Talk:Emiliano Zapata

An event in this article is a April 10 selected anniversary (may be in HTML comment).

---

Good edits, Sam... I took out the rage Against the Machine bit because, well, while they're cool, theirs is one of a billion contemporary Zapata references, and if we included them all it would get ridiculous. Graft 18:43 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

It's the only one I've heard of... and I'd say RATM have been an important factor in publicising the Zapatistas. Perhaps it would go better on that page? -- Sam

Maybe there are no references quite so prominent in pop culture... there are about a dozen bands named after Zapata, and he IS a national figure a la George Washington in Mexico, if not so prominent in America.. A few decades ago they made a major hollywood movie about his life (Viva Zapata, staring Marlon Brando, I think). The first oil company of George Herbert Walker Bush was named Zapata Oil, ironically enough. Even more ironically, the Bay of Pigs operation was called "Operation Zapata"...

I agree RATM played a big role in promoting the Zapatista cause, but if that belongs anywhere, it belongs in RATM or Zapatista, not in the Zapata article, i'd say. Graft

Legacy

Si Zapata viviera con nosotros andaría is gramatically correct although it's not the way it's used. I'm Mexican and been to a few protests; Si Zapata viviera con nosotros anduviera is what you see instead, because it rhymes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.108.35.79 (talk) 11:12, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Place of Birth

Why does the beginning section refer to Zapata as being born in Tamaulipas? Later in the article it says he's from Morelos, and everything else I've read seems to support that. Is this a simple misprint? Or is there something I don't know about? Cody M Wilson 13:08, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

he was born in Anenecuilco, Morelos. I don't find anywhere saying Tamaulipas, but if you do you should change it to morelos.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 20:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Maunus. Looks like someone fixed it before you read it. I didn't want to edit it, since I'm no expert on Zapata, and didn't want to say anything incorrect.·Cody M wilson· ·· 22:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

zapata

Who is Hugo Spinoza? Why does this person need to be in the first sentence? And why does google[1] only return 16 hits?Atraxani 06:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was just a simple misprint(misspelling), his last name is possibly Hugo Espinoza --Andres Flores 16:44, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop culture

I have added a section on cultural references, because I was familiar with the Brando film, though it was not mentioned in the article. Now perhaps others can include more.

I think it's important to include pop culture, since people looking for the cultural reference can now be directed to the source. 1diot 20:16, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The Mexican rock band Maná released an album titled Revolucion de Amor (2003) where they mention Zapata's name in the first track titled "Justicia, Tierra y Libertad" loosely based on revolutionary sentiments and incorporating one of Zapata's quotes. (MH 16:03, 8 March 2006 (EST)

Indigenous is a question of customs and language not of blood

I don´t think it is necessary or fortuitous to mention the mixed blood of Emiliano Zapata in relation to his being indigenous or not. Racial heritage is not generally well seen as an indicator of membership of indigenous groups ouside of the US. However Zapata did speak an indigenous language, namely nahuatl (reported by indigenous eye and earwitnesses from Milpa Alta in Fernando Horcasitas book about memories of the revolution from Mila Alta) and was considered an elder in the indigenous community of Anenecuilco which gave into his charge precolumbian manuscripts. Womack says that he was unable to read these manuscripts, which is not surprising since zapata was a peasant and neither archeologist nor epigraphist but that he took them to the priest of Tetelcingo to help him translate it. Womack deducts that he didn't know nahuatl but the eywitness accounts as well as the demographics of Anenecuilco in that time period says that he more than likely to have been able to speak nahuatl.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnuspharao (talk • contribs)

Unless he had parents of different races he was not mixed race. Unless he had a white parent and a Native American parent he wasn't mestizo. Clearly he was of mostly native american descent, but since he wasn't raised with the culture he's automatically called a "mestizo" here on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.115.119 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

he was raised with the culture, he spoke Nahuatl as the sources clearly show.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 21:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I was guessing though, that it was his second language. Or that he was raised in the mainstream mexican culture, but spoke/learned nahuatl. In that case what is the point of calling him a mestizo? It just makes no sense to me.24.126.115.119 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Suspected hoaxes and unencyclopedic stuff in the "pop culture" section

I cut some listings from the popculture references section. i Suggest that that section be cut entirely or seriously trimmed. These have little or no connection to Emiliano Zapata:

• Midnight Oil use the lyric "Its better to die on your feet than to live on your knees" in their song The Power And The Passion.
• Phil Hendrie Show character "Brass" Villanueva once created a CPR device known as the Zapata Tube.

This looks like a hoax. All references from google go to this page.

• The unknown turkish movie "Zapata" (1960) with Ciahgner Ghaffair .

Maunus 21:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

I erased this text:

Some time ago, a text that tried to put in doubt the official version of Zapata's death at Chinameca was published (in Spanish).[2] But it was a false document written by Guajardo's brother because that´s a lie. There was not a reference to support the claim the document was proved to be false.

posmodern2000

to Savian

This is not a "original reasearch", but a fact. The "orignal reasearch" it´s the article. The fact it´s the fact "to this point" there´s not anyone saying the statements of the article are proved to be false.

posmodern2000

to Tubezone

The fact that there are theories that Zapata did not die in Chinameca should be pointed out, the same way that there's many popular theories that Jesse James wasn't murdered. But these theories should not be added to an encyclopaedia as a fact simply because they cannot be disproved.Tubezone 01:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To Tubezone:

Then you miss the point completely. So that´s the reason I reverted to previous edition.

The part of Jesse James´ article you´re talking about it´s this:

Rumors of survival

Rumors of Jesse James's survival proliferated. Some said that Ford did not kill James, but someone else, in an elaborate plot to allow him to escape justice. Some stories say he lived in Guthrie, Oklahoma, as late as 1948, and a man named J. Frank Dalton, who claimed to be Jesse James, died in Granbury, Texas, in 1951 at the age of 103. Some stories claim the real recipient of Ford's bullet was a man named Charles Bigelow, reported to have been living with James's wife at the time. Generally speaking, however, these tales received little credence, then or now; Jesse's beloved wife, Zee, died alone and in poverty. The body buried in Missouri as Jesse James was exhumed in 1995 and, according to a report by Anne C. Stone, Ph.D.; James E. Starrs, L.L.M.; and Mark Stoneking, Ph.D. titled Mitochondrial DNA Analysis of the Presumptive Remains of Jesse James, does in fact appear to be the remains of Jesse James. The report is available online in pdf format at http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Stone.JFS.2001.pdf. A court order was granted in 2000 to exhume and test Dalton's body, but the wrong body was exhumed.

Since Emiliano Zapata´s linked article it´s in Spanish, maybe you´re trying to fool people in English Wikipedia, who don´t know Spanish.

The real fact the article points it´s this: there are not any real proofs of the death of Emiliano Zapata at Hacienda Chinameca.

The only "proof" in more than 80 years was the zapatista military report of Salvador Reyes Avilés, Zapata´s private secretary. The author points there are inconsistencies in that report, and doubts about the personality of Salvador Reyes Avilés, and his relationship with Carlos Reyes Avilés (brother or cousin?), who also wrote about Zapata and was member of his army. That´s much more than "rumours" and "theories".

So, the official version of Zapata´s death it´s the real rumour based "truth", and it´s a great story, but it´s related to real history of Mexico as much the story of George Washington and the cherry tree, to real American history.

Posmodern2000

First thing, si puedo leer español, I even write in the Spanish Wikipedia on occasion, so, yes, I can read the article. Second, I am not arguing with you about whether Zapata died at Chinameca or not, although verifiable sources say he did. My problems with what you are adding (in terms of putting it in this article) is that it is duplicative (there's already a note -- and footnote pointing to the same El Universal article -- in the article that many people speculated that Zapata lived) and poorly written. You can call this censorship if you like but Wikipedia isn't about Free Speech, it's about consenus between the members about the content. There's plenty of other places on the internet to practice free speech all you like. Fair enough? Tubezone 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

to Tubezone 2

Please, man, now you´re the one vandalizing the article. We must present our positions to the other wikipedians to make clear that?

Posmodern2000

)

Answer to Maunus

There is pretty good evidence that Zapata died at Chinameca. Photos of his dead body, the body's identification by people who knew him, and the fact that Zapata hasn't been seen since. Anyway the way you phrase it is completely absurd. The article you link to is not presenting any new and groundbreaking evidence and is in fact just a news paper article, the way you write it the faact that nobody has reacted to it is almost taken as proof proof of its ideas being true : in fact the article is just not notable or interesting and for this reason doesn't belong in the wikipedia article. Maunus 16:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Answer:

1.The photos of Zapata´s dead body was taken in Cuautla. The doubts are about if he was killed in Chinameca or not.

2. The main witness to recognize Zapata´s dead body was Eusebio Jauregui, killed, without reasons, days later: the article points that.

3. What do you mean with "new and groundbreaking evidence"? Presenting the fact during more than 80 years the only "proof" of death of Zapata at Hacienda Chinameca it´s unreliable don´t make sense for you?

You and Tubezone are just emotional, not reasonable, and I understand that, because in Mexico we live and lived with a lot of lies during years.

Posmodern2000

Your article provides no evidence to the contrary it only plants doubt (who knows for what reasons), it only raises questions and provides no answers. Not in itself noteworthy or interesting. Tomoo Terada is not a historian or a scholar but a smalltime journalist and he doesn't even have sources (the people who might actually know something about this refuse to speak to him according to the article) the article is not a reliable source. The argumentation in it is weak to non-existant: for example the fact that Eusebio Jaurequi was killed is hardly extraordinary in the middle of a war when he was a soldier. It really is not worthy of inclusion and certainly not with your clearly biased wording. Maunus 17:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I will now seek protection of the page. You keep reverting to your own version against two editors who try to make a balanced NPOV version of the article. this is not acceptable. Maunus 17:40, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Then I will present the case to the community. Numbers are not important here, but arguments.

Posmodern2000

Then I am not worried for up untill now you have presented none. Maunus 17:52, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Each time I try to put new writing appears a modification of censor Maunus.

For what reasons are you trying to sustain a lie with lies?

1. The author shows three of the most important Mexican encyclopedic sources have wrong the data about Salvador Reyes Avilés, the author of the “proof” of Zapata´s death at Chinameca.

2. Also mentions interviews with John Womack Jr., the author of “Zapata and the Mexican revolution”, the classic work on subject.

3. Eusebio Jauregui was not killed at war. He was a prisoner, but had enough freedom to write Zapata to recommend Guajardo as a reliable person (?). After he recognized Zapata´s dead body, then he was killed

Be honest with Mexico´s history.

posmodern2000

I don't quite understand why you're making such a crusade of this. The article contends, not proves that Zapata died in a cantina fight. To wit (crappy translation): "Did Zapata die in a cantina in Jumiltepec (Jamiltepec)? We still do not know, but what we must begin to know he is that he was a human being with virtues and defects". Is it your point of view that Zapata is being unjustifiably deified as a martyr? What's your point?

Carranza certainly did not want to make Zapata into a martyr. If the cantina fight story is true, why didn't Carranza publicize that? Zapata liked to drink and liked women, that was no secret.

This article is about life and his influence, not particularly about his death. Fact is, he died in 1919. 'Nuff said, IMHO. Tubezone 19:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You do not put up new information, you put up the same information time after time and will not let it be modified to take a better and less biased wording but instead revert to exactly your wording. This is not the way wikipedia works. I am not censoring but have tried three different rewordings of your phrase which you have alal reworded to the same version which is clearly biased, has an essayistic tone not suitable for an encyclopedia and which wrongly pretends that the article you link to deserves an answer from historians or the scholarly community. The article is not from a peerreviwed journal but from an online newspaper, it is not written by a scholar in the field but by an unknown journalist, it doesn't present new, noteworthy or interesting material. Also like Tubezone asks, what is the point? Why is it important to note that Zapata may have died in a cantina fight in Jumiltepec? Who has stood to gain from covering up the possibility of this event? Maunus 21:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This is strange, isn't it? Usually conspiracy theories contend the government secretly killed someone. In this case the government readily and publicly took credit for the killing and the conspiracy theory is that the government took credit for a killing they didn't do.

The reasons I can imagine for a "cover-up" are 1. Guajardo wanted to take public credit for killing Zapata. Sounds strange, but Jesus Barraza publicly took credit for the Pancho Villa assassination. There's little doubt Guajardo was a snake. 2. The Zapatistas went along with this fiction so Zapata would appear to be a martyr, there's obvious political advantages in claiming one's deceased leader was a martyr to the cause rather than having been being killed in a bar brawl. This of course, begs the question of how the carrancistas were fooled by Guajardo... and all of Guajardo's men would have had to go along with the story and never speak of it! That's just a bit implausible, I think.

Eusebio Jauregui was not killed at war He was widely credited with betraying Zapata to Guajardo. That would have made him a marked man, unless he'd fled Mexico, his death would have a certainty in any case. Tubezone 08:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems you are scared and don´t have arguments, Maunus

I denounce I was banned. I am writing from a cyber cafe. From my personal computer I can´t even enter to the Main page of Wikipedia.

In this conditions I can´t answer properly to the lies and falacies of Maunus and Tubezone. I wrote to the user who welcomed me as a member of Wikipedia to ask for help. I demand Maunus and Tubezone to stop bullying me, and show they can argue with reasons.

Posmodern2000

¿Mentiras y falacies? ¿Cuales? El articulo del Universal no dijo definitamente que Zapata murío en una riña de cantina. Fue una obra del opinion del autor. Qué escribí era una descripción correcta del sujeto del artículo del periodico. Ud no respondó al comentario de a yo ni lo del danés, ni explico su punto de vista ni sus razónes. Parece que ud no entiende el principio del enciclopedia, que los editores suponen hacer un consenso de lo que contiene, ud no tiene razón ni derecho a hacer decretos sobre lo que contiene, no es suyo. In this conditions I can´t answer properly Why not? It costs about 10 pesos an hour to use an internet kiosk in Mexico. If you like I'll send you the 10 pesos ;-)

Womack is quoted in the article but doesn't say definitely that Zapata was killed in Jumiltepec. The fact that he was quoted does not make the author's contentions a fact. The author doesn't state that his contentions are fact, either.Tubezone 07:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

We haven't banned you, I don't even think it is possible for us to ban you Your link has probably just died. I also didn't seek pageprotection sinceit seemed that we ended up agreeing on a wording. Your monopolizing beehavior is not acceptable posmodern2000 you you cannot write for wikipedia if you cannot handle people editing your writing. At this point you have reverted 8 times to the same version by you. Whereas tubezone and I have tried to make different version incorporating also your material. Maunus . 06:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

"Posmodern2000" added the same paragraph (in Spanish, of course) to the Spanish Wikipedia and it was deleted there, too, then reverted, with similar rationalizations given on the talk page.. Tubezone 09:01, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I got out my copy of the Womack book. Womack makes it clear that there were numerous soldiers in the vicinity of Chinameca (Guajardo had 600 under his command), and there were plenty of eyewitnesses, one made a written report to Gildardo Magaňa almost immediately. The El Universal article says Felipe Cazals, the Mexican film director, in an old interview, claims he has "a document" that says that Zapata was in "Jamiltepec", but does not seem to make any claims as to its veracity. Tubezone 11:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Popculture

I am making a page called Depictions of Emiliano Zapata in modern Culture where I am putting the pop-culture section. The idea comes from: Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great Maunus 12:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. BTW, I put the Es mejor morir a pie que vivir arrodillado quote back in with a note that it is actually from Jose Martí. This quote is so widely attributed to Zapata (it appears on Zapata T-shirts!) that some kind of explanation is in order. The slogan was certainly used by the original Zapatistas, Womack mentions it.Tubezone 14:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Response to an ignorant and to a liar

People who take advantage, abusing their power, but trying to avoid the responsibility of their actions, as Maunus and Tubezone, are cowards. They banned me.

That was their way to “prove” they are right and I am wrong. Now the cowards deny it, but Tubezone even mocked me saying he could send me ten pesos to pay the internet kiosk.

Maunus complains about my “monopolizing beehavior”, but say nothing about him and his pal doing that, using lies to maintain a lie. That is not acceptable. The fact he and Tubezone are editors here just make clear, in this case, the wrong people was chosen for the job because, as anyone can read, I answer with reasons to each one of their claims and lies.

I left to pass some time, to see how many “arguments” this pair was capable to present.

Abuses aside, I respond:

1. Maunus and Tubezone are not proprietors of the truth about Zapata

As anyone can read, the “Zapata´s death debate” is not just about rumours and popular theories as Tubezone pretended at first, with his Jesse James article example. Even accepting “the wording” of the version of them (I do not accept it) it is very different of the original, because of my public arguments showing they don´t know the subject and are biased. For instance, Maunus, the “serious one” revealed as a complete clueless ignorant about Eusebio Jauregui. Now is his pal, Tubezone, who is talking about Jauregui, but telling lies.

This Wikipedia article about Emiliano Zapata is about his life and death as any other biographical article here. To say, like Tubezone: “This article is about life and his influence, not particularly about his death”, is clearly biased since he is part of the discussion about Zapata´s death circumstances. So debate was and is necessary. They ask why I am doing a crusade of this. I can ask the same thing to them. Why the emotionally charged censorship, including banning?

The goal of Wikipedia is to get that “every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge”. This encyclopaedia and Zapata´s figure are not the property of Maunus and Tubezone, the ignorant and the liar.

I will try to answer their confuse writing, that just reflects their confused (and ignorant) minds.

2. Who is the biased one?

The linked article shows unknown information about Zapata, and shows also some well known information around him is wrong. It not just confined to the version about the death of Zapata in a "bar brawl" (the statement is from Felipe Cazals, a Mexican film director who directed a movie on Zapata, not from the author of article). Shows how the only “proof” of the death of Zapata at Hacienda Chinameca is unreliable. To reduce the article to the cantina brawl statement is biased.

About Maunus claim “the article is not from a peerreviwed (sic) journal but from an online newspaper, it is not written by a scholar in the field but by an unknown journalist”. That´s ridicule. Not all the sources of Wikipedia are academic stuff. Also, how he judges how much a journalist is known or unknown? Fame equals reliability? That´s a completely subjective opinion of a person who pretends to be so “serious”. In any case, El Universal is a leading Mexican newspaper, not an underground magazine.

Confabulario is a literary criticism column, an editorial, not investigative reporting or a news report.

Academics, historians included, read it. The article identifies all its sources (that includes experts in the field as Womack, Brunk and Ávila), but not use footnotes as an academic paper, since it was published in the cultural supplement of the newspaper (well known Mexican historians as Enrique Krauze published there), and not in an academic journal

As anyone can read in the Alan Sokal article, a peer reviewed journal it ´s not by definition an absolute guarantee of truth. Sokal ´s intention was to prove “social science would be better served by intellectual underpinnings based on reason”. And reason must be our guide, not the lies of Maunus and Tubezone.

By the way, the most important biographical information about Zapata comes from Jesús Sotelo Inclán, who was not a scholar, but a school teacher. All the authors after him (including Womack) base their books on his labour. All those who really know about Zapata know this fact.

So, disqualify the “unknown journalist” for not being a scholar (Maunus have personal contact?) is biased if we remember Sotelo Inclán. All the information based on Sotelo would be unreliable according to Maunus standards. And that include the book of Womack.

Maunus pretends to be the Modest Witnessof Donna Haraway. Hiding behind his supposed completely objective facade, to claim he got not any bias (in this case not a gender bias as Haraway uses the term). That´s not acceptable conduct.

3. No conspiration theories but some real knowledge of Mexican history

As we can read in the Alvaro Obregón article:

Obregón returned to politics in 1920, hoping to succeed Carranza as president. When it became apparent, however, that Carranza wanted to ensure that Ignacio Bonillas would succeed him, Obregón organized the military in a revolt against the president. His forces were augmented by General Benjamín Hill and scattered Zapatista factions like the one led by Genovevo de la O. The revolt was successful and Carranza was deposed. Carranza was killed in the state of Puebla in an ambush led by General Rodolfo Herrera as he fled from Mexico City to Veracruz on horseback.

Obregón was a carrancista (member of the army of Venustiano Carranza) and so, enemy of Zapata as was also Pablo González, the chief of Guajardo. But there was a division between carrancistas. It was then when followers of Obregón became obregonistas, enemies of Carranza and allied of surviving Zapatistas, former enemies.

As members of Carranza ´s army, Zapata was the enemy of Obregón and Calles; but when obregonistas allied with surviving zapatistas and won the Revolution (they were the winners), Zapata was used as symbol of peasants. In 1924, Plutarco Elías Calles, presidential candidate, pronounced a speech before his grave talking about defend his ideals. The old enemy was then their martyr.

By the way, the leader of the fire squad which supposedly killed Zapata was Rodolfo Sánchez Taboada. He is mentioned in the Cazals interview, one of the sources of the linked article. I read it and looked for more information about him. I recommend Maunus and Tubezone to investigate too, to stop talking nonsense. Well, this man, Sánchez Taboada, even was president of PRI. If Tubezone talks about strange things and conspiracy theories, then this is a very real strange thing I have for him: Why Sánchez Taboada, the most important physical killer of Zapata, had a very successful political career in the party that during 71 years said Zapata was one of their heroes? Seems he had not any problem of ostracism or risk of becoming a pariah.

What is clear, reading the linked article, it ´s the fact Guajardo was killed because he was with Pablo González and not with Obregón. Otherwise, why kill Guajardo (“the traitor”) but give power and money to Sánchez Taboada, the main physical executor of Zapata?

In the linked article that is clear. The author explains the official view on Guajardo:

He killed Zapata as a carrancista soldier, in 1919, but the next year, 1920, he follows the Plan de Agua Prieta of the Sonorense group, the triumvirate of Alvaro Obregón, Plutarco Elías Calles and Adolfo de la Huerta, leading by the first one, former carrancistas who denied and rebel against the government of Venustiano Carranza. Months later, Guajardo raise in arms against Alvaro Obregón, leader of Agua Prieta revolt, to support Pablo González, his chief during the anti zapatista campaign at Morelos.

I recommend the reading of the books of John Womack, Samuel Brunk, and Felipe Ávila to Maunus and Tubezone, true reading, to stop telling lies and nonsense and win the right to talk about something they really know about. All the books of these authors are mentioned by the author of the linked article.

4. Bad Spanish and bad knowledge of Mexican history of a liar

I have my copy of Womack too, but I read it carefully and with critical thinking. Tubezone proves he don´t read well Spanish since he don´t understand what he reads and write a very bad Spanish. And he is a liar.

Eusebio Jauregui was killed by carrancistas, not zapatistas. He was a prisoner of the first. The claims of Tubezone now about “he was widely credited with betraying Zapata to Guajardo” are lies. Where he find that? In his imagination? Womack only wrote about him two times in the whole book. And nothing about Jauregui as a traitor to Zapata as Tubezone´s imagination present him now, to “correct” history.

See, here's another misleading statement. Womack specifically says Jauregui recommended Guajardo to Zapata.

The “one” who “made a written report to Gildardo Magaña almost immediately” was Salvador Reyes Avilés, and the information about the 600 soldiers of Guajardo is from the report of him. Tubezone must learn of his pal, and begin to read the footnotes in the books.

It seems no one but you and Mr. Terada... if you and he aren't one and the same... seem to have a problem with the Reyes Avilés account or his credibility. The account of the 600 soldiers does not come from Reyes Avilés: Reyes Avilés was not in Guajardo's army. Womack cites official reports to General Gonzalez, published in El Universal.

Cazals, the Mexican movie director, claimed confidently in the old interview about the death of Zapata at the cantina, and he confirmed the existence of the document to prove it when he was confronted by the “unknown journalist”.

He appears, at the end of article, saying: “The controversy and its interpretations belongs to the History written by winners.” The winners were the obregonistas, the group that used the memory of an old enemy as a symbol for peasants, to present themselves as agrarian revolutionaries.

Cazals appears years later reluctantly to talk more, but seems he is doing that as caution, a way to avoid more problems. I don´t blame him if he have fears, since there are bullies as Maunus and Tubezone even here, in Wikipedia, who pretend to be proprietors of the truth about Zapata.

The true statement of John Womack in the linked article is this:

Womack sí considera posible la muerte de Zapata en Jumiltepec, que se encuentra a una distancia de Cuautla más o menos igual a la que hay entre Chinameca y Cuautla.” (Spanish)

Womack is positive about consider Zapata´s death at Jumiltepec as possible, as Jumiltepec is set at a distance of Cuautla more or less equal to the distance between Chinameca and Cuautla”. (English)

This is a false translation. You are inserting a word Womack did not say, namely positive. It says he considers it possible, and we have to take the author at his word as to what Womack said. Womack has not been quoted elsewhere saying similar things, so I have my doubts about whether what is presented in the article is an accurate quotation.

Womack's book is pretty clear. If Zapata didn't die at Chinameca, a lot of people had to have conspired to cover it up, including residents of Chinameca who saw Zapata and would have heard the gunfire.

Coming from a man who, in his book, presents the official version of Zapata´s death at Hacienda Chinameca, this statement it ´s really a bomb, no matter what Maunus can believe.

And as I said, Tubezone writes a poor Spanish. In the article on Zapata at Spanish Wikipedia he wrote this:

En abril de 2006, México D.F. el diario El Universal publicó un artículo que reclama que es posible que Zapata ha muerto en una riña de cantina en Jumiltepec, Morelos. [1]. Todavia no salieron más artículos ensiguiente que investigan este reclamo aún más o respondiendo a lo.

Anyone who can read Spanish understand this is an incomplete phrase, and is very bad written.

And he lies again about my “similar rationalizations” in the talk page of the Spanish Wikipedia. I can prove I erased a changed writing of the phrase. The vandal didn´t erase it, but changed the sense.

5. Final thoughts

I know I can be involved in an edit war, since this pair don´t respect netiquette. And I have the worst part as this is 2 against 1.

That doesn’t matter as long I can stop the use of Wikipedia to sustain lies. I left on the judgement of Kukini and all the members of the Wikipedia community to judge who have arguments and who have not, who uses reason and who uses not, who defends the truth and who is trying to hide it. --Posmodern2000 16:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't answered why you feel it's so important to prove that Zapata didn't die in Chinameca. You don't like Zapata? Again, What's your point ???. You are talking in circles. In Spanish or English, no one understands what your point is. All I see are rhetorical questions and speculation, to waste everyone's time reading and refuting diversions, so you can argue on your terms rather than deal with facts. If you want to argue political points, there are plenty of venues to post your opinions and theories.

The El Universal article does not claim as fact that Zapata died in Jumiltepec. The author says so. He merely raises the possibility that Zapata may have died elsewhere, and his theory is full of holes. Unless you or Felipe Cazals can come up with something better than a mystery document, there's no reason to put this theory in Wikipedia as a fact. What I put in the article is accurate: it's a theory, and there's a link to the article about it. The readers can make their own conclusions rather than have YOU dictate what the facts are. I am all in favor of putting facts in this encyclopedia, but you haven't presented anything that hasn't been seen before, even the person presenting the theory agrees the evidence of an alternate death scenario for Zapata is not conclusive. Tubezone 03:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Taunting an insulting fellow editors will do nothing to further your arguments. Consider yourself warned for incivility. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 10:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

You know what I think? I think "Posmodern2000" IS Tomoo Terada. Google "tomoo terada" in quotes and see what turns up. The writing style looks awful familiar, huh? From what I can understand Mr. Terada is apparently upset with how El Universal edited his article, and the failure of certain people (or apparently, much of anyone in Mexico) to respond or follow up on his theories about Zapata's death. He may be linkspamming Wikipedia to try and give his theories more credibility. Just a WAG.Tubezone 22:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I deleted his linkspam, and when I get a chance I'll try to make sure he hasn't posted it elsewhere.Tubezone 18:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Could be, looking at the way he uses some idioms. I've read Terada's article and I'm quite unimpressed, I wonder if it's been published by an independent journal, say something edited by Colmex, UNAM or similar institution. In any case, it deserves at most a mention (a la, "El Universal published a guy saying this") just for NPOV and the undue weight thing. Good job at keeping the nonsense out. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Mr. Terada unsucessfully tried to get the UNAM magazine to publish his article, see: [3]. He also complains he's been "censured for years" in his response to this article: [4]. To me it seems the point of Mr. Terada's and/or "Posmodern2000"'s exercises were to show that "authorities" were manipulating historical accounts, rather than actually disproving that Zapata died at Chinameca. Tubezone 14:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

More answers to liars and ignorants

I left to pass many days to see how many more "arguments" Tubezone (and now Rune Welsh,; seems Maunus left to return to what he knows: indigenous religion) can show us.

What I see is more lies and rationalizations as excuses. Even if I were Tomoo Terada as Tubezone claims (Who is he? A Zapata´s grandchildren? An ortodoxous zapatista? Subcomandante Marcos himself?) arguments are arguments.

Since I really present arguments, and took me a lot of my time to wrote the response I will write little by little. But I will show the mistakes and lies and not providing new information. I am not being paid to be Tubezone and Runewlsh´s Mexican History teacher. posmodern2000--Posmodern2000 23:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Confabulario is a literary criticism column, an editorial, not investigative reporting or a news report.

1. "Confabulario" is the Culture supplement of leading Mexican newspaper El Universal, not a "literary criticism column". Culture includes not only literature as anyone knows. The director of the supplement, Héctor de Mauleón, is a well known chronicle writer. Chronicles about Mexican history (most criminal cases) appears frequently.

--Posmodern2000 01:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)