Talk:Mexican Federal District

Can someone post the origin/reason behind the fact that the current DF would be renamed Valle de Mexico should it move (i.e. the Mexican law)? Thanks! ~Dpr

The legal provision where that's stipulated? Constitution, Art. 44.

Merging the article with Mexico City

I oppose this because:

1. They tend to have different histories (the Federal District one being mostly administrative).
2. The Federal District and Mexico City were only equated in the 1917 Constitution, hence 1.
3. The length of both articles warrants separate treatment.
4. There are areas to the south of the Federal District that are rural and thus do not really part of "the city" itself.

-- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 11:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• oppose per RW.--Rockero 15:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

• oppose Ptikobj 07:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• oppose --J.Alonso 17:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)agree I'm reopening the debate. --Dúnadan (formerly J.Alonso) 21:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• comment: There should probably be more links between the two articles (or the links should be made more obvious/explicit) if they are not to be merged. For example, all administrative functions of Mexico City should be directed here (since there is no separate city government). Polaron | Talk 17:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• oppose --Ancheta Wis 14:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC). Benito Juárez, D.F. and other articles like this use the D.F. appellation.

Reopening the merging discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It might be useful for you to read CONAPO's publication on metropolitan areas and municipalities: [1]. You are still mixing up two different concepts: Mexico City and metropolitan area of Mexico City. There is absolutely no area, territory or urbanization outside the Federal District that is Mexico City. Mexico City is only the Federal District. Now, there is a conurbation, megalopolis, or metropolitan area called the Metropolitan area of Mexico City which refers to the whole urban territory inside the Federal District and outside the Federal District. In that sense Huixquilucan belongs to the Metropolitan Area of Mexico City, but not to Mexico City proper. Now I hope I made myself clear.

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

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

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

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

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

Undid redirect

I know there was a discussion in 2006 (with a consensus of not merging) and a discussion in 2007 (with a consensus to merge), but the article was not merged, only a re-direct was added. I browsed the reasonings behind merging and I do not agree with them.

According to the first main reasoning, the Constitution says they're the same. However, both Mexico City and the Federal District precede the Constitution. Mexico City was founded centuries ago, the Federal District was created in 1824 but not as a synonymous with Mexico City. Mexico City was, in fact, one of the municipalities. As Mexico City grew to occupy the entire Federal District, the municipalities were abolished and now they are the same, first in practice then in writing according to the Constitution. Therefore they are not the same, even though they are to be considered the same entity. If it was determined at one point that they are supposed to be treated as the same entity it is because they were treated as two separate entities before.

Now, the second main reasoning was that Washington, DC and the District of Columbia have just one article. Well, they were created at the same time, so they share exactly one history. --FateClub 23:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was merged into Mexico City (all the information that was here is now included in the article of Mexico City, i.e. merged). If you do not agree with the reasoning, you cannot undo a consensus unless a new consensus is agreed.

Again, I urge you to read the article Mexico City#Mexico City and the Federal District, all the history about the Federal District, Mexico City and the municipality is discussed there. You are right in that they both preceded the 1917 constitution –or, more properly, both preceded the 1993 Reform to the 1917 whereby they were set to be synonymous. However, it is a logical fallacy to say "they are not the same, even if they are considered to be the same entity", when the only authority to define political entities is... well... the political constitution. Even if they were once two separate entities, they are not two separate entities now.

Thirdly, you must do a little research when presenting your arguments. The District of Columbia was once formed by several cities too. As the city of Washington grew, they were absorbed until they were declared to be the same entity.

You have reverted a consensual version twice, beware of WP:3RR.

--the Dúnadan 23:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)