Talk:Subcomandante Marcos/Archive 1

Marcos' real identity
Is there any particular reason that there are no references to Marcos' suspected identity in this article? Check these out:  This information seems relevant. Should it be added? Jamiem (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone added the name that the Mexican government claims is his, if that helps. Mitchell Powell (talk) 01:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity
I read a while ago that Marcos was falling back in favour of other Zapatista leaders, as his ethnicity (reportedly largely european) was on contrast to the largely indigenous ethnic makeup of the majority of Zapatistas and Chiapans in general. If this is the case (or if there's some reasonable chitchat to that effect) then I think this would make a decent improvement to the article. Comments? -- Finlay McWalter 19:29, 3 Jan 2004 (UTC)

If Marcos was born 1964, how was he radicalized in 1968? As a 4-year old? If you tell about his student times it would be interesting to know his real name, because as far as I know Marcos is his nom de guerre. User: Klas Heising, 22 jun 2004

Historical Resemblances
Marcos? Zorro? Comments? Marcos styles himself after Zorro? SqueakBox 19:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * looks more like he bought his clothe at the local terrorists R us store. Zorro is not exactly a figure that mexicans look up to in mexico, particulary is not a political figure.
 * I disagree with the anonymous comment here. Whether or not it is intentional, there are certainly parallels between Marcos and Zorro. I've been studying Zapatismo in Hispanic Studies; I'll go through my papers and cite some sources when it isn't so late. In the meantime, I'll mention that Marcos, at one point, encouraged EZLN sympathizers to don ski masks and call themselves Marcos; in his discourse and writings he seems to view "Marcos" as something other than a specific person, such as himself. This reminded me of the scene in The Mask of Zorro (a shaky source, to be sure, and possibly itself inspired by Spartacus) in which all of the prisoners began claiming "I am Zorro!" That movie also had Antonio Banderas assuming the role of Zorro once lived by Anthony Hopkins' character, implying that the "idea" of Zorro transcends any one person. It's something to think about, but, at least until we have sources, wouldn't do well in the article. --BDD 06:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


 * It's an interesting point, and early in the campaign Marcos certainly did say that if anything happened to him, someone else could step into the role. It might be worth a couple of sentences about "Marcos" as a role rather than a single person.  Of course, with a character as strong as Marcos has, that's not a realistic possibility, but it was an interesting idea.  bikeable (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote at the bottom of the page is Marcos' self-description and would be good as a quote in any such piece. Donnacha 00:44, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Article needs balance
Subcomandante Marcos is a well known and controversial international figure, his ideas and actions are heavily reported and followed by many. This is true not just in his own community, but globally. I think the article should include some criticism or at least a larger group of opinions on him, his political philosophy and his actions. The article right now is very sympathetic, regardless of your opinion of Subcomandante Marcos, the article needs balance. Arm
 * The article is not sympathetic as you say, it is just a simple description of few facts. How criticism will make it neutral?--tequendamia 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, just because half the page isn't devoted to foaming right wing bile doesn't mean it's imbalanced, it's just a short bio.
 * If you think he needs to be criticised then put it up, find some sources that agree with you and add it to the article, don't just moan about it. --Horses In The Sky 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article needs balance. It really seems to cast Marcos as some sort of Mexican Hero. It is clear from the article why people would like him. But in the present state an uninformed reader wouldn't understand that most mexicans don't sympathize with with the Zapatista movement, or what Comandante Marcos would like to achieve. The article seems to have been written by someone who obviosly admires Marcos.


 * Please provide a cite that "most Mexican's don't sympathize with the Zapatista movement." They don't run in elections, there have been no polls that I know of. There is considerable grassroots support around the country for them (as shown by the Zapatour and the recent Delegate Zero tour). Donnacha 00:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you are not from Mexico. Here in Mexico it is clear that most Mexicans do not sypathize with the Zapatista movement.  That is why Mexico sent it's army to put down their uprising.  While the Zapatistas do indeed have reasons to be upset, taken up arms is hardly going to be a popular solution.  Who do you think they are pointing their guns at?  Most Zapatistas are not smart philosophers seeking the national spotlight like Subcomandante Marcos.  They are angy people with guns.  The Christian church in particular have suffered extreem persecution in Chiapas at the hands of armed groups.  The happening of the small towns in the mountains goes largely un noticed by the outside world.  Maybe some reading this will find some good links on this subject.  If you care to read a simple criticism you can find one here:  http://www.aciprensa.com/notic1999/mayo/notic645.htm


 * I will keep looking.
 * I found at least one more: ii. Quote:  "Zapatistas: Calling themselves the National Liberation Army, they espouse a "Join, leave the area, or die" philosophy."  Site
 * And another worth reading: Quote:  "Since the mid-nineties, however, public interest in the Zapatistas has waned considerably. Although the rebels continue in their cause, Mexicans appear to be more concerned about unemployment, social and economic problems, crime, and corruption than the demands for democracy and land reform. A poll conducted in Mexico just six months after the initial uprising revealed that Mexicans viewed automobile traffic as a greater issue facing the country than the Zapatista revolt. In fact, the Zapatista rebellion did not even make the top ten answers.
 * Journalist Joel Simon argues that the Zapatistas failed in garnering public attention throughout the late-nineties because they were not quite savvy enough to keep up with the rapid changes that popular culture demands." Site2


 * You're contradicting yourself, if popularity waned, then it must have existed in the first place. You're right, I'm not Mexican, but I have been interested in and following the events in Mexico since '94. You say "That is why Mexico sent it's army to put down their uprising" - so, are you really arguing that the PRI in 1994 represented the wishes of the people? Don't make me laugh. Donnacha 09:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You missread the quote. Mexico's interest waned.  What existed at one point was a genuine interest in Marcos and the situation in Chiapas.  That interest waned.  But don't confuse interest with public support.  Regardless, the fact remains that most Mexicans don't sympathize with Marcos, and the majority are really are not that interested in him anymore.


 * Understand, Marcos has a following. He is popular in certain circles.  He makes for a good T-shirt in the same way that Che Guevarra does.  He is in a way an anti-establishment symbol, and that is an easy sell for some of the youth, It just isn't with the great majority.  The circles where Marcos finds Popularity are greatly outnumbered by the people who aren't interested, don't think much of him, or simply don't care.  Even Lopez Obrador, who holds much more sway that Marcos ever came close to holding, isn't popular with most Mexicans.  Obrador's 33% of the vote paled in comparison to the split conservative vote in mexico, which represented about 60%.


 * The Pri in '94 better represented Mexico's wishes than Commandante Marcos ever did. Most people just want things to run smoothly.  An uprising will eventually become unpopular whether it is in Chiapas, the DF, Oaxaca, or any other part of the country.  The general public just wants to get on with their lives.


 * I disagree. At the time of the uprising there were huge rallies in support of the Zapatista cause and against the government. The government was forced to negotiate and sign the San Andres pact, which eventually they didn't respect. Vicente Fox even used the Chiapas' problem for his campaign, saying he would resolve the issue in 15 minutes. This proves that at least the situation is or was at the time important for the population. Furthermore, in 1994 Carlos Salinas was leaving and Ernesto Zedillo was taking power (after Colosio was assassinated). Today Carlos Salinas is probably the most unpopular political figure in Mexico. The whole platform for Fox to win the election was to get PRI out of power. It doesn't seem to me like PRI represented the people's wishes, not in 1988 when they won by a massive fraud, not in 1994 when they got the vote based on fear and despair, and not in 2000, when people voted them out. It is true that the majority of people want things to run smoothly and for things not to affect them. Of course there is criticism against the EZLN, like there is criticism against any political figure. During the other campaign movement Marcos called for people to not vote, and instead get organized. This further isolated the other campaign and Marcos (a good thing for them because they aren't looking for popularity, or for a government position, but autonomy, justice and self-determination) however there was a significant movement of support and the other campaign is still ongoing. It is basically a political philosophy with very clear definitions, that has parallels in many countries and circles of people today. In 2006 Marcos was labeled almost as traitor by the so called left party, PRD, due to his criticism against Lopez Obrador (who as you say is not as popular). Today there's a big movement calling for the nullification of votes. Apparently ideas and positions are not black and white. You may not like the character and you will find several articles by left wing ideologists criticizing him for "siding" with the right wing. He is popular in some circles, as you say, just like "che guevera" is. I really don't think his popularity in polls is relevant at all for the article. However, I think something could be added about particular controversies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.29.243.136 (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Name change
Seeing as he is now known as Delegado Zero should the title of this article be changed to that? --Horses In The Sky 18:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would say not -- he's been the Sup for a decade, and there's a link from Delegado Zero. Seems good enough for now.  bikeable (talk)

There's an error. The line "He later moved to Mexico City where he graduated from the Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM), then received a masters' degree in philosophy at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) and began work as a professor at the UAM." is wrong.

Marcos studied the Bachelor of Arts (or Science) on Philosophy at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM). He won the "Gabino Barreda" award for being the top in his class. Then he got a couple of classes by working as a professor at the Metropolitan Autonomous University (UAM).

1994 uprising and 1995 arrest orders
The article currently lacks a detailed discussion of Marcos's role in the 1994 Chiapas Uprising, the 1995 arrest orders announced by former Mexican President Ernesto Zedillo Ponce de León and the related negotiations that took place several years later. These will be critical to explaining the strong adverse views of Marcos still in circulation. It is not clear whether the 1995 arrest orders have been quashed, but as of 2006 Marcos is able to circulate in Mexico.

Craig Bolon 06:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Missing reference
The article has no reference for this quote, just "in any interview...": "The only way to get their attention is to kill or be killed. If you ask us what's going to happen in the near future, we have no fucking idea. Sorry for using the word 'idea' We are ready to go to war or move on to peace" &mdash; MikeG (talk) 04:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Another reference that needs to be corrected. In the popularity section, there is this sentence: "His popularity was clearly evidenced during the Other Campaign. During his 3,000 kilometer trek to the capital, Subcomandante Marcos was welcomed by "huge adoring crowds, chanting and whistling."

The quote is attributed to a BBC article that was published several years before the Other Campaign ever happened and that refers to an earlier pilgrimage to Mexico city. The crowds during the Other Campaign were rather modest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe mischel2@softhome.net (talk • contribs) 13:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Parse the grammar?
This kind of came out of nowhere:
 * they have been unable to parse the grammar of labor unions.

I understand the reference since I have a computer science background myself, but the analogy is rather strained and certainly doesn't aid in understanding because so few readers will understand the reference. It comes across as quite pretentious, actually. --Saforrest 05:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Quote
I think this should go into the introduction, but it's a bit long:

In a letter to the media in May, 1994, Marcos described himself as "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 Cristóbal, a gang-member in Neza, a rocker in the Ex-Soviet Union, a Jew in Germany, an ombudsman in Sedena, 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, 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 Zócalo, 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." Letter from Subcomandante Marcos, May 28, 1994, retrieved 5 September, 2006

What do others think? Donnacha 16:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it would be great for the introduction. OldManRivers 02:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)


 * It is too long for the introduction, but would be good to quote in a section on Marcos's political posititon, which is a topic of much debate.--Jack Upland 08:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Penguin
I found hilarious all of the speculations about the Subcomandante Marcos' mascot. Here's an explanation from Subcomandante Marcos himself about the origin of this mascot, Pingüino (in Spanish), which has certainly nothing to do with homosexual relationships. --190.48.103.182 22:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Marxism and Anarchism
With due respect to this article's authors, I'm inclined to take issue with this passage: "Although Marcos's political philosophy has sometimes been characterized as 'Marxist,' his broadly populist writings concentrate on unjust treatment of people by both business and the State, giving Zapatista ideology a strong anarchist tinge. In a well known 1992 essay, Marcos begins each of his five 'chapters' in a characteristic style of complaint. . . ."

The second sentence (not to mention the following quotation) seems totally unrelated to the first. And speaking as an amateur Marxist, I don't fully see how an opposition to both business and state precludes a Marxist worldview; indeed, my reading of Marx's works suggests that critiquing both as extensions of capital is rather fundamental. I would suggest that the first sentence be cut from the article and the second sentence, along with its supporting quotation, be relocated to a more appropriate section; if no one objects, I'll make the edits myself.

If the author of that sentence was trying to oppose Marxism and populism, on the other hand, that's more defensible; but he or she will have to do some more work there. Daniel P. Shannon (talk) 10:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They may be against the current Mexican state, but if it was a Marxist state like Cuba they probably wouldn't be against it. That sentence needs to be corrected. Being against a capitalist state doesn't make someone anarchist. --Agusk7 (talk) 01:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Leadership
Marcos is not the leader of the EZLN, and has denied many times both the role and the title. The title is counter to Zapatista ideology, which stems partly from anarchism, and is factually inaccurate. Decisions are made by a council of male and female Zapatistas known as the CCRI, and the EZLN explicitly resists any attempt to establish a single figurehead beyond the position of spokesman or "delegate". "The hood is so there would be no superstar or such, you understand. Sometimes there is, well, those of us who are involved in this stand out alot. So now, as you don't know much of who is who, perhaps one will leave in a while and perhaps it's the same. What's happening here is the issue of anonymity, not because we fear for ourselves but rather so we don't become corrupted. And so we wear ski masks."-Subcommandante Marcos http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/mexico/comment/why.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.10.176.76 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is woefully inadequate. It has no beginning, middle, or end. It is a mishmash of leftist apologetic, modish Chiapas cheerleading, and anti-globalization proselytizing.

--Damis (talk) 02:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the firs two bits: it's woefully inadequate and poorly structured (I'm trying to work on that). As for the others, how do you think this should be corrected? Xavexgoem (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Atheist
He's really an atheist ? According with the article about Our Lady of Guadalupe, he once marched with this icon. Maybe it was just a popular symbol for him.81.193.221.23 (talk) 21:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

GA
You folks want to try for GA status? I've seen Redthoreau and Jrtayloriv move this forward.

I think what's missing is a more comprehensive history as Marcos (not the alleged one) and a counterpoint, since he is a source of controversy. I don't read Spanish (not well, anyway), and I'm thinking most of the more negative sources are from Mexico.

Who's up for it? Xavexgoem (talk) 01:19, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity - Birthdate - Rewrite
Marcos is clearly white (or rather mestizo), but I'd be very surprised if this were a problem with other Zapatistas all of a sudden, after they've worked with him for twenty years. People I know who've actually been to Chiapas (in human rights observation camps etc.) have told me that the indigenous population (i.e. those who are Zapatistas or at least sympathizers) absolutely worship Marcos - and I don't think this would've changed so rapidly.

As to the question about a four-year-old being radicalized in 1968: Guillén was born in 1957, not in 1964 (at this point, neither date is in the article). That makes him an eleven-year-old in 1968 - still somewhat young to undergo a major political formation... I suggest that the whole 1968 thing be deleted until proven.

Speaking of this: I intend to do a major rewrite of this article myself, including e.g. some interesting new stuff about Guillén (I personally absolutely do believe he's Marcos), as my first (!) contribution to Wikipedia. - User:DownTown

He was't radicalized in 1968. It is common for Mexican "Revolutionists" alining themselves with popular ideas like the 1968 protests, or "our brother" Che Guevarra, etc. It is all a part of "How to be a popular revolutionary 101." It has nothing to do with reality.


 * If you do do a re-write, then please include a piece that expresess the the fact that most Mexicans don't veiw Marcos as a Hero in any context. The Zapatistas are feared in the mountains of Guerrero, Oaxaca, Chiapas and other small idigenous comunities.  Unlike Marcos, the Zapatistas are armed very poor uneducated people.  Killings, maimings, robbings are realities in the forgoton small towns.  Chiapas in particular has seen tremendous violence in the name of the Zapatistas.  I  find the original article hard to read because there is no reference to the bad side of what Marcos represents.


 * Cites, please, not random speculation. There doesn't look to be much fear of the Zapatistas in Oaxaca at the moment, quite the opposite. There's a lot of propaganda thrown in the face of the EZLN, but if you want to write a piece on criticism and negativity, provide reliable citations. I'm not doubting there are some who abuse their position, but it's by no means clear that this is widespread and not black propaganda by the many powers in Mexico who dispise them. Donnacha 00:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

From Henck, Nick, Subcommander Marcos: The Man and the Mask, Duke University Press, Durham, 2007, p.247: "The immediate result of Marcos's high profile was that "by February 18, just as peace talks were getting under way," a survey of the residents of Mexico City conducted on 7 January, which had shown that 61 percent supported the Zapatista's goals, now showed that "the percentage had risen to an impressive 75%." (With an endnote referencing: Kampwirth, Karen, "Peace Talks, But No Peace," from NACLA Report on the Americas 31, no.5, (March/April), 1998, p.16) On p.285 he writes: "Ross observes, "Reforma reported that 50% of those polled did not buy Zedillo's identification (shortly after he revealed that Marcos was Rafael Sebastian Guillen Vicente), and of the half that did, 22% didn't think the Sup had done anything wrong anyway." (Referencing: Ross, John, The War Against Oblivion: the Zapatista Chronicles 1994-2000, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine, p.109)Schoenheit von Vogelsang (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV?
Is it just me, or does the article seem to be written by a Zapatista or Marxist sympathiser? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.133.1.228 (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's possible; people tend to write towards their opinions and not against them. You can always fix that, but read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Also: Assume Good Faith. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Naomi Klein
The link that cites the Naomi Cline quotation is dead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.226.64.13 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

false hero

there will say that this man showed his true identity, when even started to charge money to the press to give interviews and appear on TV, it definitely was not expecting the leader to Mexico. Pure publicity stunt in the Zedillo administration--200.66.106.59 (talk) 03:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

This Article is Not Impartial
There is a bias within the entire article that reads as a cheering section for this “leader”. There is nothing to contrast any part of the text. This article must be improved to give the critical side of his “revolution” in Chiapas and the effects that it has taken on the indigenous people of that part of Mexico. Until this happens this is just a cheerleading piece and not scholarly work. BA, MS, ABD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.74.36 (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Non-existence
I'm uncertain of the Wikipedia protocol around such an event but it's important to note that he recently announced that "Subcommandante Marcos" no longer exists. http://compamanuel.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/marcos-announces-his-disappearance/

Where can I add the translation of the letter OF WHAT WE BE WILL FORGIVEN OF? January 18, 1994

Of what do we have to apologize ? Of what are they going to forgive us of? Of not dying of hunger ? Of not keeping our mouth shut in our misery ? Of not having humbly accepted the gigantic historical burden of contempt and neglect ? Of having easily taken up arms when we found all other roads blocked ? Of not obeying the the Criminal Code of Chiapas, the most absurd and repressive in living memory ? Of have shown to the rest of the country and the world that human dignity is still alive and is in its poorest inhabitants ? Of having prepare well and thoroughly before starting ? Of have brought guns into battle, instead of bows and arrows ? Of have learned to fight before doing so ? Of being mexican all of us ? Of being mostly indigenous ? Of having called all of the Mexican people to fighting in every possible way, for what belongs to them ? Of fighting for freedom, democracy and justice? Of not followed the patterns of previous guerrillas ? Of not give up ? Of not sell ourselves ? Of not betray our people ? Who has to ask for forgiveness and who can grant it? Do those that for years and years, sat at a table full and were satisfied, meanwhile death sat with us at our table, everyday, so all of us just to stop being afraid ? Are those who filled us bags and soul of statements and promises ? The dead, our dead , so mortally dead of "natural " death, that is measles , pertussis , dengue, cholera, typhoid , mononucleosis , tetanus , pneumonia, malaria and other gastrointestinal and pulmonary niceties ? Do our dead, so mostly dead, so democratically dead full of shame because nobody did anything, because all of our dead , they were so many, without anyone stoping to count, without anyone saying , finally , "PLEASE STOP IT ! ", which can return dead to a good meaning , no one asked those who are dead forever, our dead , to return to die again but now to live ? Are we going to ask for forgiveness to those who deny us the right and the gift of our people to rule and govern ourselves ? Are we going to ask for forgiveness to the ones who refused to respect our custom, our color, our language ? Are we going to ask for forgiveness to the ones who treat us like foreigners in our own land and we ask papers and obedience to a law whose existence and correctness ignore us? Are we going to ask for forgiveness to the ones who tortured us, captured , killed and disappeared by the serious "crime " of wanting a piece of land , not a large piece of land , but a small one , just a piece to which we could get something to fill your stomach?

Who has to ask for forgiveness and who can grant it?

The president of the republic? Do the secretaries of state? Do the senators ? Do the deputies ? Are the governors ? ¿ Municipal presidents ? The cops ? Does the federal army? Are the great lords of banking, industry , commerce and the land? Do political parties? Do the intellectuals? ¿ Galio and company ? Do the media? Do the students ? Do the teachers ? Do the settlers ? Did the employees ? Are the peasants? Do indigenous ? The dead of useless death ?

Who has to ask for forgiveness and who can grant it?

Well, it's all for now.

Health and hug, and with this cold both are appreciated (I think) , but coming from a "professional of violence ." Subcomandante Marcos in Chiapas Mexico — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.57.46.183 (talk) 10:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Other pop culture references
I am in favor of having a "Marcos in Popular Culture" section, and would hate to see such references removed entirely. For example, in the documentary film "A Place Called Chiapas," Marcos and other Zapatistas are featured in a photo shoot of the French fashion magazine Marie-Claire. Furthermore I am not entirely certain such references should solely be relegated to a brief pop culture section. The photo shoot and other forms of mass media are significant pieces of political and social thought and play an important role in Marcos' philosophy on the use of imagery. I have been trying to find out which Marie Claire issue published the shoot (if at all) and have had little luck. Does anyone know?

Any chance the InterMilan reference can be deleted as well? Or should we include soccer allegiance in all political articles? Avocats (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreadability
This article is difficult to make sense of. It is not written in a concise, factual form in an authoritative "encyclopedia" voice, but rather cribs EZLN press releases without reparsing them for a non-ideological, international readership, and includes bizarre rhetorical flourishes. The whole thing needs an overhaul. 104.228.82.126 (talk) 16:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Subcomandante Marcos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kl.unibe.ch/sec2/neufeld/faecher/spanisch/Inicio/Actividades/trabajos/2001/tm-zapata/Zapata-Chiapas.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Subcomandante Marcos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131103083556/http://conexiontotal.mx/2013/03/24/tampico-la-conexion-zapatista/ to http://conexiontotal.mx/2013/03/24/tampico-la-conexion-zapatista/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Incomprehensible
Is it the article or the subject which is incomprehensible? The article read like a Monty Python parody of leftist political movements during the Spanish Civil War. Incomprehensible. He's a "hologram?" Come on. Profhum (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree entirely, and have added Tone and Expert needed templates. There was a similar problem with the The Other Campaign article which I fixed, but I didn't actually know anything about the topic till I found that problem and started doing separate research to fix it, so for the more extensive problems with this article hopefully someone more knowledgeable can come along and help. These sources were useful when I fixed that other problem: BreakfastJr (talk) 02:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Reboot
I am working on a re-boot of this page, it was - as discussed above - pretty close to incomprehensible and certainly violated a number of core wikipedia guidelines. Please help if you can - the article was in such a terrible state it's likely to take quite a while and quite a lot of effort to clean up. Fyddlestix (talk) 03:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I especially look forward to inclusion of psychiatric evaluations of the subject's gigantic ego.  E Eng  14:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Bias
Several months ago this article was massively edited by a user who appears to be biased towards the subject. I propose that we review the article and edits to remove the inserted bias from the article and that the systematic bias template be placed in the meantime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.8.70 (talk) 04:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Almost everything in this article was edited by a single person, who seems to be particularly inclined to laud Marcos on everything. This article does not read objective, at all. 2A02:A461:3205:1:49D6:B1D5:6E1C:A233 (talk) 12:45, 29 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by this article being edited by a single user, as this article has existed since 2002 - almost 20 years - and has been edited by over 600 different users. If you're referring to the expansion work done by User:Lucerito1957 in September 2020, then I would appreciate seeing some examples from their work that you think needs to be re-written from a neutral point of view, so that the appropriate action can be taken. Right now, I can only assume you're talking about the "Popularity" section? --Grnrchst (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, User:Lucerito1957 here. A cursory look at the stats page shows that my contributions amount to 40% of the article, which hardly constitutes "almost everything in this article was edited by a single person". Indeed, I am not even the "top editor" according to the stats page, and 2020 is neither the year in which the greatest number of edits was made nor that in which the greatest % of edits were made.

Regarding bias, it is not enough to just make claims of bias. Wiki itself is very clear about this: "Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective..." . If you think the entry is one-sided, then you need to insert sentences next to statements or quotations that you think are contestable. For example, if I quote Debray as saying that Marcos is an accomplished writer, then you need a sentence saying something like: "However, in contrast, X has claimed that Marcos is overated as an author". If you think it is debatable that Marcos is popular, then find a quote or statistic that contradicts this and cite it in refutation or to provide a counterbalance. In short, when it comes to accusations of bias, you need to "demonstrate" (not simply "state") its existence. Lucerito1957 (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Rage Against the Machine
I removed the reference to Rage Against the Machine in the =Background= section. It really has nothing to do with Marcos' background. Perhaps it should be included in a section about "Marcos in Popular Culture." As it was in the background it only added confusion as to whether the subject of a sentence was Marcos or de la Rocha. User:Editoro 10 May 2006 7:26 GMT — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

labor unions?
i deleted the whole bit about "the EZLN has been unable to address the concerns of labor unions." it's entirely POV and does not add any information, except that the author thinks that the EZLN **could have** talked about labor unions at some time or other, but didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.130.48.15 (talk) 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Name Change?
Galleano no longer goes by the name Marcos, as is noted in the article. Would a name change for the page be warranted and instead a redirect from Subcomandante Marcos to Subcomandante Insurgente Galleano be implemented? JBrahms (talk) 13:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Court case?
The article says that there was an arrest warrant for him. I gather he was never arrested, and was never charged, and never taken to court. Is that right? Would it be possible to clarify this in the article? Jack Upland (talk) 22:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)