![]() | 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 |
Shouldn't this article link to, or at very least give better reference to the original Zapatista Army?
and the zapatista university —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.75.211 ( talk) 22:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Source may identify him as an anarchist, but this is easily contestable, and the only common ground is that he certainly was influenced by that philosophy. Given that the EZLN is *not* an anarchist organization, is there any reason to include this word? I believe it prejudices the article. SmithSSS ( talk) 18:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
EZLN are very very connected to anarchism - Anarcho-communism, Libertarian socialism etc are all shapes of anarchism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.89.111.126 ( talk) 18:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Is Subcommandante Marcos actually the leader of the EZLN? -- Tzartzam
Yes he is Tzartzam. Actually he declares himself to be subcommander "because my real commander is the people" -- Jose Icaza
From my understanding Marcos is the military leader and spokes person of EZLN, and a sub-commander in the organization. I believe that Comandante Romona was among the top leaders. I'm not sure if there is one leader in charge of everything. Does anybody know if this is true? I believe there is an upper leadership that takes strong input from its communities and listens to what people outside have to say, then take into account their suggestions (Although I'm sure they get plenty of crazy ideas thrown at them). All of this is from what I understand from my readings and studies of the EZLN, it doesn't mean I'm correct. Twood
Why not make the title of this Zapatista Army of National Liberation or EZLN or Zapatistas?
Marcos is a main spokesperson of the EZLN and also holds rank in the EZLN (of subcommander, along with a good number of other subcommanders), so I guess he is a leader, but definately isn't the leader. People like him and the late Ramona and Techo etc are just popular. There is no leader of the Zapatistas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.57.78 ( talk) 01:21, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
From the article:
But VFQ was sworn in on 1 December 2000. So one half of that line is wrong. Which one? – User:Hajor 23:51, 17 Nov 2003 (UTC)
PS: I see that the ITA in Spain uses "Basta ya!" Are you sure Comandante Marcos is so highly educated? Just kidding. I've heard him speak and he sounds very educated.
The Mexican singer "Ana Barbara" sings a currently popular song entitled "Basta ya!"
Keep in mind that for the vast majority of Zapatistas in Chiapas, Spanish is their second language--indigenous Mayan dialects are their first language. Add to that a lack of educational opportunities and poverty (some of the reasons for the uprising), and you will sometimes get less than perfect grammar and seemingly simplistic language (like the use of "mal gobierno"-bad government, to describe the Mexican authorities).
The article is correct. The Zapatistas use "Ya Basta!", not "Basta Ya!" (with the respective upside down exclamation marks). To be honest I don't know if that is the grammatically correct way to say it, but this is commonly used in everyday talk(not only as a slogan). Besides, grammar doesn't really matter in this case!
Ya basta is the correct way to use Spanish, basta ya would be more of an admonishment and ya is put in front of many Spanish verbs, ya vengo, ya está, etc etc, -- SqueakBox 16:19, Apr 2, 2005 (UTC)
I find the argument about indigenous people's Spanish a rather spurious red herring. My (admittedly limited) experience is these indigenous people make different Spanish mistakes than do English speakers. Many Spanish speaking people also don't have grammatically perfect Spanish, much like many English speaking people (eg I could of done it); but they all, indigenous included (with enough exposure) know enough to know the norm is ya basta, and basta ya is only used to emphasise the ya, just as non Native English speakers know you say "just a minute" not "a minute just". It is the English speakers here who are making the mistake; don't blame your mistakes on the people of Chiapas, please. What is wrong with "mal gobierno"?
Nothing is wrong with "mal gobierno" also used is "gobierno malo" but both are grammatically correct. And basta does come from a verb, the verb "bastar" - 148.202.235.126 16:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)jennfelan
From what I've read the rebellion started January 1 1994 not January 2, and thus the same day as NAFTA. I've also read that they took control of six towns, not five and several cattle ranches. And finally, I've read that the cease fire was declared unilaterally by the Zapatistas, not Gortari. This is all from Our Word is Our Weapon, admittedly a biased source, but what is the source for these other points of view? -JMT
The rebelion started on 1/1/94 and NAFTA was just the pretext.
Why is there no mention of the last communique made on the 19th of June 2005? I just added something a few hours ago and someone deleted it. If it was deleted because I didn't do a good job or the grammer was bad then just correct it, don't delete it.
Communiqué and things related to the Sixth Declaration are back. I rewrote all of the lead section to summarize the main events in Zapatistas' history: their initial uprising, the San Andres Accords leading after some events to the foundation of Autonomous Municipalities, and the current Sixth Declaration of the Lacandonian Jungle that might lead to a national movement in opposition to all current political parties. I know all this might be all part of the "history" section and indeed partially overlaps it, but I think it is difficult for a general reader to understand the EZLN without mentioning these main events; and the objective of the lead section should be to understand the main points of the article without going into details. Judge for yourself and be equally bold in editing... petition to clean up the article to conform to a higher standard is still on... -- User:Jose Icaza september 3 2005.
The initial intention of the Zapatista movement was not to overthrow the Mexican government. I have a film with subcomandante Marcos saying the exact opposite. It is a film called "Zapatista," by Big Noise Films. Check it out, it's very well made.
TO DO:
1 Move long paragraph of lead section related to Sixth Declaration to "Political initiatives", integrating it with the content of "Latest news section", which I think should be removed since its contents would be mentioned in political initiatives.... Summarize these new contents of Political Initiatives in lead section substituting that long paragraph
2 Most of the claims in the article can be backed up by references to Marcos' "comunicados" and press articles and news reports. All these references should be inserted. -- User:Jose Icaza september 25 2005.
The ceasefire situation needs to be cleared up. According to JMT above, it was called by the Zapatistas. In the history Overview section, it says "the Catholic diocese in San Cristóbal de las Casas under Bishop Samuel Ruiz", and in the Detailed History section it says President Gortari. Who called the ceasefire, really? -BJK
I deleted the old and inappropriate cleanup tag.
From the cleanup page:
The cleanup page is a place where articles with problems (ungrammatical, poorly formatted, confusing, etc.) can be listed.
Just to let everyone know, there were 11328 articles tagged for cleanup as of 15:14, 03 December 2005 (UTC). This means that we are working on an astounding 1.336% of Wikipedia's articles. Anything you can do to help clear the backlog would be greatly appreciated.
This article is well formatted, understandable, and follows standard grammar, spelling and punctuation standards, unlike the vast majority of articles tagged for cleanup. It is a cleaner and clearer article in these respects than it was in May 2005, when the tag was applied.
However, the article was already reasonably well formatted, understandable, and followed standard grammar, spelling and punctuation standards when the tag was applied.
Cleanup tags are for articles that need the help of a copyeditor. Cleanup tags should not be used as a political tool, though they often are - especially on pages like this which describe political or religious groups and beliefs which are unpopular or poorly understood in America, the UK, and Australia (on the English wikipedia - there is Japanese national bias on the Japanese wiki, French national bias on the French wiki, etc - one explicit aim of this project is to eliminate such bias). Using a generic cleanup tag where you have political disagreements with the group or ideology being described is an inappropriate waste of editorial resources.
Before tagging an article this way, read the cleanup page, including the "resources for maintenance and collaboration" sidebar. Make sure there is no way you can personally resolve the issue. Then and only then is it appropriate to tag an article for editorial attention, and if you do, you must explain very specifically how and why you think it needs attention here on the talk page, and tag it with the most specific and appropriate editorial attention tag. With politically charged subject matter, if such a tag is called for (which it often is not) this usually means one of the following: Article accuracy - Caption review - Expand an article - Neutrality - Peer review - Statement accuracy. There are articles explaining each of these in detail, like the NPOV article. Please read these before tagging.
Cheers.
-- 69.12.152.249 07:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC) First version... style corrections are most welcome as I am not a native English speaker... thanks!
I removed the description under the EZLN flag which described it (red star, black background) as communicating it's 'communist' and 'anarchist' influences. To the best of my knowledge, none of the EZLN leaders have made this connection themselves. -- User:Harris0
Ummm I'm pretty sure a red star signifies communism. Doesn't matter whether they identify with Leninism or Maoism, it's communist either way.
Subcommandante Marcos describes himself as an anarchist and you could compare the EZLN to a socialist organisation because they're trying to overthrow the government for the people 222.154.74.100 03:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Marcos is a gay person in San Francisco, a black person in South Africa, an asian person in Europe, a chicano in San Isidro, an anarchist in Spain, a Palestinian in Israel, an indigenous person in the streets of San Crist"bal, a gang-member in Neza, a rocker in the Ex-Soviet Union, a Jew in Germany, an ombudsman in Sedena (Secretaria de Defensa - translator), a feminist in a political party, a communist in the post-Cold War period, a prisoner in Cintalapa, a pacifist in Bosnia, a Mapuche in the Andes, a teacher in CNTE (Confederaci"n Nacional de Trabajadores de Educaci"n - translator), an artist without a gallery or a portfolio, a housewife in any neighborhood in any city in any part of Mexico on a Saturday night, a guerilla in Mexico at the end of the twentieth century, a worker of the CTM on strike, a sexist in the feminist movement, a lone woman in a Metro station at 10pm, a retired person standing around in el Z"calo, a peasant without land, an underground editor, an unemployed worker, a non-conformist student, a dissident against neoliberalism, a writer without books or readers, and a Zapatista in southeastern Mexico. In other words, Marcos is a human being in this world. Marcos is every untolerated, oppressed, exploited minority that is resisting and saying, "Enough already!" He is every minority who is now beginning to speak and every majority that must shut up and listen. He is every untolerated group searching for a way to speak, their way to speak. Everything that makes Power and the good consciences of those in power uncomfortable - this is Marcos. [1]
Marcos has ruffled some feathers by supporting Andrés Manuel López Obrador, the leftist candidate for the Mexican presidency.
Did this ever happen? -- Varano 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Marcos DID NOT support López Obrador for the presidency. He said that he thought Obrador would win, but he didn't support any of the candidates. The Zapatistas are against corrupt political parties like the PRD, the PAN, and the PRI.
More citations would be nice, as would a little less partisan phrasing. Clarifications of positions vs. facts would be helpful. It is already there, but not entirely clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 164.113.13.232 ( talk) 15:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC).
- This is still a significant problem with this article. There are a total of 0 outside, independent citations and the lines between positions and facts has clearly been blurred. Whether you support NAFTA or not a statement like it "drastically reduces income and living standards of millions of Mexican farmers" clearly violates the POV standard wikipedia has set for itself.-- Carl Von Clausewitz 20:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
I read through the article and citations would be nice. To clearly define what is fat, but I think it misses out a lot about the Zapatistas. The latest news of the Zapatista's goes back to 2005 and we're in 2007 already (time flys). Although I am a fan of the Zapatistas, I'm not a watcher, nor do I have the most updated information. Things like the Encounter's they've called, or, position to the protests happening Oaxaca. Along with the Intercontinental Indigenous Encounter called for Oct. 2007 by the Zapatistas. Could we find more up to date information on them? I'll look around and see what I can do. But help would be good. OldManRivers 07:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Do people know where I can find information on the governance structure of the Zapatistas. I know there is the Clandestine Revolution Committee, the General Command of the Zapatistas, which is made up of 23 comandantes with Marcos being the only sub-comandante, although I believe he is the head on the military wing. I also know they have their "Councils of Good Government" set up through their municipalities, but that's the extend of my information, and I cannot for the life of me remember where I got that information. Thanks for any help OldManRivers 05:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
There is an NPOV tag but no explanation for it? -- infinity 0 13:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
"The EZLN, in contrast, reinforces the idea of participatory democracy by limiting public servants' terms to only two weeks a term, lacking visible organization leaders and constantly refering to the people they are governing for major decisions, strategies and conceptual visions."
"In accordance with this principle, the Zapatistas are not a political party: they do not seek office throughout the state and wish to reconceptualize the entire Mexican political system rather than perpetuating it by attempting to gain power within its ranks."
"For example, a great part of Mexico's hydroelectricity comes from Chiapas, yet many communities in Chiapas suffer because they have no access to fresh drinking water. It is these kinds of injustices that the EZLN intends to address."
"Membership in the Juntas rotates continuously, so that all members of the community have an opportunity to serve the community and also to prevent people in power to become addicted to it or become corrupted."
This is all very gushy and it needs to be rewritten. Asarelah 21:05, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that direct democracy isnt possible with today's technology but thats another debate. Certainly within the situation the zapatista's are working in wide-scale direct democracy is difficult.
An argument about how 'possible' direct democracy is happens to be neither here nor there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 ( talk) 20:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
The economic policies the article talks about are themselves in question in Wikipedia. The article talks about these economic policies as if they where bad, as if they where clear and well described by economists. No serious economic journal has ever talked about Neoliberalism (check wilipedia article). So the balance and support of the article look very bad.
I agree. Though this article is well written, it seems a tad biased. It is Far from being the most nonobjective article I have ever read on Wikipedia, but it also does seem to use language like "neoliberalism", which is a term that is only used by communists, anarchists and other left-wing elements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diggerjohn111 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually Neo-liberalism is used by many in academic circles as a median between Globalisation theory and modernization theory. So its not a completely unusable term for this article. And since the EZLN are influenced by anarchists, the left, and so on its not inappropriate to use it within this article as context as to how they see the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.185.151 ( talk) 00:13, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
would someone please tell me why this bit says 'none' for both sides? there has been a lot of fighting and casualties...anyone?????? Domsta333 ( talk) 10:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
In my eyes...I say we should take that entire table out! I'm sorry but it's just...retarded. It deludes impressionable people who know nothing of this conflict to seem like an out out armed struggle, especially when the Zapatista's rival is the "Mexican Army" as well as the bit with the "casualties". That's like putting a section on an article on police officers and having a table titled the People/Police Conflict! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.56.196 ( talk) 09:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
ive read marcos own book. it says that there was some casualties in the uprising 1994, atleast an police officer got killed by the insurgents when they entered the town san cristobal /kato —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.4.16 ( talk) 07:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
I think that might be more of an indictment of the police than a flaw in this article. There clearly is a conflict, there clearly are casualties, both sides are armed groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.24.53 ( talk) 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
There is no real Article abot the " Sexta Declaración de la Selva Lacandona" and I ask me why!? It s not worth it? I doubt that. The link to the link ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sixth_Declaration_of_the_Lacandon_Jungle&redirect=no) redirects to the Zapatist article but there is not really information about the "Sexta" Fabzgy ( talk) 20:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Under part 4 of Women's Revolutionary Law, it seems that "Primary Attention in health & nutrition" would be better translated as "Primary Care in health & nutrition." Please consult the original source and consider making this change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmr30 ( talk • contribs) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
ELZN has been the main suspect in the assasination of Luis Donaldo Colosio. This should be mentioned I think, as it relates to NAFTA. Sgt Simpson ( talk) 11:15, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
is it really relevant or appropriate to state support by rage against the machine and leftover crack in the opening paragraph or even in the article at all? musicians write songs that deal with political themes all the time and i dont see why the support of particular musicians for the ezln should get particular attention here. maybe its more appropriate to state this in a "popular culture ref" section but i personally have a low opinion of these as they are usually developed on wikipedia. the ezln is a guerrilla organization with territorial holdings in the mexican state of chiapas and these pop culture references tends to trivialize the group to the level of subcultural musical scenes (i mean leftover crack and brujeria arent well known by the general population in the u.s. much less outside the country). - iv —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.34.169.211 ( talk) 22:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The appearance of "VNSA" in the opening sentence suggests that it may be a common abbreviation ordinary readers ought to be familiar with. It isn't. Unfree ( talk) 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Sort of the essentials of any "revolutionary" movement...
...if no impact, why are they in wikipedia :P ...if no criticism, why isn't everywhere governed by EZLN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.143.26.213 ( talk) 17:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
That is SO NOT TRUE. In fact, the indigenous vote "voto campesino e indígena" was used by the PRI to stay in power, even through coercion (or "buying the vote", by giving them food, or even forcing them to vote for the party). My point is, they were allowed to vote, both constitutionally since 1917, and de facto. -- J.Alonso 21:06, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
So not true again nobody was forced to vote at gunpoint. What the sapatistas have done recently is block voting alltogether in the comunities they have influence. Due to the fact that in the 90s the candidates they supported got a low voting percentage. 148.243.35.253 23:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Eduardo del Valle
Thank you for the truth! You are so right! people post garbage here. True information of these causes cannot come from books and even less from news papers. It must be sen 1st hand and heard from the people who experienced it on both sides! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandobarbosa2000 ( talk • contribs) 07:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
This entire Zapatista article fails to account for the real truth of the Zapatistas: founded by the federal government under Salinas, equipped indigeneous peoples with fake rifles so that they would be slaughtered by the army, killed rich people in cold blood just for the sake of showing off their extreme left credentials, have done nothing to improve the lives of indigeneous people, and 'occupy' territories composed of dirt roads and shacks. Everybody in Chiapas knows the truth and it is time for the truth to be told! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.225.80.227 ( talk) 03:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
I seem to remember John Berger writing about them in The Shape of a Pocket.
Also Manuel Castells has significant material on them.
I am away from my resources for about 1 week. (Михал Орела 17:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC))
They are in Chiapas - NOT TJ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armandobarbosa2000 ( talk • contribs) 06:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
The "Peaceful" statement is very accurate in comparison. The zapatistas have taken violent action less than 10 times while the government continues, they carry guns for protection not harm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.188.207 ( talk) 01:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
I would have already made this edit, but I'm told this is a very controversial page, so I will try to make my case for a neutral wording here. The second sentence of the first paragraph of this article has the following sentence: "Since 1994, they have been in a declared war 'against the Mexican state,' though this war has been primarily nonviolent and defensive against military, paramilitary, and corporate incursions on their territory." What troubles me here is the phrase "on their territory." This appears to imply that the EZLN legitimately owns the territory on which the fighting occurs (I realize that may not have been the original intention of the writer). As the land controlled by EZLN is evidently disputed between EZLN and the Mexican government, might in be better to call these "incursions on Zapatista-controlled land." Does this factual statement seem fair to all opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the statement "peaceful" is inaccurate since they took arms against the mexican army, I will say that it is an Insurgent revolutionary group based in Chiapas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.210.88 ( talk) 21:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I think the statement "peaceful" is inaccurate since they took arms against the mexican army, I will say that it is an Insurgent revolutionary group based in Chiapas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.210.88 ( talk) 21:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the ' peaceful' claim as the infobox claims they 'Participant in armed Insurgency against the Mexican Government for its implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement' Please let me know if this is inappropriate. -- 129.11.115.55 ( talk) 14:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I haven't read this article in a while but I have noticed that pretty much all reference to the Marxist components of the EZLN have been scrubbed and that Zapatismo has been essentially equated to Anarchism. I find this to be an unacceptable POV violation, primarily because the Zapatistas themselves and serious scholars have recognized that Zapatismo does not fall cleanly into either Marxism or Anarchism - much less the very specific school of Anarcho-Communism. I've made some basic changes to reflect this and would welcome further assistance in making this article more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatoly-Rex ( talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
these names
are obviously made up. these are all turkish names. and DJ ? I reverted it. they are entered by 78.179.233.244 I also spotted 81.214.51.161 which made similar edits in turkish. please somebody who has time look for the activities of these IPs. -- ArazZeynili ( talk) 17:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a surprising amount of controversy around my additions to the external links section, specifically anti-globalization movement, global justice movement, and diversity of tactics. I suppose I may have contributed to this by inadvertently cancelling my own reversion of July 2nd. In any case, the connections are well-documented in the link I posted with my July 2 activity. In particular, I draw your attention to this article from the McGill Sociological Review which notes, regarding anti-globalization/ global justice movement, that:
In the same article it states that "the Zapatista insurgency contributed to the transnational nature of the World Social Forum, [however] it is essential to note how they were thereafter excluded from Forum participation as a result of their avowed stance which included violence as a strategy for demanding change." The EZLN have consistently refused to surrender their arms (which include assault rifles) or jettison their clandestine military structure. At the same time, they have engaged in nonviolent actions and called for peace. This mixed strategy is a prime example of diversity of tactics. In fact, the international forum the EZLN itself helped found, People's Global Action, endorses diversity of tactics and an unconventionally broad (or as they put it, non-North American) definition of nonviolence. GPRamirez5 ( talk) 02:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
When I read this page I found that it presented be an overwhelmingly positive perspective on a group of people that have used military means to achieve their aims but that have avoided most if not all of the excesses of violent revolution, while simultaneously supporting issues such as women's rights that are popular among the left (and at this point, among the mainstream, at least where I live). Unfortunately this itself is highly suspect because of a lack of even a single critical perspective on the group and because of the article's admission that the group makes use of new media.
As written I have no idea whether the group actually engages in warfare that is "primarily defensive, against military, paramilitary, and corporate incursions" or whether they are (or were) a group of armed thugs that mistreat people in the area they control and wage "defensive" war against organizations attempting to put a stop to this. The article claims the former but does not actually provide information that allows a reader to make an independent judgment on the issue. I also have no idea what the group's relationship is with the two thirds of people who are not indigenous Americans that live in the area the article mentions as being central to their operations, nor do I have any idea whether the group has been accused of any human rights violations such as attempting to silence critical press or violently punishing political opponents. The article appears to address this by mentioning their declaration "[defining] the right of the people to resist any unjust actions" they take, but there is no information that allows one to determine whether this actually meant anything in practice.
I suppose this would be a good time to mention that parts of the article seem written from an unstated perspective that the revolutionaries are justified in their actions - the "defensive war" statement is a good example of this, as it implicitly accepts the validity of the group's claims to the land they operate in. Another example of this includes the "Horizontal Autonomy and Indigenous Leadership" section, which opens by stating that the group has been "steadfast in resisting the violence of neoliberalism [I am not really familiar enough with neoliberalism to state whether or not this is a subjective statement being presented as fact] by practicing horizontal autonomy and mutual aid" and mentions a number of topics with positive sounding names (such as the aforementioned "horizontal autonomy and mutual aid," or "build international solidarity through humble outreach and non-imposing political communication") without really providing any information on the specifics of said topics in the context of the group's activities.
Maybe there is no critical perspective because no reasons exist that would warrant a critical perspective. But if this is the case there is no information presented in the article to support this, and an absence of information does not in fact speak for itself unless the reasons for the absence of information are clear. All in all the article as written is of limited use to a person who wants to develop their own informed opinion on the subject, and it seems almost as though it is, intentional or not, a platform for spreading their message rather than as a source for information on the issue. I think it would benefit from, if relevant sources exist, the inclusion of critical perspectives or of information explaining the reasons behind a lack thereof. It would also benefit from more detail in general, with regards to some of the topics it mentions.
I apologize for making this criticism without simultaneously making an effort to edit and improve the article; this is actually the first time I have made any edit on Wikipedia at all. I'm not sure I have the time to go into detail with changes to the article, and just wanted to point out an issue I noticed while reading it.
Nota6457 ( talk) 17:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
The section titled "Military Site" is poorly written and does not seem neutral. It also doesn't fit where it was placed, chronologically or thematically. That section has been copied and pasted from Subcomandante_Marcos#The_Military_Site, so could probably be removed from this article and linked with a couple sentences in the appropriate place in Zapatista_Army_of_National_Liberation#2000s.
The section on the identity of Subcomandante Marcos also doesn't fit where it was placed, and doesn't seem vitally important to the subject of this article. This is again covered in Subcomandante_Marcos#Subcomandante_Marcos.E2.80.99s_Identity, so can perhaps be removed.
IanGreenleaf ( talk) 18:58, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The source for this sentence "...their movement to protest the signing of NAFTA, which the EZLN believed would increase the gap between rich and poor people in Chiapas—a prediction that has been vindicated by subsequent developments" does not appear to specifically mention NAFTA as the cause for increased inequality (it just says "trade shock"). So, if someone could add an additional source that's more specific, that'd probably be good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.74.8 ( talk) 03:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Zapatista Army of National Liberation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
First version... style corrections are most welcome as I am not a native English speaker... thanks! -- User:Jose Icaza — Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 18 September 2002 (UTC)
I'm not sure what to say about this but, this line "but in any case they were no match for the Mexican army." Mexico's massive 70,000 man military(much sarcarsm) is enough to keep a group that wants the world to recognize them down? All this line does is make the Zapatista's seem like a small, insignificant, powerless group. If Jane's and the CIA Factbook are to be believed, then a single battalion of well armed militia could topple the Mexican Army, but a group who claims to have clout on an international scale are "no match for the Mexican army?" I reccomend some kind of re-write, as it seems most of the rest of the article indicates that they are an actual political force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.238.226.116 ( talk) 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
![]() ![]() Before 2001, Marcos' writings were often published in some Mexican and a few international newspapers. Then Marcos fell silent, and his relationship with the media declined. When he resumed writing in 2002, he assumed a more aggressive tone, and his attacks on former allies angered some of the EZLN's supporters. Except for these letters and occasional critical communiqués about the political climate, the EZLN was largely silent until August 2003, when Radio Insurgente was launched from an unknown location. In mid-2004, COCOPA head Luis H. Álvarez stated that Marcos had not been seen in Chiapas for some time. The EZLN received little press coverage during this time, although it continued to develop the local governments it had created earlier. In August, Marcos sent eight brief communiqués to the Mexican press, published from August 20 through 28. The series was entitled Reading a Video (possibly mocking political video scandals that occurred earlier that year). It began and ended as a kind of written description of an imaginary low-budget Zapatista video, with the rest being Marcos' comments on political events of the year and the EZLN's current stance and development. In 2005, Marcos made headlines again by comparing the then presidential candidate Andrés Manuel López Obrador to Carlos Salinas de Gortari (as part of a broad criticism of the three main political parties in Mexico, the PAN, PRI, and PRD), and publicly declaring the EZLN in "Red Alert". Shortly thereafter, communiqués announced that the EZLN had undergone a restructuring that enabled them to withstand the loss of their public leadership (Marcos and the CCRI). After consulting with their support base, the Zapatistas issued the Sixth Declaration of the Lacandon Jungle. Since the Zapatistas' first uprising, the newspaper La Jornada has continuously covered them. Most communiqués and many of Marcos's letters are delivered to and only published by La Jornada, and the online edition of the newspaper has a section dedicated to The Other Campaign. The independent media organization Indymedia also covers and prints Zapatista developments and communications. References
|
This section was tagged as needing references. I'm dumping the text here for posterity and feel free to restore the contents if you can provide a supporting reliable, secondary source. czar 06:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
We probably should refine the Ideologies. As it stands, just about every Leftist ideology is represented there. 24.191.232.122 ( talk) 18:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
they ban alcohol and drugs. libertarian?. Wikipedia should justify calling things "libertarian". 2601:588:8100:E3C0:D167:C766:CE60:C0F4 ( talk) 02:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Resolving this section's cleanup tag by moving the content here. Feel free to reinstate with independent, reliable, secondary sources. czar 18:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Skinnyeleven (
article contribs). Peer reviewers:
Expat13,
Cc66816.
— Assignment last updated by Profmexhist ( talk) 00:18, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Subcommandante Marcos no longer goes by that name, he is now, and has been for quite some time, Subcommandante Insurgente Galeano. I think this should be reflected more in the article by changing references to "Marcos" to "Galeano". He is referenced inconsistently as both Marcos and Galeano. JBrahms ( talk) 00:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)