Talk:Tiananmen Square

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject China (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Architecture (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


added a few sources, but more fact checking is required for this article. also can someone move the references to the bottom of the article? not sure how to do that. --Bgnuf (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


The expansive paragraph of Tiananmen Square Protests of 1989 should be deleted, as well as the "tank man" photo. There are reports that people commonly go to the article to find information regarding the 1989 protest; however, no evidence is presented for such a finding, and it can be equally argued people are surfing to the article for the 1976 protest. In arguendo, even if most people are coming to the page to find additional information on the 1989 protest, there already exists an article and a link to said protest, making the paragraph redundant. Moreover, the picture of "tank man" did not occur in tiananmen square, but in the surrounding streets. I recommend the paragraph and photo be removed as repetitive and not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

i feel it's relevant because i was looking for the tianamen square protest, and the tank picture (explaination of what it was all about) and this is the first article i found when searching for tiananmen square. i'm sure most other young people who are trying to read about history are ending up at the same place. seems kind of important that to many people the big events there, or on the streets that sorround it be presented on this page. (talk) 17:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what relevance or import you feel the issue of whether people come to this page for information on the massacre is. The fact is, this page is not about that, its about the square, and is written about such. The massacre is a quite notable event in the history of the square, and should surely be discussed, the existance of a dedicated article notwithstanding. Any discussion of the square that leaves out what to many, many people is the defining fact associated with it, indeed the only event many westerners can readily associate with the sqaure, is not adequately covering this article's topic: the square. With regards to the tank man claim, your free to provide refrences that your facts are correct. I surely don't know, however; the fact that the boundaries of the square may be somewhat defined (though I have no idea if this is so) does not mean anything associated with the square yet occuring outside of it is irrelevant. Many events that day occured in and are associated with the square. I don't see how the meer fact that the tank man was outside the square is relevant. From my limited understanding, the actual demonstrations and observers were more or less contiguous with those in the square, and any division on the basis of who was within arbitrary landmarks would but against this reality. If this is not the case feel free to say so, but your claims so far are not substantiated.-- (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)


Monument to the People's Heroes and The Great Hall of the People

I'm queuing this pic on the talk page because there is not enough space in the article for now. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 13:59, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Note the new gallery layout - please do not remove pictures only for layout purposes. Leonard G. 17:37, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Why not? There is a precedent for it. — Chameleon Main/Talk/Images 18:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Could you please cite precident as to the removal of images solely for page layout purposes? There are a lot better reasons than that for removing pictures, but those should be established in the context of the article theme and the appropriateness the picture referenced to support or enhance that theme.
My argument against removing pictures (as opposed to resizing thumbs) is first, that WP has insufficient illustrations (especially on technical and travel related articles) and that layout under the current system is highly dependant upon both the user's text size selection (I use 150pct), and page width, which according to wiki suggestions is what fits on an 800 pixel wide or larger screen (I use 1280 x 1024). In the article Shanghai, User:Muke was having problems \hahehuh long list of right thumbs not being at the margin but stacking horizontally and getting into the text. (I do not see these effects on my browsers, but this is now appearing to be a side effect of font size and screen width.). He did some pix rearrangement on Shanghai which initially did not work (images were lost off the right of the page) but he subsequently corrected this to form a nice gallery (it still needs some tweeking of thumb heights, which I will do). I applied these techniques to the T.S. page and they look fine on both Safari (Mac OS X) and I.E. 5.2 Mac OS 9.2. If you use a different browser or OS, a test and feedback will be welcomed. For tech stuff on the gallery layout see User talk:Muke#Image arrangement.
Firstly, I agree with you that WP has insufficient illustrations: see the top of User:Chameleon/Images_uploaded. I just don't agree that it's always good to add images and always bad to take them away. I could take dozens of pictures of each piece of cutlery in my house and add it to Cutlery, but I don't believe that would be helpful! More is not necessarily best. There has been some discussion, and it seems at least some people agree that a certain ratio of photos to text must be observed in articles. That's common sense, right?
There really seemed to me to be too many photos for this article. Now that a gallery has been created, they fit. But not before. Note that I didn't delete anything. I just queued it up on the talk page. Another way this can be done is by commenting out the images in the article. I've done this myself with articles I have created — I've taken lots of pix, uploaded them, been really keen to put them in the article, but then realised I couldn't really justify it given the lack of text, so I queued them. Chameleon 23:17, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I'm glad to hear that you think the page is improved, as that is what our mutual efforts are for. I do like the gallery setup - for one thing, it is easy to expand without impacting the text. Now that I know how to do it I will likely employ it more. The T.S. article does need a picture of the Museum of Chinese History - I have one but its not very good. A straight on shot of Tianan Gate would be nice too. I've got one of the Gate that I call "Two Reds"; in front of the gate stands my wife (a redhead) and over her shoulder the portrait of Mao. Cute and informative for my personal slide show, but not suitable for a WP article. Do you have any to upload? That would be appreciated. I'll read the discussion article. Best wishes, Leonard G. 01:16, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Two Reds
Ch. Hist. Mus.


Please transfer the images to Wikimidea Commons. --Saperaud 3 July 2005 11:53 (UTC)

The largest square in the world?[edit]

Can anybody confirm that this square is the largest in the world? Naghsh-i Jahan Square and Kharkov contain conflicting information on this issue. Thanks. --Ghirlandajo 12:53, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

None articles is absolutely correct. See and contribute to List of city squares by size. Red Square in Moscow, is not closest competitor of Tiananmen. --TAG 06:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Hopefully the list linked in the previous comment will clear up the issue. However I'm not convinced by the number "500 meters wide" given in this article. There is no way for this to be true according to Google Earth. Can anyone state the source for this information? I don't think there's any doubt about this square being the largest, but I don't think it's quite as large as stated in this article. --Romanski 08:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Some travel guides have this This north-south rectangle is the largest public square in the world, measuring 865 meters in length from north to south and 500 and 370 meters in width from east to west at the northern and southern ends. The total area is some 93 acres Travel guide. I feel that 500 meters include Great Hall and Parlament. --TAG 11:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Your link mentions 14 hectares, which can be verified using Google Earth to be the pure square without the buildings. I'll update the article. --Romanski 15:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm... most web sites state 440,000 square meters. This is clearly impossible. 14 hectares seems like an understatement too. I can't find any sources stating what seems like a reasonable number. TAG, perhaps you can use the number from your travel guide and state the source? 93 acres = 380,000 square meters seems very reasonable. --Romanski 15:13, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

CTS Tours Australia brochure quotes it as the largest square in the world- could this be true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Safari locust333 (talkcontribs) 23:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Not 44 hectares, less than 32 at the most. Using 880x500 (meters), one gets 44 hectares. These length and width numbers derive from the distance between the gates and the width of the moat. But this is sloppy, because this 44 hectare "square" is full of gardens and buildings to the east and west. The city block contained by roads is 280x760, 21.3 hectares. Including the trapezoidal area containing the moat and the intervening road adds 160x390, 6.2 hectares. Including the side roads adds (2*25)*760, 3.8 hectares. So, 21.3+6.2+3.8 = 31.3 hectares. Now, to be less generous: the main gathering area between Mao's tomb and the road is only 380x280, 10.6 hectares.

The List of city squares by size states that it is the 4th largest square, should we change the article? (talk) 11:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

redirect from tienanmen[edit]

Is it really rational to think that most people searching for "tienanmen" are looking for information about the square rather than the details surrounding the tienanmen massacre of 1989? wouldn't it make more sense for the redirect from "tienanmen" to point there instead? Mysticfeline 01:33, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

no - for very many people "tiananmen" means the gate or square, and "tiananmen incident" means the April Fifth Incident first and foremost. in Chinese at least, the 1989 protests are known as the "June Fourth Incident", "June Fourth Movement", or "June Fourth Massacre", and much less commonly the "Tiananmen incident/massacre". if people are searching for the Tiananmen Massacre they're more likely to type "tienanmen massacre". --Sumple (Talk) 01:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The unknown rebel[edit]

Though the square as an actual location should be the focus of the article, a picture or greater referance to the picture of the uknown rebel, the person himself, and the events surrounding it should be added because, despite what some may say, many (myself included as I was looking for the picture of the unknown rebel when I came to this page) people come to this page looking for that information first. Though there is a separate page of it, which is reasonable, a greater mention of it here would probably be warrented since this is often, outside of China, what the location is known for.

-- seconded: I came here looking for that image, I couldn't care less about the architectural features of the square!

If you're talking about the person who stood in front of the tank, it's probably not that noteworthy as everyone knows there's not that much danger in standing directly in front of a tank. The danger lies in standing in front of a tank's tracks. Notice the "rebel" keeps in front of the tank.

A grand gesture, to be sure, but one that caught an unwarranted amount of press, don't you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

commentary on June Fourth / massacre[edit]

There seems to be a deliberate effort to water down the content of this article (such as removal of the word "masacre" despite this being the most common term used for this event in the west). I strongly suspect Chinese government sock-puppets might be involved--perhaps in efforts to clean up their image for the upcomming olympics. I strongly suggest the Wikipedia leadership look into protecting this (and other politically sensative pages) and look into these "editors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the following text added in Revision as of 2006-05-16 08:02:21

However, it is speculated that the number of casualities were exaggerated by the Western media at that time in order to destablize China and tarnish its global prestige. As opposed to the situation in Eastern Europe, the movement started in Tiananmen and ended there. It again became a symbol for national pride with China's booming economy

I see no support for this. Furthermore, at least part of it isn't true: the movement was active in several other Chinese cities at the same time.

With supporting attribution, this text or a variant might be reasonable. It does seem to have a POV. DHR 03:53, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's stop mincing words. The Chinese regime knows how damaging to its image the 1989 Tiananmen massacre remains to this day. Chinese government flunkies have clearly whitewashed this page of virtually any mention of the massacre. Are we seriously going to pretend that this is normal for an article about the location of a historical event? Are we going to pretend that is acceptable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on 1989 protests/massacre (Mk II)[edit]

I have removed the following statements (several times):

This is more commonly known as the Tiananmen Square massacre, which the Chinese government denies ever took place despite the video footage of a protester being mowed down by a tank. This tragic event was recorded by an tourist photographer. Changing this wikipedia entry to not reflect this sadly doesn't change history.

There is basically nothing truthful about this statement. Firstly, the Chinese govt does not deny that the protests and killings took place. Secondly, there is no video footage (that I am aware of, or cited by the anon editor) of a protestor being mown down by a tank - the editor is possibly referring to the footage of a man stopping a column of tanks. Thirdly, that event was recorded by a journalist, not a tourist photographer. Finally, the last statement is an attack on Wikipedia, not a genuine contribution.

On a side note, I feel what is presently presented here about the protests does have a slightly pro-PRC government slant. Perhaps the emphasis on the "no-one killed" story should be toned down? --Sumple (Talk) 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


The move to Tiananmen Square (Beijing) has been undone because "Tiananmen Square" is well... the square. If you want the massacre, they would've typed in "Tiananmen Square Massacre" or something along those lines. The other article is prominently linked to anyway. enochlau (talk) 03:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


Is the correct spelling in modern Pinyin not Tian'anmen? See the guidelines on the subject. Wsbhopkin 15:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's either bad formatting or vandalism. Someone be bold please. Xiner (talk, email) 19:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
For pinyin, we already have it as "Tiān'ānmén Guǎngchǎng". "Tiananmen" is the English spelling.—Nat Krause(Talk!·What have I done?) 22:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't think "Tiananmen" can be regarded as an English word. It is simply a pinyin transcription of a Chinese name. Because of that, I think it should be "Tian'anmen", which seems to be the correct pinyin spelling, as I mentioned here and here. Gelo 16:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
"Tiananmen" is correct. In hanyu pinyin, an apostrophe is used only when needed to eliminate ambiguity. For example, the name of the city of Xi'an (two syllables) might be misread as Xian (one syllable) without the apostrophe. However, it is impossible to misread "An" ("pacification") as "Nan" ("south," perhaps), because that would require us to accept "Tia" as a well-formed Mandarin morpheme, when there is no such sound. --Dawud
Not correct! The apostrophe is always required when a syllable in the middle of a word starts with a, e, o - regardless of possible ambiguity. By the way, wihtout thid rule, Tiananmen could read Ti-a-nan-men. Hence Tian'anmen is the only correct Pinyin spelling. Reilinger (talk) 23:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Reilinger is correct. It's Tian'anmen. See (talk) 15:59, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Shouldn't the Wade-Giles have hyphens (or whatever those typographical marks are actually called) in it? "T'ian-an'men Kuang-chang" rather than the current spelling?

Future Changes?[edit]

The square looks very naked. Are they planning to put in more stuff? Like, for example, greenery? 01:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Lol, maybe Beijing does need it, but don't hold your breath. Xiner | Talk 19:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually do hold your breath - Beijing is very polluted! The square looks better in 'real life', and the greenery would turn to dust very quickly, even if watered, due to the huge amount of people walking on it I think. Balfron 22:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

History section[edit]

Someone needs to sort out the History section. A lot of nonsense words have been put in and it doesn't make any sense (1st paragraph). Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Back in the 1970s-80s there were pictures of Marx, Lenin and Mao [and maybe Engels too] where the large picture of Mao is now by itself. Can anyone date when were these removed? Also I heard from a non-Chinese source that the locals called the pictures the 'Display on the Marxist-Leninist history of shaving.' Can anyone verify this very charming little insight into Chinese humour? 08:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


I don't think 1999 was the Qing dynasty. (history section)


I thought he died before 1989 (events section)

Pop Culture[edit]

Perhaps it is not relevant, but the System of a Down song "Hypnotize" makes mention of the T square massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

commentary on June Fourth / massacre #3[edit]

There seems to be a deliberate effort to water down the content of this article (such as removal of the word "masacre" despite this being the most common term used for this event in the west). I strongly suspect Chinese government sock-puppets might be involved--perhaps in efforts to clean up their image for the upcomming olympics. I strongly suggest the Wikipedia leadership look into protecting this (and other politically sensative pages) and look into these "editors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(Moved the above anon post to bottom of page) --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
wiki is full of communist sympathisers, pseudo-intellectuals, and historical revisionists. it's really the only way to explain this gross negligence for not including the massacre in this article. no acknowledgement it occurred. not even a link to the massacre's article. it feels like it was written by Chinese communist party members instead of people who actually care about being objective when it comes to historical fact. gg npov for being pro-china (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


This article fails to note that this location was the scene of one of the largest state sanctioned massacres of unarmed civillions in a non-war confrontation in history. The entire article pussyfoots around it, even using weasel words to claim the massacre didn't exist because 'no one could verify there were dead bodies on the square ITSELF.'

On the 20th anniversary it appears that state sponsored clean up squads are rife perhaps, either way I'm marking this as NPOV until a more neutral wikipedian can balance this grisly massacre location's page out with a bit of objective reporting. (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I reintroduced mentioning of this event in the lead. I am not sure for which reason it had been removed there. Tomeasy T C 01:16, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

History Section[edit]

I think the history section talks a little too much about Tiananmen Gate instead of the square. Can someone please fix up that section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe there is no evidence whatever of a massacre or of any deaths in Tiananmen Square during the student protests. There were deaths of civilians and soldiers in the streets leading up to the square possibly as a result of civilians confronting the army,

Can anyone cite any reliable evidence for the massacre of civilians in Tiananmen Square? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Too Much Focus on the Massacre[edit]

This page too strongly panders to the image Westerners have been spoon-fed since 1989 of a repressive and cruel Chinese Government. Tian'an'men Square has a bloody history, to be sure, but shouldn't the square's more peaceful moments be given more recognition? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think that the public perception (outside of China) of a topic is wrong or imbalanced, you are certainly entitled to that opinion. However, per Wikipedia's Neutral point of view policy, articles are not to be based on Wikipedians' opinions, but should reflect significant views, even if there is a Wikipedian that considers them wrong.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 10:04, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gate of Heavenly Pacification"--not "Peace"[edit]

The grammar of the original Manchu ("abkai elhe obure duka") apparently makes this clear: —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Do not use a blogspot site for proving something that contradicts every scholarly article. Regardless of the whole discussion in that blog post, Pacification is another word in today's chinese, and every chinese who hears Tiananmen thinks of Heavenly Peace. Languages develop, and so do our translations. If you want to write an article about the history of the name of the gate, please go ahead (edit: has already been made Otherwise, please also rename "Paris" to "Worksmentown" all over Wikipedia - — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No protests[edit]

While I agree that the square has a long and varied history that needs mentioning; given the fame of the even, the lack of mention of the 1989 incident makes it look to an impartial, English-speaking, observer that it's been deliberately buried.

A search for popular English speaking news sites for "Tiananmen Square" brings the first result back as reports surrounding 1989. This to me shows that most people in the English speaking world will link "Tiananmen Square" with the events of 1989.

If you compare with say Reichstag_(building), which mentions the fire, or Oświęcim which links to the concentration camp, Colditz Castle which mentions the POW camp, it does seem odd that the only mention of the reason the square is famous internationally is buried deep in the article.

Googling for top results from major international English-speaking news channels

  • bbc - BBC ON THIS DAY | 4 | 1989: Massacre in Tiananmen Square
  • cnn - Tiananmen Square: A watershed story for CNN - CNN
  • al jazeera - Chinese silence on Tiananmen under scrutiny - Al Jazeera Blogs
  • France24 - New photos emerge of Tiananmen Square just after 1989 massacre ...

With that in mind, I think it's fair to say that June 4th 1989 should be mentioned in the header, either in text or as a link like Oświęcim

Paul Weaver (talk) 19:10, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

The corresponding text in the lede was replaced by vandalism recently, which was in turn removed completely by someone cleaning up the vandalism, presumably overlooking the previous consensus version. I have restored it. Regards, HaeB (talk) 20:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

events section vs history section[edit]

No mention of the massacre in the History section? I came to this page for information about the event and didn't even see anything until I used fulltext search. The two sections should be merged, as it is now, the History section doesn't even mention the event. Or it should have it's own section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Again, no massacre is mentioned.... virtually ALL of the 1989 stuff is gone... I think this section/page needs to be constantly looked at. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Somebody keeps removing and watering down the information about the Tiananmen Square massacre... It's not sanctioned by anyone at Wikipedia, so feel free to revert. Heptor talk 10:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)