Talk:Zapatista Army of National Liberation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Zapatista Army of National Liberation was featured as the Anarchism portal selected article for April 2007.

Contents

[edit] What about the first ELZN?

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)

[edit] first version

First version... style corrections are most welcome as I am not a native English speaker... thanks! -- User:Jose Icaza

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 300,000 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.

And the very presence of this debate proves that they do, in fact, have the power to at least stimulate support and discussion internationally. However, I think that line is referring to their military capabilities (and since overseas supporters are unable to provide extra clout on the battlefield, the distinction is tangible) as opposed to the Mexican army in addition to Mexican police and loyalist paramilitaries (which overall probably amount to around twice the capability of the army alone).

[edit] leader?

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

Actually, no he isn't. The Zapatistas have an elaborate organisational structure, and Marcos is not the leader. Yes, he's the public face (ski mask?) of the Zapatistas, and articulates to the rest of the world what they're all about. But read some about how the Zapatistas make decisions - Marcos' voice is just one of many in that process. Graft 14:40 Nov 2, 2002 (UTC)
He's basically a spokesperson. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Marcos has power but he is by no means the leader or even one of the primary ones. The Zapatistas have a complex organizational structure which intentionally limits how much power an individual can have in formulating strategies or ideas. You'll need a credible source to justify Marcos as "the leader of the EZLN" or I'll have to edit it. -- Sledge

[edit] why not?

Why not make the title of this Zapatista Army of National Liberation or EZLN or Zapatistas?

It now is. Something seperate, mainly from here, can be moved to the uprising page; a chronology & stuff. I have quite a bit about that in Our Word is Our Weapon, which is available for noncommercial use.
I changed "Indians" to "indigenous" in most instances; that's how it's been translated in Our Word is Our Weapon, and I agree. -- Sam
Sam: be careful. "Free for noncommercial use" is not free enough to be included in Wikipedia. Even if Wikipedia is a non-commercial entity, it is licensed under the GFDL, and that means that anybody can make a commercial redistribution of it. We could not truthfully license our material under the GFDL if we included "free for noncommercial use" material in our articles. Of course, we can use it as a source... DanKeshet
He is not because he is a caucasian. the real comandants are approximately a group of 10 indigenous cheifs - 201.200.236.134 04:33, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
As far as I know (remember reading somewhere) that the Zapatista General Command is a group of 23 comandante's with Marcos being the only sub-comandante. I know a little about their organizational governance, but Marcos has been only glorified by the media, and other people. He's the spokesman for the EZLN so of course people think he's the leader, but he's not really. He reports to a number of elders, leaders, and comandantes above him. He does what they tell him to do. 05:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Dates?

From the article:

President Vicente Fox Quesada sent the so-called COCOPA Law (in reality constitutional changes) to Congress on his first day of government (January 2, 2001),

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)

You´re right, I fixed it. Asereje 06:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Isn't the correct Spanish "Basta ya!" with an upside down exclamation point in front of "Basta." Not "Ya basta" as in the article. I can't find my notes on how to make an upside down exclamation point right now. As far as word order is concerned, I've always heard "Basta ya."
Err... i've always seen it "ya basta!" There's even an organisation that named itself Ya Basta! after the Zapatista slogan. Graft 14:51, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
"¡Ya basta!" is right in this context, plus it's what the EZLN uses. Gramatically, you'd use "Basta ya..." if you were going on to specify what you're protesting: "¡Basta ya de neoliberalismo!" for example. Good comment on the exclamation marks, too: I'll go into the article and insert them. –User:Hajor 15:20, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
Whatever happened to Comandante Cero (Commander Zero)? Was he a computer educated guy who thought he was numero uno? He started counting at zero instead of one. <g>

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).

'mal gobierno' is grammatically correct.

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)

But, 'basta' is not a verb, and regardless 'ya' can appropriately precede OR succeed a verb depending on the context and the emphasis.

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

[edit] History section in question.

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

I've always heard 1/1/94 as well. Unless somebody pipes up with a citation, please fix the section and include a citation to your source, so that in the event somebody comes back with a different source later, we can go back to sources more easily. Thanks! DanKeshet 03:45, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
Also, I'd read (In First world, ha ha ha! perhaps), that the timing w/regard to NAFTA was pretty coincidental. They wanted the cover of a holiday (government soldiers and policeman merry-making, etc.) and New Year's was the one that fit their timeframe. NAFTA was just icing, IIRC. DanKeshet 03:48, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
In regards to 1/1/94, that is the date I have always heard as well. Insofar as NAFTA goes, everything I have read has led me to believe it was intentional ("NAFTA is our death sentence" -Comandante Ramona). I believe one of my sources on that was Bill Weinberg's Chiapas; the Zapatistas wanted to capitalize on the attention Mexico was receiving because of NAFTA, especially after the Mexican government had spent so much time during the talks for NAFTA denying that there was an indigneous revolutionary movement.

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.

It's back up luckily, because that is a really important development. It looks like things will be getting hot. I just hope everything turns out ok for the EZLN. I hope it doesn't have to come down to violence.

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.

TODO:

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

[edit] Indigenous communities not allowed to vote before 1998??

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)

You're right. I'm removing it --Descendall 03:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
They were forced to vote for the PRI either at gunpoint or with starvation. That's the same as being allowed to vote "in reality or fact" (de facto)? That's some slippery supple doublethink. I foolishly thought that being allowed to vote "both constitutionally and de facto" would entail being able to choose who and what to vote for. Silly me. Now I understand why people in the former Soviet Union were allowed to vote "both constitutionally and de facto." -- 69.12.152.249 06:29, 17 December 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

[edit] Deleted Old and Inappropriate Cleanup Tag

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.

  1. Check "Resources for maintenance and collaboration" an insert text box on the right, to make sure there is not a more appropriate page on which to list the article.
  2. Add the most specific applicable tag to the article or its talk page (note that having a cleanup tag will be distracting for readers, so only add them to articles if there is a good reason). See Cleanup resources.
  3. Explain what needs to be done in a brief but specific manner in the article's talk page. (Keep in mind not everyone who sees the cleanup tag on the article will see your central listing.)

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!

[edit] "Anarchist" & "Communist" Influences

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

Marcos did an paper on "Why the Zapatistas are not Communists". And they don't align with any one political ideology because they say ideologies are doomed to fail themselves because they become locked in too many theories. They deal with the situations as they come, and deal with that according to their values and principles. So, anarchist influences, yes. Communist influnces yes. But they are most not those actual labels and doing so would definitely be dishonest. OldManRivers 05:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
He specifies that they aren't Communists; he doesn't specify that they aren't communists. There's a difference, in much the same way that the American Republican Party are expressly anti-Democratic (American Democratic Party), while (debatable) they insist that they support democracy and democratic ideals - a Communist is someone who associates with a political movement which describes itself using the word Communist or Communism, a communist is someone who supports universal egalitarianism, usually because they believe in universal fundamental equality.

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.

A) A symbol doesn't imply an ideology. B) Despite the fact that it's influenced by Marxism, Maoism is in fact antagonistic to the basic ideal of communism. Arguably, Leninism, as a vanguardist doctrine, is also un-communistic.
Support. Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

While large portions of the organisation at least are socialist (and I know this because I've spoken to members), the fact alone that they claim to oppose the government for the sake of the people does not necessarily imply this, since it could be interpreted in a number of different ways - for example, if they believe democracy is inefficient and encourages government incompetance (not a view I take, or one I believe any Zapatista takes, but it is valid) then they may wish to establish a paternalistic dictatorship, which would be diametrically opposed to the socialist ideal of egalitarianism which by its nature requires some form of self-rule (either democracy (collective self-rule) or anarchy (individual self-rule)). I'd like to repeat that I have reason to believe the Zapatistas do in fact hold socialist principles, and am merely playing the devil's advocate.
I'd love to include the Zapatistas as anarchists as much as anyone, but it's dishonest to do so. They do have anarchist influences, but they have others as well. And if you're refering to the quote where he says he is "an anarchist in Spain", you might also want to read the rest of the quote (which is in third person):

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]

Regardless of other influences, if they support the abolition of any form of Human restriction on the individual, then they are also anarchists, if they do not then they are not anarchists. I won't say either way, because I'm unsure of their position on the subject of anarchism.
Do you really think he's a housewife too? Or Asian? Ungovernable ForceGot something to say? 08:43, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] supporting Andrés Manuel López Obrador

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.

The EZLN does not participate in the electoral process. Instead, they participate in grassroots organizing. Pckeffer

[edit] Citations

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)

[edit] Updates?

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)


[edit] Organizational Governance

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)

[edit] NPOV?

There is an NPOV tag but no explanation for it? -- infinity0 13:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I added the NPOV tag because this article speaks of the EZLN in the most glowing terms possible. Read this:

"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)

Apart from "reinforces the idea of participatory democracy", which granted is an intention rather than necessarily a factual outcome (since it would be hard to prove), and the reference to residents of Chiapas lacking fresh drinking water as an injustice, which is an opinion (although, I would like to challenge you or anyone else to find a valid contesting view), I see little in those quotes which is not fact, it only seems to be biased because the facts themselves support the Zapatistas' cause. Any attempt to change the article to resolve this problem would effectively amount to political spin.
I see, well, can you move the NPOV tag to the appropriate section? Surely it's not the whole article that's POV? And in any case, could you supply starting points on how to re-word these? -- infinity0 11:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
POV statements like the above are scattered throughout various different sections of the article, so I think the NPOV tag belongs on the top the article. I'm not sure how to reword all this because I am not familiar with the subject matter, and I don't really trust myself to prevent it clearly enough. Asarelah 22:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
The entire article contains next to no critical viewpoints of the Zapatista movement at all. Something really should be done. Itake 20:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
When you think up a valid criticism which isn't based on lies, fabrication and spin, other than the obvious pacifist objection to all conflict (which granted should probably be given its fair amount of airtime) let me know, because I can't and I've never spoken to anyone who could, or read of such a criticism.
Well, some people hold that direct democracy is a bad thing, indigenous people deserve to starve and that no one should ever take up arms against a corrupt, exploitive and unresponsive government. I think that there is also a 3-member Trotskyite 'international' out there that considers the EZLN to be 'petty bourgeois' because they are peasants and refers to them as 'kulaks.' Then there's the 'neolibiral policies will fix everything- never mind the rising price of corn' crowd.24.184.136.137 05:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I suppose its valid to say that direct democracy is unworkable for anything other than the most closely knit community (which is the view my Philosophy teacher takes), and then there's the pacifist idea that no one should ever take up arms for *any* reason, but other than that, I agree, any other objection I've ever heard is either biased for or against a specific social group and therefore noncoherent, or based on a foundation of spin and fabrication.
Right...Itake 04:15, 17 June 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.

[edit] Economic policies critique and description questioned

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.

What are you talking about? Neoliberalism = corporate globalisation. Lots of economic journals have talked about corporate globalisation. They just don't use the term "neoliberalism", which is generally reserved for anti-capitalists, which reporters for capitalist publications rarely are.

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)

[edit] casualties

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)

[edit] Sexta Declaración de la Selva Lacandona

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/w/index.php?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)

[edit] Women's Revolutionary Law

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)

[edit] Luis Donaldo Colosio

ELZN has been the main suspect in the assasination of Luis Donaldo Colosio. This should be mentioned I think, as it relates to NAFTA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgt Simpson (talk • contribs) 23:52, 26 May 2008 (UTC)