Talk:Tlatelolco massacre

The photo of the Mexican Foreign Ministry is wrong
The photo of the Mexican Foreign Ministry is wrong: it shows the new site of the Foreign Ministry in Avenida Juarez, opposite Parque Alameda, a good two kilometres distant from the old site overlooking the Plaza de las Tres Culturas. I have been a resident of Mexico City for over 6 years.Ocoineagain (talk) 08:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Terribly Biased.
My problem with the article is that it is completely one-sided. All references to the government or the military depict said officials as demons, while references to students depict the protesters as angels. Some Examples:


 * "The government-controlled media dutifully reported the Mexican government’s side of the events that night, but the truth eventually emerged." Oh how the tides have turned now, no?


 * "The students had congregated outside an apartment complex in the Plaza de las Tres Culturas in Tlatelolco for what was supposed to be a peaceful rally. Among their chants were ¡No queremos olimpiadas, queremos revolución! ("We don't want Olympic games, we want revolution!")." Contradictory? Given the protestors' affinity for Zapata and Guevara, I'd say that their proposed revolution wouldn't be peaceful.


 * "The massacre began at sunset when police and military forces, who were equipped with armored cars and tanks, surrounded the plaza." Of all the footage and photos I've seen, I've yet to see a tank.


 * "Demonstrators and passersby alike, including youngsters, journalists (one of which was Italian Oriana Fallaci), and children, were hit by bullets and mounds of bodies soon lay on the ground." Certainly an incendiary statement...


 * "The Role of the US Government." This section...aside from the fact that half of it has nothing to do with the US Government...fails to show any role on the part of the US government. What it shows (and what the referenced source shows) is reporting and analysis from various agencies within the US government. But the weatherman isn't responsible for the rain. Additionally, the section erroneously leads readers to believe that the US suppled the Mexican Army with weapons specifically for this event. Not at all the case. In reality the US has supported the Mexican military with materiel since the end of WWII, independant of protests or massacres that have occurred. The section and the referenced document fail to link the US military supplies to the protests. What I see in the referenced document is that the US provided radios, mortar fuses and gun powder. The Mexican Army did not use mortars. The Mexican Army's use of radio communication did not contribute to the massacre (the "prearranged signal" to open fire was supposedly flares dropped from a helicopter). Above all, the materiel was provided for security during the Olympics.

I'm not trying to defend the PRI or justify the murder of unarmed civilians. We can all acknowledge that massacres are bad and unjust. That being said, this article--as it stands now--is not written in a manner that accurately reports the event without bias. It is filled with emotion and more often than not editorializes the massacre. The article completely fail to capture the influence of the communists, of Emiliano Zapata, or of Ernesto Guevara. My understanding of the event leads me to believe that the crux of the Mexican Government's (PRI's) concern over the protests (from which they based their response) was founded on their concern over this. Why doesn't the article include these concerns? Including such concerns in the article would move it towards unbiased. --Lacarids (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The basic point, that "this article--as it stands now--is not written in a manner that accurately reports the event without bias. It is filled with emotion and more often than not editorializes the massacre" seriously needs to be addressed. It was frustrating to read. 206.108.5.29 (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I would think that regardless of your opinion and apparent justification for the murder of unarmed students if they happen to not share your interests or theories on how their country should be ran, the article is sourced and follows the documentation available in Mexico of the event. It is a shame that you do not think that reality accurately matches the event, but that is what happened according to the survivors, and the government accounts have been discredited and relegated to the dustbin of history. Like the government itself which ruled with an Iron fist and uninterrupted since the mexican revolution until recent times.

Perhaps you should read a little bit of history and be open for facts that don't match your political views, or agenda. The concerns of the government about losing its single party hold over Mexico are noted, but can hardly be seen as legitimate any more than Tiannamens massacre can be.

The fact is that a well documented massacre of unarmed civilians for their political views took place just in time to remove them from existence before the Olympic games.

For your convenience, I include a link to a site by rightist newspaper "La Jornada" giving another description of the events (IT is, however in spanish, you can see a tank, nonetheless, which you mentioned you didn't see before, showing perhaps, the lack of thoroughness in your research, or the insuficiency of it: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/10/02/nota2.php http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/10/02/Images/nota2-05.jpg

As much as whitewashing the events might be desirable for your particular views, I can say that they don't match the reality of what happened, which has been thoroughly documented by survivors, as well as films.

I would love to see what your understanding of the events is based on beyond rightist propaganda. Some of your comments (specially the one about Oriana Fallaci) plain contradict the facts, re: There were mounds of bodies, and she was shot, several times. Children were shot, as well, which can be easily proven by this picture of a dead child from the aftermath: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/10/02/Images/nota4-02.jpg

Please bother to at least check the sources and facts in the future. 174.3.242.191 (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Ahm... "La Jornada" rightist? Just to clarify the anon, "La Jornada" is one of the most LEFTIST newspapers in Mexico, in fact, I think it is the only leftist newspaper in the country and it sometimes even borders in the extreme left. The newspaper is controlled by what is known in politics as the caviar left ("gauche caviar" in french), in this case the Mexican caviar left.
 * About the original comment, I can agree that some of the language used is a little inflammatory. I don't have a lot of time right now, but I will eventually check the article and make some adjustments of tone. Unfortunately, most of Lacarids arguments are a little unsourced. I don't want to get into a topic discussion but, also just to clarify, the media at the time did covered up the information, including reputed news persons like Jacobo Zabludowski, who later admitted ashamed that he had indeed distorted the facts in favor of the government. Also, the second argument about a possible armed revolution is absolutely POV. The world revolution means change, and there are no sources indicating that the catch-phrase "...queremos Revolucion!" meant an armed movement. The third disputed phrase, about the tanks, is a little misguiding. The plaza was already surrounded by military with armored cars and tanks at sunset. But it is true that light tanks where used, specially to corner fleeing protesters. I haven't checked throughly the section about the U.S. involvement, but one thing is true: The Olympia Batallion, a paramilitar squad in charge of the Olympics security, was trained in the School of Americas, a CIA operated institution specialized in counter-insurgence. That is the direct link to the massacre, because the Olympia Batallion was the responsible.
 * I repeat that I haven't checked the article completely, but yes, the military should not be presented as demons. In fact, most of the army men present at the plaza thought that they were reacting defensively to a provocation by the students. In reality, snipers of the Olympia Batallion, posted at the nearby Chihuahua building, started shooting against students and the military to provoke the latter. There is only one sourced report that a student was indeed armed, but the pistol he was carrying was not shot as he was detained by infiltrated Olympia Batallion elements even before the actual massacre started.
 * In conclusion, I will take a look at the article and try to address the biased tone where needed. --Legion fi (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * YOU ARE PUSHING AN AGENDA. That is not the purpose of Wikipedia which is to provide a summary & links to citations.   No citations?  Then your unsubstantiated claims don’t belong here. Theaveng (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2024 (UTC)


 * "You can see a tank, nonetheless, which you mentioned you didn't see before, showing perhaps, the lack of thoroughness in your research, or the insuficiency of it: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/10/02/Images/nota2-05.jpg" That's not a tank, you dolt! That's a tankette!
 * "I would love to see what your understanding of the events is based on beyond rightist propaganda. Some of your comments (specially the one about Oriana Fallaci) plain contradict the facts" How does the statement contradict the facts? It does say she was shot, and it says that mounds of bodies lay on the floor.

189.253.83.190 (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The suffix -ette means a smaller version of...its really not that biased to read if its all true...
 * And its the same tactics seen used by the US in the US...the delusuion isnt that effective when by fact its the same demographics of people that are anywhere from 3 to 5 countries away from each other all utilizing the same criminal methods and even denying it the same way... 173.80.7.142 (talk) 00:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Merging
I still stand with my position that this page should be merged with the article of Mexico 68. Hell, even this article has more data of the movement itself than the other one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.103.235.33 (talk) 02:08, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I vote against merger. The massacre was a significant event in its own right. The student movement of 68 in Mex City was context, but not the same event. Both deserve separate articles. jackbrown (talk) 20:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The movements occurred throughout most of the summer and in other months too. The massacre should have a separate article. ComputerJA ( ☎  •  ✎  ) 21:57, 14 February 2014 (UTC)


 * This article has much more information than the one on Mexico 68 (which no one calls it that, BTW). The Spanish version redirects to this article (the Massacre). I agree that the Massacre is another event, but it's extremely linked to the movement and posting it as its separate article could make it lack context. I propose that the Massacre be a subsection in an article (or merge the contents in the Mexico 68 article with this one. 187.234.173.46 (talk) 06:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I realize I come to this discussion late. I don't think that this article should be merged with the Mexico 68 article. But it is longer and clearly better on this history of the movement than the supposed main article. In my humble opinion, the Tlatelolco massacre should continue as a separate article, but that the narrative of events leading up to the massacre should be moved to the Mexico 68 article. I started to work on the Mexico 68 article, but I saw that this article covers the basic material extremely well. And I think rather than duplicating the effort, the material should here should be moved to the main article. My two cents. Amuseclio (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio
 * Yes. A short section of the movement should be in this article, preferably as a background of the massacre. But details of the movement should be in the movement article. Thanks for your work so far! MX ( ✉  •  ✎  ) 21:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Ok. I see there is not big discussion about my proposed change, so I will go ahead and do the revisions. Thanx for the encouragement! Amuseclio (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2019 (UTC)Amuseclio

Good article for expansion
El Universal just published an article claiming that the CIA hid several valuable documents regarding this event. It's very complete, and it has several videos of experts and analysts regarding this massacre. Please it out if you want, I highly recommend it. ComputerJA (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tlatelolco massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081005045741/http://www.jornada.unam.mx:80/ultimas/2008/10/02/se-preven-4-marchas-en-el-df-para-conmemorar-la-matanza-del-68 to http://www.jornada.unam.mx/ultimas/2008/10/02/se-preven-4-marchas-en-el-df-para-conmemorar-la-matanza-del-68

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 04:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Documentation of Goverment Snipers
There seems to be a lot of references to "government documents made public since 2000"

"But government documents made public since 2000 suggest that the snipers had been employed by the government. Estimates of the death toll ranged from 30 to 300, with eyewitnesses reporting hundreds dead"[2][3][4][5][6][7]

From a cusory glance, i cant find any direct refrences to these documents and researching the subject i found this article, http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB99/, from 2003 which states:

"Finally, not one document declassified by the U.S. government discusses at any length evidence that government agents operating as snipers from the windows of the Tlatelolco apartment complex may have initiated the massacre of October 2. The Defense Intelligence Agency in particular - which had defense attachés gathering intelligence on the Mexican military at the time - should have produced internal cables, memoranda and analyses discussing the presence of government snipers."

Can anyone find these documents that state the snipers were agents of the mexican govenment? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.71.15.178 (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Tlatelolco massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091004070235/http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=582 to http://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/?article=582

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tlatelolco massacre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110613113036/http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2008/10/65207.php to http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2008/10/65207.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:02, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Citation missing / wrong citation

 * The Mexican government invested a massive $150 million in preparation for the 1968 Olympics to be hosted in Mexico City. That amount was equal to roughly $1 billion by today's terms.
 * citation: Henry Giniger. "Hundreds Seized in Mexico Clashes," New York Times. September 23, 1968.

Whatever the New York Times may have written in 1968, there is no citation for the claim that $150 million is equivalent to $1 billion (whenever "today" may have been--hardly in 1968!).

Please add proper sourcing, else I will delete at least the second sentence. Please also check the 1968 NYT article, else I will mark it as a doubtful source given the context of improper sourcing--if nobody knows what was written in it, how can we assume that it covers the first sentence? ... Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 13:36, 26 September 2020 (UTC)


 * As nobody has offered a reference or other corroborating evidence, I've now deleted both sentences on the article page. Of course feel free to restore them if you have a reference and/or can add information regarding the second sentence. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 21:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Not protesting the summer Olympics, right?
I have not read anywhere else that the students were protesting the Olympics. I believe they were protesting a single party government that was targeting University students as reactionaries. Please correct me. 47.149.106.241 (talk) 03:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)