Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre/Archive 3

Article has been censored
This article has been censored by those who insist on removing images that depict the results of violent protests against the PRC government. The images removed are public domain images and depict burned out busses. The false reason cited for removing this evidence of violence against the legitimate PRC government is a false claim that the images are not public domain material. The truth is that the images were removed by advocates of a nation that sheds blood in the streets of Baghdad while making idle accusations against more peaceable governments -- in this case a government that patiently waited weeks while its capital city was occupied by protesters and which eventually dispersed the out-of-control assembly in proper fashion - by forcing the crowd out an exit of the square, left open in keeping with standard riot-control tactics practiced by responsible forces worldwide. I would fix the article, but I have no interest in playing Web war with Wikipedia administators who have nothing better to do with their lives than harrass and abuse donors they recruit to the so-called encyclopedia "anyone" can edit if they have the approval of Jimmy Wales and his quixotic cabal of fanatical anarchist administrators. Oroja 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

"which eventually dispersed the out-of-control assembly in proper fashion"...they did that all right, mowing them down hundreds of people with bullets and beating them to death with sticks by the sounds of most sources. Hooraay for the "peaceable" Chinese government... Icanhearthegrassgrow 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

"fanatical anarchist administrators"? "When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser" - Socrates I think 24.58.112.13 17:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This article isn't even available in China. When you click on the link to this article the connection is immediately reset.205.212.73.14 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

He says, she says
I thought I'd asked this before, but I can't find such a post, so my memory must be playing tricks on me. Anyhow, here's a question that's been on my mind for years. I believe there was a massacre, but many people in China aren't so sure. I was still in China with my family at the time, and my mom, who lived through the Cultural Revolution, believes the Party's version of events: thugs attacked and killed some troops and any bloodshed was the result of that. The lack of any footage of actual assaults on the students only reaffirms her belief.

How would you respond to that? You can't of course point to reports by the BBC or the US embassy. Xiner 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Did she take part in the protests or watch them? If not then she has no direct evidence to back up her opinion. John Smith&#39;s 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And this Wikipedia article refers to no direct evidence to support an opinion to the contrary. We can respond to that by acknowledging that the wisdom of crowds has failed to identify any direct evidence of a massacre at Tienanmen. What's more, Wikipedia lacks well-informed articles about urban warfare sufficient to allow readers to compare the combat tactics of the Peoples Republic Army in June, 1989 in Bejing with those of the United States Army in Panama City on Dec. 25, 1989. A review of PRA combat tactics in 1989 Bejing can only be conducted in light of US actions in Panama that year, and of US urban-warfare tactics in Iraq, 2003-2006. How many Iraq streets have US troops sprayed with automatic weapons fire and worse, explosive munitions? How many civilians have been gunned down by US troops at checkpoints simply because the civilians didn't understand orders?


 * Wikipedia lacks any citations of direct evidence of a Tienamen Square massacre because there is none to be found. Wikipedia's article on the government's eventual response to the lengthy and disruptive protests reads more like the content of the advocacy documentary The Panama Deception than like a neutral representation of what happened when the government of the largest nation in the world restored control of its capital city.


 * How would I respond? I would respond by investigating the likelihood that thugs did in fact attack and kill PRA troops -- this is a widely-reported fact Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge, and for which Wikipedia refuses to cite any of the abundant sources from reputable Asian publications. Guess what -- a careful and concerned investigator will eventually produce the names of PRA troops attacked and killed. Of course reports of such attacks against the PRC government are censored from the Western press, but the rest of the world has a fair idea what happened. Unfortunately, Wikipedia and its cabal that pays homage (and donates free labor) to its libertarian-capitalist founder have no interest in reporting the truth as understood by reputable, established non-Western, non-capitalist publications. Oroja 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Follow the external references. There were thousands of foreign journalists in Beijing at the time. The eye-witness reports are many. There are also many video recordings of the masacres. Including random fire at building, demonstrants being shot in back while running away, and an ambulance shot to pieces while rushing in to collect wounded. Of course you can not prove that the entire world is not in a conspiracy against China, you are free to dismiss all the evidence you want. Carewolf 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Typical Commie propaganda.  They are nothing more than power-hungry bullies-with-guns.  They are too weak and cowardly to dare to compete in a democracy.

Watch the FRONTLINE episode about the massacres at the square. It happenned. I was there throwing trash on the ground just like a chinaman. I watched the lectures to the soldiers the first time they were in there. People died in their kitchens you know, because their apartments were sprayed with machine gun fire all around the square. People were shot on their balconies and my hotel room was raided by the security officials and they took all my film of that nights bloodshed. thousands oif not tens of thousands were murdered either then or the next weeks when so many people were tracked down and annihilated by the commies. You will listen to what you hear but you weren't there.

What in the hell does THE US involvement in Iraq have to do with this. Reputable Asian sources? not in my country. what are you trying to say reputable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.94.38.75 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 2 June 2007

(removed uncalled for abuse ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk )


 * How to respond? Hmm, a few ideas: pile up the evidence from countries whose interests at the time would've been quite different and write to their embassies. In particular, although Russia was embracing glastnost at this time it was also still a fellow Communist country at the time nonetheless. I am certain that Russia would have had some coverage somewhere of the event, and even if they did censor it then they are likely to acknowledge it happened now in the present. Other nations that would have some record would include (from Asia) India and Thailand.  If she is still unconvinced, then it may be futile. [User:Shadowcat60|Shadowcat60]] 14:59, 30 June 2007

Revert SummerThunder's edits?
Would anyone support simply reverting this article back to before the majority of User:SummerThunder's edits? I don't have the patience to comb through all of his edits to verify claims and correct spelling, etc. If no one comments on this, I'll go ahead with it.--Daveswagon 02:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support it. In particular, I'm concerned about the very poor quality of the writing, as well as the unverifiability of some claims. One problem is that there have been several editors with similar styles to SummerThunder, whose edits, IMO, should also be reverted. I'd like to see the article reverted to around here:
 * While some of the information is valuable, much of the additions need a lot of work to bring up to standard. We need to be very careful here because this is a feature article. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because of the featured status that I'm in such a hurry to get those edits cleared out.--Daveswagon 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. --Sumple (Talk) 02:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it.--Daveswagon 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Unknown history to the Youth in China" - suggest deletion
I have a problem with this section, which was inserted about a month ago:
 * "In 2006, when a journalist from the PBS show "Frontline" did an interview at Peking University where many students participated in 1989, four students were shown the picture of the Tank man who stood in front of four tanks, none of them was able to recognize who that person was, and what that event was about. They thought that it was a military parade, or maybe it was a piece of artwork. Because the Chinese government deliberately removed anything associated with this event, many youth in China today have no knowledge of it."

While I have no doubt that the report is accurate, I think the conclusions drawn are too speculative for inclusion here. In particular, I feel the report reached precisely the wrong conclusion from the interview. A more plausible conclusion is that, faced with a taboo subject and foreign (especially American) media, these students feigned ignorance or deliberately supplied false answers. This demonstrates the effectiveness of China's political education regime, rather than censorship.

At the very least, there is no way to know whether the students genuinely did not know, because no sane person would publicly and openly talk about such things in China, especially not to an American reporter.

I suggest that the paragraph be removed. --Sumple (Talk) 05:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The section is poorly worded, and in the actual video, one of the students says "1989" as if to suggest that he does indeed recognize the image. The section should be rewritten to clearly point out that it is simply an "example" of such ignorance of this subject. I wouldn't quite say that it warrants deletion.--Daveswagon 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * For reference's sake. As Daveswagon mentioned above, in the video the male student whispers "1989" to a fellow student, who appeared to be dumbfounded. When asked outright by the reporter, though, the student smiled and feigned ignorance by guessing that the picture is of a parade or military ceremony. This I believe is proof conclusive that at least one of the students was feigning it, if not all of them. P0tat03 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * We're not here to play detective. John Smith&#39;s 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Students do know what happenned. Nearly ten percent of the city of Beijing was involved in this. They know better than to speak about it though. Regardless does saying such things belong in an encyclopedia? 121.94.38.75 05:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


 * When i asked a fellow student from China if she had heard or knew anything about Tiananmen Square Protests, surprisingly she said NO. I had to find info on Google and Wikipedia to show to her about the protests that happened in her country. That's why i do not agree that the paragraph about the "Unknown history to the Youth in China" be deleted, for i know a living proof that a lot of people do not know anything in China. Remember, they still censor the internet to an extreme degree. Illuminati 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Memorial songs
I have heard of several memorial songs, but most of them are in Chinese. The Wound of History (zh-TW:歷史的傷口) is common in Chinese only. So far the only English memorial song that I know is titled "Blood Is on the Square" with lyrics and melody by Philip Morgan (I am unsure which country he is from). the cover page of that song and my listening suggest that Phillip and Teresa Morgan (I am unsure if they are related while they may not be notable) sang the song. Only 748 Ghits are found Googling with "blood is on the square" in quotation marks, so I am wondering whether it is notable in the article.

After all concerning notability, I would like to ask if we should write anything about memorial songs in the article. Meanwhile, please do not copy the lyrics of "Blood Is on the Square" to Wikisource. Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China has a movie (5 min 25 s) with the song, but later parts will be awful. The lyrics starts with peaceful protects but turns into awful history on June 4, 1989. The movie is noted to be copyrighted by June Fourth Foundation, Seattle, maybe in 1989.--Jusjih 16:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

"I think never killed."
At the end of "The crackdown" section, there is a quote from Jiang said to have been extracted when Barbara Walters interviewed him. However, the citation for this quote (which the main article lacks) in the Tank man article uses the Time 100 article, which doesn't mention Barbara Walters at all. Furthermore, the quote in the article is "the young man was never, never (sic) killed", which doesn't appear in the Time article. Do these inconsistencies matter, or did I miss a source? And if so, why aren't they cited? z ε n  ♪  06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The clip of the interview in question is part of FRONTLINE's Tank Man video. From what I recall, the quote above sounds about right, but I'll try to find that part of the video at some point and verify this.--Daveswagon 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for clearing it. z ε n  ♪  04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the conversation (from "The Struggle to Control Information" part of "The Tank Man"), at according to what is sounds like to me:


 * Walters: (holding a picture of the tank man) What happened to the young man?
 * Jiang: I think this young man maybe [possibly said "will be"] not killed by the tank.
 * Walters: No, but did you arrest him? We heard he was arrested and executed.
 * Jiang: (speaking in Chinese) I can't confirm whether this young man you mentioned was arrested or not.
 * Walters: You do not know what happened to him?
 * Jiang: (in English again) But I think never...never killed.
 * Walters: You think he was never killed?
 * Jiang: I think never killed.

--Daveswagon 20:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I right to think that this discussion page has been edited and comments removed? The item on the events at Tiananmen Square is a travesty of the truth.There are many unsupported and factually incorrect statements. Just one example - Kate Adie was nowhere near Tiananmen Square and could not possibly have witnessed indiscriminate gunfire in the square. I dont think anyone now believes that there was a massacre in Tiananmen Square. Why is this not reflected in this item?

I dont think it is unfair to say that much of the material relating to modern chinese history could have been written by the CIA or other western propaganda organisations and interests. This is no use at all to people trying to understand events in China over the last 50 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.191.251 (talk • contribs)


 * There is discussion of the argument deaths didn't occur in the square. But it is still disputed. Also you have no evidence to say that such material was written by the CIA or anyone else. So it is unfair to say so. John Smith&#39;s 13:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, if it is truly only a western thing, then why is it that Japan, Indonesia, and a few others tell a very similar story especially when nowadays China is a top trading partner? Funny how that works.....

Opening Paragraphs
I looked at this article for a simple reason: to find out what these protests were about. After reading the first three paragraphs (before the "Contents"), I still don't know. The third paragraph even refers to "the movement", yet no movements were previously named... Too much emphasis is placed on alternative names in the first sentence that it's essentially a run-on (if not technically) and drowns the reader in details (and, don't forget, neglects to mention what the protests were about). The second paragraph refers to the "PRC" without previously defining that initialism with parentheses. I suggest rewriting this introduction while trying to keep the basics in mind (e.g. assume the audience knows nothing of the incident). Thanks for listening. 208.64.241.229 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the helpful input.--Daveswagon 01:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The article requires a lot of work, but I think the introduction isn't too bad - the first paragraph says it was a series of protests. However I am making a small edit that I hope clears things up a bit. John Smith&#39;s 11:45, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * A "series of protests" against what? Protests are, by definition, in opposition to something (and I still can't figure it out (nor do I see your small edit)).
 * "PRC" is still undefined, too (and I don't think a fifth grader is going to put six and four together to figure it out by context).
 * I think the alternate names of the incident might best be displayed in a bulleted list, just below the title, before the introduction. That would clear up that ("drowning") first sentence and make room for declaration of what the protesters were protesting.
 * Thanks again. 208.64.241.229 15:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten the intro. Feel free to provide more feedback.--Daveswagon 04:17, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

FAR
I've listed the article for a FAR. It was promoted to FA-class three years ago and has never been through a FAR. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Political Reform?
Just regarding the first paragraph under the heading 'Background', it says "By early 1989, these economic and political reforms had led two groups of people to become dissatisfied with the government" Wasn't Deng adamantly against political reform, as laid out in his Four Cardinal Principles? Or were there other reforms that I've missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.193.229 (talk • contribs)


 * I'm not sure what that extract is specifically in reference to, but remember that Deng was not the day-to-day leader in China by 1989 - Zhao Ziyang was. John Smith&#39;s 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in addition to economic reforms, there were political reforms and also calls for more political reforms in the years leading up to 1989. Other than Hu Yaobang, exactly who was against or for more political reforms is probably a matter of debate. But obviously there were those who were against political reforms. The Tiananmen protests (largely sparked by Hu's death) effectively put a stop to progress on political reforms. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Number of Casualties Section
The section on the number of casualties resulting during the government crackdown on the protests is desperately in need of sources for its claims. -- TexasDawg 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

"Urban workers ... believed the reforms had gone too far"
In the second-to-last paragraph under "Protests begin," it is implied (intentionally or not) that urban workers opposed the "democratic" nature of Deng Xiaoping's reforms. The Beijing workers' unhappiness with the reforms was not that they were democratic (that there was even anything democratic about them is debatable), but that they stripped away universal health care and other workers' rights. Democratic and socialist aspirations are not necessarily antagonistic.

"students showed a surprising gesture of respect to the government"
In the second paragraph under "Protests escalate," it is implied that the students helped the police out of a desire to keep the protest peaceful. Given the class and political makeup of the protest, is more likely that they did so because they were communists and respected the memory of Mao. This part of the article should simply read "the students even assisted the police in arresting three individuals who had vandalized a portrait of Mao Zedong." The words 'surprising' and 'government' load it with incorrect meaning.

Typing error
Search for 'particluarly' in the article. Someone should change it to 'particularly'.

“Democracy” (“…from those nights in Tiananmen Square”; it was also the subject of Joan Baez' 1989 song "China" and "The Tiananmen Man" --- Where is the close of the parenthesis? This is in the references to popular culture.

L&O reference
There is a reference to this in an episode of Law and Order: CI.
 * Can you be more specific than that?--Daveswagon 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Impact to the other Communist countries
I think we can add the impact of the protest to other Communist countries like Revolutions of 1989, especially the Romanian Revolution of 1989.--24.18.102.154 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Gorbachyov
Was Gorbachyov around for any of the protests? Did he express an opinion? Brutannica 07:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. 81.155.103.36 10:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Gorbachov went to the West with a begging bowl and cap in hand, and was told to go home. The USSR then broke up in what Putin called the biggest geo-political mistake ever. People (in the West) here can make as much fun out of the China and the Chinese as they like, but it is the Russians they have to watch because Russia will soon want its empire back. The all conquering Russians are now even claiming the North Pole as part of their territory. Would you not want the Chinese on your side when this happens? 81.155.103.36 01:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When

 * Britain took charge of the EU Presidency in the summer of 2005

This is ambiguous. It should be replaced by a date or specific month. --B.d.mills 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to Add Chinese Language version temporarily
Due to the requirements of the IOC, China has unblocked the english language version of wikipedia. This would be a good opportunity to allow people in China access to highly suppressed information, by adding it temporarily to the English language site. Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.128.204 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree - but what do you mean? Is there an English-language Chinese Wikipedia site? If so, where do we access it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.236.196 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Where's archive 3?
Where's archive 3? The link goes to archive 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.103.36 (talk • contribs)
 * I archived the talk page and only cut-and-pasted the archive box line! John Smith&#39;s 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

comparison with other protest suppression...
eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Massacre

there is no relations between them nor suitable for adding to the article; i just wanted to experiment with the thought if it could this has an influence on Tiananmen. perhaps is adds to why CCP didn't expect such a serious response from foreign states. has there been any studies done on the various protest that occurred in Asia? Akinkhoo 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Censored google
I think there should be also a comment about Chinese censorship of the google.cn - try to navigate here: - that's google.cn's image search result for "Tiananmen", comparing with, which is a common English version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.6.15 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's a pic of the freedom goddess statue in the caches there today.

BBC reporter Kate Adie spoke of "indiscriminate fire" within the square. Kate Adie was nowhere near the Square at the time - I think this statement should be amended to reveal this fact or better deleted from the article. There are many other similar problems with this article - resulting in western propaganda masquerading as fact. Maybe some people who were in China at the time could add some material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.164.71 (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh if ever. Western frat boys are just as interested in twisting the truth.

Section removed
"The most reliable account of what actually happened at Tiananmen Square itself that morning is from student leader, Hou DeJian who was on the square till the very end. He said that nobody died on Tiananmen Square. Reports that tanks rolled over students were not true. This is documented in his video appearance on Gate of Heavenly Peace available on youtube at minute 5:57 . In the video he said, "There are reports that 2 thousand or perhaps several hundred students died. On the square were tanks that rolled over students. Now, I do not know where people see this, but I myself never saw this. I was on the Square until 6:30 that morning. I keep thinking, do we need to create lies to fight our lying enemies? Isn't the truth strong enough? The danger about creating lies is that it would fulfill our moment of desire but when our lies are exposed, we would be powerless then to confront our enemies". Hou DeJian's testimony therefore agrees with the official Chinese government testimony that there were indeed no deaths on the Square itself."
 * The above section was removed. I am not doubting the source.  Preferably there are 50 videos on youtube to counter this one by people who claim to be on the square too.  What is disturbing is the same 3 people claiming this never happened.  Hou DeJian, Chai Ling and Ma Lik who was definitely associated with an extreme left pro-beijing political party.  User 75.33.15.87 I have taken this out for the time being.  Benjwong (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Title
Surely the title of this article should be the Tiananmen Square Massacre? As that is the most common and accurate description of events.... Bensonby 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with using Tiananmen Square Massacre as the title for this article - no one died in Tiananmen Square. The deaths were the result of clashes between citizens of Beijing and the PLA in the streets around the square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.94.229 (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The tianamen square massacare is actually a popular misconception. It should be called the Beijing massacare. Because the massacare did not actually happen in the tiananmen square. i was thinking if i should change this in the article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.137.95 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I could see that it is a full blown massacre, without even considering the aftermath, or do you suggest that these were all made in Hollywood: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Tiananmen+Square+Massacre&search=Search ? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Any proof that these are indeed from the square? If so then the name should be changed but to my knowledge noone was massacred in the square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.80.65 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Title 2
I removed the "massacre" name from the beginning - first, the reference was simply a comparison of Google searches. It is true that Google searches can be used to establish notability, but neutrality is a different matter. Simply because media prefers to call Michael Jackson a "wacko" doesn't mean he is "commonly referred to as a wacko". When comparing two acceptable terms, we can list both or choose the more popular one. But when comparing a term that is neutral and a term that has an immense point of view, we choose the neutral term. The naming is already discussed in a whole section, so whatever controversy there is, put it there. Herunar (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I also added the June-Fourth Incident name to the lead. This is the most common name in both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (Republic of China), as well as the largely independent Hong Kong and Macau, so I believe it's the most notable as well as neutral. Herunar (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, we DO use the popular term. Nanking Massacre. We call it a "massacre" or even a "rape" if that's the designation history has given it. We don't reinvent history and make up our own "neutral" term. This would be self-defeating because in decalaring its popular designation "non-neutral" we would be making our own value judgement about the designation, which itself is non-neutral. We simply regurgitate what can be verified - WP:V - and we don't introduce our own interpretation - WP:OR. Specifically, we use the name it's referred to in English, because this is an English-language encyclopedia. Issues of terminology and naming are covered at length in the manual of style (WP:MOS) TheBilly (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Title 3

 * What a waste of time. Look at this topic!

See a google compare:

As you can see I compared:
 * 1) Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
 * 2) Tiananmen Square Massacre
 * 3) Tiananmen Square protests
 * 4) 1989 Tiananmen Square military action

It's pretty clear that Tiananmen Square Massacre score highest, followed by Tiananmen Square protests which is actually all inclusive with several major event since on Tiananmen is the official appeal office, so this term will cumulate even the recent Falun Gong protests together with many other as well. Also the current very diluted title Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 which does not rank anywhere.


 * Scores have no bearing on the matter. If there was in fact no massacre at the square itself then such a moniker is incorrect. End of entire stupid discussion.

If you are going to use a more diluted term you could use The 1989 Tiananmen Square military action as it is referred here:. This term is also better known according to a google battle test.

Best, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Completely agreed, "Tiananmen Square Massacre" is the common name for the event and should be the title for the Wiki page. Some watered-down "neutral" term such as "incident" would do this event a serious injustice. Are we going to call the Wiki page for the Darfur Genocide the "Darfur Incident"? or the Armenian Genocide the "Armenian Incident of 1915"? Watering down the title does make one neutral. Thats my thoughts. I hope the Wiki community will agree Leahcim506 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have tried to add the phrase "Tiananmen Square massacre" (which is obviously the most common name in English) to the lead of this article and have provided reliable references. However, I have been reverted. I am worried that this article is subject to some sort of POV-pushing. There is no way this article can be said to be neutral without a prominent mention of its most common name in English. Further proof: the Chinese name which has been bolded in the lead, "June 4 incident", clearly refers to the massacre rather than the protests as a whole. --Folantin (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * "Clearly" is not good enough. If you are requesting the change, you need to supply the evidence. None has been supplied so far.
 * As I have explained already, the Chinese name "June 4th incident" refers to the entire movement, and not just the final event. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You need something stronger than "obviously the most common". This issue has been argued to death. The current name is what it is because it is the most NPOV out of the common names for the incident. "Massacre" is inherently inflamatory and has not been shown to be overwhelmingly the common name. In the absence of clear proof of a most common name, we defer to the WP:NPOV policy.

Furthermore, please WP:AGF and do not insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is "POV-pushing". It assumes that other editors are stooges simply because they disagree with you, and is insulting.

On the point of Chinese linguistics - again, please do not assume that, because June 4th was the date of the crackdown, it must refer to the crackdown and not the entire episode. Nothing is so "obvious", especially when it involves a foreign language. As with any other mass movement in Chinese history, the date merely refers to the key or pivotal event in the entire movement, but the name covers the entire movement. See also May Fourth Movement, which refers to the entire "new culture" movement and not just the protests on May the 4th. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not necessarily arguing that we move the whole article to "Tiananmen Square massacre", but that's because it covers the entirety of the protests. I merely want a prominent reference to "Tiananmen Square massacre" in the lead (there should probably be more mention of it in the body of the article too). In spite of your assertions, "Tiananmen Square massacre" (or "Tiananmen massacre") clearly is the common name in English for the event that ended the protests ("June 4 Incident" will mean nothing to most Anglophones). Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, that's what goes in. Our NPOV policy insists that all major viewpoints must be included - and we aren't censored either. --Folantin (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Folantin. If this is a verifiably common name for the event (and it seems it is), the title really should be in bold, in the lede, per WP:NPOV, WP:LEDE etc. --John (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I too agree with Folantin. WP:RS generally call it "Tianenmen Square Massacre" which passes WP:V. I have no idea what it is called by the Chinese but that is not relevant. It is not POV but fact (that it is called so). Kittybrewster  &#9742;  07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Going by a very westernized search engine like google is not a good idea. IMHO it is quite lacking for anything having to do with China. Obviously the mainland censorship makes it pretty pointless to use their search engine too. So let's not use any search engines please. If you want to go by the most globally popular term, "June 4th incident" is it. Even pro-democracy politicians in China regions who recognize the event as a massacre call it the June 4th incident. Benjwong (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Absolute sophistry. The fact is this incident is called the "Tiananmen Square massacre" in the English-speaking world. That's a mainstream view and it has to be represented prominently in the article. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nobody is denying it as a massacre. An event in China involving chinese military and chinese citizens, you are asking people to completely overlook the 6-4 chinese name. It seems a bit much, if not unreasonable. You can call it what you like in the lead, but a page move will be difficult. Benjwong (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Please read what I wrote above and below. I am not actually asking for a page move, merely that the phrase "Tiananmen Square massacre" be given more prominence in the article (this has now been fixed). The trouble began when I tried to add the name "Tiananmen Square massacre" to the lead and was reverted. I made no attempt to move the article itself. It now turns out there has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding and we are more or less on the same wavelength. I hope this helps to clear things up. --Folantin (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I re-iterate two points:
 * 1) We need reliable sources for whatever change you are advocating. I don't see clear documentary evidence that "massacre" is the unambiguously most common term used in reliable, English-language sources. A brief JSTOR search yields 441 hits for search term Tiananmen Square massacre, 350 for Tiananmen Square protests. The former has a lead but it is by no means dominant. Given this, my view is that we yield to WP:NPOV and avoid terms apt to sensationalise.
 * 2) As I have tried to explain above, Folantin, when a political movement is named in Chinese after the date of a pivotal date, that name refers to the entire movement, not to the events of that date particularly. "June 4th incident/movement" refers to the entire episode of democratising agitation leading up to - and in some places following - the crackdown on the 4th of June. Similarly, "May 4th incident/movement" refers to the entire New Culture movement, and not just the crackdown on the 4th of May.
 * 3) On a similar point, you seem to draw a distinction between the "Tiananmen Square protests" and the "Tiananmen Square massacre", as if the latter is a subset of the former. However, in my experience, the two terms are synonymous with "June 4th", and both refer to the entire episode leading up to the crackdown. Again, I would like to see reliabel sources differentiating between the two concepts in the way that you appear to see them differentiated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've given you reliable sources. There are entire books on the subject with "massacre" in the title. Your first point is yet more sophistry. You admit that "TS massacre" is in fact the most common phrase on JSTOR, hence it is a significant viewpoint and must be represented according to WP:NPOV. --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think the JSTOR results prove unambiguously that "massacre" is the most common term. What it shows is that the two terms do not differ materially in terms of commonality of usage. The bone of contention here is not whether "massacre" is used. We all know it is. The question is whether "massacre" is the most common term as you contend. Your book references illustrate that "massacre" is used. They go no way towards proving that "massacre" is the most common term.
 * However, I feel I should apologise. I acted hastily to oppose your edits without reading the current article carefully. First, I did not realise that the material dealing with the "massacre" term had been wholly deleted from the article. I'd assumed that it was dealt with in the "Naming" section, as it had been in a previous version. Secondly, I'd assumed that you were contending that the title should move to "massacre", since you have posted under a HappyInGeneral post, HappyInGeneral having been an advocate for changing the article name.
 * For the record, then, I agree with you that "massacre" should be mentioned as a common name (among others) of the incident, though the title of the article should remain where it is due to NPOV and the lack of a single unambiguously most common name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That's right. I said: "I'm not necessarily arguing that we move the whole article to 'Tiananmen Square massacre', but that's because it covers the entirety of the protests. I merely want a prominent reference to 'Tiananmen Square massacre' in the lead (there should probably be more mention of it in the body of the article too)". The material I added to the article was aimed at rectifying this. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Current title is hilarious. What's next, "Holocaust" to be renamed to "Jewish incident in WW II"? Google Print test: Google Scholar test: Amazon.com test -Staberinde (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Google Print for "Tiananmen Square Massacre" 710 books
 * Google Print for "June-Fourth Incident" 79 books
 * Google Print for "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" 24 books
 * Google Print for "Tiananmen Square protests" 330 books
 * Google Scholar for: "Tiananmen Square Massacre" 1,240 results
 * Google Scholar for: "June-Fourth Incident" 83 results
 * Google Scholar for: "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" 30 results
 * Google Scholar for: "Tiananmen Square protests" 221 results
 * Amazon.com for "Tiananmen Square Massacre" 1,045 books
 * Amazon.com for "June-Fourth Incident" 38 books
 * Amazon.com for "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" 57 books
 * Amazon.com for "Tiananmen Square protests" 283 books


 * It seems to me that calling the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is not NPOV. By deliberately avoiding "massacre" we are in fact taking a POV. There is no good reason that the article should not go by the most common name. TK421 (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was reading the article on China and specifically about the government's suppression of information. I recalled the protests and wanted to read about them and how they are treated in China. I searched for tiananmen massacre, and was redirected to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which I found strange. I'd never heard it called that before. thezirk (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please look into the archive this has been discussed many times before. If you are looking for the English string of "June-Fourth" you will find nothing cause everybody calls it a massacre in the English speaking world. If you look for the Chinese in google, it is not nearly as common as massacre. Obviously www.google.com is English based. If you look for the Chinese in a Chinese search engine, it is blocked. None of the examples above are any good. Benjwong (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What, are Chinese now coming on here to try to white wash what happened in Tiananmen Square? Of course this should be set to Massacre, because that is what it is called in the English-speaking World. -Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.26.6 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Current status of the student leaders
I will add the current status of the student leaders (Wang Dan, Chai Ling, etc.) to the "Aftermath"->"Arrests and Purges" section. It would be an interesting thing to learn to many of us. The source of the information is from the public speech given by Wang Dan in the University of Michigan in Nov.11, 2007. I will also list the citation in the main article. I attended that speech too, and I can testify the authenticity of that citation.

--Danithaca (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Jiang quote
they all ate cheese cake!!!

This page has this statement: The last official statement from the PRC government about the tank man came from Jiang Zemin in a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, when asked about the whereabouts of the tank man, Jiang responded that "the young man was never, never killed." There are no cites for this quote on this page.

The Tank Man page has this cited quote, purportedly from the same Barbara Walters interview: ''In a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, then-CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang replied "I think never killed [sic]."'' This quote is cited here, and the wording "I think never killed" seems to be the correct quote.

I am going to go ahead and change the quote on this page, adding the reference above. Please let me know if anyone has other feelings about this. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Reaction
The Western reaction paragraph is very short, and misses nearly the whole point. It doesn't even mention that it has been frequently described as the "Tiananmen Square massacre". It doesn't matter whether there really was a massacre, or whether it was in Tiananmen Square. That term is part of the reaction. Superm401 - Talk 08:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree, especially when it refers to "scholers" in the plural sense when it only cites one article. I'm taking down this section as it clearly does not describe the Western perception of the incident and instead seems more focused in describing the specifics of the protesters' ideology in regards to rural populations.--Waxsin (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wang Yam
One of the leaders of the student movement, Wang Yam, is currently on trial for the murder of Allan Chappelow. Ironically parts of his trial are being held in camera —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin451 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Initial PRC Supression of News inside China
Please add a serious mention of the print/television coverage of the incident being successfully supressed by the government, inside mainland China, for up to 6 months outside of Bejing. My family and I were in close contact with Chinese graduate students from Tiensing(a short distance from Bejing), and Shanghai who were in China at the time and were totally shocked when they heard about the incidents in Tiananmen Square after coming to the US. They were under the impression that the protests were local to where they were and were entirely peacefull.
 * Funny you should say that, because news of the protests were initially fully and comprehensively reported by the state media - sometimes acting against the wishes of their political minders. Many of these reporters were later disciplined for their insubordination. Of course, the informal conduits of communication were even more effective: people with family and friends in Beijing kept up with the news via telephone. Added to that, there was a mass exodus of people from non-Beijingers from Beijing, helping to spread the stories. Perhaps the situation was different at university campuses, which were often already in protest mode and so may not be keeping an eye on the government press. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Bias View
This article is bias, because the people’s point of view is suppressed. The main view is the protests are political. The human rights in China are a very controversial topic, as the government want total control. The Chinese government often play down the troubles of the people. The article gives more overview of the government’s view with bias pieces about the protests and what they want. The article doesn’t outline the real cause for the protests.

The government have forbidden the topic in China and this makes it hard to get the protestors opinion. This causes a problem because the next generation then don’t know what happened, and because the article focus’s on the government’s opinion it makes this article bias. By the government banning any mention of the Protests there is no neutrality through the exclusion of other opinion, the Chinese Government can maintain they were looking out for national interest.

The government conficated all footage taken by protestors and media, allowing the government to claim thier side only as the truth. Due to the one sided theme this article doesn’t protray the events correctly as there needs to be more consistence with both side.

Amelia Dunbabin (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do people keep stating that an "article is bias" when correct grammar is "article is biased". Is this an emerging English trend? 128.227.127.134 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You bothered to post a response reguarding grammar usage? If you have nothing of value to discuss dont bother posting. I know of one western cameraman who caught those pictures of the defiant protester in front of the tank. He hid the fotage in his hotel room toilet so the police would not confiscate it. Chinas actions in many situations is questionable, however this is one of Communist China's most damning momments- do not disrespect this serious topic with redicuolous insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.32.78 (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have the footage which showed the truth, why don't you show us? Can you prove somebody guilty on the court based on your imagination?Speaker cn (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

A call for an investigation of western media's report on the Tiananmen Square protests
Because of the western media's distorted reports on the 2008.3.14 Lhasa riot, people have reasons to doubt the credibility of the western media's report on the 1989 Tiananmen protest and whether they had served as provokers of bigger conflicts between the protesting students and the Chinese government. An investigation of western media's report on the Tiananmen Square protests in year 1989 is proposed. Two things should be taken into account:

1. How had the western media used images and videos to mislead people? The best example: tank and the man. Until today, I still cannot understand why the stopping tanks could have served as an evidence of the toughness of the Chinese government towards the students for so many years? The tanked stopped and hadn't run into the young man, had it? I also don't understand in which country and since when it had become an honor for people to disrupt army from carrying out orders?

2. During the Tiananmen protest, how much distorted information had the western media deliverd to the students on the square? Had those infotmation served as a plot to worsen the situation? Had those information instigated the students' hatred against the government, violence against the soldiers and riots among people?

I have the confidence to say if the www.anti-cnn.com website had been there in 1989, the Chinese peopoe might have not experienced such a huge disaster.

The role the western media played in the 1989 Tiananmen protest must be fully examined and the conclusions should be added into the article. Speaker cn (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no doubt the presence of TV cameras and reporters in the square affected the demonstrators, and the government. As to the man stopping the tank, it is a touching image of courage that continues to impress me. As to "I also don't understand in which country and since when it had become an honor for people to disrupt army from carrying out orders?" please see Battles of Lexington and Concord. Fred Talk 16:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Go for it. Write a thesis, but that would include original research that is irrelevant to this Wikipedia entry.165.123.139.232 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Please no thesis either. The world really doesn't need another nutty conspiracy theory. Novidmarana (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So western media and official chinese government reports differ and, of course, only one version can be the right one. Now think: There is only one media in China, the "official" government version. But there are heaps of independent newspapers and TV channels in the west. If the chinese version was right, then at least a FEW western media would tell THEIR story, because saying that other newspapers are wrong is a good way to increase sales for your own paper. But when all the western media take the same view and contradict the only official chinese version, chancess are high they are right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.163.163 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Good analysis, but it has it's limits. Sometimes Western media think alike, and get it wrong. Fred Talk 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is not about the "think" part of the press, this is about the "news" part ie. reporting at least some of each side of the story without fear of retaliation, as would any non-government-controled press. And even if "Western" press were, then you can still freely get your news from Al Jaezera, Latin-America press, Asian (free) press, etc. Hardly "western" press. This situation is so obviously easy to sort of, i wonder how some Chinese people could genuinely believes the conspiracy theory. Benji2 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is pure Chinese propaganda. How can issues like this ever be resolved if we have to choose between polar opposite versions of what happened. This page should be a discussion of BOTH sides of the story, if only to keep nationalistic Chinese happy. Present both sides of the argument and let th reader decide what is most likely to be truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.240.208 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed a bit
I removed a part of the "Forbidden topic in mainland china" becuase it's pretty ridiculous

"The Chinese government also reportedly brainwashed its citizens at the time into forgetting the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, even to the point of beating several people (especially the victims' friends and families) to give them amnesia[25]."

I watched every episode in the citation and nowhere does it say people were beaten to remain silent, Maybe I missed it, either way it's a stupid comment. Also I think that "brainwashed it's citizens" is pretty harsh too. I don't think china brainwashed it's entire population into forgetting a hugely important part of history and their lives. Maybe a different wording there would be more appropriate, like "removed any information regarding the subject from the public" or "censored information regarding the protests" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.203.217 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Agree, if anyone use the word "brainwash" on other governmetn and people, he must consider himself absolutely correct. However, when people have different opinions, there was no way to tell who was absolutely correct. The word "brainwash" is just a humiliation to the one who used it.Speaker cn (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The point here is not about finding who is right, it's about factually documenting what the government is doing. In this case, the PRC governemeent is actively preventing Chinese people to try to get information about this part of their own history. Yet i agree that the word "brainwashed" shouldn't be technically applicable at a population-level. Maybe "attempt to brainwash" is better ? Benji2 (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That would seem a bit better but brainwashing still seems like an innacurate title. They most deffinattly have tried to erase the subject from their history, I just think it's an innacurate term mainly. I read the atricle on brainwashing and there are many refrences to the chinese attempting to brainwash people, but no mention of this event as being considered brainwashing, maybe I should ask them for their opinion on whether this could be considered brainwashing or just extreme censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.170.151 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

History Deleted/ Forbidden Topic in Mainland China
Theres no need to have both of these, they should be merged into one. They are essentially the same topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.203.217 (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Chineseart Executionpainting.jpg
The image Image:Chineseart Executionpainting.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Beating into Amnesia
I find the innuendo soldiers beat the relatives of victims into 'amnesia' a bit OTT - and I don't care who they use as a reference. Also: the reference points only to an entire website and not to any further proof. As such the remark should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.229.3 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A Generation Gap
This section is an almost uninterrupted string of assertions without citation. Although the information in the section seems plausible, it should not be included unless it can be sourced, and I have no idea where one would find reliable sources for such claims. I suggest that it be either heavily edited or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0nullbinary0 (talk • contribs) 22:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Exactly. This article should be about truth, not propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.229.3 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Controversial
I think that some may find this page highly controversial, and while i support the partial bias indicated in the article, i think that the administration would be best advise to closely watch this page and any others concerning even slightly controversial Chinese topics, including Tiananmen Square, Tibet, anything having to do with the Tibetan National Uprising, or Taiwan. Politicalnerd08 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you should first learn how to spell controversial before editing any articles that criticizes your government.--Waxsin (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Snot. That's an ad hominem attack. He certainly speaks English better than you do his language.
 * Regardless of the grammar Nazism, the point remains valid. Politicalnerd08 position comes more from a disagreement with the information (which any reader can see is backed by multiple references and sources) and less so reality. Censorship because of it's "highly controversial" is not compatible with Wikipedia goals - Facts are facts; If you have information to prove something different from the article, then show the references and cite it. Otherwise, go home. 75.44.50.118 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.229.3 (talk) 14:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We'll make sure not to write anything controversial, whatever that is. Listing the facts is not a bias. Even if it hurts your little feelings and your insecure, corrupt government. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.45.178 (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Title Image Edited
The Unknown Rebel - This famous photo, taken on 5 June 1989 by photographer Jeff Widener, depicts an unknown man stopped the PLA's advancing tanks, and later supplied food and drinks to the tank soldier.

The full video showed that the man firstly stopped the tanks and then climbed on top of the first tank, said something with a soldier sitting in the bunk then gave the foods and drinks to them. Full video could be seen in NHK's documentary  Blood is on the square (1991).

Synyan (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The claims that he supplied food and drinks to the soldiers is novel and unsourced. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * He says it's in the video. Someone needs to look at it. Fred Talk 19:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
 * The video is well known, and due to the distance and quality of the video there is no way for us to know what he said or what he gave to the soldiers: see here. He may have been giving food and drinks to the soldiers - we can't tell from the video - but there is no source that points towards it.
 * It's like claiming that Mona Lisa was sitting on a stool. It may be true - it is certainly not inconsistent with what we can see - but it's original research unless it is backed up with a reliable source stating that particular fact. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Chinese newspaper reports on Tiananmen Square
Hi, I found these set of pictures on Flickr that appear to be from a Chinese newspaper from after June 4 - that carry images and reports on the army going into Tiananmen Square. I can't read Chinese very well at all so I would like to know if I'm correct in assuming this? If so, I think it may be a good idea to include one of the pictures - I'm not very familiar with licensing and all that.. but surely these newspaper articles are notable enough (especially as they were temporarily reporting without restriction) to warrant inclusion? Thanks. Secrets (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "reassessment" :

guy in the picture
what happened to the guy standing in front of the tank in the picture anyways? 220.70.250.166 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

See -80.163.93.206 (talk) 11:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Misunderstanding.
"Similar numbers were found in major cities throughout mainland China such as Urumqi, Shanghai and Chongqing; and later in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Chinese communities in North America and Europe."

What does Hong Kong, Taiwan, North America and Europe have to do with it, if those places were not ruled by the PRC Government? How could they be involved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.4.113 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Western bias in article
A popularly held view is that the protests were trying to put pressure on the government to move to a more democratic mode, this is true and reflected in the article. However, in addition to wanting democracy, the students were ALSO protesting a move to a type of western-style capitalism.

Remember that democracy is just a way to choose who runs your country, it is entirely independent of how your country's economy works. Using democracy, you could vote in either a capitalist or a communist government, and that government can be socially liberal or conservative, or something along the spectrum in-between. However, there is confusion about this because most examples people have of communist countries have also been under some hideous single-party system or dictatorship with conservative social values. There is nothing to stop a country being politically open with a liberal and accepting social agenda, while still having a planned economy.

This confusion is evident in the article, whereby the explanation for the protests is extremely simple:

"The protests were begun by Beijing students to encourage free-market reforms and liberalization.[6] Protesters believed that China had not gone far enough in economic liberalization and privatization.[6] They also believed that the social reforms made by Deng Xiaoping had not gone far enough and China needed to reform its political systems."

The shades of grey here are thatoio YES, the students wanted social and political liberalisation, some of them may have even wanted reforms towards a free market, but they did NOT agree with the market reforms that Deng Xiaoping was instigating at the time, as it was causing economic mayhem, and harming the country.

Some weeks ago I made an edit, citing pages as part of a whole chapter about the protests in Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Doctrine' a book about economic changes from communism/planned economies to capitalist/free market economies. This edit was removed a few days later (Revision as of 22:35, 12 September 2008 was the edit FUCK CHINA made just to remove my addition and the reference), the reason for the removal said that I cited a google video? So they were obviously in confusion.

Rather than just keep on adding it and having it removed, I thought I would comment here on this. As I know that there is a very broad spectrum of opinions about China's government. From people at one extreme who live in a fuge of nationalism who feel that China has no issues at all, to those who feel that China will always be troubled until it adopts a government, culture and economic system identical to that of "us" western countries. The truth, I feel, is somewhere in-between. Willberg (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you and your way. So I will just leave my edits here: 1."These reforms came with corruptions like other countries." which is the main reason of the protest. 2."His "rapid reform" opinion made him inadequate for his position when there were strong controversy, especially that most were destined to avoid capitalism. The western world have another opinion, but to notice the two opinions both agree that China is seeking for the way to modern, only that China disapproves the Western way." which was the main reason he was forced to dismiss.

Startwiki (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

- I strongly agree. It seems this article has degenerated for a while. The in-depth background analysis has gone, and the article has been filled with propaganda from the so called "free world". We have experienced the event. Democracy was an important issue, but not THE MOST IMPORTANT one. The prevailing motivation of the protest, as pointed out by previous versions of this article, was anti-corruption and other social-justice issues. There were students / intellectuals who saw political liberalization as the solution, but there were also massive amount of urban workers who cared little about "democracy", but only wanted to punish corruption and get their benefits back. These are well documented and were well explained in previous versions. It's a shame that they have gone.Sweeper77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC).
 * If you have credible sources that refute the facts of this article, then you are free to cite them - If you don't however, then your information remains commentary; Wikipedia is not censoring anything - It's only demanding that when you make an edit, you produce the information to back it up. If you spend 1/2 as much time digging up the information to refute this article as you do complaining on the Discussion forum of this page, you'd probably have something to contribute. 75.44.50.118 (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So how you explain the fact that this article WAS a featured article, but has no longer been so? As far as I known, it used to contain well-sourced content that analyzed the background of the event in a relatively objective way. However, they were just deleted by somebody. It's simply a shame.99.0.66.200 (talk)

I've never contributed to one of these discussion pages before, I apologize if I mess up on some protocol, but I couldn't let this go. Han Dongfang was one of the leaders of the Tiananmen Square protests, still barred from re-entering China, I believe. He is a labor organizer, founder of China's first autonomous union. Han Dongfang, along with a great number of others jailed at Tiananmen, were protesting for worker's rights, not primarily democracy, per se.

Links:    

And I could go on all day. Google is your friend. In Han's words:

"People have always said foreign investment is the hope of China. This is our bridge to the world. But what comes across the bridge are 12-hour shifts, seven-day workweeks and only two trips to the bathroom a day. What comes across are factory fires that kill hundreds of workers who are locked in because their bosses are afraid they will steal the products. The Chinese government has put an invisible net across the bridge that allows money to come in but not the freedoms of a civil society, not the rule of law and not free trade unions." This article has been getting worse and worse. If you will not reference the major involvement of labor organizers at Tiananmen, it can no longer be called accurate at all. 96.248.99.126 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Democracy (western style) may not be the most efficient form of government in China. Take for example what is happening in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8053833.stm

, which is a so-called democracy. Even though the UK is a democracy, this system did not prevent government ministers, including the PM Gordon Brown, MPs and Lords from being what in the rest of the world would call corrupt, when it comes to money for personal gain. In China personal leadership now lasts 5 years, with a maximum of a further 5 year term. Chinese leaders are chosen (OK by the Party and not directly by the peopele) for being well-educated, intelligent and be able to put the country he/she serves before himself. In the west, this is often not the case, take the case of Clinton and Blair who are charging and making millions of dallars for having been former leaders of their country, and Sarkozy who uses his office to satisfy his nether regions more than his job of serving his country. Yes when they want to be leaders at elections, these people promise their electorate the world, but once in office they care only about themselves. It would appear that the Chinese have got the method of choosing good leaders correct even though it is not through a direct election. 86.142.162.209 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Editted description of Hu Yaobang to include anti-corruption. The wealth of support for the students from the general public was largely due to Hu's reputation as a reformer against corruption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bedbug1122 (talk • contribs) 06:09, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Background sectiont 2345?
"In 2345, Deng Xiaoping will lead a series of economic and political reforms which will lead to the gradual implementation of a market economy and some political liberalization that will relax the system set up by Mao Zedong."

In some versions that is 1978, and past tense. Is this a typo, or could someone enlighten me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberalex (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"But of course, America's CIA and other countries were the ones who urged the students to go agaisnt the government and teachers. These countries wanted to split China into seperate little countries, jsut like how the Soviet Union had been split up into what is now known as Russia. They wanted to do this because, it would be "beneficial" for their own countries on the competitive realm. In order to further brew up the intensity, these interfering countries killed 5 of the chinese soldiers who were preventing the students from entering Beijing City. THey hung the 5 bodies on a wall behind the students. Seeing the dead bodies of their comrads, the soldiers were extremely agitated and grieved and started to open-fire on the students, who were completely clueless about what had happened and what were behind them. Due to this, other countries say that the chinese army just randomly killed "innocent" students, when it was the foreign interfereing countries' intentions for this to happen. Thus, the term "Massacre" is not completely correct."

This part of the "background" section does not appear to be in line with policy on neutrality, and does not cite any references. It doesn't really seem like background at all anyway. I would propose to remove it for these reasons. Clawtang (talk) 05:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

BBC World Service documentary
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2009/05/090519_lostvoices_tiananmen_one.shtml

86.166.125.182 (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Link to Chinese article
Can someone who can read chinese have a look at that article and verify it is about the protests. From the pictures of Bill Clinton etcI'm not sure it is.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Which article are you referring to? F (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I mean the corresponding article to this on Chinese-language Wikipedia, which is linked to down the left-hand side of the page (though even the link is in chinese, so I could have made a mistake)Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I checked out both the Chinese and Cantonese versions of the article and did not see any pictures of Bill Clinton. Both of them are quite to the point. So there should be little to worry about.Kxx (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bias
Willberg, I don’t recall anyone in Tiananmen Square in the second quarter of 1989 complaining about capitalism. Nor do I recall anyone demanding the CCP give up power, let alone install a democratic political system. What I do recall seeing is a banner that read, “We want the Communist Party to lead us correctly.” Those other interpretations are post-event myths that are kept alive to serve the political interests of people and groups who cannot accept the truth: The 1989 protest was not about overthrowing the regime and creating democracy.

The protest began after the death of CCP General Secretary Hu Yaobang (a communist, most certainly not “pro-democracy”). Mr Hu was seen as more tolerant than his colleagues, and his dismissal in January 1987 led to a revival of the “anti-bourgeois liberalism” campaign. As was the case following the death of Zhou Enlai in 1976;, people laid wreaths and undertook other ways of showing respect at the Monument to the People’s Heroes in Tiananmen Square. And, in response to the lack of what was expected to be an elaborate state funeral, protests began.

I agree with Sweeper77, but it isn’t popular to puncture this particular myth so there isn’t a lot of evidence. But, I know what I saw, OR or not.DOR (HK) (talk) 05:46, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have good points backed by citations, then put it in.Kxx (talk) 21:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * One overview that more or less agrees with your perspective, by a veteran AsiaWeek correspondent, is at

Censorship
"The ban of Wikipedia in mainland China was lifted recently, but the link to this incident in Chinese Wikipedia remained dead." I'm in Shanghai and I can access all the forbidden pages that I know... Tibet, Tiananmen Square, etc. I'm really surprised! - 2009-05-13 Flood78 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It depends on your location and service provider, as well as the time of day. L talk 10:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, from Guanghzou and Shanghai, with OCN (cable) and China Telecom I can access this page. Some other pages, we still cannot access but this one, no problem. Flood78 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

During the past week, I can access Twitter, Flickr and Hotmail (only live.com is not working somehow) with no problem in Shanghai, even as today June 4th, 2009. Can anyone provide any proves or others delete the accusation of the blockage of those sites? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.13.79.3 (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

One mistake there Flickr had been blocked for awhile already due to it has a lot of pornographic picture being shared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.13.79.3 (talk) 18:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Shootings and Deaths in Tiananmen Square itself
I'm not entirely sure about this but according to most reports coming out of Hong Kong and Taiwan, the initial killings (and some claim, the majority) happened at Muxidi, some 5 kilometres west of Tiananmen, due mostly to barricades being erected by the area by civilians opposing army entry into central Beijing. The military knew they needed to break into the city so they shot civilians, but once they were in indiscriminate fire was not as frequent.

Tiananmen was but the focal point of the events, and therefore used in English to refer to the event as a whole, but likely not where most of the killing actually occured (although were were reports of shots when the soldiers first entered the square, but a large number of students, upon hearing the events at Muxidi, decided to withdraw to protect themselves). I raise this point because some reports suggest that several hundred were shot at Muxidi, and then some more people were shot alongside the streets because they yelled slogans such as "down with this fascist government!". The point is, it could very likely be that most of the deaths occured not in Tiananmen Square itself, as often mistakenly reported, but much further West. If you look at most Western media reports even, they show mostly footage from outside the Square and on Chang'an Avenue. This is also where the Tank Man incident happened. Colipon+(T) 02:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think the Chinese article describes this very well, for those of you that read Chinese. Colipon+(T) 02:18, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Youtube link at the bottom of the page.
Is this video really credible? Tianamen Love Squared. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecoolyo (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The Tiananmen Papers
I do not think, that the Tiananmen Papers are a suitable source for a description of the protesters aims and ideologies. The Tiananmen Papers were published by the chinese governments, which did certainly not have a neutral point of view. A Wikipedia Source must be neutral. Noone would use a party's description of another party in an article. The description is not really correct. The protesters were interessted in economical issues but they were not the main issue as this article suggests. --90.146.202.107 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Student demands
If the students were demanding democracy, then why were they singing The Internationale, which is clearly communistic? 86.166.125.182 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Copying to Reference Desk. F (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not from China, I would try to explain why students were singing Le Internationale:


 * 1) From 1949-1976, that is, 1949(communist took over) 1976(end of cultural revolution), every Chinese were living under ultra-leftist Maoist thought control, that means there was hardly any universally known songs that everybody can sing in unision, apart from Le Internationale, and of course, March of the Volunteers, the national anthem.
 * 2) Le Internationale was more of a rallying song in this occasion, calling for the solidarity of the students.
 * 3) Of course, the most important factor is, by singing this song, the students were trying to tell the government, like don't harm us, we are on your side, we are not really wanting to overthrow the communist regime, afterall, we are communist ourselves. We just unhappy about what you have done, that is all.

I hope my explanation can clearify some of you question. Arilang   talk  08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So the students/ demonstrators wanted communism. Thus the West's reports that these were demands for democracy are nothing but western propaganda. 86.142.163.219 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

My mother was at Tienanmen Square. she sang it in the spirit of socialism which was being maligned by the authoritarianism of the state and the free-market reforms which were causing corruption and social chaos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.173.189 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that. So she didn't want a free market and Western democracy, but a socialist/ communist iron rice-bowl from the authoritarianism of the earlier state? Don't forget with a free market, the Enrons and Madoffs of this world will always create themselves. 217.42.59.21 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

TV employees suspended?
A human rights group in Hong Kong reported that five staff at a Guangzhou TV station were "suspended" for letting a few seconds of footage of the protest slip past censors and on to TV. But a spokesperson for Guangdong's Radio, Film & TV Administration claims to be unaware of incident. I'm reporting this here instead of in the main article. Shawnc (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Title not NPV - Why bow to Chinese censorship?
I have been directed to this site from one entitled 'Peterloo Massacre' (c 1820). That, as students of British History will know, was a massacre in which under 30 people were killed.

In addition, the "Boston Massacre" (c 1770) is referred to in that way on wikipedia.

It is completely non-NPV to refuse to rename this site 'The Tianaman Square Massacre'. That is how it is known around the world. That is what it was. I note that mention is made below of the fact that conservative estimates put the number killed at between 200 and 300. That is 10 times the number killed at Peterloo.

This seems to me an obvious example of kowtowing to the Chinese Government - perhaps because of a fear that they will bar wikipedia from Chinese sites unless the site is called by this ludicrous, non-NPV title. I long to be proved wrong and for the title to be changed.

Francis Hoar 212.183.134.209 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * First para equally non-NPV and now edited. Totally untrue according to any sources about the incident to call it a 'violent conflict'.  There is no doubt that the deaths were of unarmed protestors by the PLA.

Tank Man
It says in the article that he was taken away by secret police, but no one knows for sure. Even if they may have been plain clothes secret police, I think it would be more accurate to say that he was ushered away into the crowd by a few unknown onlookers. What do you think? I did not want to go in and change it without hearing out a possible reason for the current wording.

Also, the separate article on Tank Man phrases it as onlookers, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.95.69 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A real problem with Tianamen Sq is the lack of any proof that one single person was killed there, let alone '100's. There were dozens of international Press in the Square that day, the photograph in Wiki depicts 'Tankman', why is there not one single photograph of a dead student? An accusation made that 'many protesters did die later in Prison' or that 'Protesters were killed outside the Square' is an 'Accusation' nothing more.Johnwrd (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you joking me. Have you seem some of those photos? There are dead bodies mingled on bicycles etc. There's actually a picture slideshow on news.com.au this morning, although the headlines have been replaced and I can't seem to find it. But That photo was what inspired the monument in Poland with the bicycle and tank. Dengero (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The proof you wanted: . I am not familiar with Wikipedia's policies dealing with fair use of non-free images. Is it possible to get at least one or two photos into the article?Kxx (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bit here if you want as well...http://media.news.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/skins/v2/index.html?id=1240 Dengero (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only again ask you for reasonable proof that even one person was shot that day in Tienanmen Sq. You give readers of Wiki an obscure Web Address purporting to have photographs of dead Chinese students? are you joking? How did CNN and Fox News somehow overlook these photographs?. Perhaps they have them filed with the latest snapshots of Elvis sunbathing on Dana City Beach.Johnwrd (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Time magazine is hardly "obscure" 82.69.90.226 (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow! You are ignorant!. In 1989 CNN was still tiny compared to the broadcast networks and Fox News would not be founded for another 7 years.  Time magazine was the major news magazine of the era. 208.90.183.32 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Chill back on the WP:CIVIL violations a bit ok? Now... are the photographs in question a) from Time magazine and b) showing multiple people getting shot in the square.  Because my understanding, from BBC, the main news agency to report this event was that the vast majority of the 800 deaths (if not all) actually happened on the streets near the square and not in it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please let us know why you are editing!
Ok in the last two days one editor added a reference. The reference was to a book. There was no addition to the text. No reason given for addition. Then another editor deleted the reference. No reason given for the deletion. Perhaps you could both use the edit summary function in order to tell us why little changes are being made so that we know how best to preserve the neutrality of this potentially contentious issue.Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Unblock
This edit, made from the IP address 58.248.25.240 (which WHOIS confirms to be a Guangzhou address), says the following:


 * However, as of the 4th of August 2009 all internet information on the topic seems to be viewable from Mainland China. Curiously, I'm editing this Wikipedia page from Guangzhou...

Reverted the edit from the article, however, as it doesn't belong there. — Jeremy  06:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Honestly, the Chinese censorship system is full of holes, and is subject to constant ridicule by Chinese internet users - to the point where they are mocking Hu Jintao's "Harmonious Society". But I think the government's been more relaxed lately about Wikipedia anyhow, which we can all agree is a good thing. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

ALERT something is missing
This section of an otherwise very helpful article suggests a paragraph is missing between these two as below is no previous mention of APCs.

At about 1:00 a.m., the army finally reached Tiananmen Square and waited for orders from the government. The soldiers had been told not to open fire, but they had also been told that they must clear the square by 6:00 a.m. - with no exceptions or delays. They made a final offer of amnesty if the few thousand remaining students would leave. About 4:00 a.m., student leaders put the matter to a vote: Leave the square, or stay and face the consequences.[21]

These APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers) rolled on up the roads, firing ahead and off to the sides, perhaps killing or wounding their own soldiers in the process. BBC reporter Kate Adie spoke of "indiscriminate fire" within the square. Eyewitness reporter Charlie Cole also saw Chinese soldiers firing Type 56 assault rifles into.... Anthony Barnett Anthony Barnett (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Source? Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor edit
Changed subheading "Arrests and purge" with "Arrests and persecution". Reason-Purge means "to make (something) clean by clearing it of everything that is bad, not wanted etc." which is certainly improper to be used for students who were unarmed and holding a peaceful protest. Persecution means "the act of subjugating by cruelty; "the tyrant's oppression of the people"" which I think is more accurate.

Cheers, Swift&amp;silent (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

International reaction
North Korea, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Pakistan, among others, supported the Chinese government and denounced the protests.[41]

In [41] there is no mention of Czechoslovakia and by the way that was the same year the communist regime was overthrown here. Also I would rephrase it so that it states that the governments supported it, not the states, as in the totalitarian regime state does not equal its people and the way it is phrased now is highly agitating. Or rather I'd delete the whole section preface as there is no merit in having it there. Later in the section, there is a citation ... "highly valued the understanding shown by the Czechoslovak Communist Party and people" ...[49]. In [49] again there is no mention of Czechoslovakia! 86.49.78.125 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the correct reference is now there. Midway (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone has sabotaged this page with profanity
152.13.95.76 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Recent Wave of Vandalism
Well this page seems to have experienced a wave of vandal-style entries. I am uncertain whether to count all the CN tags in the lede, some of which appeared to be valid and others invalid as part of that. If the CN tags were good-faith edits I'd suggest the editor who put them in consult WP:LEDE before editing further. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wang Yam
http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=fsheathhampstead&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=fsheathhampstead&itemid=WeED22%20Jan%202009%2014%3A32%3A17%3A457

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7837059.stm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/16/comment.humanrights

Does anyone know what role this Wang Yam played in the Tiananmen 1989 Protest, and does anyone know his real name? Given he apparently worked for British Intelligence, was a fraudster, conman, and now murderer in the UK, was he instrumental into fooling his fellow students in 1989? Was he already a British agent in 1989, and did he act as an agent provocateur in the protest? From the news reports, he is certainly a pretty nasty and evil person who is trained to kill and who'd do anything for money. 86.181.65.207 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is the place to discuss about how to improve the article. If you have new information about Wang Yam that is sourced and significant, you can write it yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-neutral lead paragraph
Facts are facts. You can't include an exaggerated death estimate in the lead when consensus indicates between 200-250 and 'several hundred' is now the consensus estimate, but you don't include that fact. Also, the number of Chinese police and military killed should be included as well. Was the leader who died 'pro-democracy'? The protestors appeared to agree on little except that they were protesting deep corruption. The inclusion of 'in the year when many Communist government fell' in the lead is also off-topic (in a lead paragraph) and biased, it seems to me.Haberstr (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to above: "Hundreds, and possibly thousands, of people were killed in the massacre, although it is unlikely a precise number will ever be known." This is from a reasonably reputable source: BBC news online. URL below. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_2496000/2496277.stm I think it's true that the article lacks neutrality, not to mention citations, particularly with respect to its discussion of the role of economics (and the characterization of the protesters as not organized/unified). For an alternate reading (or bias, perhaps) I recommend The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

Take a look at the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8219452.stm

It seems the British had done even worse things than the Chinese years before them. Did the Chinese learn their trade from the British? A neutral lead should state that any government (including the British government) would have reacted in the same way. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The BBC currently reports "likely 800" and generalizes to "hundreds, and possibly thousands" more frequently than not.
 * This article is about a specific incident that happened at a specific time. Within the context of this incident the BBC is one of the most reliable sources available.  Although they do undoubtedly have a bias (as all news media does) it tends to be considerably less than that of other news outlets; the BBC can be faulted for some Chinese coverage however they tend to be among the best for reporting reliable figures.
 * The history of British colonialism does not abrogate the reliability of the BBC as a source. Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, this article is about a specific incident that happened at a specific time.  As such mentioning a completely unrelated country and speculating on how they might have behaved if placed in the same situation in the lede would be entirely inappropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you saying that CCTV is any less accurate than BBC in this day and age? 86.137.251.212 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Marginally.Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In any case there is no such lead to articles like Kent_State_Shootings Gmatht (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC).

I'm just wondering- I read a book about someone who witnessed the massacre and they said that the chinese red cross made an estimate of 2600 shortly after the massacre. This is written in the article too but at the beginning of the article there is some other estimate given. I would assume that any figure given by the red cross who were there would be a minimum, particularly as the chinese government forced them to retract it. Basically if they admitted there were that many there were at least that many- since when have chinese authorities been open or willing to admit mistakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.211.251 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The opening section contains an estimate of the death toll by Nicholas D. Kristof and is the only estimate listed. There is an entire section in the article later on that gives a list of estimated death toll. Of that list, Nicholas D. Kristof and his assessment is listed. It is unnecessary and unjustified to distinguish only his estimate in the opening section when no other estimate is listed. I have removed it. Dragoneye776 (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first comment, stick to the facts. Estimates are just fantasy. I'd actually go along with the Tainanmen mothers' figures. If there are more then I want to see names and evidence. The BBC isn't a good source as they are a government mouthpiece with a long well documented history of propaganda.

Also there were no deaths whatsoever in the square. A spanish filmcrew even filmed the last students leaving the square under an agreement. If anyone disagrees please show me one bit of film footage that shows any violence in the square itself. The violence took place in the streets around the square afterwards as can clearly be seen in all of the video footage. Also as can clearly be seen in the video evidence the crowds attacked the police and army setting fire to their vehicles and according to reports beating some to death and even burning them alive. The low civilian casualty figures and extreme mob violence point to a riot and not a massacre. Does anyone dispute the crowd violence and burning vehicles in the footage. If thousands of soldiers had been ordered to open fire there would have been 10s of thousands of deaths as was the case in the 2-28 massacre in Taiwan that hardly anyone has heard of or even cares about because Taiwan is a Western European and American ally. It's really time to end all this nonsense about Tiananmen. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 15:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

John is a censor after all
John removed my addition to the main page that included an eyewitness statement (a direct quote) from a CBS journalist that stated that there was no massacre in Tiananmen square. Here's the link to the statement that I included. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-5061672-503543.html

John please explain your biased non-neutral decision to undo my contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldsgeordie (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

If I don't include sources anyone can feel free to edit or delete and I won't mind a bit. If I point out there is no evidence of something when there actually is no evidence then that isn't biased its just a fact that can't be sourced or referenced. You cannot prove a negative. Deleting that isn't reasonable. But I don't mind it being reworded and toned down. If I include sources then its only fair that sources are provided discrediting my sources before deleting them. I don't mind being proved wrong. But please be reasonable and fair. To just click on undo and delete the lot is very lazy and unreasonable unless you are dealing with vandalism of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldsgeordie (talk • contribs) 17:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection to including sourced information here. We cannot use wording like "no shred of evidence" though as it would breach WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why undo everything John. Why not just edit or delete what you don't approve of and leave a polite comment instead of deleting the lot. You can see how that is a bit full on confrontational surely especially as people spend time on their contributions. Its a good way to get off on the wrong foot with people. Especially relative newcomers like myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldsgeordie (talk • contribs) 17:20, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok John I've removed the analysis parts and reinstated the rest. Its no good getting off on the wrong foot though so I apologise for accusing you of bias. Maybe you don't have time to edit everything. I was being unreasonable and jumping to conclusions. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to be nice and reasonable and addressed John's pedantic issues and even appologised to him in case he had no time to make edits but John did have time to make edits and went on and removed the whole quote that Tiananmen eyewitness Roth made that there was no evidence of a massacre in Tiananmen Square. He replaced it with a watered down one line comment from himself because according to him the quote was too long. He also removed my example of one Chinese media outlet stating that a Spanish film crew were present when the last students left the square. It's not as if the article isn't full of entries marked 'citation needed' or without any source at all. John is most definately biased and is a censor.

Here's John's message from my talk page. He sure likes to abuse his power. Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --John (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

John be specific where have I added commentary and added my personal analysis. Do you mean stating that Kate Adie wasn't in Tiananmen square itself. She said it in her news report on the day. You are on shakey ground here. Anything could be defined as commentary. Stop abusing your power and deleting my entire sourced posts. Ban me and I'll take it up with those above you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldsgeordie (talk • contribs) 21:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will be specific. You added "Kate Adie who allegedly spoke of indescriminate fire within the square wasn't in the square." That is badly written, which we could fix. But it is also not supported by a reference, and it relates to a living person. Finally, it sounds like something you came up with yourself. We don't normally report on someone not being there; how is that news, unless it has been reported as such in reliable sources? A censor is a rather rude name to call someone, but I will wear it with pride if it helps keep poor and biased material off our articles. I hope that makes it clear what you are doing wrong. --John (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok John. I should have included a reference for Kate Adie not being in the square. Maybe a google video of her report on 4th June 1989. When someone allegedly makes a claim that there was shooting in the square then its only reasonable to point out that that person wasn't actually in the square. How did that justify you removing a sourced quote from a CBS reporter who was actually in the square and then replacing it with a comment. I didn't want to get into a dispute with you but it came to that as a result of your ruthless deleting of everything without explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldsgeordie (talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Click the links in my post above and it might help you to see where you went wrong. --John (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Forbidden topic in mainland China
This section isn't backed by citations or evidence and a simple search carried out by a Chinese student friend on Baidu (a Chinese search engine) has just yielded 47000 results. In addition all the Chinese students I've met know about the Tiananmen protests from their media. It doesn't appear to be a secret. The second paragraph in this section also contradicts the first by talking about China's media coverage. More than likely the Chinese government just wants to block the Western mainstream media propaganda on the issue not their own coverage. The Chinese government and media's version of events likewise receives little attention in Western countries. I would suggest that the inaccurate heading be changed and most of this section rewritten including citations and omiting speculation and baseless mainstream media propaganda. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the whole significance of the censorship issue. Yes, in Western media the Chinese version does receive little coverage.  However, both sides are viewable and able to be researched into by anyone who cares to do so, without limitation.  Also, having just come from Baidu myself, you are correct in that many results are listed for Tienanmen square massacre.  However, every hit is a simple list of talking points given by the Chinese government.  From within the great firewall of china, which limits access to the internet by all Chinese citizens, it is impossible to locate a single discussion from the Western viewpoint.  This difference is very significant.  Outside of China, any occurrence, current event, or political ideology can be investigated or even acted upon without any fear of government limitation or crackdown, so long as you do not break any fundamental laws along the way.  For example, I can research Nazis and even join a neo-nazi party, so long as I do not join in robberies or hate crimes along the way.  In China, simply researching the Western view of the Tienanmen square massacre is a crime punishable by prison terms.  People are in prison right now, as verified by Amnesty International and the Red Cross, for having been caught researching such things and/or attempting to spread the information about them.  Proof the West doesnt do this is seen in the 9/11 truthers.  A simple search for 9/11 conspiracies blaming the government for 9/11 returns a number of hits.  If the US were to follow China's example, this information would be unable to be discussed on the internet in the US.  Ultimately, this allows the information to be discussed and compared, and hopefully bring about a more educated population and progress in the search of the truth, whether the government likes it or not.  China does not allow this to happen on most controversial issues involving the government of China, including the Dalai lama.  Thus while the topic of the massacre itself may not be "forbidden" per say, discussion of it outside of the government talking points is a criminal offense punishable by economic and legal repercussions and is most definitely appropriate on the site.173.72.44.60 (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't missed the point at all. The Western media ignores the truth and pushes propaganda making it very difficult for people to find alternative points of view. They are just better at censorship and propaganda than China. It isn't a crimnal offence in China to circumnavigate the great firewall and tens of thousands of Chinese do this without consequence. In addition there are websites in China with the Western media's version of events displayed but they are few just like there are few websites in the Western world with the Chinese version of events on them. The point is the paragraph in question states that the topic of Tiananmen is forbidden and that there are no websites about it. This just isn't true.

Amnesty international work for whoever pays and the red cross has a history of controversy and scandal. As for Chinese people serving prison sentences for whatever, these need to be looked at on a case by case basis because who knows what their real crimes were. The Chinese government generally tends not to openly accuse Western governments of interference in its affairs but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Thus sometimes the real reason for some people's convictions may be that they worked for foreign governments and were trying to destabilise the country.

To begin with I took everything at face value but I've learned from experience that everything is more complicated than it first appears. Google the following one at a time with 'Tiananmen square': 'George Lakey', 'Col. Robert Helvey', 'Gene Sharp' 'the National Endowment for Democracy' NED, CIA and maybe 'International Campaign for Democracy'. What you'll find are articles stating that the US government's National Endowment for Democracy was operating in China and training some of the Tiananmen student leaders in mass demonstration techniques in Hong Kong. Over the years with the declassification of US government documents and with more investigations by sceptical independent journalists a lot of new information will come to light.Shieldsgeordie (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Rioters confront military and deaths
This section was previously called 'government crackdown on protestors'. In any Western country in which people attacked the police with molotov cocktails and bricks, burned soldiers alive and beat soldiers to death whilst constantly advancing on the soldiers it would be called a riot not a protest and those responsible would be called thugs not democracy campaigners. Just google 'Tiananmen burning vehicles to see examples of the scale and ferocity of the rioters' attacks. Imagine what kind of ruthless leaders such people would make if they'd seized power. I can only guess at how many people the police would have killed if this had happened in the USA or a European country. Of course the authorities had to restore order and of course the soldiers had to open fire at times. They were under attack after all. So I dispute the use of the words 'crackdown' and 'protestors'. In another country it would be 'rioters' and 'restoring order'. I removed the sentences refering to violence within the square itself as there is literally zero evidence of any violence within the square.

I took the liberty of making the changes without discussing them first for two reasons. One there seems to be very little activity on this page and two all I removed was heresay which wasn't backed by any evidence and all I added was more realistic balanced terminology and a few comments about evidence Shieldsgeordie (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree to a very limited extent: "government crackdown" has a negative connotation that should be avoided per Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), so the crackdown section needed to be renamed.  However, calling the protestors "rioters" is also non-neutral, so I will be renaming the section again.  As far as your personal analysis, such as using a Google search of "Tiananmen burning vehicles", this seems to quality as original research, which goes against Wikipedia policy.  If you would like to add negative characterizations about the protestors, please provide reliable sources to verify the characterizations, and be sure to balance them with positive characterizations.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

You make some fair points. I'm not calling the protestors rioters generally. I should have made that clearer. I'm just calling the violent protestors who were in fact rioting rioters. That isn't non-neutral for this group as it is based on their actions. But I agree there should be a paragraph in there about the protestors who tried to stop the violence and about those who left peacefuly. There were peaceful protests in many other cities too. Care is needed not to give the impression that all protestors were rioters and it needs to be pointed out that many opposed and condemned the rioting.

As for the new heading it doesn't reflect that there were two sides involved in a confrontation but it's way better than the original heading and it is still relevent to the content so its fine. Regarding the photos it was a quick intervention and I didn't want to link to numerous photos and videos of violence and buring military vehicles as it would have been a mess. But you make a fair point that there should be some links. Everything on that page is someone's personal analysis but it does need to be backed up by evidence. I don't think I really needed to balance the negative characterisations of rioters with positive ones though as they were being violent. I don't think you are asking me to do that though. I think you just meant that there were many good protestors too. Here is one photo of protestors rescuing a wounded soldier http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/sb10069437l-001/Reportage Shieldsgeordie (talk) 11:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I'm saying that using the term "rioters" to refer to the violent protestors is also non-neutral. I will be taking that wording out.  (I'd take it out now, but I've used up my available time for Wikipedia work for the moment.)  You should also be aware that using Getty Images as a source is generally not allowed, as Getty's site exists mainly to sell photos.  Using many other sites, such as Amazon.com, as sources is generally not allowed for the same reason.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok I fully get your meaning now. Interpretation of non-neutral is subjective but I don't mind you taking out 'rioters' because it would be difficult to know where to use it without tarring innocent protestors with the same brush. So I concede that in this case protestors is the safer option. As for the photos thanks for explaining the rules on those. I suppose it would be free advertising for getty images, amazon etc. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Books
Someone who knows how to do it; "Beijing Coma" by chinese writer Ma Jian should be added to the list of books dealing with the protests. It has been released in 2008, and focuses on the student movement Beijing. The book has been reviewed by various newspapers and magazines, check the Ma Jian Article for three references. Thanks! (85.5.88.208 (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC))

Sport?
First line of current Sport-section text includes "...the Tiananmen Square protest massacre...". Is that consistent with the careful distinctions made in the rest of the text? 86.146.160.60 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

"citation needed" in background section
Dear all, I noticed that in the section "background" some statements regarding the reasons and motives of the protests are lacking appropriate references. I think this should be corrected, since the issue surely constitute one of the parts of strongest interest to nearly anyone wishing to learn more about the topic. I'd point out also that some sources judge these statement incorrect. How can we deal with this?

The source I'm citing is "Maonomics" by Loretta Napoleoni, edited by Rizzoli some days ago. pp.14-15

It reads: "Nel libro Out of Mao's Shadow, che rivisita i fatti di Tiananmen nel 1989, uno dei partecipanti alle proteste, l'avvocato Pu Ziquiang, così descrive le motivazioni degli studenti: «Volevamo aiutare il governo e il Partito a correggere gli errori commessi». Non rovesciarlo o sostituirlo con un altro sistema politico."

Which can be translated in English: "In the book Out of Mao's Shadow, which revisits the facts of Tiananmen in 1989, one of the participants to the protests, lawyer Pu Ziquiang, describes in such way students'motivations: « We wanted to help the government and the Party to correct the mistakes that were made ». Not to overthrow it nor to substitute it with another political system."

Napoleoni here cites Out of Mao's Shadow by Philip Pan, edited by Picador in 2008. p.275

The whole thing is tantamount to saying that the true reasons and aims had nothing to do with political reforms, but was a form of complaint for actual Party's policies, which were to be corrected (by the Party itself).

Lucaccino (talk) 17:44, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia! While the Background section does say some thought that "China needed to reform its political system," that does not imply that they wanted to overthrow the Communist Party.  "Reform" is a much broader term than that, so I don't that your source contradicts the Background section.  As far as using Maonomics as a source, I'm not prepared to do that at this time.  English language sources are strongly preferred for the English language version of Wikipedia.  If Maonomics contained some very important information not found in any reliable English language source, I might change my mind.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:15, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Out of Mao's Shadow by Philip Pan, edited by Picador in 2008. p.275 is the source cited, as said before; that could be more friendly for you to check I think. --Lucaccino (talk) 13:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I missed the sentence about Philip Pan's book in your original posting. I will take a look at that book.  However, I currently do not see a contradiction between what the protest participant said and what the Wikipedia article says in the Background section. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 03:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm looking at Philip Pan's book now. Pu's quote about correcting mistakes is there, but I see nothing like this sentence:  "Not to overthrow it nor to substitute it with another political system."  Pan follows Pu's quote with a description of how Pu, after the end of the protests, was asked to officially endorse Deng Xiaoping's "Four Cardinal Principals".  Pu refused to do so, and Pan implies that this means that Pu opposed one-party rule.  As in earlier posting, I do not see anything here that contradicts the current Wikipedia article wording about reforms.


 * Pan's book does make a good references for at least one place in the article, and so I will use the book for that. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

"Military Action" section bias towards the Chinese Military?
Reading over the events from "1-5 June," I almost get the impression that the PLA members were simply defending themselves from attacks by protesters.

The paragraph that cites the interview with John Pomfret (Note #21) seems to indicate that the protesters caused the first casualties. However, Mr. Pomfret doesn't mention this, in his interview. He mentions the barricade, and unruly protesters, which the PLA then fires upon.

On a personal level, if I were a person who is just reading about these events, I would immediately sympathize with the PLA, and consider their actions as an act of self defense. Mr. Pomfret does mention an instance of the protesters killing a tank driver, but this is mentioned later in the interview. Also, the murder of the tank driver seems to have happened when the riots were in full swing -- after the PLA has opened fire, and after the protesters have began to retaliate.

The way it is presented in the article, however, I am to imply that unruly protesters charged a tank with no provocation. I was not there, but I can't imagine this being the case.

It's important to truthfully, and unbiasedly state these events, and I imagine that some protesters might have been guilty of crimes. However, reading the article now, I almost get the impression that it seeks to justify what is generally viewed as an over-reaction from the PLA, during the 1989 protests.

kenohki (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Time to semi-protect?
Nine required reverts in the last 14 days due to vandalism from anon IPs...time for WP:SILVERLOCK? --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Just double checked the edit count and not counting edits for reversion, it actually looks to be almost half of edits to the page have been vandalism; my count is 11 edits out of 26 in the last 14 days (30 april to 13 May) have been vandalism. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

yes yes yes, whatever, it was FATAL and it is SAD and CRUEL - DON'T MOCK IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.11.86 (talk) 09:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Uhh....
I think the coding is messed up...Here I am reading the article, and I keep seeing something like "{{Cat handler ".....? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.219.104 (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

no official name
For this saying: in the People's Republic of China (PRC) as the June Fourth Incident (officially to avoid... In P.R.China, there's no official name for the protests.All the people, media, website, etc., are almost entirely forbidden to mention it, how can there be an "official" name? What exist is just a most common Chinese name for all the Chinese speakers, in China, in HongKong, in Taiwan, and other places. So I edited it to: in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident (to avoid... --Joseblanc (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Chinese names etc
"六" means "6", "四" means "4", "事件" means "incident". In Chinese, the words for the 12 months (January to December) are formed by a number with a "月" (month). The date "June 4th" in Chinese is "六月四日" or "6月4日", literally "6 month 4 day". So "六四事件" is literally (one word by one word) "Six Four Incident / 6 4 Incident", and generally it is translated to "June Fourth Incident".

Chinese is my native language, these basic Chinese lauguage grammatical things about the number and the month words above mentioned are very real. Also, these things can be confirmed by looking up at most of Chinese-English dictionarys and wiktionary or asking any Chinese teachers or Chinese native speakers. This sentence is added as a note in "notes" section. I think further reference is no need.--Joseblanc (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Number of death and Causalties
Are you sure that 3,000 people were killed during the protest, some articles state that <1000 people were killed, or around 1000 killed. WCLL HK (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

the "soviet archives" link is to an unreliable and politically charged article about someones' words about what they claim to have seen in undisclosed "soviet archives" with some political speech (not even an intelligence document) in there. the 3000 citation credibility is way below wikipedia standards. there are multiple conflicting sources out there and the 3000 number lies way outside the mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.87.76 (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as it was an anti-communism protest in a firsely communist nation its shocking we could even get a count at all. its probally well above any and all esitimates(especially official ones) and a truley accurate number wont be know until communism in china collapses, and that wont be for a while at this rate. 24.228.24.97 (talk) 22:21, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Didn't know how to code a citation
I'm sorry -- this is my very first Wikipedia post and I don't know how to add a citation properly. I thought the opening paragraph didn't give a fair sense of the fact that protests did in fact turn violent in Beijing, Xi'an, and Hunan, so I made a small change to reflect that and found a contemporaneous article to back it up. So far so good, I think, but while I tried to copy the format of the citations I saw in the editing text box (surrounded by braces), it still showed up in the text of the article. I'll figure out how to do it right from now on, but if for now someone could fix it, I'd be grateful. Damoiseau (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)Adam


 * Hi! Citing is very easy, by using ref tag, as follows: .  Andyso  ( talk page ) 16:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Intro misleading
I don't think the two months of pro-democracy demonstrations leading up to the June 4th Tiananmen Square massacre are commonly referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre. That just doesn't make any sense. The two months of nonviolent demonstrations in 1989 are not the same as the 1-2 day massacre that ended them. The massacre is commonly referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre, not the whole two months, right?71.35.163.148 (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Tank Man photo
The caption incorrectly describes this as a photo of the protest. This famous photo was taken the morning after the protests had been crushed by the massacre.71.35.163.148 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Headline of the article should be changed to Tiananmen Square massacre
The headline is inadequate and should be changed to Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. It is part of history because it was a bloody massacre and not just a protest. Now the headline is a euphemism. 95.223.116.99 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Background Section still NOT As Good As the Earlier Versions
Although it is lengthy and seems to contain a lot of details, it is too meticulously and superficially focused on (one person's view of) economy, leaving out a lot of deeper observations. For example, one important issue the earlier version mentioned was the divergent effects of the reform on rural / urban Chinese society in 1980s: while in cities the reform of State-owned Enterprise, the price reform, and the rampant corruption have resulted in a great number of urban dissents, in country side the reform, as well as Deng Xiaoping himself, remained hugely popular. That's why the protests, as noted by many observers, were mostly a urban revolts with most of China's rural population standing indifferent. That's why when CCP ordered a crack down, the PLA soldiers, many of who were from the country side and therefore shared little sentiment with the urban protesters, executed with little hesitation. I found those contents really insightful and well backed by reliable sources, and I was extremely disappointed that they had been replaced by the narrowly-focused discussion of Friedman in the current version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.10.127.153 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. I could look into this if you could supply the date and time of the earlier version which you think is better.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I concur. The new "background section" is very lengthy and too focused on economics. There are some social issues that deserve mention as well. Colipon+ (Talk) 20:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Cold blooded murder.
Why doesn't the fact that what happened in Tiananmen Square was cold blooded murder mentioned in the article?Beancrisp (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * While you may consider this a fact, Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which is non-negotiable, considers that to be an opinion, not a fact. There are a lot of opinions in the related article Reactions to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.  There is too much of this content to put into the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 article, so the reactions have their own article instead.  -- JTSchreiber (talk)


 * Because it wasn't cold blooded murder. The people there were given plenty of warning. We have seen government crowd control in the recent London protests, Athens protests and so on, and they led to loss of lives. It was very unfortunate that young students with no real life experiences were manipulated and used by forces of foreign agent provocateurs. 86.182.38.117 (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that, per WP:TALK, this talk page is for discussing how to improve the article, not for discussing your personal opinions about the protests. -- JTSchreiber (talk)

Reworking the Background Section
After reading the entire background section of this article, I concur with an opinion raised above that it is much too focused on economics. There are three main causes for the events that unfolded, in no particular order they were:
 * Economic liberalization under Deng produced a system that favoured officials and their families and cronies, induced widespread inflation, and stirred discontent by breaking the iron rice bowl. Camps emerged within the party as well as general public as to whether the reform had gone too far or not far enough.
 * China was in a stage of 'experimentation'. News and intellectual discussions were quite open and not entirely state-controlled in China during this time; this provided impetus for the flow of new intellectual ideas.
 * Communist governments around the world were struggling for legitimacy and the Soviet Union's political liberalization put pressure on other socialist systems in the world.

I feel that the best articles explain the subject well while using layman's terms. The background section should be reworked to reflect a more wholesome picture of China's political and economic climate. Colipon+ (Talk) 21:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Number of civilian casualties
I find the statement "The exact number of civilian deaths is 1" in third paragraph very much clashing with the numbers given under the subsection "number of deaths" - if the reason is that the quote is regarding the number of persons who died on the Square itself, geographically, this needs clarification (and furthermore seems much less interesting than the subsequent numbers). --Osquar F (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Osquar, you might want to read the wikileaks referenced below, as well as the Jay Mathews article from CJR: http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php

Also, Hou Dejian, the Taiwanese folk singer who was one of the protest leader, also recanted claims he made decades ago. You can find his interview on Youtube, but unfortunately since no Western media is interested in covering this, there's not cites to make (unless someone is willing to translate Chinese media and risk getting blanked here.) Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup?
With very long sections and a giant picture across the introduction this looks very messy. Could we clean it up and include a better summary? Quark1005 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Leaked US embassy emails
According to the article found here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html US embassy staff noted at the time that there was little evidence of a massacre in the square itself and that the deaths which occurred in the surrounding streets resulted mostly from the attempts by soldiers to fight their way towards the square against resistance.

I also wonder if it is appropriate to list the estimates of the number of deaths in descending order without comment. That listing places the highest - and least plausible - estimate in the most prominent position in the list. The casual reader, confronted with a high (not to say absurd) estimate of 10,000 and a low estimate of 186 might be lazily inclined to split the difference and take away from the article the notion that many hundreds and possibly thousands of people died in the square that day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not commenting on your proposal here, but just wanted to ask: in your opinion, why is it inappropriate to conclude that "many hundreds and possibly thousands of people died"? I think that is the consensus, in fact.  Or is it the "in the square" bit that you're taking issue with? Homunculus (duihua) 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the claim that Wikileaks revealed something substantially new because, in fact, this is old news. Malcolm Moore, who wrote that Telegraph story, may suggest there is something new of note but that is a rebuttable presumption.  See this document?  It is the embassy's summary cable and it was declassified in the 90s.  That summary says that several "western press accounts" were in error in the embassy's view and, in fact, "the PLA did not fire directly on students ... on Tiananmen Square."  Also, "civilian deaths probably did not reach the figure of 3000 used in some press accounts..."  That said, some Beijing apologists have been using that Telegraph story to, in effect, misrepresent the the views of the US embassy by implying that the US embassy cables support the official version.    In fact, the summary cable explicitly rejects the official version, while also rejecting much of the western press coverage as exaggerating the atrocity.  But it is still an atrocity in the view of the embassy: "it should be kept in mind that whatever the casualty figures, whatever the occupation of the civilians who were killed, and however violent some members of the crowd may have become, the order to move heavily armed troops on Tiananmen was cynical and inhumane."--Brian Dell (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

'
 * Agree with your last statement. The problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because this is old news does not suggest that the cable does not belong here. One can argue almost all of the information on Wikipedia is "old news". If your intention of removing the cable part is purely to promote a certain POV, then I have the same right to place the information back in as it is my judgment to ensure fairness of all views, which, you can argue, is also a POV. As such, due to neutrality, I suggest putting in all facts. You can also input your verified facts if you can find any. To remove facts, unless out of concerns of notability or brevity, is against the principles of this encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btmachine333667 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 → Tiananmen Square massacre – I was a bit shocked that this wasn't discussed previously. Google Books search indicates that "Tiananmen Square massacre" is five times as popular as "Tiananmen Square protests". Also, there is no need for the "of 1989" disambig in title (the present link to the Tiananmen Square protests disambig is enough). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk 03:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose the massacre is only a part of the article, the protests preceded the massacre. Your search results seems biased towards the event that ended the protests. Though, there should be two articles, one on the protests, and one on the massacre, since the massacre itself is a notable event and has analysis and further commentary on its impact from reliable sources, as the protests do as well. These are two separate but linked events. 184.144.168.112 (talk) 04:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: This has in fact been discussed extensively in the past. The last major debate appears to have occurred three years ago (see Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989/Archive 3) and resulted in no consensus. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose There are obvious bias and POV issues in employing massacre in this case. This is made clear by the fact that an entire section is dedicated to the naming issue for this event. Tiananmen Square protests, or some derivative thereof, appears the most neutral. Secondly, as already mentioned, the article is not simply the June 4 crackdown but includes everything before that point.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The evidence has clearly shown there was no massacre and probably no deaths within the square. The protesters left the square peacefully after negotiations, this is proven. The use of the word massacre is obvious bias and has extensive POV issues.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.213.163 (talk) 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Article to todays British Press shows Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing have shown there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square....http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.213.163 (talk) 04:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.