This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I am surprised nobody has mentioned or discussed the Basilica de Guadalupe, it is one of the mosy important and beautiful places in the city, it deserves its own pictures, information, history and statistics, along with La catedral, those are very important topics of this city, catholicism is such a strong force in the city, it needs to be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.190.217 ( talk) 11:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read some of the discussions mentioned here, and found some interesting stuff, particularly the subsidy rant and the discussion of the Amazing! adjective. The discussion itself was about the Mexico City article sounding more like the Mexico (country) article, and I agree up to a point with that. But as for me being both native and current Mexico City resident, I would have to point out an important topic concerning some of these points about Mexico City.
I would like for people not from Mexico to proofread articles concerning Mexico City for this, as any person from both sides would be prone to biasing on any of these topics. Myself including, I try to be objective but someone outside of context might better spot non-NPOV comments. 189.180.69.158 04:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I anctually agree user:189.180.69.158. there does seem to be a lot of biased against mexico city especially in the first paragraph in which user:ElEdidtordeWiki keeps changing. He keeps insereting the re-introduction of the Tortibono program (which never was even formally considered due to lack of need in the city's area) as some sort of proof that Mexico City is not the viable economic center of Mexico. He in the past has made other more rediculous statements but i won't bring those up because he has ceased them and it would be unfair to judge him on those, but it displays his quiete obvious anti-mexico city bias. I think this is just childish because me and two other users have been regularly removing his statements and explaining our reasons, but he just puts them back up without discussion and it seems like he has developed an ownership mentality over the article. There has been constant tries to belittle the city which is fine if the matter is constructive and has reason but bias claims keep being made, such as saying that Mexico City is not the most culturally significant center of the nation. I think be every measure the City is the most significant center of the country, Mexican culture formed from a cultural exchange that was started in Mexico City (or then Tenochtitlan). Just for the record i am not a Mexico City resident or for that matter even a resident of Mexico (check my IP adresss). I am from Los Angleles, Calafornia, United States of America. 69.235.232.17 ( talk) 21:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The section named demographics seems to be incorrect in particular the figures for European Immigrants and Jews.
The National Cengdfgs-- 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) soSubscript 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
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.
I agree with whomever entered this comment. A number of times I have entered a well documented piece of information regarding the fact that the head of government of Mexico City recently asked the federal government for the return of the "Tortibono" program, a federal government subsidized program which for an extended period of time allowed residents of Mexico City to eat tortillas for free. This piece of information, of course, attempts to add objectivity to this poor-quality article which, for the most part, contains unsupported data. However, every time I add this piece of information it gets deleted. Does anyone out there know how to report Wikipedia users who, without a valid reason, delete well documented pieces of information entered in Wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned
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.
Why put that in history, when there is a section dedicated to Sports? Organize accordingly please
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.
It is like this because 68 massacre was special of mexico city and the revolution was in all the republic ........... simple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.95.79 ( talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
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:
Other pages refer to a smaller "area metropolitana":
Using 2000 census figures from here gives populations of:
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.
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.
The largest city by disctrict is Seoul not Mexico city
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)
"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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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"
Yes, like Polanco or Lomas, which are not "colonias", but zones, the proper names would be Chapultepec Morales or Lomas de Chapultepec, I will try to help over there.
I'm surprised this article hasn't got a map locating Mexico City within Mexico. - GTBacchus( talk) 11:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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".
Interesting. As many of the claims in this article, the above comment fails to provide an appropriate reference. As any critical thinker would aknowledge, the statement "my mother studied sociology there" does not constitute evidence. Actually, as anyone visiting Mexico would be able to corroborate, most people from the 31 free and sovereign Mexican states use the term chilango in a derogatory way. Arguably, the derogatory nature of the term gained intensity after the 1985 mexico city earthquake. Before this earthquake, the term "capitalino" was arguably used more often to refer to this city's residents. However, after this earthquake, countless inhabitants of this city moved to the free and sovereign Mexican states, where they committed countless crimes. As a result, the inhabitants of the free and sovereign Mexican states use the term chilango to refer to people from mexico city, especially those who are originary of this city. And, most definitely, they use this term in a most derogatory fashion. Anyone visiting any of the 31 Mexican states would be able to perform a scientific experiment by randomly selecting an appropriate sample of people and asking what they mean by the term chilango. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.186.19 ( talk) 19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This is obvious but not all people who are called chilangos were born or are living in D.F., they may be living in conurbated areas. Furthermore, people living in other cities from Central Mexico like Toluca, Cuernavaca or Pachuca may be called chilangos, mainly in Northern states.
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 ($1.1 trillion in PPP GDP) making Mexico City alone the 30th largest economy in the world. In addition, it is one of the most important cultural centers in the world boasting more museums than any other city. It has the fourth highest quantity of theaters in the world after New York, London and Toronto.
The link doesn't correspond with Mexico's GDP ranking, When I click on the link, Mexico is listed in 13th place and not 30th.
This refers to the "city" I think. I guess what they mean is that if the city was a country it would have the 30th largest economy in the world. Mexico as a country is 11th or 13th depending on the source.
I just wanted to say that UNAM is not the "oldest university in the Americas." The National University of Saint Mark in Lima Peru is. It is even on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_San_Marcos Please edit it as soon as possible. Or I will have to myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.100.42 ( talk) 06:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On the article concerning Mexico City, it's said that the city is the financial center of Latin America, because it's GDP (nominal) is about 200b USD. Howerver, it's usual in Brazil to read that Sao Paulo is the actual hub of the region and the article of SP states that the city's GDP (probably PPP) is 500b international dollars (by this standard, Mexico City's GDP would be about 300b intl.$). 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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking_of_Latin_American_cities
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.
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
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)
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)
Where it says that mexico city has a $815 billion economy, is that 815 pesos or 815 U.S. dollars?
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)
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)
Is there a good reason why the whole part on "Administrative divisions: Boroughs" has been deleted? It seems to me more important than nicknames, for example. -- LS1010 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
If you think this article is a mess, man, you should have seen it before I restructured it =) Anyway,
-- the Dúnadan 01:57, 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)
Just to add my 2 cents:
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)
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.
-- LS1010 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Is all D.F. part of Mexico City? and by this I mean that Tlalpan, Tlahuac, Cuajimalpa, Xochimilco and specially Milpa Alta boroughs have rural areas.
-- 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)
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:
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)
Do not continue the thread of discussion here. We have opened a debate on "WikiProject Mexico". Please participate on this discussion: here
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)
What happened between 1524 and 1810 in the city?? The article mentions almost nothing of what happened in the centuries after the Spanish took the city, which is what I was hoping to find out about... -- 129.78.64.102 10:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone who speaks spanish should translate the motto and nickname of the city in the info box, after all- this is the english wikipedia and not everyone speaks spanish too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 ( talk) 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is full or false facts, and again, wikipedia is not a trustworthy source for serious research. It might be helpful, but not accurate in many senses. Too bad. Wven here there is arbitrariety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.220.111 ( talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Option 1 | Option 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
The template is the same; however I prefer the second one. The image in the second one refers to the downtown area and the Torre Mayor, the highest building in Latin America, and is, by far, of a higher quality than the first one. The first one is simply a small-and not even the nicest- area in Santa Fe, the Financial District to the West of the City, and the quality of the picture is much lower.
Now, regarding the maps, since the Federal District is so small, the second map, with the zoom, makes more sense than the first one. The extent and limits of the Federal District are much more easily identifiable. The map of the subdivions of the Federal District, the boroughs, is not really necessary in the table, and is redundant with a map in the appropriate section which identifies them by number. Moreover, it extends the table unnecessarily, whereas -at any case- a new table can be created at the appropriate section that refers to the boroughs and their name. (And I have the same opinion regarding the inclusion of maps of municipalities in the tables of the states of Mexico. The table becomes too large, especially for low resolution monitors which have so scroll down, and scroll down to get to the end of it.
-- the Dúnadan 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There is obviously something wrong with the population density of the metro area. The one for the municipality seems reasonable ca 5700 /km2, but 138000 /km2 for the extended metropolitan area (that is supposed to be less dense) is a ridiculous number. I do not have the accorded surface area, so I cannot correct it myself. If there is not a clear notion of the surface area available, I propose to take the information on the density out. Tomeasy 10:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I read on that picture of the angel de la independencia with the american express tower behind it that said it was located on the cuautemoc financial district, how ever there is no such thing, everybody here knows that it is Reforma financial district, and althoug it may be in that delegacion "cuautemoc" that zone is known as Reforma. So I changed it to Reforma financial ditrict.
I thought my edits here, were self explanatory. Per WP:NOT, images should be use with discretion in relation to the text. The anonymous user inserted far too many images; I kept most of them, but deleted two, that I considered redundant. The anonymous also inserted an image at 320 px, quite a disproportionate size, at the table. I adjusted the image to the standardized thumb size. User:Mhsb seems to have an issue with those edits, and reverted me twice. I do not wish to engage in a rather senseless edit-war, but giving Mhsb the benefit of the doubt, and assuming good faith, I ask him to express his reasons for reverting my edits here. -- the Dúnadan 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
that isn't true!! look here largest in the world it says that Seoul is the second largest, behind Tokyo (which is also the richest in terms of GDP for a city) 125.238.169.123 ( talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted edits by the afore mentioned contributor because of POV, or (agf) unsourced claims. He reverted back, and I've just reverted once again. As I don't want to get into an edit war, I'm kindly taking the matter to this talk page. The user wants to POV push that the "nickname" (the section is "other names") has lost relevance. Either that is his personal opinion or it is an unsourced claim. @AFOH, if you still want to make your point, either change the sentence to remove POV, or source the claim. Thank you -- Legion fi ( talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It may just be semantics, but the official name of Mexico's capital city is Mexico. The word "city" is used to simply distinguish it from the country. Just like Monaco is the capital of Monaco, and the same for Panama, Kuwait, and Singapore. Why was my edit simply deleted? Dhoult ( talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, with the sintesis of the weather of Mexico City in the frontpage, the only thing is the frontpage,not inform about the snow fallas in the Mexico City area. (Mexico City it's at 2'240 meters over the sea leavel'usualy evry winter snows at the surroinding mountais over 3,000 meters over the sea leavel,(Ajusco,La Marquesa,Tres Marias,Rio Frio). But there are reports in the (National Center of Meteorologia) That in the last Century the snow level in the vally of Mexico drop to the (2000 meters) and Mexico City gets snow at the down town (zocalo,Reforma,aeropuerto,Lindavista all the City.
The snow falls reports was serched from the Centro Nacional de Meterologia and the news papaers of Mexico City of the years 1967,1940. Excelsior, El Sol de Mexico,El Informador.
-The firs snow fall of coverd the all the City was: March 5 1940.
-The Last snow fall of covered all the City was : January 12 1967 The snow fall start at 12p.m. and snows for 5 hours, that means snows to 5a.m. snows at el zocalo,Paseo de la Reforma,Avenida Juarez,Aeropuerto,Lindavista,La villa,San Juan de Aragon,Tlanepantla,Cd.Satellite,Buena vista,Atizapan,Lomas de Chapultepec, Bosque de Chapultepec,San Jeronimo Ledice,El Pedregal,Iztapalapa. s. The Mexico City's down town gots (1 inch of snow) and 4 inches at the surroinding mountains.
Curiosly the lowest temperature reported in Mexico City was not the day os the snow falls (was in a clear and cold night of Janauary 8 of 1962 and was a temperature of (-4.8)Celcius.Centro meterologioc tacaubaya down town of Mexico City.
(gilbert L.)
Bosque de Chapultepec,San Jeronimo Ledice,Pedregal,Iztapalapa,Xochimilco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilberto lopez ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well it is possible. Everything in my city is possible. It's surreal. Palm trees grow beside pines in Winter. People in extreme poverty have Sky satellite dishes in their houses. It'll take five or six hours to get across the whole city. Beaches are built inside public parks. Everything is possible. 4,000,000 people in two years? Of course it's possible! We'd just need a reference :) -- Fluence ( talk) 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Politic, PT (extreme left), "extreme left"?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.83.243 ( talk) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC) this page sucks ass!>
You suck ass sir. PT are the most leftist political party, even more than PRD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.170.183 ( talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed this once before and justified it here but it has been changed back. Alexander von Humboldt DID NOT give this moniker to the city although many sources state this is so. Look on this page in the History section and look on the History of Mexico page. I have three sources that attribute the moniker to Charles Joseph Latrobe, two of which directly contradict the Von Humboldt attribution and one that gives me where Latrobe made the reference in the first place (book "A rambler in Mexico"). Those of you who insist that it was Von Humboldt, can you please show me a source that says where and how Von Humboldt first gave the city this name? Ready, willing and able to send anyone a photocopy from the books I have access to. Please DO NOT CHANGE unless you can show here that I am wrong. Thelmadatter ( talk) 20:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Left or right is based on how these parties officially define themselves, it would be about impossible to decide which side is which (an already too abstract term); self called left parties take plenty of actions usually associated to the right and vice-versa. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.116.145 ( talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm changing Mexico City's coordinates since the current make reference to a trivial point in the city (near Chabacano Metro station), while these: 19°25′57.85″ N, 99°07′59.71″ W refer to the actual point where the flag at Zócalo is located, which is largely considered as Mexico City's heart (Centro Histórico shall ring a bell). Nearby lie the Metropolitan Cathedral, the Palacio de Gobierno and the Templo Mayor, being the latter the center of the old Aztec Empire too.-- Fluence ( talk) 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Soccer in Mexico has been for lot s of years. And still today in Mexico still "futbol" has been played in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.13.175 ( talk) 22:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Congress delineated a surface area with a radius of two leagues (8,800 km) from the Zocalo"
Two leagues is about (... *consults google* ...) 11 km—nothing like 8 800 km. So, what does it mean to say? Is this some sort of old-fashioned Spanish league? It really needs to say that. Is it some error?
— Felix the Cassowary 12:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"making Mexico City the 25th largest economy in the world," should be deleted.
Woah! I must say that this article is way more extensive that I expected. Why it is not a featured article, what does it lack? so that I can contribute to fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.242.39.174 ( talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This information really should be updated. A lot of the statistical information is out dated. The two 'factoids' that have had the most dramatic change recently is the economy and the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.100.187 ( talk) 19:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I am surprised nobody has mentioned or discussed the Basilica de Guadalupe, it is one of the mosy important and beautiful places in the city, it deserves its own pictures, information, history and statistics, along with La catedral, those are very important topics of this city, catholicism is such a strong force in the city, it needs to be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.190.217 ( talk) 11:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I have read some of the discussions mentioned here, and found some interesting stuff, particularly the subsidy rant and the discussion of the Amazing! adjective. The discussion itself was about the Mexico City article sounding more like the Mexico (country) article, and I agree up to a point with that. But as for me being both native and current Mexico City resident, I would have to point out an important topic concerning some of these points about Mexico City.
I would like for people not from Mexico to proofread articles concerning Mexico City for this, as any person from both sides would be prone to biasing on any of these topics. Myself including, I try to be objective but someone outside of context might better spot non-NPOV comments. 189.180.69.158 04:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
I anctually agree user:189.180.69.158. there does seem to be a lot of biased against mexico city especially in the first paragraph in which user:ElEdidtordeWiki keeps changing. He keeps insereting the re-introduction of the Tortibono program (which never was even formally considered due to lack of need in the city's area) as some sort of proof that Mexico City is not the viable economic center of Mexico. He in the past has made other more rediculous statements but i won't bring those up because he has ceased them and it would be unfair to judge him on those, but it displays his quiete obvious anti-mexico city bias. I think this is just childish because me and two other users have been regularly removing his statements and explaining our reasons, but he just puts them back up without discussion and it seems like he has developed an ownership mentality over the article. There has been constant tries to belittle the city which is fine if the matter is constructive and has reason but bias claims keep being made, such as saying that Mexico City is not the most culturally significant center of the nation. I think be every measure the City is the most significant center of the country, Mexican culture formed from a cultural exchange that was started in Mexico City (or then Tenochtitlan). Just for the record i am not a Mexico City resident or for that matter even a resident of Mexico (check my IP adresss). I am from Los Angleles, Calafornia, United States of America. 69.235.232.17 ( talk) 21:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The section named demographics seems to be incorrect in particular the figures for European Immigrants and Jews.
The National Cengdfgs-- 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) soSubscript 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
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.
I agree with whomever entered this comment. A number of times I have entered a well documented piece of information regarding the fact that the head of government of Mexico City recently asked the federal government for the return of the "Tortibono" program, a federal government subsidized program which for an extended period of time allowed residents of Mexico City to eat tortillas for free. This piece of information, of course, attempts to add objectivity to this poor-quality article which, for the most part, contains unsupported data. However, every time I add this piece of information it gets deleted. Does anyone out there know how to report Wikipedia users who, without a valid reason, delete well documented pieces of information entered in Wikipedia articles? —Preceding unsigned
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.
Why put that in history, when there is a section dedicated to Sports? Organize accordingly please
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.
It is like this because 68 massacre was special of mexico city and the revolution was in all the republic ........... simple —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.95.79 ( talk) 14:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
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.
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:
Other pages refer to a smaller "area metropolitana":
Using 2000 census figures from here gives populations of:
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.
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.
The largest city by disctrict is Seoul not Mexico city
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)
"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.
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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.
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)
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)
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)
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"
Yes, like Polanco or Lomas, which are not "colonias", but zones, the proper names would be Chapultepec Morales or Lomas de Chapultepec, I will try to help over there.
I'm surprised this article hasn't got a map locating Mexico City within Mexico. - GTBacchus( talk) 11:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
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".
Interesting. As many of the claims in this article, the above comment fails to provide an appropriate reference. As any critical thinker would aknowledge, the statement "my mother studied sociology there" does not constitute evidence. Actually, as anyone visiting Mexico would be able to corroborate, most people from the 31 free and sovereign Mexican states use the term chilango in a derogatory way. Arguably, the derogatory nature of the term gained intensity after the 1985 mexico city earthquake. Before this earthquake, the term "capitalino" was arguably used more often to refer to this city's residents. However, after this earthquake, countless inhabitants of this city moved to the free and sovereign Mexican states, where they committed countless crimes. As a result, the inhabitants of the free and sovereign Mexican states use the term chilango to refer to people from mexico city, especially those who are originary of this city. And, most definitely, they use this term in a most derogatory fashion. Anyone visiting any of the 31 Mexican states would be able to perform a scientific experiment by randomly selecting an appropriate sample of people and asking what they mean by the term chilango. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.186.19 ( talk) 19:33, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This is obvious but not all people who are called chilangos were born or are living in D.F., they may be living in conurbated areas. Furthermore, people living in other cities from Central Mexico like Toluca, Cuernavaca or Pachuca may be called chilangos, mainly in Northern states.
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 ($1.1 trillion in PPP GDP) making Mexico City alone the 30th largest economy in the world. In addition, it is one of the most important cultural centers in the world boasting more museums than any other city. It has the fourth highest quantity of theaters in the world after New York, London and Toronto.
The link doesn't correspond with Mexico's GDP ranking, When I click on the link, Mexico is listed in 13th place and not 30th.
This refers to the "city" I think. I guess what they mean is that if the city was a country it would have the 30th largest economy in the world. Mexico as a country is 11th or 13th depending on the source.
I just wanted to say that UNAM is not the "oldest university in the Americas." The National University of Saint Mark in Lima Peru is. It is even on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_University_of_San_Marcos Please edit it as soon as possible. Or I will have to myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.21.100.42 ( talk) 06:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
On the article concerning Mexico City, it's said that the city is the financial center of Latin America, because it's GDP (nominal) is about 200b USD. Howerver, it's usual in Brazil to read that Sao Paulo is the actual hub of the region and the article of SP states that the city's GDP (probably PPP) is 500b international dollars (by this standard, Mexico City's GDP would be about 300b intl.$). 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)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranking_of_Latin_American_cities
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.
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
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)
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)
Where it says that mexico city has a $815 billion economy, is that 815 pesos or 815 U.S. dollars?
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)
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)
Is there a good reason why the whole part on "Administrative divisions: Boroughs" has been deleted? It seems to me more important than nicknames, for example. -- LS1010 22:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
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:
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)
If you think this article is a mess, man, you should have seen it before I restructured it =) Anyway,
-- the Dúnadan 01:57, 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)
Just to add my 2 cents:
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)
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.
-- LS1010 15:57, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
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)
Is all D.F. part of Mexico City? and by this I mean that Tlalpan, Tlahuac, Cuajimalpa, Xochimilco and specially Milpa Alta boroughs have rural areas.
-- 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)
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:
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)
Do not continue the thread of discussion here. We have opened a debate on "WikiProject Mexico". Please participate on this discussion: here
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)
What happened between 1524 and 1810 in the city?? The article mentions almost nothing of what happened in the centuries after the Spanish took the city, which is what I was hoping to find out about... -- 129.78.64.102 10:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Someone who speaks spanish should translate the motto and nickname of the city in the info box, after all- this is the english wikipedia and not everyone speaks spanish too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.247.116 ( talk) 00:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
This article is full or false facts, and again, wikipedia is not a trustworthy source for serious research. It might be helpful, but not accurate in many senses. Too bad. Wven here there is arbitrariety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.220.111 ( talk) 21:35, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Option 1 | Option 2 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
The template is the same; however I prefer the second one. The image in the second one refers to the downtown area and the Torre Mayor, the highest building in Latin America, and is, by far, of a higher quality than the first one. The first one is simply a small-and not even the nicest- area in Santa Fe, the Financial District to the West of the City, and the quality of the picture is much lower.
Now, regarding the maps, since the Federal District is so small, the second map, with the zoom, makes more sense than the first one. The extent and limits of the Federal District are much more easily identifiable. The map of the subdivions of the Federal District, the boroughs, is not really necessary in the table, and is redundant with a map in the appropriate section which identifies them by number. Moreover, it extends the table unnecessarily, whereas -at any case- a new table can be created at the appropriate section that refers to the boroughs and their name. (And I have the same opinion regarding the inclusion of maps of municipalities in the tables of the states of Mexico. The table becomes too large, especially for low resolution monitors which have so scroll down, and scroll down to get to the end of it.
-- the Dúnadan 03:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
There is obviously something wrong with the population density of the metro area. The one for the municipality seems reasonable ca 5700 /km2, but 138000 /km2 for the extended metropolitan area (that is supposed to be less dense) is a ridiculous number. I do not have the accorded surface area, so I cannot correct it myself. If there is not a clear notion of the surface area available, I propose to take the information on the density out. Tomeasy 10:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I read on that picture of the angel de la independencia with the american express tower behind it that said it was located on the cuautemoc financial district, how ever there is no such thing, everybody here knows that it is Reforma financial district, and althoug it may be in that delegacion "cuautemoc" that zone is known as Reforma. So I changed it to Reforma financial ditrict.
I thought my edits here, were self explanatory. Per WP:NOT, images should be use with discretion in relation to the text. The anonymous user inserted far too many images; I kept most of them, but deleted two, that I considered redundant. The anonymous also inserted an image at 320 px, quite a disproportionate size, at the table. I adjusted the image to the standardized thumb size. User:Mhsb seems to have an issue with those edits, and reverted me twice. I do not wish to engage in a rather senseless edit-war, but giving Mhsb the benefit of the doubt, and assuming good faith, I ask him to express his reasons for reverting my edits here. -- the Dúnadan 04:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
that isn't true!! look here largest in the world it says that Seoul is the second largest, behind Tokyo (which is also the richest in terms of GDP for a city) 125.238.169.123 ( talk) 08:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted edits by the afore mentioned contributor because of POV, or (agf) unsourced claims. He reverted back, and I've just reverted once again. As I don't want to get into an edit war, I'm kindly taking the matter to this talk page. The user wants to POV push that the "nickname" (the section is "other names") has lost relevance. Either that is his personal opinion or it is an unsourced claim. @AFOH, if you still want to make your point, either change the sentence to remove POV, or source the claim. Thank you -- Legion fi ( talk) 21:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
It may just be semantics, but the official name of Mexico's capital city is Mexico. The word "city" is used to simply distinguish it from the country. Just like Monaco is the capital of Monaco, and the same for Panama, Kuwait, and Singapore. Why was my edit simply deleted? Dhoult ( talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, with the sintesis of the weather of Mexico City in the frontpage, the only thing is the frontpage,not inform about the snow fallas in the Mexico City area. (Mexico City it's at 2'240 meters over the sea leavel'usualy evry winter snows at the surroinding mountais over 3,000 meters over the sea leavel,(Ajusco,La Marquesa,Tres Marias,Rio Frio). But there are reports in the (National Center of Meteorologia) That in the last Century the snow level in the vally of Mexico drop to the (2000 meters) and Mexico City gets snow at the down town (zocalo,Reforma,aeropuerto,Lindavista all the City.
The snow falls reports was serched from the Centro Nacional de Meterologia and the news papaers of Mexico City of the years 1967,1940. Excelsior, El Sol de Mexico,El Informador.
-The firs snow fall of coverd the all the City was: March 5 1940.
-The Last snow fall of covered all the City was : January 12 1967 The snow fall start at 12p.m. and snows for 5 hours, that means snows to 5a.m. snows at el zocalo,Paseo de la Reforma,Avenida Juarez,Aeropuerto,Lindavista,La villa,San Juan de Aragon,Tlanepantla,Cd.Satellite,Buena vista,Atizapan,Lomas de Chapultepec, Bosque de Chapultepec,San Jeronimo Ledice,El Pedregal,Iztapalapa. s. The Mexico City's down town gots (1 inch of snow) and 4 inches at the surroinding mountains.
Curiosly the lowest temperature reported in Mexico City was not the day os the snow falls (was in a clear and cold night of Janauary 8 of 1962 and was a temperature of (-4.8)Celcius.Centro meterologioc tacaubaya down town of Mexico City.
(gilbert L.)
Bosque de Chapultepec,San Jeronimo Ledice,Pedregal,Iztapalapa,Xochimilco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilberto lopez ( talk • contribs) 00:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Well it is possible. Everything in my city is possible. It's surreal. Palm trees grow beside pines in Winter. People in extreme poverty have Sky satellite dishes in their houses. It'll take five or six hours to get across the whole city. Beaches are built inside public parks. Everything is possible. 4,000,000 people in two years? Of course it's possible! We'd just need a reference :) -- Fluence ( talk) 18:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Politic, PT (extreme left), "extreme left"?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.140.83.243 ( talk) 05:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC) this page sucks ass!>
You suck ass sir. PT are the most leftist political party, even more than PRD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.226.170.183 ( talk) 21:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
I changed this once before and justified it here but it has been changed back. Alexander von Humboldt DID NOT give this moniker to the city although many sources state this is so. Look on this page in the History section and look on the History of Mexico page. I have three sources that attribute the moniker to Charles Joseph Latrobe, two of which directly contradict the Von Humboldt attribution and one that gives me where Latrobe made the reference in the first place (book "A rambler in Mexico"). Those of you who insist that it was Von Humboldt, can you please show me a source that says where and how Von Humboldt first gave the city this name? Ready, willing and able to send anyone a photocopy from the books I have access to. Please DO NOT CHANGE unless you can show here that I am wrong. Thelmadatter ( talk) 20:55, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Left or right is based on how these parties officially define themselves, it would be about impossible to decide which side is which (an already too abstract term); self called left parties take plenty of actions usually associated to the right and vice-versa. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.137.116.145 ( talk) 15:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm changing Mexico City's coordinates since the current make reference to a trivial point in the city (near Chabacano Metro station), while these: 19°25′57.85″ N, 99°07′59.71″ W refer to the actual point where the flag at Zócalo is located, which is largely considered as Mexico City's heart (Centro Histórico shall ring a bell). Nearby lie the Metropolitan Cathedral, the Palacio de Gobierno and the Templo Mayor, being the latter the center of the old Aztec Empire too.-- Fluence ( talk) 05:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
Soccer in Mexico has been for lot s of years. And still today in Mexico still "futbol" has been played in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.161.13.175 ( talk) 22:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
"Congress delineated a surface area with a radius of two leagues (8,800 km) from the Zocalo"
Two leagues is about (... *consults google* ...) 11 km—nothing like 8 800 km. So, what does it mean to say? Is this some sort of old-fashioned Spanish league? It really needs to say that. Is it some error?
— Felix the Cassowary 12:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"making Mexico City the 25th largest economy in the world," should be deleted.
Woah! I must say that this article is way more extensive that I expected. Why it is not a featured article, what does it lack? so that I can contribute to fix it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.242.39.174 ( talk) 10:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
This information really should be updated. A lot of the statistical information is out dated. The two 'factoids' that have had the most dramatic change recently is the economy and the population. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.161.100.187 ( talk) 19:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)