Talk:Zapatista territories

Sources for the specific claims in the Healthcare section

The article claims that people are being vaccinated against malaria. How exactly is that possible? As far as I am aware, the only anti-malaria vaccine approved for human use is still in the pilot project phase and those projects are in Africa.OrdinaryDecent (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I attempted to verify it and couldn't find a single mention of malaria in the article mentioned by the cited analysis. I edited it out and replaced it with data from the original Spanish article instead. Oqwert (talk) 04:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Population

I could not verify the population count from this page when I went through the two sources cited. I read the first citation in its original text and could not find this number (363,583) explicitly stated. I don't see how the second citation helps with finding this number since, from my understanding, it only has data on child populations and looks at Chiapas as a whole rather than just MAREZ. Any clarification?

Bryce Springfield (talk) 06:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Territory Map

I don't know where the original map creator, Hxltdq, found that territory map, but it seems to be made up off of the claims made by this article: https://dorsetchiapassolidarity.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/the-zapatista-struggle-against-global-neoliberalism/ Map on the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebel_Zapatista_Autonomous_Municipalities#/media/File:Mexico_Chiapas_neozapatista_map.svg Cedaria00 (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hxltdq

It also seems that the person who added the map to the page effectively went dark and is not responding to any pings. Since this is the best source I could find for an accurate territory map, I'm going to work on adding it to the page in replacement of the one that's currently listed. Cedaria00 (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Note on economy

I have looked at both images of Zapatista demonstrations in Zapatista territory as well as Google Maps and found that there are still, for example, many Walmart, Burger King, or AutoZone locations in this territory. Thus far, I have found no evidence online that these locations are collectively owned or controlled as the current description of the Zapatista economy would suggest (I have not contacted these locations yet). I believe it's also up in the air whether many of the cities in Zapatista territory are fully or only partially Zapatista-controlled. Obviously, this is simply based on my original surface-level research (though it is something I think worth producing a citable study on), but I think it does highlight some gaps in the present description of the Zapatista economy, particularly when it comes to differences between what the Zapatistas indicate as desirable (full collective ownership/control of the economy) and what the economy actually looks like (perhaps not reaching that ideal as of now). 4kbw9Df3Tw (talk) 07:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

On the "dissolution" of the Autonomous Municipalities

I have found that every mention (that I could find) of a "dissolving" of the Municipalities on this and related pages references this PBS article, whose title contradicts the primary statement made by the territory which can be found here in English and here in Spanish. Even the PBS article itself, beyond its title, doesn't seem to indicate that the territory has capitulated. The official Zapatista statement is vague (it is stated that more information will be given in the future so look out for that), but it seems to suggest not a capitulation, but instead a reorganization of the territory's governance. It's hard to say what is happening for sure, but I believe that we should not state that they are dissolving themselves before there is ample proof of such a thing being done. Loffy570 (talk) 13:03, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

The communique seems pretty clear to me:

Some months ago [...] it was decided that the Autonomous Zapatista Rebel Municipalities (MAREZ) and the Good Government Councils would disappear. [...] All seals, letterheads, positions, representations and agreements with the name of any MAREZ or of any of the Good Government Councils are invalid as of this moment. No person may represent himself or herself as a member, authority or representative of any MAREZ or Good Governance Councils. The agreements held before this date, with Non-Governmental Organizations, social organizations, collectives, groups and entities of solidarity in Mexico and the world remain in force until their expiration, but no new agreements can be made with these entities of Zapatista autonomy, for the simple reason that they no longer exist.

While they say they will be reorganising "the structure of Zapatista autonomy", but that doesn't change the fact that the MAREZ themselves have been declared to have ceased to exist. As this article is specifically about the MAREZ, not the EZLN, I don't think there's more "ample proof" than primary and secondary sources (in Spanish[1][2] and English[3][4]) both saying they no longer exist. Furthermore, the sources all point out how the "territory" has been overrun by organised crime. The MAREZ is over, what the EZLN does from here is another question. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Good point and thanks for it. I was definitely conflating the two which was a mistake on my part. MAREZ is gone as you've said, but not necessarily the Zapatistas until further information comes out. Loffy570 (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

This is my understanding, the MAREZ system is over, the EZLN is staying, and the EZLN controlled areas will possibly be reorganized in a new system in the future. PersusjCP (talk) 21:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Should the article be renamed and focused on the new autonomies, now that the MAREZ has been reformed?

Will there be a new article, or should this article be treated as a continuation of Zapatista autonomy? What should the new name be? PersusjCP (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Wait. The MAREZ hasn't been "reformed", the most recent communique is still quite clear in referring to them in the past tense. The article definitely shouldn't be renamed and refocused, as there aren't remotely enough sources on the new local autonomous governments to justify that. I would support eventually creating a new article for these, but again, we need to wait for sources to materialise. We only have one primary source to go off right now, so let's not rush into anything until we have something to build on. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah, I mean "reformed" not like they still exist, but they have been reorganized into something else. PersusjCP (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Honestly I think this article needs some deep changes and improvements, from the bottom-up basically. Let's not get too caught up in recent news that we lose sight of nearly three decades of history. There's much more to Zapatista autonomy than what it's currently named, we need to be highlighting that. --Grnrchst (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's a good point and I agree. Thanks PersusjCP (talk) 22:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  also agree and i've been thinking about about article structure. the changes ought not necessarily mimic, but it could maybe at least be informed by the structure of the article about Makhnovshchina 🧐🙏 ~ Johnfreez (talk) 09:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I definitely think the framing of this article as if Zapatista autonomy has ended is misleading. We should definitely try re-orienting the article at the least, and I think we should further discuss whether or not to rename the article to reflect the broader scope of Zapatista autonomy than just the MAREZ. LaborHorizontal (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue in favor of renaming the article to "Zapatista Autonomous Government Collectives" as they seem to be the direct successors to the MAREZ. It appears to me that the MAREZ didn't so much as dissolve, but rather restructured. We certainly should not frame the article to appear that this autonomous zone disappeared after 2023. LaborHorizontal (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

The MAREZ did dissolve though, this isn't controversial, it's stated in their own communique. That they have a new structure for their autonomy doesn't change that the old one is gone. I would strongly disagree with renaming this article to "Zapatista Autonomous Government Collectives", as I think it reflects a recency bias. We haven't heard much at all about these new structures since their formation was announced. If more news comes out of Chiapas, that could change, but right now we have little more than a name in a communique to go off. But if you want to change the scope of the article towards reflecting Zapatista autonomy, rather than the municipalities specifically, I think that'd be a good way to move forward. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Just in the way of "Zapatista autonomy", it appears that this term is more commonly used than "Zapatista autonomous municipalities", per Google Scholar.[5][6] Google Ngrams also indicates that while references to the autonomous municipalities have been dropping in frequency since about 2005, the use of "Zapatista autonomy" has only increased over time.[7] If we wanted to change the title to "Zapatista autonomy" and change the article's scope towards that, rather than just focusing on the MAREZ, I could support that. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

To bring this back up, I would agree with this, as it focuses both on the past and present of the autonomous territories, and makes it so that we don't have to have a separate articles or completely rename and refocus the article. PersusjCP (talk) 22:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, Grnrchst. Why don't you motion for a rename? LaborHorizontal (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Feel free to open a move discussion yourself. I haven't done it because, to be honest, I think the article would need major restructuring work before a rename/move is carried out. And I am far too burned out and exhausted to do that right now. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:53, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Not dissolved

It seems like it hasn't dissolved but restructured into a "new stage of autonomy", hence: "We will NOT give up, we will NOT change path, we will NOT sell out. We will always be reviewing our struggle, its times and ways with a critical eye."

https://enlacezapatista.ezln.org.mx/2023/11/13/ninth-part-the-new-structure-of-zapastista-autonomy/ 2.30.180.212 (talk) 12:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

This article still remains in its incorrect, premature state, I'm afraid. Kind of amusing, considering they mocked the people declaring their defeat, despite the whole affair being a reorganization. --84.248.71.202 (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Reorientation and communications

It's well established at this point that Zapatista autonomy did not permanently dissolve, but it did reform. Yet, while I am aware of people still visiting the territory, there has been little public communication from the EZLN or the local communities themselves that I am aware of since December (or even popular media coverage). Anyone have more information to update our understanding?

Once we do have more information available, I think this article should be reoriented. Perhaps a rename to something more general like "Zapatista autonomy" and have the content of the article describe more in-depth both the MAREZ and the CGAZ (rather than just the MAREZ). LaborHorizontal (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

To this too, the article is also inaccurate in putting the start take of the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities as 1994, the RZAMs came after 1994. They Zapatistas have restructured before and this is just the latest restructuring. I agree with LaborHorizontal that the article should be re-named to reflect the reality of Zapatista held autonomous territories not being tied to one certain structuring. I think there should be sections about specific manifestations of the structuring (the MAREZ being one example) but all being within the larger "Zapatista autonomous territories" (or what ever the name is decided to be). Remikipedia (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 28 March 2025

Zapatista territories → Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities – After the Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities (MAREZ) were dissolved in 2023 and reorganised into the Local Autonomous Governments (GAL), there was quite a bit of debate over the scope of this article in its talk page. Discussions were had about possibly expanding the scope of this article and moving it to a different title, with various different titles thrown out, but no formalised discussion was had on that. My opinion at the time was that the scope of the article itself would need to substantially change and expand before any article move was carried out, although I proposed a broader article on "Zapatista autonomy" might be worth creating.

On 19 March 2025, LaborHorizontal (talk · contribs) carried out a unilateral move of the article to "Zapatista territories" (diff). Despite the move being carried out ostensibly to expand the scope of the article, most of the article is still specifically about the MAREZ, so all that really changed was the title (creating confusion as to what this article is about). The term "Zapatista territories" also set off alarm bells in my head, due to previous issues with the use of "territory" in other article titles; I searched the term up on Google Scholar, and the term is indeed in use, but it is a largely informal term used to refer to the area controlled by the EZLN (or by Zapata's ELS), rather than any specific governance structures established there (which is what this article is about).

As the scope of the article has not meaningfully changed enough to justify a move, in my mind at least, I'm proposing this be moved back to "Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities". I'd also separately propose that anything taking a broader view of the territory controlled by the EZLN be its own article, rather than subsuming this one. Grnrchst (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

The present article is cited across Wikipedia in reference to the Zapatista territories broadly from 1994 to today, not just one element (MAREZ) of the specific form of governance they took (CRAREZ) in only part of their history (2003-2023).

I have made small edits to attempt to better present the overall history of Zapatista autonomy since 1994 rather than 2003-2023; there certainly is a lot of missing information that needs to be fleshed out, I don't dispute that. But we should be much more concerned with expanding the content of the article rather than trying to force it to stick to just 2003-2023. The prior discussion is largely from November 2023, the month when their most recent restructuring occurred, and minimal discussion throughout 2024. We are now 1.5 years on, where we have more information available from people visiting and reporting on the Zapatistas.

If nobody else does, I am happy to restructure the entire article to be more complete in describing the many complexities of Zapatista autonomy closer to the end of the American academic year in May. That isn't something I can do right away, but it is on my bucket list. LaborHorizontal (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the broader scope of Zapatista territories is more favoured. Before 2023, I think the impression that people had was that the MAREZ came out of 1994 instead of 2003 as the article discussed from the start of 1994. I think having the contents divided by the different "eras" should be a good direction. 08:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC) Remikipedia (talk) 08:05, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Mexico, WikiProject Anarchism, and WikiProject Socialism have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 12:08, 4 April 2025 (UTC)

• Support. The arguments supporting this request seems to me to be relevant and more correct for the future of the trajectory of this page and the readers. Aristoxène (talk) 12:20, 4 April 2025 (UTC)
• Rescope? I've been following this for a while and still do not feel like I grasp the article scope, whether it's the territory under Zapatista governance, how they govern (policy/method), the specific MAREZ/GAL body of governance, or whether those are a subset of the Zapatista Army of National Liberation (which is treated as a metonym for the Zapatista movement). My suggestion is to convert the article to be about the Zapatistas in general with sections on the uprising, the history of the EZLN and its communications, governance under the MAREZ, governance under the GAL, and the programs under each. If done in summary style, if any one subsection becomes excessive, it can split out to its own standalone article. But it would save us from prematurely populating separate, underdeveloped articles about related topics. czar 16:59, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
  • "Zapatista movement" might work for what you're suggesting. It got 9,450 hits on Google Scholar, compared to 792 for "Zapatista autonomy" and 155 for "Zapatista territories". --Grnrchst (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)
    • That works. I also think that scope would be the primary topic for the plain title "Zapatistas" but that would be a secondary discussion. czar 10:36, 12 April 2025 (UTC)
• Support creation of a Zapatista movement article with the broad scope Czar proposes for Zapatistas (which should remain a disamb page, to include the earlier movement too), but also renaming the page under discussion to Zapatista municipalities and widen its scope to cover MAREZ and GAL along the lines of the original renaming/widening proposed by Grnrchst. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:35, 15 April 2025 (UTC)