Talk:Zapatista History

Neutrality
Sadly the Modeern Zapatista entry has reached the point of having been edited by so many opinionated individuals that it no longer provides much in the way of impartial information. Naturally this is a topic that will draw much enthusiasm and passion, but to present it as it stands does a disservice to all. The above unsigned comment was added by User:192.220.129.149 on18:18, 1 May 2006. -- Draeco 04:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. This article is absolutely un-encyclopedic. If you do more elaborate searches you can find pages on Emiliano, the Mexican Revolution (which contains the majority of the first part of this article) and a really good page on the EZLN. I would like to see this page deleted. Sorry to all that worked on it....but its crap. It really is. How do you nominate an article? Pages like this give wikipedia a bad name.Jasper23 00:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup
As info on both incarnations of the Zapatistas is well covered elsewhere, I thought this should be a souped-up disambiguation page. As such, I rewrote it slightly, removing not-verifiable stuff, and removing the stub tag (any developments would be redundant).

However, a string of IP addresses has re-added stuff, added more stuff, put in an enormous string of links, and re-stubbed it. Unfortunately, I haven't got the time to edit Wikipedia normally, never mind re-fiddle about with this article. Grayum 15:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I propose an general overhaul of the entire page, as some of the information is ambigous or inaccurate. Along with this edit would come scources to verify the information. A year and a half ago I visited the Zapatistas in Chiapas, as well as wrote my undergrad thesis on them. Theo Wood, October 8, 2005


 * Excellent, go for it! You might like to check out the linked pages on the two incarnations, so nothing gets duplicated too much. If you've visited them thats cool.  You might want to create an account, from the link in the top right hand corner. Grayum 13:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the article myself before looking a the discussion page. Sorry about that, I thought I had already looked and found nothing substantive. Feel free to revert if my changes are off target. Draeco 13:29, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Redirect
I think this should just be a redirect page, no more. regards 84.164.80.235 09:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The above comment was by me. I just had a look round the other language Wikis, and on every one I checked, it was a redirect page. It really, really needs to be made into one. regards Sean Heron 09:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Why do you propose that it change into a rediret page? To what would it redirect? Twood

I agree with Twood. This article doesn't need a redirect page, but more of an overhaul. This is a total mess (look at the last paragraph.) --Anarkial 05:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Split and Redirect. I propose Zapatista (Mexican Revolution) and Zapatista (EZLN) (maybe Zapatista (modern) would be more appropriate, but I like to think Wikipedia will be timeless). The Zapatistas from the Revolution and those affiliated with the EZLN are two different groups that should be treated with two separate articles. - Draeco 04:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. I was quite surprised when I looked up zapatistas and found the two seperate groups on one page. These are two different groups and each warrant their own page.Jasper23 23:53, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation and Redirect
I have created a disambiguation page to three good zapatista articles and have merged zapatista history with that page in the form of a redirect. Jasper23 18:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)