision, Mexico City (or Monterrey, Guadalajara, etc.) should refer to the article of the city, or redirect to the article of the city.
• Usage and convention: (and I didn't say only common usage). Metropolitan areas are named after the core city, and not vice versa. What this means is that cities precede metropolitan areas [and occasionally they precede municipalities as well] so that the name rightly belongs to the city and not to the metropolitan areas. It is out of the importance of the core city that the name is derived. That is why in English (and in Spanish, except in Mexico), metro areas are sometimes called "Greater ..." ("Greater London", "Greater Vancouver", "Greater Los Angeles Area", "Gran Buenos Aires", "Gran Bogotá"). Moreover, it is because of the importance of the city of Guadalajara that the metro area is not called "Metropolitan area of Zapopan" (even if both municipalities have more than 1 million inhabitants). Again, the name of the city precedes in importance the metro area.
• Contradiction: (while this is the case of all municipalities, it is extremely obvious when we are talking about Mexico City). Constitutionally, Mexico City is defined to be the Federal District (e.g. La ciudad de México es el Distrito Federal...). If Mexico City redirects to metropolitan area, then we are implicitly stating that Naucalpan is Mexico City, ergo, it is the Federal District... we have a contradiction: Naucalpan is a constituent municipality of the state of Mexico, and it is not part of the Federal District. If we appeal to common usage, then common usage entails a logical contradiction. This would be also the case of municipalities that share the name of the state (Puebla, Oaxaca, Veracruz... should "Puebla, Puebla" redirect to "Metro area of Puebla"? What about Cholula, Puebla? Why shouldn't it? Even if it doesn't aren't we saying that Cholula is part of "Puebla, Puebla" if Cholula is part of the Metro area of Puebla and "Puebla, Puebla" redirects to it? Contradiction); and, in a less obvious way, but still present, to the other metropolitan areas (Monterrey and Guadalajara).
• Consistency: if we decide that "Monterrey" should redirect to "Metropolitan area of Monterrey", we set a precedent. Out of consistency, there should be no argument against having "Guadalajara" redirect to "Metropolitan area of Guadalajara", "Puebla" to "Metropolitan area of Puebla" and most importantly, "Mexico City" to "Metropolitan area of Mexico City" (in spite of the contradictions that "common usage" entail). Since we cannot do it [equally] for all metro areas, it is better to stick to precision, unless there is a valid exception. However, exceptions to consistency should be strongly defended, and in this case precision and logical consistency should overrule common usage.
• Common usage: while I agree with Hari that in common usage, residents might use "Monterrey" or "Guadalajara" or even "Puebla" and "Mexico City" to refer to the metro area, common usage is not restrictive. Like I said before, Naucalpan residents are aware that they are not in the Federal District and that they live in the city of Naucalan and not in Mexico City (their ID's and all official documents constantly remind them of this fact, plus, they elect executive officials for the state of Mexico, and none for Mexico City or the metropolitan area). It is when the location of the interlocutor is important (or whether the interlocutor is unaware of the location of Naucalpan) that a resident says he/she lives in Mexico City.

Interestingly enough, in the Spanish wiki, the debate ended rather quickly and it has been decided to keep have the article of "Guadalajara" talk about the municipality, and then enhance the article of the metro area. My proposal for the English wiki is similar. Being the core of the metro area the article for the municipality of Monterrey will not be reduced in quality. Within the article, we can talk about the metro area and have links to the article about it. I have been trying to do that with Mexico City and Greater Mexico City.

--theDúnadan 02:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't including "Guadalajara, Jalisco" or "Puebla, Puebla" in the argument. Obviously, "Guadalajara, Jalisco" and "Puebla, Puebla" refer to their respective municipalities. Samewise, if the article of Monterrey was named "Monterrey, Nuevo León" it would also refer to the municipality. My proposal only includes those current articles whose names might carry confusion. (Like "Monterrey" or "Mexico City", in which the article name does not specify weather or not it is referring to the municipality or the metro area).

I still don't see why someone who is looking for information about the metro area should be redirected automatically to the municipality. Namely, convention and common usage carry the weight of tradition. This means that it would be a rational assumption to say that when someone looks for "Mexico City", they want to find out about the Metropolitan Area. I see no contradiction in satisfying the implied requirements that common usage entails, and the adding a precision in the introduction (i.e., "The Metropolitan Area of the Valley of Mexico is composed by the Federal District, which constitutionally is Mexico City, and surrounding municipalities in Mexico State and Hidalgo").

However, I see your point and I find it valid. In the end, it rounds up to taste. Which is more useful for the reader? A redirect of "Mexico City" to "Distrito Federal" or a redirect to "Zona Metropolitana del Valle de México"? It is entirely a matter of taste, for the text of both articles can make clear what the official definitions of both are. Redirects are not a matter of officialdom, but of usefulness to users searching information, and making it more easily available to them.

So, I really could go either way. I feel it would be more useful if articles with imprecise titles redirected to the most common usage (or to a disambiguation page, like Guadalajara), but either way it would be fine. What I continue to find unacceptable, is that there are articles like "Mexico City" with such an undefined purpose, and an article called "Distrito Federal", which should obviously be about Mexico City, and an article about its metro area. I believe that the "undefined purpose article" should redirect to either. Which is a matter of taste, and I would suggest a vote or poll.

What do you think?

Hari Seldon 03:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

But we are engaging in a logical contradiction if we have Mexico City redirecting to Metropolitan Area of the Valley of Mexico. Like I said before: if Mexico City redirects to Greater Mexico City, then Naucalpan is Mexico City, then Naucalpan is the Federal District (b/c Mexico City is the Federal District by definition) and then Naucalpan is the capital of the United Mexican States (b/c MC=DF is the capital of the United Mexican States by constitutional law). The same thing happens even with Monterrey as the seat of the municipality and capital of Nuevo León. Remember, Monterrey is first the name of the city (precedes it), and then the name of the metro area. Monterrey is, constitutionally, the capital of Nuevo León. We do have a contradiction using redirects, even if on the article you want to clarify it. This is what I find unacceptable: condoning misconceptions based on common usage that do entail logical contradictions, even with redirections. Redirections like this one could be as important as the articles themselves. This is not a mere spelling variant redirection, this will either misinform or promote a misconception.

Think about this: in Mexico the infobox says that the capital city is Mexico City (a very defined concept, and a very defined purpose). Then suppose that we have it redirect to Greater Mexico City. We misinform the reader, because the metro area is not the capital of Mexico. So, you will say, have the infobox redirect to "Federal District", but Federal District is the the type of entity not the entity itself. We are so used to it that we forget what it means. Federal District is like saying "federal territory", sure, but what is the name of this district administered by the federation (i.e. federal district)? Well, constitutionally, it is: Mexico City, but then Mexico City redirects to Greater Mexico Ctiy... Would you say that the capital city of Mexico is the Federal District? Not precisely. We are engaging in several contradictions and problems just because of a non-restrictive and not-universal "common usage". The same thing happens with Monterrey, as the capital of Nuevo León; it's like playing with redirects and renames, when the easiest thing is to use the official nomenclature: metropolitan area of Monterrey (when refering to the metro area) and simply Monterrey (when referring to the city). I insist, common usage (if it were really common and really universal and restrictive, which is not entirely the case anyway) must not invalidate official nomenclature. And I am saying that this common usage is not universal and non-restrictive, because, as I had explained before, it varies from person to person and from the location of the interlocutor. If it were absolutely restrictive, then it would make more sense to have a redirect, but it is not.

Even if you assume (and I even question this assumption) that that all users that search "Monterrey" (or "Mexico City") want to read about the metro area and not about the city (note, I didn't say municipality), if we concede to this, we are spreading a misconception. But I can't really say that it is more "obvious" that the reader wants information about the metro area anymore than it is "obvious" that he merely wants information about the city when they simply type the name of the city. But even, in the remote case that everybody that types the name of the city looks for the metro area we entirely miss the point of the encyclopedia by conceding to a misconception simply because it is "common usage". Encyclopedias are supposed to instruct. You consult them to be educated, not to have a misconception confirmed; especially in the case of Mexico in which cities and metro areas are clearly defined and clearly differentiated.

I had said it before in Talk:Monterrey, it is not merely a matter of taste, and it is because of that I am hesitant as to whether we should open a poll. If the argumentation supports/contradict taste, then the poll should be about the logic of the fallacies of the argumentation itself, but not about taste.

--theDúnadan 03:38, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not continue the thread of discussion here. We have opened a debate on "WikiProject Mexico". Please participate on this discussion: here

[edit] Repeated changes

I replaced the image of Santa Fe in the infobox because it is a very low quality picture and not representative of the city (skyline). If user insists on having a Santa Fe (as the represenation of the city) instead of el Ángel de la Independencia + Reforma, then I recommend using a better quality picture of Santa Fe (like the one in the Economy section). I think the infobox must contain a high quality pic, and not a few buildings with smog. Anyway, we can open a poll. --theDúnadan 02:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)