Talk:Rebel Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities

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)