Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Page move

I support the page move by @Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy to include the word "massacre". ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 06:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion closed, if you want to add on you can reopen it, but I don't recommend that until after waiting a bit more --2603:8000:9903:663C:843C:FD8F:7AEA:FA32 (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Alright @FormalDude let's reopen the discussion to rename it. The article about both, and should be named accordingly... Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I figured it would probably be undone, hence my comment. I really don't want to restart a discussion two months after such a similar one was closed.

However, the article does describe in detail the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and it is well sourced. So I do think the title should reflect that with something like "Tiananmen Square Massacre & Protests." Or, the article may deserve to be split into a new page altogether titled "Tiananmen Square Massacre." Let me know what your thoughts are @Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Well I agree @FormalDude-- either rename this one to "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and [subsequent] massacre" (as one interrelated event), or create an article dedicated to the massacre. The former is preferable, since the latter sequence of events is detailed well enough in the current article, keeps the sequence of events streamlined and prevents confusion of having two articles about the same sequence of events with potentially different information, and this also challenges the censorship laws in China, on the Chinese article... Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Even the Chinese article says [via Google translate] Chinese areas outside of mainland China also referred to the clearing incident/event as the "June 4th suppression" or "June 4th massacre". ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude Okay then I'm opening up the discussion again later (maybe in a week or so). I'll write on your talk page then to set it up (unless you wish to open it up yourself sooner). Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Daniel Case, as you where the closer for the most recent discussion, could I ask you if it's too soon to reopen the topic? We're just looking at the scope of including the word 'massacre' in addition to 'protests' in the title. Appreciate any guidance! ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@FormalDude: I don't think there's anything in the guidelines for RMs that establish a time limit before the discussion can be reopened; at least I couldn't find any (but my search was rather cursory). If you look down the page at almost any time, you'll see plenty of move proposals that have been revisited, after all, after relatively recent closures.

I think consensus, and only consensus, is what should matter most here. If the consensus is that it's too soon to reopen the discussion, you will know soon enough.

But it has been almost three months; that might be enough. Of some significance might be that consensus can change, and given that I closed the last discussion as no consensus, there would probably be more leeway for a new discussion than there would had the consensus been strongly opposed to the move. I hope this is adequate guidance.

(If you're wondering, since I closed the last one I would sit this one out and let another admin or non-admin, as necessary, decide). Good luck either way and happy editing! Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I know you stated that you're going to sit this one out, but a big difference between this queryand the last one you created is that this one formally requests and "addendum," if you will, to the title, rather than a straight up title change. With that being said shall we wait longer to make this query, or do you think doing so now would suffice? FormalDude --Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Whenever you feel the time is right. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance Daniel Case, much appreciated! ––FormalDude talk 23:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved. As Ahecht says, WP:AND allows us to group together closely linked concepts into one article, which the protests (and subsequent massacre on June 4th) are. One thing that I would suggest, however, is looking at the sub-articles and deciding which term – protests, massacre, or both – is preferable to use; for example, Women's roles during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, but Reactions to the Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989. This close is agnostic to a split of the article, which is a discussion that needs to be had on its own merits. (non-admin closure) Sceptre (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

---

1989 Tiananmen Square protests → 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre – it is the WP:COMMONNAME or at the very least the best compromise by Wikipedia standards that maintains NPOV. The title should reflect the article, and the article makes clear through reliable sources that this was a massacre in addition to protests. ––FormalDude talk 09:37, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human rights. ––FormalDude talk 23:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• Support If we don't split the article this is preferable to just 'protests'—blindlynx (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)fiarly
• Support per FormalDude. agreed with the argument given by the proposer. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support Since both the massacre and the protests are covered fairly in-depth in this article, I believe the name of this article should reference both of the events, as they are interrelated to each other and the events overlap. Where I'm from in the Mid-Atlantic United States, I hear the term "massacre" just as, if not more frequently, then "protests," whereas in some other places, the latter is the more preferable term. Looking through the archives of this articles discussion page, it is usually proposed numerous times per year to change the title to "massacre," with the result often having no consensus. Adding it to the title, without removing "protest" could be the answer to this repeated request. Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support I believe since the article mentions both the protests and the massacre that the title should as well. 172.58.203.253 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – clearly the proposed wordy title is not the COMMONNAME. The last move discussion, for a substantively similar proposal, was only a few months ago, so this new proposal seems premature given that no new evidence or arguments are being presented. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  @Mx. Granger: Was hoping for a little more from you.

  The last move proposal ended with no consensus and this is a completely new proposal that seeks to compromise what the vast majority of Wikipedians see as the COMMONNAME.

  You're asking for new evidence and arguments, but they have been clearly presented here. The article title should describe the article body. Since the article body is about protests and a subsequent massacre, the title needs to reflect that. The only way the title should get away with not reflecting it is if the entire article is split into a new one about just the massacre.

  Furthermore, you made no justification for your opposition other than saying it's not the COMMONNAME. Care to explain why you feel that why? ––FormalDude talk 20:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I've ever seen the entire phrase "Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" used to describe the incident. Typically, the phrase "Tiananmen Square protest(s)" or the phrase "Tiananmen Square incident" is used to identify the incident as a whole. Sometimes the phrase "Tiananmen Square massacre" is used. But the entire phrase "Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" is, in my experience, used much less often than any of the others to refer to the incident as a whole, so the claim above that it is the COMMONNAME is incorrect.

I might suggest a move to 1989 Tiananmen Square incident as a compromise. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

As per your proposal, absolutely not fair to use as per COMMONNAME in the western (English speaking) world. The only people who use "incident" instead of "protests/massacre" are the CCP and their sympathizers as a way to cover up the controversial and, quite frankly brutal, nature of their involvement in the so called "incident."--Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

"Tiananmen Square incident" is the term used by Encyclopaedia Britannica, for whatever that's worth. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

@Mx. Granger: My claim is that it is the very best COMMONNAME that can be agreed upon, in terms of Wikipedia standards, that still maintains a NPOV. "Incident" is just whitewashing. It was protests followed by a massacre, plan and simple. The article and reliable sources say that, and the title should too. ––FormalDude talk 07:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

• Weak oppose too wordly for the purposed title. I suggests the article be changed to just "1989 Tiananmen Square massacre" (without and protests), as majority of very reputable sources stated, or "June 4 incident", as media in Greater China known it. 180.254.174.183 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
• Leaning oppose. I just don't see how this is an improvement in terms of WP:CRITERIA. It's obviously worse in terms of conciseness, and it also seems far less natural. It's normal that an article about event X is also going to cover related things that happened during or as a result of X, and we certainly don't need to cram mentions of all those things into the title. e.g. we should not rename something like Mary Russell murders to Mary Russell murders and trial. A title serves to identify a topic, not summarise it. Colin M (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

  If we're going by the comparison that Marry Russell murders is named that because it serves to identify the topic rather than summarize it, then this article should be named 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre or possibly June 4th Tiananmen Incident. ––FormalDude talk 07:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose The proposed title is more wordy + doesn't mesh with the fact that massacre is not exclusive of protest. Furthermore, the protests were over a large area of Beijing, not all of which were violently suppressed. 142.157.247.204 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I just knew it as the 'Tiananmen Square massacre' even before I knew anything about it, but that argument has been lost. It is general practice on Wikipedia to have one title and many redirects not to try to list all possible titles into one. Too wordy and bad precedent. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

  That argument has not been lost, the most recent discussion about it resulted in no consensus. ––FormalDude talk 08:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose Wikipedia is supposed to stand for TRUTH and not be biased by any world government’s propaganda. There is more evidence to suggest it was peaceful than there is to say it was a massacre. Are we really spreading truth if we just echo what the western governments tell the media to say? — 107.144.146.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (UTC).
• Oppose Way too wordy, a "compromise" for the sake of political correctness just as bad as the former Football (soccer). I would be neutral on "protests" vs. "massacre", but pick one or the other. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Support Given recent events, I think all articles that might potentially be considered critical of the Chinese Government should be examined very carefully perhaps protected. This article was named the Tiananmen Square Massacre (the standard name for this event in Western journalism) for at least two decades until suddenly it required a more "sanitized" headline. It is pretty damn obvious this is the result of manipulation by the Chinese and all those who "opose".. I am not saying you are a bunch of Chinese government sock puppets (or brain washed Chinese citizens).. but you are probably all a bunch of Chinese government sock puppets (or brain washed Chinese citizens). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northnomad (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

  The CCP killing Chinese people on mass has become mundane, mass protests against the CCP are more notable. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• Strong Support I agree with the guy above me, it seems most of the "(Strong) Opposes" have come from CCP sympathizers, as they keep mentioning "June 4th Incident," which completely abnormal in the western world. The common name for the protests is "Tiananmen Square Protests," and the subsequent "incident," as "Tiananmen Square Massacre," but are often lumped together as one incident, which is why both words are preferable in this article. I do not recommend an article split, since the two incidents are nearly synonymous. Either combine the name or rename the article to just "Massacre." --73.29.82.111 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose This page shouldn't be used by political tools and considering the current climate between the USA losing its hegemony and China surpassing them, it becomes quite obvious that we are witnessing Yellow Peril propaganda from the West again. Wikileaks recently leaked the secret cables from the US embassy in Beijing during the protest and they found no bloodshed . 2A04:CEC0:110F:39E4:4852:E3AC:2DB4:F91D (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC) (This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
• Strong support per WP:AND. The protest and massacre are inextricably linked, as no one would be talking about the protest 30 years later if it were not for the massacre. Unless the article is split, it is incredibly negligent to claim in the title that this article is only about a "protest". Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and we should not be bowing to political pressure to use euphemisms like "incident" as some of the WP:SPA !voters here have suggested. --Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

• Wasnt there just a big discussion about this right above..? --Havsjö (talk) 10:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • This one is about adding "massacre" to the title, rather than replacing "protests" with "massacre". ––FormalDude talk 11:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Rather than changing the title, this is about making an addition to the title. Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

References

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.

Is it worth talking about a split

I have been reading previous move requests and it has been mentioned that the page is getting long now at 15,972 words. This brings us 1 kB away from 'Almost certainly should be divided'. Given the relatively clean temporal and editor split between the protests and the massacre, that maybe a place to do it. However even getting consensus for this would be difficult let alone the editing time for a split. In short before I propose it, can anyone, on any side let me know if this is a dead idea, due to a vocal minority or majority I am unaware of? Not after arguments for or against the actual split idea here. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

A split is definitely a likely option. In fact, if the requested move to include massacre in the title does not go through, I was going to do the split myself. ––FormalDude talk 21:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I mentioned this in the requested moved but it think a split is certainly warranted—blindlynx (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2021

1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre → Tiananmen Square protests and massacre – I think the title would fare better without the year. There were other protests at Tiananmen Square, but this one is the most notable. Interstellarity (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC) Interstellarity (talk) 20:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose 1976 incidents were also notable. If your arguments are necessary, it suggest renaming Tiananmen Incident to 1976 Tiananmen Incident. 125.167.56.83 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose 1989 is part of the COMMONNAME. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Recent recurring reverts

@Froth and FormalDude: Maybe you should both discuss the edits like experienced editors rather than continuing to revert each other? SamStrongTalks (talk) 15:08, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Here is the content being disputed.

Froth's version:

The initial killings infuriated city residents, some of whom attacked soldiers with sticks, rocks, and molotov cocktails, setting fire to military vehicles and beating the soldiers inside them to death. On one avenue in western Beijing, anti-government protestors torched a military convoy of more than 100 trucks and armored vehicles. The Chinese government and its supporters have argued that these troops acted in self-defense and referred to troop casualties to justify the escalating use of force; but the number of military fatalities caused by protesters was relatively few—between 7 and 10...

My version:

As the killings started, it infuriated city residents, some of whom attacked soldiers with sticks, rocks, and molotov cocktails, setting fire to military vehicles and beating the soldiers inside them to death. On one avenue in western Beijing, anti-government protestors torched a military convoy of more than 100 trucks and armored vehicles. The Chinese government and its supporters have argued that these troops acted in self-defense and referred to troop casualties as justification for the use of force; but lethal attacks on troops occurred after the military had opened fire at 10 pm on June 3 and the number of military fatalities caused by protesters was relatively few—between 7 and 10...

I don't see why Froth wants to water down well sourced facts from the article, much less how they claim to be doing it in the name of neutrality. ––FormalDude ^talk 15:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this should be necessary but I can elaborate here if you insist.

The first question is whether we're dealing with a "blatant NPOV violation." As I said, that's not reasonable, and this speaks to issues across the whole article. It is sufficient for the article to lay out the facts as the sources report on them and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. It is, on the other hand, not appropriate for us to editorialize by making sure that statements about China's position are followed by a "but" qualifier to swiftly remind the reader of the arguments against it. See WP:IMPARTIAL. I also want to point out the state of the sentence in question before I improved it slightly a few days ago. Whoever wrote that sentence was writing in an obviously biased way, and some of that bias still remained after my tentative first fix. It's not okay that attempts to chip away at even the most undeniably problematic tone are pounced upon and reverted without explanation as a "blatant NPOV violation." I shouldn't need to say this but a change isn't an NPOV violation just because the text no longer explicitly slaps the reader across the face with your own personal point of view.

Moving on to the specifics of this change. There are three components:

• As the killings started, it infuriated → The initial killings infuriated. This change is objectively better, even separate from any POV disputes. The original was clumsy and grammatically incorrect. But the new version also makes it clear that it was a smaller number of initial killings by the PLA that led to infuriated protesters and escalating violence. It's not the PLA just deciding to start murdering everyone in a Mai Lai style slaughter, which is what the original version ("As the killings started") implies. This is a critical distinction. And the escalating-violence version comports with even the sources used by the article, so there should be no issue here.
• as justification for the use of force → to justify the escalating use of force. I'm not really sure what one could object to here. The article itself argues that the PLA fired into crowds, then were attacked/burned/hung by enraged protesters, and then finally used much more severe lethal force in return. That sounds like escalating force.
• but lethal attacks on troops occurred after the military had opened fire at 10 pm on June 3 and → but. As I said in the edit summary, this information is already present in the surrounding text. Very pointedly restating it here following a "The Chinese government argues ... but" serves no purpose than to explicitly take a stance. This is even clearer given the original version of the sentence which I linked above. But even worse, the phrase I removed doesn't even belong there because that counterpoint doesn't actually counter anything. The narrative was already one of escalating violence initiated by the PLA; throwing in basically a "but remember that the PLA started it" is a non-sequitur. This is the reason that I left the rest of the sentence regarding the death count. You could perhaps reasonably object that the PLA's response to being attacked was excessive, so the relative death counts are relevant (though redundant and potentially problematic for NPOV), but you could not reasonably say that the PLA previously shooting protesters is relevant, particularly with how I simultaneously strengthened the references to escalating violence elsewhere in the same revision.

I guess it gets a little ridiculous trying to litigate every individual word here, but apparently that's necessary. I have to admit that I'm pretty miffed at being 3RR'd with no substantive justification over what I thought was an extremely reasonable good-faith edit. It's unfortunate that even an innocent constructive change like this requires paragraphs of effort to explain; perhaps that exhausting expectation is related to why the article resembles more of a moralizing screed than an objective encyclopedia article. I've used my third revert to put my change back up. If you still have an objection after reading my arguments then go ahead and make your case; maybe there's an acceptable compromise here. .froth. (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)