Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Regarding "June Fourth Incident"

Is it fair to call the name "June Fourth Incident" a euphemism considering that's what the event is actually called in Chinese? Euphamism implies that it's a term only used to avoid using "Tiananmen Square Massacre", but even the Chinese Wikipedia page calls it the June Fourth Incident, with "Tiananmen Square Masscare/Protest" only mentioned when referring to western usage. I can personally atest that in Chinese circles outside China, such as in Taiwan or overseas, that "June Fourth Incident" is the main name used, and is not by any means a euphemism. Also, the sources attached to the word "euphemism" don't mention its usage as a euphemism, one of them doesn't refer to the name "June Fourth Incident" at all.

Perhaps instead of:

• known by the euphemism June Fourth Incident (Chinese: 六四事件; pinyin: liùsì shìjiàn) in China,

there should be:

• known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident (Chinese: 六四事件; pinyin: liùsì shìjiàn),

or maybe:

• known in Chinese circles as...
• known in China as...

TypeKnight03 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a euphemism. Chinese Wikipedia uses it because it is under the boot of the Chinese communist party.Peking Tom (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree on that front. Firstly Chinese Wikipedia has no obligations towards the Chinese government, and hasn't ever since Wikipedia-CN was banned in China in 2004 (and it would be a violation of

WP:NPOV) and even so, other Chinese language sources such as this article from VOA (Which definitely does not bow to the CPC) use 64, as does this DW article, and this RFI article.

so unless you believe the state-owned press of America, Germany, and France all tow the CCP line, then we can only conclude that June Fourth incident/六四事件 is not a euphemism.

Also the sources attached to the first sentence still don't say anything about "June Fourth Incident" being a euphemism, just that it's an alternate term.

It would be nice for someone else to weigh in on this, but surely if "June Fourth Incident" were a euphemism, then it would get past censors right? But it doesn't. Why would a censored term be used as a censorship-avoidance euphemism?

TypeKnight03 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Because censors toe a harder line to the general public, they aren't willing to acknowledge in any way it happened. They arrest people for holding toy tanks on the wrong day, see what gets you arrested. "Others were stopped and searched for carrying flowers, wearing black and in one case, carrying a toy tank box." [1]. When police get their orders to do this around June fourth, I'm sure they use June fourth in their inner communications.Peking Tom (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree on this. Words have context, and context can affect meaning. In usage and in practice, "June Fourth incident" is not a euphemism, despite Westerners being likely to see it as such. DFlhb (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You're all correct that "euphemism" is absolutely wrong, but is there a specific edit to be made here? I didn't see "euphemism" in the article. If I somehow missed it, or a similar statement, I agree we should certainly fix it. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Old comment but it's already been fixed. I still do think the sources for the name should be updated though. They seem to be relatively poor sources given how ubiquitous the names are.

TypeKnight03 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, 六四事件 isn't a "euphemism". It's a common way of naming events that occur on a particular day in Chinese, in either the Western or traditional Chinese calender. See e.g. Double Tenth, Double Ninth Festival, Double Third Festival. Double Seventh Festival. June Fourth is only not used in English as "Tiananmen Square" has come to be associated with the incident, be a shortcut for it.5.81.136.7 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This sounds like a smart move, using the correct name while retaining the redirect. It would be smart to then put in another section on why the name is the way it is. If it comes too a vote, put me as yes.

Finton the magical salmon (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

"Resulting in"

In the side bar a bullet point says "Rioters charged with violent crimes where executed in the following months" yet under the main article heading "Arrests, punishments, evacuations" nothing is mentioned about capital punishment. The side-bar assertion should have some related discussion and references in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.103.113 (talk) 23:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Split

The following is a closed discussion of a requested split. 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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not split.

Does anyone else think that the massacre and the nationwide protest movement that preceded it are each notable enough for separate articles? Perhaps this article could be split into two articles titled Tiananmen Square Massacre and '89 Democracy Movement respectively. Charles Essie (talk) 17:34, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - The attempt to split appears to be, in my opinion, a bad-faith effort to erase the fact that protests occurred in Tiananmen Square and the objectives of said movement. If appropriate, a separate 1989 Democracy Movement may be created, but that said, the majority of the protests were concentrated among intellectuals and students in Beijing, and it is not particularly independently noteworthy that a minority of individuals elsewhere may have had similar opinions, so long as nothing tangible arose from it. Augend (drop a line) 16:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  That was not my intention at all. I just thought that the current title didn't acknowledge the fact that protests were not limited to Tiananmen Square and that the massacre was notable enough for its own page. Charles Essie (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - If this split were to take place, the former article's title should still contain the year; I see no reason to remove it. And the latter article's title should contain the full year and be more specific; I would suggest 1989 Chinese democracy movement. CopperyMarrow15 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The events flow in an unseparable whole. § Lingzhi (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• discussion for > 1 month, no Support. Suggest Close discussion. § Lingzhi (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm good with it. Charles Essie (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A general-purpose encyclopedia ought not contain articles that favor particular viewpoints.

According to wikipedia's policy: "A general-purpose encyclopedia ought not contain articles that favor particular viewpoints. Striving for a neutral point-of-view helps prevent articles from becoming propaganda."

Since consensus seems to be that this article should include the term "massacre" in the title, it makes sense to at least pretend to be unbiased.

I am not suggesting that anything needs to be removed from the article, but there is no mention of the many differing viewpoints about what happened, and which side is "propaganda"

The following article, published in the Columbia Journalism Review was written by a Washington Post journalist who was in Tiananmen Square covering the event.

Behind the News

The Myth of Tiananmen

And the price of a passive press

"Over the last decade, many American reporters and editors have accepted a mythical version of that warm, bloody night. They repeated it often before and during Clinton’s trip. On the day the president arrived in Beijing, a Baltimore Sun headline (June 27, page 1A) referred to “Tiananmen, where Chinese students died.” A USA Today article (June 26, page 7A) called Tiananmen the place “where pro-democracy demonstrators were gunned down.” The Wall Street Journal (June 26, page A10) described “the Tiananmen Square massacre” where armed troops ordered to clear demonstrators from the square killed “hundreds or more.” The New York Post (June 25, page 22) said the square was “the site of the student slaughter.” The problem is this: as far as can be determined from the available evidence, no one died that night in Tiananmen Square."

Common consensus amongst many journalists seems to be different from what this article claims.

https://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/06/04/wsj-archives-25-years-ago-in-beijing-a-movement-unlikely-to-die/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8057762.stm 75.70.178.222 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Tank Man

I think that an iconic part of the Tiananmen square protests was the tank man, and I was surprised to see no mention of him at all. AAnnddHHee (talk) 15:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)