Talk:Tlatelolco massacre

Death toll

This allegation―:

“The death toll remains controversial: some estimates place the number of deaths in the thousands, but most sources report 200-300 deaths.”

might be innacurate. I’ll quote a couple of Jorge Castañeda’s sentences in Spanish of his article “Los 68 del 68”, published in the Mexican newspaper Reforma on 30 August 2006. Let me know if any of you’d like me to translate them:

"De acuerdo con el informe histórico, en la Plaza de las Tres Culturas murieron ―cabalísticamente― 68 estudiantes y un soldado […]". Y todo uso de la fuerza pública se empezó automáticamente a asimilar al 68, pero al 68 magnificado: al de los 500, no al de los 68. Todo uso de la fuerza se volvió una masacre en potencia […]".

See also this pdf document in English and the threaded discussion in another WP article. ―Cesar Tort 19:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just two things. First the death toll remains unclear. Serious investigations have concluded that at least 200 were killed. Second, Jorge Castañeda, as well as "Reforma" newspaper, is politically right-hand biases. And a third thing, now that i notice it. He is just making a comparison between an alledge death poll with the year that the massacre ocurred. Nothing else --Legion fi 07:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't perhaps important to note and cite both the original goverment death toll (noted but not cited in the discussion) and modern one (which according to the BBC article of Thursday, 12 July 2007, 21:46 GMT 22:46 UK is 25?). Whether or not it is what actually occurred, I think it important to note what the government said occurred, no? --67.168.231.124 01:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Historic references

According to documents made public by the Mexican Army and Government in 2000(?), it is absolutely inaccurate to say that the army opened fire against the students. In a video released by the army it can be seen that the firing started, if I recall, at the Monterrey building in Tlatelolco after a flair was fired to the air. It is supposed that the shooting was done by the Olympo special forces group, and that the army actually started repelling the fire protecting the students below. It is never seen that the army actually fired at the students as they were being fired from above, being the first casualty of the firing a military officer. It is my sugestion that you review the contents of this article as, to my eye, it appears completely biased and totally inaccurate.

What you have here is the description made by Elena Poniatowska and other prominent left wing politicians, that in a bid to discredit the PRI started inflating figures of casualties to obtain some kind of support from what at the time was the USSR. And if someone recalls, the incident in Mexico wasn't an isolated event, there were more confrontations like this one going on around the world, especially important is the one that ocurred in France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.180.5.142 (talk • contribs)

• Ok, first of all, they Army DID fire first. As you correctly mentioned, the first ones to shoot where snipers belonging to the Olympia Batallion, a special ARMY task force specially made for the Olympics. The flair you mentioned ( as narrated by Oriana Fallaci) was set from a militray helicopter. The thing is, that the soldiers guarding the plaza were not informed about the presence of the Olympia Batallion presence. They did return fire, thinking some students were shooting at them. But it was in fact friendly fire. Although, there has been some suggestions that the Olympia Batallion orders were to open fire against both students and soldiers, to provoke the latter into perpetrating the massacre. But there is no doubt that the army shot first. I must admit that there was an armed wing of students (about ten of them) in charge of protecting the movement leaders, that may have also fired back to the snipers, leading to further confusion.--Legion fi 07:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

References

Having just read this article, I was horrified. However, I noticed there are few sources referenced. This curtailed my response. If the intention for this article is to trigger an emotional response (I have no opinion on how appropriate that goal would be for a wikipedia article) then there needs to be some support to avoid responses like mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.34.187 (talk • contribs)

Yes, this article needs to document references and not just give "further reading." Tagged. Cleduc 05:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

US involment?

were the US involved in the incident? who did they support? how close where they involved? im not sure on any of these things but i find it hard to believe that the US wernt messing with a south American country in the late 60s, even if nothing can be confirmed could a mention be put somewhere as to the us position before and during the matter?Xbehave 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, first of all, Mexico is a North America country. Not Central American, and surely not South American. Please study some geography. Second of all, YES, there was some US participation in what is known in Mexico as the "Guerra Sucia" (Dirty War). Mexican right-handed paramilitar groups were trained by CIA operatives. It is known that hig ranked Olympia Batallion officers attended the School of America, a CIA operated training center for counter-intelligence operations. Besides from that background, there is not reported direct participation of US operatives in the incident. It is even said that Mexican high officers did not inform US operatives about what was going to happen. --Legion fi 06:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Movie

Hi the imdb link is no good. I found this film Mexico 68 but it's not scheduled for release until 2009. Avigon 18:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

New information that needs to be added to main page

Insert non-formatted text here

Oriana Fallaci, a famous italian reporter was there and she suddenly noticed how a a helicopter flew very close by. The helicopter was a militar one, and someone inside it threw an incandescent light into the crowd below.

Fallaci immediately knew that it was a militar tactic -she had been in Vietnam months before- to identify the start of a militar plan. Hundreds of troops -who were dressed as civilians and were mixed with the crowd- then revealed their true identity by screaming: Batallon Olimpia!!! (Olympian Batallion) and placing a white handkerchief or glove on their right hands. Without warning, they started shooting to the people in the plaza. The scared civilians ran to the apartments buildings and churches nearby to avoid death, but many of them were found by searching parties.

The neighboors to this day claim that the plaza was covered with blood and empty shoes when everything was over about 11 o'clock that same night. Oriana Fallaci was shot three times, but was saved from death by a man that covered her from more bullets - but the guy died from the shots. International reporters counted over 400 bodies in the plaza, and 200 more on the sorrounding streets. But the next morning everything was clean.

Bodies were picked up by militar vans and blood was cleaned by the city's hygiene department. The government declared oficially only 23 deaths, and set the proper indemnizations to the affected family.

But where all the bodies went???

According to retired soldiers of the Olympian Batallion, at least 500 bodies were taken to the grounds of Militar Camp Number 1 located in Mexico City too. There, they were burned to ashes in big bonfires. Many people were taken into custody, including six thirteen year-old boys who were so viciously raped and tortured that one of them ended up using a wheelchair the rest of his life. The rest of the detainees went either to jail or dissappeared... Those lucky enough to go to jail were questioned and the majority was released.

Despite the civil outrage, the president nothing important happened that fatal evening and happily lighted the torch of the Olympic Games a mere two weeks later.

Almost forty years later there is still very little official information about the event. Only there are reports from the international press and a bunch of books by many activists who were there and some others who investigated it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.242.107 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Voices-of-Tlatelolco.png

Image:Voices-of-Tlatelolco.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Unaccurate information (Tlatelolco Massacre Article)

On the article about the Tlatelolco Massacre there's a photograph of the modern facilities of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Secretaria de Relaciones Exteriores) citing below that this building stand where the massacre took place, this is completely wrong, this modern building is located near Juarez Avenue near the downtown in Mexico City, while the actual square where the massacre took place is about a mile north right next to the old building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on the apartment complex Nonoalco Tlatelolco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.216.103.149 (talk) 19:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

POV tag added

...for obvious reasons. The article reads like an airbrush out of Pravda, and is completely in violation of Wikipedia neutrality policy from one end to the other.76.17.171.199 (talk) 21:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.