Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Contents

Were the protesters asking for the return of traditional communism or democracy?

Can someone tell me what the protesters wanted? It appeared from reports of the time that what the protesters wanted was the return to traditional communism such as a guaranteed job for life, and that it was the government's responsibility to organize jobs for all the people; whereas western media reported that the protesters wanted democracy. In the west, democracy and capitalism go hand in hand, and democracy at the moment generally means job insecurity rather than a job for life. A job for life is viewed as anti-capitalist and thus undemocratic. 86.177.126.43 (talk) 02:29, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Consider asking your question at Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Humanities, where your question will receive more attention. The protesters did not belong to a single faction and many had conflicting aims. elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 05:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
This is a good question -- and should be answered in the article.Kdammers (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The only source that I am aware of that has stated that the protests were centralized or had a singular purpose is CCP propaganda, which isn't reliable. Instead of asking "what one thing did the protesters want?", better questions might be: "what different things did the protesters want?"; "who wanted what?"; and, "why did different groups want what they wanted?". Any source that states that the protests had a single goal probably has an ideological agenda.Ferox Seneca (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
The original poster did not say s/he wanted a single answer. Kdammers (talk) 06:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
I had thought that the original poster was questioning whether the protesters would have supported either the binary alternatives of democracy or communism. I could always be wrong.Ferox Seneca (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Deng Xioaping's free market reforms did initially cause price shocks, which unsettled a lot of people. Also, breaking the "iron rice bowl" (jobs for life) certainly contributed to social instability - once such positions have been set up in any society, they have always proven very difficult to break down. So, I would say that economic difficulties caused by capitalism were a catalyst to the protests - people generally find the idea of democracy to be pretty nice, but what really gets them out onto the street is hunger. However, whether or not the instability caused by the capitalist reforms catalyzed the protests, one of the goals of the protests clearly was democracy and its leaders were generally democrats. There was definitely no call for a return to Maoist excesses, or love for heavy handed Communist authoritarianism. It's also important to note that the more democratic (and capitalist) members of the Communist leadership, such as Zhao Ziyang, were seen as sympathetic to the protest, while the more authoritarian and left-leaning members, such as Li Peng, actively supported the crackdowns. After the crackdowns, and the subsequent purging of Communist party leaders with democratic sympathies, China went into a period of slowing down free market reforms and reasserting state control over the economy. Deng Xiaoping, while incredibly powerful, was one of the few members left with free market views, since his allies on these issues had largely been purged. His southern speaking tour eventually turned the tide, though, and convinced the more authoritarian leaders to embrace free market reforms once again. Also, in response to your statement that "a job for life is viewed as anti-capitalist and thus undemocratic.", I really don't see what relevancy your personal interpretation of western views on democracy has to the article. Democracy does not mean capitalism. That's ideological nonsense.65.0.174.224 (talk) 10:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
Of course democracy does not have to mean capitalism, but I am unaware there are any democracies which is not any least partially capitalistic (post independent India is an example). The converse, capitalism does not mean democracy is definitely true (take a country such as Saudi Arabia). The point is the majority of the Chinese people in the protest would equate the two, and 65.0.174.224's point that it was hunger (or the fear of hunger in the future) that got the people onto the street is valid. Those people thought in the West, people did not go hungry because of democracy, and therefore they wanted democracy. If someone said bring back the emperor in China and revive imperialism because the future emperor will promise to feed everyone for free and for life, the crowd there will also support the idea. Just take a look at the Wall Street protest, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-15749348 , the US government also cleared out the protesters. What the people in the 1989 protest wanted was not a demand for democracy, but a demand for a guarantee to an easy life, which neither democracy nor communism can provide. 86.174.54.63 (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Goddess of Democracy replica.jpg Nominated for Deletion

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Goddess of Democracy replica.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 09:15, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Idetical cases

I added e reference to Bonus Army but it was removed with reference that "it has nothing to do with this". In both cases we have protest stopped by tanks in capital city. How identical cases may be absolutely different? The argument is obviously dishonest. --Javalenok (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, but I'm not familiar with the scholarship exploring the relationship between the Tiananmen protests and the Bonus Army. If you can cite a reliable source that discusses the relationship with these two events, it would probably convince a number of people of your position.Ferox Seneca (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
The rules of Wikipedia do not demand any scholar proof. Wikipedia guides say that Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. I think that it explains your reason: It says that you "sometimes insist on citations for material simply because you dislike it or prefer some other material, not because the material in any way needs verification." Also, I'm sure that the masters of Discuss desire to not promote this topic. How many Americans do you think have ever heard of their own Tiananmen? Yet, as long as there is such article, the hyper-connection is appropriate. The only way to convince people is to ask them to start using the common sense. --Javalenok (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
I see where you're coming from. Some comments from someone with an opposite perspective would be useful. If no one opposes it here in the next week or so, you might as well re-add your suggestion back to the "see also" section.Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
Javalenok, I would like to see a reliable source that makes a connection between the two events before any mention of the Bonus Army goes in this article. When you say, "The rules of Wikipedia do not demand any scholar proof", I think you misunderstand the rules. First, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is not about ideas that are obvious, but about ideas that are both obvious and "generally accepted." When you comment about Americans being unaware of the Bonus Army and when you are unwilling to produce a scholarly source, that seem to imply that you know that there is not general acceptance for a connection between the Bonus Army and Tiananmen.
Second, Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue is only an essay, not a policy. Essays are opinion pieces that, in some cases, only represent minority viewpoints on Wikipedia. Essays do not take priority over Wikipedia policies, such as the policy on original research (OR). This policy states that "[A]ll material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed... That 'Paris is the capital of France' needs no source, because no one is likely to object to it and we know that sources exist for it. The statement is attributable, even if not attributed."
I know that reliable sources exist for "Paris is the capital of France", but I'm not confident that sources exist for a connection between the Bonus Army and Tiananmen. If you want the connection in the article, please provide a reliable source. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how to, but for the love of god, SOMEONE add the picture of tank man

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.97.6.244 (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

That picture was up for a long time, but was pulled from this article earlier this year. Apparently, copyright laws prohibit free-use publications, such as Wikipedia, from using the Tank Man image in any articles other than articles on Tank Man.Ferox Seneca (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Article re-work

The general guidelines over at WP:Article Size state that 60kb is probably a good upper limit for comfortable reading. The article, prior to my trimming operation, was at over 150kb, which puts it only 20kb below the article for World War II. I am of the view that a large reduction of content is necessary to adhere to WP:SUMMARY and just for the reader's ease, and we can consider splitting off details to sub-articles. My objective, tentatively, is to reduce the article to 120kbs, which will mean some seemingly heartless deletions, trimming of quotations, and consolidation. Anyone who would like to provide feedback, keep me in check, or want to defend the article's current length is welcome to comment. Colipon+(Talk) 21:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

This trimming is a good idea, because the article is not only too long; it is poorly written. There is already a sub-article, Reactions to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, that can accommodate condensed versions of the "Reactions", "International reaction", "Impact", "Continuing issues", and "Cultural references" sections. Shrigley (talk) 23:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, if you don't mind helping me with the copy-editing... it would make the task twice as easy. :) Colipon+(Talk) 23:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
While I generally support the idea of trimming the article down a bit, I think that you misunderstand the 60KB limit in WP:Article Size. That limit is for the readable prose size, not the total article size, which includes tables, references, mark-up code and other stuff not counted in the readable prose size. Currently, the total article size is 132KB, while the readable prose size is 77KB, according to this script. So, the article is over the 60KB limit, but not hugely over. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
You are correct, JT. So my goal of reducing it to around 120kb would effectively reduce the readable prose down to about 65kb, which is quite ideal imho. A lot of information is still missing from the article, but there is also a lot of redundancies. In the end it is a balancing act. Colipon+(Talk) 06:13, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
For the most part, I agree with the trimming, but I would prefer if the lead was more detailed. For example, Deng Xiaoping's market reforms, which is covered in the body paragraphs, deserves a brief mention in the lead.--Beijingdemocracy (talk) 00:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your edits. They look quite good. The part about Deng losing prestige is almost always overlooked by 'western media'. Although, I don't think ledes should be overly convoluted. We can discuss some more comprehensive changes later. Colipon+(Talk) 05:13, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Reports of progress

I want to maintain active documentation here of the major changes that I'm making to this page. So far I'm glad to report that since I took up the knife and scalpel three days ago the article size has been decreased from 153kb to 132kb. The bulk of the material that I cut mercilessly came from the section on "Forbidden Topic" and "history erased", which were essentially two sections talking about the same thing. I axed the bulk of the content about the 20th Anniversary - there is an entire article for that. I retained two or three sentences about it only as a summary of the government's contemporary views as it relates to the protests. I have also cut significant sections from the "background" section, and grouped it under more logical headings. I have also purged a large number of external links, per WP:EL. Events like this one arouse a lot of emotion and there is a tendency to overlink - to share everything that any individual finds valuable in reflecting his/her point of view or emotions. I copy and paste the EL list below, because I believe some of the ELs can be used as reference documents later on. But they belong to the references or bibliography sections, not in EL.

Reading through the article, I also feel that the middle section is clogged and badly structured. Many intervening events are not given due weight or simply not addressed at all - such as Gorbachev's visit and Zhao's Asian Development Bank speech on May 4. (Before my first edits to this article even the April 26 Editorial was not mentioned at all). The article also lacks nuanced analysis on the decision-making process of the Chinese leadership, even though many documents have surfaced in recent years to shed light on exactly what happened, icnluding Li Peng and Zhao Ziyang's diaries. Corroborating the two gives a very good idea of the actual course of events. Colipon+(Talk) 15:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

The external links are archived here as follows:

External links

Picture of Mao

I have removed the reference to three students from Hunan vandalizing the picture of Mao from the "protests escalate" section of the article. It does not seem to fit into the themes or chronology of the article, and is relatively anecdotal in nature. I am open to putting it back if there is a suitable way to fit it into the context of a later section. Please respond to this if you disagree. Colipon+(Talk) 00:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

PLENTY OF PROPAGANDA IN THIS ARTICLE

This event must be one of the most misunderstood and misreported of all time. The article here states that people were unhappy with corruption following Deng's free market reforms- this is true and the main reason for the demonstrations, the students wanting to reinstate original revolutionary socialism. Regardless of Western media coverage few of them were asking for Western multi-party democracy and most knew nothing about it. The article then fudges all this by somehow saying the government wanted to stop the reforms- this is confused garbage and doublespeak. It was Deng's government that was trying to Westernize and the PROTESTERS were trying to stop it: Western media coverage was disgusting, co-opting the protest to say how bad the government was when the West was simply afraid of its modernization and huge potential competition. The students were AGAINST capitalism because of inadequate monetary controls as Western investers moved in to build factories and line pockets because the socialist financial structures couldn't handle capital properly yet. The protesters almost won as over the next few years the Maoists returned to power and Deng was forced out, fortunately returning again with the help of the military to make China the pillar of the world it is today. Had the students really thrown out the government they had no clue what to do with power and millions would likely have died as the country disintegrated. The only question is why Deng couldn't have used other methods for clearing the square, such as water canons. Sean McHugh Feb 2nd 2012

Actually, if you read through the 'causes' section, I think this article presents a fairly nuanced perspective on everything. It says that there were elements that wanted democracy and there were elements that wanted a return to Maoist style communism. As yet it still does not recognize the loss of Deng's prestige and his ideas following the protests. Thankfully we have resources like Zhao's book that presents a much more accurate picture than stuff written by Western journalists. Also, if you have suggestions, please point out the passages in question so and how you propose we change it.

Also, the Square was cleared peacefully. The consensus from US embassy documents, journalists, and eyewitnesses is that almost all the shootings took place in western Beijing near Mixidi. Colipon+(Talk) 14:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Asia Times Estimate

"By Chinese standards, 7,000 dead is, if not a bloody blip, something along the magnitude of the show of state force inflicted on pro-democracy protesters in Beijing and other cities in 1989." - http://atimes.com/atimes/China/NB25Ad01.html

Include a table of breakdown by city?

Also follow-on protests: A Canadian caught listening to Neil Young music in the United states was tortured, maimed and burglarized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.22.68.67 (talk) 10:08, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The Asia Times estimate of 7,000 dead is for Syria. The Asia Times then says that this number is "along the magnitude" of that for the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. That's a vague estimate for Tiananmen, so I don't really see putting it in the article. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Military Action

I have trimmed the section and renamed a lot of headings, moving things around here and there. In general I felt the section was extremely disorganized, and has been tagged for POV, citation, and clean-up issues since 2009. Would appreciate any help from concerned editors to fix that section. I have already dug in. Someone did a few 'drive-by' posts, slapping a few blockquotes cited to American journalists that "no massacre happened on the Square". In my view these lengthy blockquotes can be summed up on two sentences at max without losing much of the original meaning.

In general, several more issues need fixing:

  • The "deaths estimates" section is very bloated, and needs to be trimmed. I think one paragraph addressing the whole thing is fine, but I am reluctant for the moment because I have no idea which sources are more authoritative than others. Right now it is just a hodge-podge of numbers, some with careful empirical evidence and others merely numbers out of the blue. Each source needs to be evaluated based on their own merit and we need to summarize. I would not mind having a more lengthy segment in a sub-article.
  • I propose that the current article "People's Liberation Army at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" be expanded and eventually 'morphed' into an article that better corresponds with its Chinese article - "June Fourth Clearing of the Square". Since the actions on June 4 are obviously the most important part of the military action, it would make a lot of sense to create a less awkwardly titled article like "Military Action on June 4" and move the bloated material into that article.
  • The sources that I plan to use to describe the military action are: Quelling the People, Li Peng diary, Zhao, Tiananmen Papers, and various papers that I locate on JSTOR or Google Scholar. If anyone has any more suggestions of good literature on these events, please let me know.
  • Several sub-articles still need to be created, such as that of the April 27 demonstration, Zhao's Asia Development Bank speech, and the Li Peng meeting with students. I have begun a draft in my userspace for the latter.

Colipon+(Talk) 21:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for working to improve this article. The lengthy blockquotes were added by Shieldsgeordie, who insisted that the length was needed and didn't seem familiar with Wikipedia quotation policy. That user hasn't been around for over a year, so it should be fine to condense the quotes.
I do have an issue with Tiananmen Papers, including its current use in this article. The accuracy of that book has been debated and there's no way to verify the unique parts of book. I would prefer that Tiananmen Papers have its own brief section with a main article link, and that this brief section mention the controversy. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
I totally understand the controversy surrounding Tiananmen Papers. Generally I try to use parts of the book that have been vouched for by China scholars, in addition to drawing corroboration from Zhao's Society-State relations and Quelling the people. I have been searching for a comprehensive scholarly account on this event, but so far have had no luck (for example, a survey like MacFaquhar did for the Cultural Revolution). The available books are either too outdated, too emotionally charged, or too specialized. If you have any suggestions on which book to use, please let me know. I have also more-or-less liberally applied some of the contents of Li Peng and Zhao Ziyang's memoirs, but only in a way that corroborates secondary sources. If you find any material that you want to challenge, you can be bold and remove it, and we can discuss if necessary. Colipon+(Talk) 13:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Chengdu

Why are there so few accounts of the violence in Chengdu, taking place two days after the massacre in Beijing? Based on the evidence now available, it seems that the death toll in Chengdu on June 5 may be half as high as the death toll in Beijing. Perhaps some more information can be added under the subsection Reactions about Chengdu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.24.47 (talk) 05:43, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent story on US embassy wire by the London Telegraph

Someone more elegant please add this fact:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is 'best practice' to cite a wikileaks cable, and in any case the 'no bloodshed within square' issue is thoroughly discussed in the article. Colipon+(Talk) 13:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unknown Rebel photo

WHY ARE YOU COWARDS NOT ADDING ONE OF THE MOST ICONIC IMAGES OF THE 20TH CENTURY - WHERE IS THE UNKNOWN REBEL
THE *****FREE***** ENCYCLOPEDIA RIGHT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.67.101 (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If you own the copyright to the image and would like to upload it to Wikipedia for free usage, then please do so. Editors cannot just upload any photograph, regardless of how iconic you perceive it to be, unless the owner of said photograph releases it for wiki use. The irony of calling other people cowards while you hide anonymously behind your IP is unconstructive, especially in light of your IP's repeated vandalism of various articles. — Wrathkind (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I restored the first line of the topic. A prior edit changed the heading, which, unfortunately, was the entire point of this section. Without the original heading, this line of discussion seems random. — 173.60.134.88 (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


I really doubt the copyright owner is more concerned with his dues than preventing the power of this profound image from being suppressed and hidden from the world by the Chinese.

Am I the only one that senses censorship by the Chinese government in these articles? People are always trying to delete that picture from articles even the "Tank Man" article for Christ's sake, either it's people that are blinded by a strict obedience copyright laws or Chinese WikiSleepers both contemptible but I think I know which it is.

Rise up Wikians! Rise up! Fight for FREE knowledge. Not watered down chinese secrets.

If you want to see the picture added to this article so badly, please contact the people who hold the copyright for that image and convince them to give Wikipedia the right to use the image for free. There is no "Chinese conspiracy" to have this or any other image "suppressed and hidden from the world": it is not included here only because Wikipedia is not in the habit of arbitrarily breaking copyright laws just because its editors suspect that a copyright holder might not be "concerned with his dues".Ferox Seneca (talk) 22:55, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Your doubts about the copyright owner's concerns bear no weight unless you speak for the owner. Your contempt for strict obedience to copyright laws does not change current policy. Feel free to review the guidelines regarding non-free content, and direct your complaints to the talk pages regarding its criteria and rationale. — Wrathkind (talk) 12:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Note the image is included in Tank Man under our non-free content policy, which is strict and does not allow it to also be included in this article. Dcoetzee 00:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

A picture is worth a thousand words! I also came to the talk page to find out why the tank-man image is not here. Indeed, I probably would not have done so if there was even a single media image from the protests themselves. (It is to be expected that such a valuable image would not be handed over for free by a for-profit press. Kudos to the free -- as in beer, and as in freedom -- encyclopedia for keeping the tank-man image alive and well on its own page, in accordance with reasonable interpretation of copyright law. Still it is surprising that nothing is here.) Given the effect that the tank-man image had on the west, would it not be a good idea to move some link to the tank-man page into the preamble? Also, if some image were included (sorry, I don't have any ideas of what), the caption could reasonably contain a reference to the tank-man page. QuantumOfHistory (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Who provoked the violence?

There seems to be something wrong with the section Clearing the Square. Second para says soldiers opened fire on protesters in reaction to the protesters attacking them first. That is not what the given footnotes 98 and 99 indicate. Specifically Timothy Brook describes the attack on the apc's occuring as a reaction to and after the soldiers had started using indiscriminate live fire on protesters. John Pomfret says in his interview only that people threw rocks at the soldiers and burned buses used as blockades before the soldiers began using live fire. Footnote 75 cites a film which is unverifiable. ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.172.33.112 (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I read the links in the footnotes and edited that paragraph to make it clear that there is competing views of who sparked the violence and why. I am still not happy with the section. I would like to see a footnote for the protestors attacking first. Clearly more citations are needed and the nature of the citation need to be added to the article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Autonomous Workers Faktion

This article misses a point that is tremendously important to understand the violence. Is anyone here familiar with either the article "Who died in Beijing and why?" by Robin Munro, The Nation, June 11, 1990 or the book "Black Hands of Beijing – Lives of defiance in China's democracy movement" by George Black and Robin Munro, John Wiley and Sons, 1993, ISBN 0-471-57977-7? Munroe was on the square in the night of June 4th and has been all over the city in the weeks before as an observer for Human Rights Watch (going by the name Asia Watch back then). Black and he write a totally different story of what went on, and why the Chinese leaders felt threatened by the protests. According to them and numerous quoted sources the Chinese leaders saw the students as well meaning but erring idealists. But when workers entered the picture and in Beijing and Shanghai and many other cites autonomous unions were founded in all kinds of companies including the largest steel works of the country they saw it as a parallel to Poland in 1980/81 and the development there since. This was the reason for ordering the army in. Not the students. Remember: None of those who were sentenced to death were students. All of those executed were parts of the Autonomous Worker Faktion movement. So please get the article in The Nation or the book and expand this article accordingly. rgds --h-stt !? 12:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Tank Man

Tank Man is an iconic figure that entered the international psyche through the Tiananmen Square protests. The image is extremely powerful and is the symbol of the Chinese democracy movement. However, I hesitate to place too much emphasis on this man in the article dealing with the protests as a whole. I have taken it out of the 'chronological' section of the article because it belongs more fittingly in the 'impact' or 'cultural references' section, since for all intents and purposes he did not have much of an effect on the protests per se, but is more of an ex post facto media phenomenon. Moreoever, the article is already over the recommended length, with large chunks of the chronology still missing. Per WP:SUMMARY, we can lay out the basic narrative for Tank Man and let the user consult the "main article" should they be interested in finding out more. Two paragraphs, in my view, is more than sufficient to discuss this matter. Colipon+(Talk) 02:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there should not be too much emphasis on that one photo. A protest of some 100,000 people and the only photo of a protester we have on shows one protester? Surely there must be some other photos out there that could be used in addition to 'Tank Man'. Fatrb38 (talk) 15:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The photo taken by AP Photographer Jeff Widener as tanks rolled into Tiananmen Square on June 5th, 1989, is included in the Wikipedia article 'Tank Man'. I guess I don't understand some of the other comments on this talk page. Personally I don't see a problem putting the Tank Man photo on the article page but its not being there is not a huge problem. I do agree the photo is forever tied with the June 4th protests or Liu Si Shi Jian as its known in Mandarin. Jobberone (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable_use, the image section, item #6. Screenshot can be taken from BBC's coverage but that can only be used in an article about BBC's coverage for the event.--Skyfiler (talk) 07:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the Tank Man photo is not needed, and indeed maybe distracting. The generic photo of the square is better since the photo illustrates where it is with an iconic image, Mao above the gate. How about photos of the demonstration itself or the aftermath? A gallery might be helpful, provided the gallery and the article is not too long. --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
But there is no evidence that the tank man was part of a democracy movement. The protestors never asked for democracy as in western multi-party electoral systems. The students wanted good jobs automatically after their schooling, as in pre-reform days, since in Chinese culture, the educated saw themselves as superior to manual workers, whereas in the West there are many graduates who work in McDonald's or stacking supermarket shelves. The protestors actually wanted old fashion communism, and not the reforms of the day. 86.149.194.199 (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

A discussion of the appropriateness of including the tank man photograph from a copyright perspective was held on Media copyright questions during August 2012. All those who participated in that discussion, except one, believed it acceptable from a copyright perspective, considering Wikipedia policies, to include the photo in this article. Brianwc (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

In all honesty, I am surprised on one has simply contacted Jeff Wiedener himself to just ask him, get his approval, so we don't have to revisit this issue over and over again. Colipon+(Talk) 18:11, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding Tiananmen Square Massacre and Tiananmen Massacre into the first paragraph

Since Tiananmen Square Massacre and Tiananmen Massacre are both redirected here and are both still common terms, I have added a clause referring to those terms in the first paragraph. In general, if a phrase redirects to a page of a different title, then I think that phrase should be high up in the article. Ideally the phrase should be in the first sentence, or if not, then the first paragraph, or if not, certainly in the introduction. I understand that journalists and others may be moving away from that term but since this is a common-English encyclopedia, then common usage, and not expert and professional usage, should be the measure of the terms used. It is also a common phrase even in other Wikipedia articles and should be included high up in the article. --Bruce Hall (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Retitled subsection from "Clearing the Square" to "Clearing the Square: the "Massacre" on June 3 and 4"

Retitled subsection from "Clearing the Square" to Clearing the Square: the "Massacre"". (Note the quotes.) We need to have "massacre" in the table of contents so that those who are interested in learning about it can go directly there. It is afterall a word common to many of the common names of the events of that day. Many will come to the article wanting to find out about " ____ massacre". We need to make it easy for them to find the relevant section. --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:45, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Should we drop the quotes from around "massacre"? I would suggest so because it strikes me as scare quotes, adding an unneeded subtext when nearly everyone agrees that the events are known as a massacre. They may think it is a mischaracterization, and perhaps it is, but that is what its name. That is what it is called in by a significant number of English speakers and writers, if not the overwhelming majority. It is not our place to judge whether that is the correct name or a misnomer. We are to educate people who have heard about this thing called the Tiananmen Square Massacre --Bruce Hall (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
I took out the quotes but added in a "/". It would be best to get rid of the slash and title the section "Tiananmen Square Massacre" to which the various redirections point. --Bruce Hall (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

In any event the wording of this section is unclear, particular where it says "The remaining students, numbering a few hundred, left the square under the military's watch before dawn." That sentence would seem to suggest that no massacre took place (or, at least, not on the square itself). I understand that the reports on the number of dead, and where/how they were killed conflict -- but that sentence, taken without qualification, seems to confuse the issue considerably. Arided (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved, no consensus. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2012 (UTC)



Tiananmen Square protests of 19891989 Tiananmen Square protests

  • Conforms to usual style. The "of" is superfluous. 86.40.106.197 (talk) 13:32, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wikileaks

Apart from one sentence, there is hardly any information regarding the Wikileaks expose. I feel the recent revelations deserves a new section in the article to balance out the aftermath/legacy side of things. The lack of record here is a textbook example of history influenced by sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.99.218 (talk) 16:24, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Edits to the Lede on December 19

My edits to the lede were made for the following reasons:

  1. expanded the first sentence to (1) emphasize the support that the student demonstrators received from city residents -- this was a student-led mass movement, not just a student movement, and (2) to draw attention to the high-level political division within the government, which explains both why the movement lasted as long as it did and how the decision to impose martial law reflects the triumph of hardline leaders within the government. Their triumph in turn accounts for how the political and policy course of the country was altered by the protests.
  2. devoted the second sentence to the military crackdown itself and how the association between the Square and the massacre arises.
  3. reduced the relative prominence of the Wikileaks fact about the absence of deaths within the Square in the lede from two sentences to just the first half of the third sentence. The second half of the third sentence provides some context for what this revelation means in the entire scheme of this historical event. Perhaps no one died in the Square and this fact corrects that misimpression, but it hardly detracts from the extraordinary nature of the government's crackdown, at least in the minds of many students and residents who, having been taught to celebrate past protests, could not believe that the government would resort to such lethal and disproporationate measures.
  4. In a brief second paragraph, I place upfront the Chinese government's characterization of the event and ban on discussion, which explains why so many facts in this article are difficult to verify and remain in dispute.
  5. reduce redundancy within the lede itself (the seven-week duration of the protests was mentioned twice).
  6. incorporate information from the body -- e.g. there were protests in 400 Chinese cities. Hence, the mention of four cities in the lede is underinclusive.
  7. Added the impact of this event on developments in Eastern Europe.

If there are any suggestions or comments, please feel free to share. NumbiGate (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I like most of your edits. The only issue with the lede now is that it is much too long. It will need trimming to about four paragraphs. Colipon+(Talk) 05:38, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

What was the protest about?

Western media at the time dressed up the protest as a protest for democracy. But the reality was that the protest was an anti-capitalist protest, as was happening in western countries recently. Deng Xiaoping had been purged several times by Mao and the Gang of Four for being a capitalist roader. Deng was a capitalist. The protestors wanted to remove Deng the capitalist, as Mao had wanted. The protestors were thus anti-capitalist protestors and not pro-democracy protestors. 86.128.174.213 (talk) 01:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What reliable secondary sources do you have to back up your claim that the protests were anti-capitalist? Without such sources, the article should not be modified to mention such a point of view. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

How does it compare to the anti-capitalism protests in Europe? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20243625 86.180.54.222 (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The BBC page you provided cannot be used in this Wikipedia article because it says nothing about the 1989 protests. Please see WP:SYNTH. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Common sense my dear Watson, common sense. 86.136.200.108 (talk) 02:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:V, Wikipedia article content should come from reliable sources, not be based merely on an editor's personal opinion of what is common sense. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
Any reliable evidence that it was anything but an anti-capitalist protest? 81.129.180.47 (talk) 02:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Please see WP:BURDEN, which says that the burden of proof in this situation is on those who want to add content about the protest being anti-capitalist. There is no burden of proof on myself or anyone else who is against adding that content. So, where are your reliable sources saying that this protest was anti-capitalist? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Efforts by Chinese Government to Sanitize this Article

I have seen over time this article increasingly sanitized (no longer a "massacre", they have been working to get that term removed for a long time now). "Nobody died in Tianman square" and now some bullshit about this being an "anti-capitalist protest". Hundreds if not thousands are believed to have been killed. This article is increasingly becoming Chinese revisionist history. Someone needs to keep an eye on this and realize that sock-puppets are everywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.188.176.2 (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Evidence for your claims which amount to accusations of conflict of interest, which is a severe personal attack? GotR Talk 22:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

For those that are not so bent on erasing the history that I remember, regarding this massacre; a quick google images search for "Tiananmen Square Massacre" provides any required *evidence* that this entire article and it's title are in conflict of interest against: the facts, truth and history.Bsdxlr8 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Shame on Chinese Wikipedia self-censorship

Dear all citizens from the world of freedom,

I am here to told you a horrible story about Chinese wikipedia registered users removing "unwanted" contents systematically such as "the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" and "Tank Man" from the related articles, for example "Type 59 tank". In these articles they remove everything about Tiananmen or tank man, including links, pictures, or even just text, they won't let any wordings (such as "1989" or 64 which represnts "June 4") survive in these articles. Any content about June 4 had been removed recent years, and it seems no one would dare to change the condition.

In some cases, they even request for deleting the whole articles. For example, in the talk page of "Tank man" Chinese version, you can even see how they attempted to delete the whole article.

Here are just some of the notable examples. Recently they even tried to remove an article about Masanjia Labor Camp by laying "there is no report by western media." Then a guy added some links such as Huffington Post, Daily Mail and CNN. A user from China then questioned if The Huffington Post and Daily Mail of British "reliable sources of news". That Chinese user kept on saying "you should not write such article just after reading those bias reports" and "those are not reliable sources of News". That guy keep on blaming and another user from China also joined.

They also talk of removing wiki links about june four protest. They consider those adding or talking about june 4 as bad guys "damaging" the Chinese wikipedia.

Sorry for the inconvenient I caused, as all links I post are all Chinese only. I just hope to raised the attentions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.118.51.245 (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

We Have Been Lied To

Go to Chinese Google and search tiananmen square massacre and tank man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.44.88 (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Tank Man

That image in the infobox should be removed per Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_12#File:Tianasquare.jpg. --HNAKXR (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

There's another uncropped photo of the scene already on Wikipedia, maybe use that one?
http://twistedsifter.com/2012/06/the-bigger-picture-uncropped-versions-of-iconic-photos/
Oh opps, can't do that since the uncropped photo shows the tanks were actually leaving TAM, and Tank Man was trying to stop the tanks from LEAVING.
Talk about tiwsted history. What have we been told all these years?
Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
You may need to re-write your point out in a logical way. The tank man image is the mmost iconic image of the crackdown, are you saying that because it is moving out from the square it's not part of the event? I think you need to re-read the first part of the article, this article is not about "Vehicles entering Tiananmen Square on 4 June 1989", it's about the entire episode of protest and crackdwon in 1989 up to and including the aftermath of the crackdown. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Discussion

I am astounded at the egregious bias so rife and evident in this article. Many claims are unreferenced, in addition to the fact that only one perspective and one narrow, pelage-of-a-viewpoint are represented in the article. On the relevant Wikipedia page, I am instructed to, after placing the neutrality tag on the page, to outline which areas I feel are unrepresentative. This particular area is actually the entire article. I do not feel such a slanted and skewed article has a place on Wikipedia. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with QatarStarsLeague, this article is very biased:
- There's no mentioning of the US embassy wire released by Wikileaks that supports the Chinese government's account of events.
- There's an inflamatory photo of machine guns, but where are the photos of violent rioters attacking unarmed soldiers and charred bodies of dead soldiers?
- http://www.bearcanada.com/graphics/china/tam001.jpg
- http://www.bearcanada.com/graphics/china/tam002.jpg
- http://www.bearcanada.com/graphics/china/tam003.jpg
- http://www.bearcanada.com/graphics/china/tam004.jpg
- Right, show a photo of machine gun, but does not mention declassified NSA intel stating the troops sent to restore order and clear the square were initially unarmed and were attacked by violent rioters (see photos above).
Bias bais bais, very sad to see wikipedia being exploited like this to perpetuate propaganda. Facts stated above (wikileak wires, declassified NSA intel, public domain photo from China with no copyright restriction in US) came from Google and can be publically verifed.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Indeed! Quite honestly it is shameful! QatarStarsLeague (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Well done, here's 5 jiao for each of you. *hands over*. Now go write some laudatory articles about the great and glorious communist party somewhere else.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
To address your actual points, BF:
1. Not every source supportive of the Chinese government is a reliable source. Most are not. Especially a conversation between two people with no direct links with the event.
2. It's only your view that it's inflamatory, the rest of the world thinks it reports the facts. If you think violent unarmed rioters attacked perfectly innocent soldiers in combat fatigues who are shooting at civilians without provocation, why don't you source some free images and add them to the article? The articles you linked to above have no authorship information, no date of publication, no provenance. Even if we assume that they were taken in Beijing in 1989, they are under copyright and cannot be freely used without a licence from the photographer or his employer. Go find the photographer, get them to license them, upload them to Wikimedia, then talk.
3. Is your "declassified NSA intel" a reliable source? I doubt it, but you need to cite and provide it if you are going to argue it is.
4. The correct spelling is "bias". --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
PalaceGuard, if you have proof of your McCarthyist accusation against me, let's see the cite. The declassafied NSA intel was already accepted as reliable source and cited in the article already (look at the casualty estimate). Other sections of the NSA document mentioned the troops were initially unarmed:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/09-02.htm
Bobby fletcher (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
How about this, is CBS a reliable source?
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-5061672-503543.html
"Dawn was just breaking. There were hundreds of troops in the square, many sitting cross-legged on the pavement in long curving ranks, some cleaning up debris. There were some tanks and armored personnel carriers. But we saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a "massacre" had recently occurred in that place.

Later, being debriefed on-air by Dan Rather, I recall making an effort to avoid using the word "massacre." I referred to an "assault" and an "attack."

I reported what I saw; I said I hadn't seen any bodies. Admittedly, I've never made a point of trying to contradict a colleague on the air; I've simply stuck to my own story, because I've believed it's true."

Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
How about London Telegraph, reliable source?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/8555896/Wikileaks-Tiananmen-cables.html
1. From 89BEIJING18828 - July 7, 1989. A Chilean diplomat provides an eye-witness account of the soldiers entering Tiananmen Square: HE WATCHED THE MILITARY ENTER THE SQUARE AND DID NOT OBSERVE ANY MASS FIRING OF WEAPONS INTO THE CROWDS, ALTHOUGH SPORADIC GUNFIRE WAS HEARD. HE SAID THAT MOST OF THE TROOPS WHICH ENTERED THE SQUARE WERE ACTUALLY ARMED ONLY WITH ANTI-RIOT GEAR--TRUNCHEONS AND WOODEN CLUBS; THEY WERE BACKED UP BY ARMED SOLDIERS.

2. From 89BEIJING18828 - July 7, 1989. A Chilean diplomat provides an eye-witness account of the soldiers entering Tiananmen Square: ALTHOUGH GUNFIRE COULD BE HEARD, HE SAID THAT APART FROM SOME BEATING OF STUDENTS, THERE WAS NO MASS FIRING INTO THE CROWD OF STUDENTS AT THE MONUMENT.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If the point here is that mass shootings did not occur in the square, then the article has already explored this idea at various lengths both in the lede and in the "Clearing the Square" section. If users here are alleging some sort of 'bias', please point out to which passage in the article you see issues with. Colipon+(Talk) 19:13, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In terms of the number of military personnel killed in the operation, according to Wu Renhua's careful study [1], only 15 could be verified. Of these 15, six from the 38th Group Army were killed when the truck they were riding in flipped over and caught fire, one was a photographer in the propaganda unit of the 39th Group Army who was not in uniform while taking pictures and was hit by gunfire (he is counted as a "friendly fire" casualty) and one from the 24th Group Army who died of a heart attack on July 4, 1989. That leaves seven deaths among military personnel that may be counted as actual KIA at the hands of angry city residents in reaction to the crackdown. NumbiGate (talk) 06:17, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Propose to add the fact troops were initially unarmed

In response to editor Colipon, I would like to point out what I believe to be biased content. Search the term "unarmed", you'll notice every refernce is about unarmed civilian being shot at. This IMHO is very baised, since there are plenty of evidence showing these people on ChangAn Ave were rioting, killing unarmed troops (but the article does not have reference to this fact, or any emphasis in parity.)

Declassified NSA intel shows the troops initially sent to restore order were unarmed (see refernce providedd above). I would like to propose this article to contain at least one reference to this fact.

Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

To Bobby fletcher, Please understand the following premises for this article:
1. The article is not confined to what happened in Tiananmen Square but covers the student-led demonstrations and the government crackdown that occurred throughout Beijing (and in many other cities throughout China). Any attempt to characterize what may have happened in the Square itself without also accounting for what was occurring in the city around the Square may produce a misleading impression and any misleading impressions will be rejected.
For example, you keep citing to reports of "no bloodshed" in the Square but present the fact in isolation without accounting for the killings that were occurring all around the city. For example, at Liubukou on Changan Avenue just west of the Square, at about 6:00am on June 4, a tank ran into a group of students who had just evacuated from the Square, killing five and injuring nine. The time of the incident, the location and the names of those killed are all documented in this source. [2]
In an earlier version of the article, this sentence with the accompanying footnote was in the lede: Diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks though appear to confirm the Chinese authorities' longstanding position that no students were killed in the Square itself.
Note: Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing obtained by WikiLeaks, "partly confirm the Chinese government's account of the early hours of June 4, 1989, which has always insisted that soldiers did not massacre demonstrators inside Tiananmen Square. Instead, the cables show that Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the centre of Beijing, as they fought their way towards the square from the west of the city." [3]
As another example, you cite reports that say some of the troops who first arrived in the Square were only armed with clubs, not guns. Such reports even if true needs to be considered with the fact that the overwhelming majority of troops in Beijing on June 3/4 were armed with lethal weapons and many if not most units were shooting their way to Tiananmen Square against civilians blocking their progress. The broader fact that lethal force was permitted overwhelms any suggestion by your fact that the enforcement of martial law was somehow intended to be non-lethal.
2. The definition of what is armed / unarmed. You use a single photo, undated and without caption, showing several civilians throwing rocks / bricks at an armoured personnel vehicle to claim that the civilians were somehow not "unarmed". I'm sorry. Rock-wielding civilians are still unarmed. Uniformed military personnel with clubs are still armed. Plus, the military personnel you claim who had clubs were in the Square where "no bloodshed" occurred, right? The seven troops who were KIA were all outside the Square. There's no indication they were not armed. And you want parity? 7 soldiers versus at least 186 civilians dead doesn't sound like a fair fight. That's what you get when soldiers with assault rifles and tanks use lethal force on unarmed civilians.
3. Causation -- did the "riot" cause the crackdown or did the crackdown provoke the "riot"? You seem to say the troops were up against rioters. But who started using lethal force? No source has been cited to suggest that the troops were killed before civilians were. That makes a big difference. NumbiGate (talk) 23:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
I'm all ears on how to add the fact declassified NSA intelligence showed the troops were unarmed. By all means add it if you like:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/09-01.htm
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/09-02.htm
Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:12, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
@NumbiGate Also, there are footages of rioters throwing molotov cocktail. Is improvised incindiary device considered "armed"?
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2009/06/tussle_in_tiananmen_square.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10266890
http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2009-06-04/news/0906030087_1_deng-xiaoping-tiananmen-four-modernizations
There are many factual citations on protesters armed with molotov cocktail. Yet throughout the wiki you see reference to "unarmed civilian". IMHO this is POV.
So again, I would be more than happy to see you add this fact about protesters throwing molotov cocktail, torching APCs, tanks.
Bobby fletcher (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Bobby fletcher, I would ask you to read the article before making claims about biases. The items you claim to be missing -- molotov cocktails, the NSA report you cited, protesters throwing projectiles and building barricades -- are all in the article and have been there for at least a year. You can read more about torched vehicles in People's Liberation Army at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. NumbiGate (talk) 04:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Can you show me anywhere in the article that state the fact troops were unarmed? Can you show me where does this declassified document stating this fact exist in the article:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB16/documents/09-02.htm
Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:25, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not blank relevant fact

This citation from London Telegraph was recently blanked from this wiki, seemingly to push POV: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html Please feel free to edit, but blanking will be challenged, since this article is from a reliable source and is relevant to the subject. Thanks! Bobby fletcher (talk) 07:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that this has the the hardliners labelled as conservatives instead of calling them the hard left.

For example, would we also call those of the hard Christian right in the united states *reformers* because they want to change government policy and restrict all abortion, and label the liberals who oppose them as *conservatives*? of course not. I'd suggest it is unwise to label all those who wish to retain some aspect of the status quo as conservative because it can confuse the issues.

I also find it odd that this article declares that these protests were about inequality caused by market reforms and rich people flaunting their wealth, rather than about obtaining the right to participate in politics and freedom of speech (aka democracy). it seems the acknowledged leader of the protests,Fang Lizhi, disagrees completely with Wikipedia's assessment.

Is this page about history, or is it propaganda?

It's about western propaganda because China avoids any discussion by not participating, so the west is free to say what it likes. It is a case of say it enough times, then it becomes the truth, no matter what the real truth was. 81.129.179.21 (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

How to include news report of US embassy wires released by Wikileaks

Some one has again blanked this very recent and IMHO important and relevant development. It's a relevant article from a notable mainstream media source, London Telegraph. I'm at a lost as to why it continues to be blanked/DE. Now the article has no mentioning of this fact. Is it in WP's spirit to self-censor certain POV? If there's such WP rule please show me. Bobby fletcher (talk) 20:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikileaks cable is already cited in the article -- again you should read more carefully -- but you're trying to use that source to support adding the following to the lede:
In 2011, Wikileaks released leaked US embassy wires in June, suggesting there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen square.
In 2011, Wikileaks revealed cables from the United States embassy in Beijing which showed there were no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square. The cables partly confirm the Chinese government's account of the early hours of June 4, 1989, which has always insisted that soldiers did not massacre demonstrators inside Tiananmen Square. Instead, the cables show that Chinese soldiers opened fire on protesters outside the centre of Beijing, as they fought their way towards the square from the west of the city.
The Wikileaks document that the London Telegraph cites is a diplomatic cable that summarizes what Chilean diplomat Carlos Gallo observed in the several trips he made to the Square on the night of June 3 and in the early morning hours of June 4. From the Red Cross Station by the National History Museum on the east side of the Square, Gallo reports hearing gunshots but not seeing mass firings into the crowd at the Monument to the People's Heroes. For the full cable see [4]. The fact that Gallo did not see fatal shootings in the Square does not mean that fatal shootings did not occur. In fact the article now has amply documented facts that indicate otherwise. To wit:
Dai Jinping, a 27-year old Beijing Agricultural University graduate student, was killed by gunfire near the Mao Zedong Mausoleum at about 11:00 p.m. on June 3. His body was identified by relatives at Beijing Friendship Hospital.
Cheng Renxing, a 25-year old Renmin University graduate student, was shot in the stomach at the flag pole in the Square, suffered massive hemorraging and was pronounced dead at the Beijing Hospital at about 2:00 a.m. on June 4.
Li Haocheng, a 20-year old Tianjin Normal University undergraduate student, was taking photographs at the southeast corner of the Square in the early morning hours of June 4 when he was hit by gunfire, and died at Beijing Tongren Hospital.
At around 4:00 a.m., a 16-year old boy who had been watching the events from atop Tiananmen Gate, rode his bicycle out of the Gate to go home. As he was crossing the moat, going toward Changan Avenue on the north side of the Square, he was beaten by soldiers armed with clubs and dragged into the Workers' Cultural Palace next to Tiananmen, where he died a little more than an hour later. See Zhang Jie (Victim No. 192) (Chinese) Tiananmen Mothers' Compilation of Victims No. 151-202.
The fate of the victims above amply demonstrates bloodshed in and around the Square. They are not contradicted by Gallo who was not in the Square the entire night and could not see the whole Square, but he did hear gunshots when he was there. This is why the sentence you're trying to add to the lede, which suggests that no bloodshed occurred in the Square, is wrong. The fact that the London Telegraph, which was not privy to these additional facts, made an errant conclusion based on Gallo's account alone, is immaterial to this article, which recounts the event based on all existing facts.NumbiGate (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
I suggest to set up a new section "Wikileaks' report" to include the detailed information from the cables. STSC (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
I did a Google News search with the following terms: Tiananmen, Wikileaks and Gallo. There were no search results. Despite the London Telegraph article, there seems to be very little coverage of this Wikileaks info by reliable news sources. Per WP:WEIGHT, Wikileaks should not have its own section in this Wikipedia article unless reliable sources have given it significant coverage. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Just search: Wikileaks + Tiananmen Square, you'll get plenty of RS. STSC (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I actually did the search you have suggested before writing my July 6th posting. The problem with that search is that it's too vague and picks up all kinds of stuff unrelated to what we are talking about. Here are three examples from the first page of the search results:
* The first link from The Trumpet. The only reference to Wikileaks is to Julian Assange. There's nothing about the Tiananmen cables.
* The first link from The New York Times. Like the previous web page, this one only mentions Wikileaks once, and that mention has nothing to do with the Tiananmen cables.
* The first link from Raw Story. Despite being listed in the search results, this article does not mention Wikileaks or Tiananmen at all.
These search criteria do not make a case that reliable sources have given the Wikileaks cables significant coverage. You will need to provide actual references, not more search criteria. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I only replied to your comment saying there were no search results. The search got 291,000 hits and I'm sure there are some relevant RS in those hits. STSC (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You are entitled to your opinion about what constitutes proof that there is sufficient RS coverage to avoid undue weight. However, I do not share your opinion. When the search criteria are vague, I've seen Google return lots of results with nothing useful. Also, Google sorts by relevance, so the first page of results is most likely to contain useful information. If the first page does not contain anything useful, then the 100th page and the 10000th page of search results are very likely to be worthless. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:54, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I have found some useful links from the search (related to "no massacre" POV): Wikileaks; Telegraph; CBS News; Business & Economy, etc. STSC (talk) 03:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Our discussion began with your June 30th suggestion that a new section be added to discuss details from the Wikileaks cables. That is the subject which I said appears to have little coverage in reliable sources and should not be given undue weight. Now, you seem to have introduced a different subject: "no massacre" POV. Why are you bringing this up? Are you now proposing some other articles changes? -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The examples given are some of the RS for the WikiLeaks cables. I would suggest a sub-section of "WikiLeaks cables" under the section Whether there was bloodshed in Tiananmen Square which covers the "no massacre" POV. STSC (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
While there may be some overlap between the Wikileaks cables and "no massacre" POV, the two issues should not be confused. For example, Richard Roth, the reporter in your CBS News source, discusses the "no massacre" issue, but he says nothing about the Wikileaks cables. This source does not show that reliable sources have covered the cables.
The B&E page is written by an editor, not a reporter, so it appears to be an editorial. WP:RS says that such sources are "rarely reliable for statements of fact." As a result, I think that the B&E page is not a reliable source for the details of the Wikileaks cables.
The Telegraph article is the same one I mentioned in my July 6th posting. It is not something new. In addition, it is obvious that the Wikileaks cable would contain the details of the cable. I do not see how this adds anything new to the discussion. The coverage of the Wikilieaks cables by reliable source still appears extremely small, and there still appears to be a serious undue weight problem with giving the cables their own section. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What was the protest about?

The western press wrote that the protestors wanted democracy, but all the evidence points to the fact that the protestors wanted old fashion communism and not the capitalism reforms. So was it a pro-communism and anti-capitalism protest? Also I thought Hu was removed after he made a speech in which he said several different communist parties could exist with different policies and they could compete with each other in the ballot box, resulting in a communist and democratic government and country. 81.129.179.21 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Dubious source material

It's my belief that the source material, Tiananmenmother.org, contains some highly dubious information. Its language is subjective and emotional, and I cannot seem to find any primary source on the website that supports its claims. Take this paragraph for an example:

6月3日,他在天安门(姐姐为天安门管理人员)观看,4点凌晨5时许,他从金水桥上骑车准备回家,迎面碰上一群杀红了眼的军人,不由分说,举起棍子就朝头上打。天安门上有不少热人大喊自己人,但他们全然不顾,将张杰击倒后拖入劳动人民文化宫,可怜的孩子一个多小时才死去。

"On June the third, he was watching the events on top of Tian-an-men (his sister was a security staff at the Gate). At about 4:05 am on June the fourth, he was riding his bicycle home over Jin-shui Bridge when he ran into a mob of bloodthirsty soldiers, who without hesitation started beating him in his head. Lots of 'hot people' (which I take to mean 'bystanders') were shouting out to the soldiers that the boy was not a rioter, but they completely ignored them. After beating Zhang Jie unconscious, they dragged him into the Workers' Cultural Palace. The poor, innocent child did not die until an hour later"

This passage was cited in this article (164), and I think it pretty much says it all. The language is so emotional that it almost brings tears to my eyes, and no primary source is given. The boy's death certificate, for example? 202.171.163.7 (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The institutions in a society that would normally provide the type of information you seek about the fatalities are forbidden to report, disclose or transmit that information. Those with first-hand knowledge of the events cannot readily share their knowledge without facing retribution. As the lede indicates, Due to the lack of information from China, many aspects of the events remain unknown or unconfirmed. The Tiananmen Mothers have undertaken the painstaking task of gathering information about the fatalities. Its tabulation cites its sources whenever possible but readily admits information that is missing or not fully confirmed. It nevertheless provides the most detailed information of any available in the public domain about the victims of the military crackdown. For example, take a look at the detailed report of the efforts by Ding Zilin to locate and interview Li Haocheng's mother.[5] A video of the interview is on Youtube.[6] As a testament of the Tiananmen Mother's credibility, Human Rights in China republished the tabulation circa 1999 (which only had 155 victims identified).[7] Victim No. 192's profile, notes that the name of the victim, Jie, is not fully confirmed but the account supports the point cited -- that a boy died near Tiananmen Square. NumbiGate (talk) 07:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: Rechecking of resources, article ſtill a candidate for deletion

We revoke our former statements in light of the dēper study of V Amendment, which says, "He was tried by a jury and found guilty, and, after certain proceedings with which we have no concern, he [Page 258 U. S. 435] was sentenced to the workhouse at hard labor for six months." However, that still makes this article a candidate for deletion.


Llamagnu on Oct 30, 2013 1:54 PM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.135.223.235 (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Tank man photograph

I'm very surprised that the iconic "Tank Man" photo is nowhere to be found in this article. That image is one that many people, at least outside China, associate with these protests more than any other. It is famous, succinct and powerful.

I appreciate that this photograph has its own Wikipedia page Tank Man, but surely that just adds weight to the argument that the image is significant enough to warrant inclusion here?

I have made the appropriate edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesWCane (talkcontribs) 13:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

ATTN: Still a candidate for deletion

I have not read the Constitution and its V amendment, though. But writing such an article is hate speech. 24.135.223.235 (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Llamagnu on 30 Oct 2013, 4:30 PM

if you want censorship that much you can always go BACK to Chinese wikipedia and do it you know? 223.18.211.82 (talk) 16:20, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Double standards: backward references are not allowed

I see the reference to the Bonus Army is removed whereas nobody is going to remove the reference from bonus army to the here. When I created the backward reference for the first time, I was told that I cannot do that unless I prove with a reference to reliable source that these are related. Yet, nobody asks for reliable sources to support the Bonus Army -> Tiananmen link, which hangs there since 2008! All this looks like a dirty manipulation and double standards with the purpose to hide inconvenient truth. They say that this is unrelated. Indeed, we have the it it the same brutal government oppression of protests with the tanks in the capital but they are taking place in different places: one is in totalitarian China, and, thus we must speak about it whereas the other takes place in the democratic USA. That is why we must refer the people who read about Bonus Army to the Tiananmen but those who read about communist atrocities must not know that the same happens in the US. I like the last reason to delete: the number of protesters was different. Let me guess: the different sources report quite different number of casualties. We should not take the fact that China has 10x more people into account, right? Why should we consider only pro-democracy movements as analgous but not all cases where the government squashes their citizens in the capital with tanks? --Javalenok (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that there is a link in the Bonus Army article. I have not looked at that article in any detail before, but now I will be watching changes to the article in the future. I have removed the link to Tiananmen from the Bonus Army article using an edit comment that refers to the previous talk page discussion you provided. Per Wikipedia policy, reliable sources are needed in both places. -- JTSchreiber (talk) 06:54, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

this article sounds like a great news story

The article is written like a wonderful news story, NPOV violation.

"with assault rifles and tanks inflicted casualties on unarmed civilians trying to block the military’s advance."

Please re-write the article with a neutral tone and syntax. Dark Liberty (talk) 04:03, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

OK - here goes: Hooligans, too backwards to have ammunition of their own, in horrific criminal activity against the innocent automatic rifles aimed at them, brazenly stole bullets by lodging them in their demonic bodies.

Death toll

In the infobox the death toll is given as up to 2600, a figure which was a typo & has long since been retracted. I'm pretty sure there aren't any sane estimates that go to 4 figures. Iliekinfo (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Date format

I have received a request on my talk page that I bring here. It seems to make sense, and have no objection in principle.

Is it alright to ask that the date format for "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989" to be changed to “m-d-y” rather than the current “d-m-y”? The reason I ask is because in almost all the literature I have read, including SCMP, NYT, and the Economist, the date format used to this event is “June 4” instead of “4 June”. Date auto formatting makes the format inconsistent with the way it is commonly rendered. Moreover it creates awkward phrases such as the “26 April Editorial” in the article body when the standalone article title is “April 26 editorial”.

Comments welcome. -- Ohc ¡digame! 06:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Ohconfucius - thank you for making this change. The script seems to have missed some dates, particularly in the section "protests escalate". Could you please assist? Thanks, Colipon+(Talk) 20:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

So, where is WP:COMMONNAME here?

Articles in the English-language version of Wikipedia should reflect the most commonly used term… in English!

Anyway: we must remember that “incident” is a historically-known euphemism used in the Far East countries to underestimate massacres and other atrocities…---186.204.166.185 (talk) 12:10, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we change the title to “Tiananmen Square Massacre"? Rajavel 2k12 (talk) 09:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
This page isn't just about the massacre, it's about the month long protests that occurred before the massacre along with the massacre itself. --Riley1012 (talk) 18:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Nor is the article just about the events of June 4th, yet "June Fourthe Incident" is given as the first alternate name for the subject of the article. It also seems improper to relegate the most common name for the events (Tiananmen Square Massacre) to the final sentence of the first paragraph of the lede and the last of four paragraphs in the section on names.--Wikimedes (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
If listing "June Fourth Incident" as an alternative name of the month long protests is a significant view (As seen in Britannica and CNN), then you have to list it as an alternate name per WP:NPOV. Whether you think this make sense or not does not matter.
Google Search can't tell if a name is used within the article's scope. For example do you really think a routine news article "Gas price today is 3.12 dollars per gallon" or "This player is 6 feet 9 and 200 pounds" really explained to you what "gallon", “feet” or "pound" means? We don't define a gallon as 3.12 dollar worth of gas and we don't define pound as 1/200 of the particular player's weight. Besides, In the search result of pound, how can you tell how many are about mass, how many are about force, and how many are about money? When you search you got to filter out all the passive mentions first and find the articles whose scope actually match what is discussed here, before deciding what should be the common name. --Skyfiler (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Cultural Revolution section restored

The following section has been restored because it is integral the article in the following ways:

Deng Xiaoping, the ultimate decision-maker in 1989, had been blamed for the Tiananmen Square protests of 1976 and lost power. The suppression of those protests engendered deep resentment in Beijing, and Deng capitalized on those sentiments to reclaim power. He then prevailed in the political struggle over the course of policy by swiftly reversing the verdict of the 1976 protests over the objection of rivals, whom he replaced with Hu Yaobang and Zhao Ziyang, two figures central to the events of 1989. Deng's triumph in the political struggle of 1976, which was aided by his stance on the popular protests, enabled him to launch the economic reforms, which in turn created economic dislocation and new tensions. The death of Hu trigged the protests of 1989 and the ouster of Zhao opened the way for the bloody crackdown.

The events of 1976 were fresh in the memory of residents in 1989 who were conditioned to believe (1) the political leadership, which had risen to power in 1976 by taking a pro-protest position may not be willing to suppress the 1989 protest, (2) any suppression of popular protest was unlikely to be bloody (because the 1976 protest was suppressed by club wielding police and worker vigilantes), and (3) even if the protests were deemed counter-revolutionary, the verdict could be reversed.

The scale of military mobilization and the resulting bloodshed were unprecedented in the history of Beijing, a city with a rich tradition of popular protests in the 20th century.[1]

Hi - thanks for your work on this page. Currently that entire section that you restored seems to be completely lacking in in-line citations; moreover it seems like a rather lengthy write-up on Chinese history which is not necessarily relevant; for exmaple, Hua Guofeng was essentially a non-issue by 1989. It is clear that the Cultural Revolution and the Tiananmen Incident of 1976 influenced the protesters, but I am unsure it needs three to four paragraphs to establish this. The primary cause of the protests was the social problems that emerged after Deng's economic reforms were implemented, and also the global wave of anti-Communist protests that occurred in 1989. The 'background' section therefore should be focused much more on the economic reforms and less on what happened before that. Colipon+(Talk) 01:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

References

Background

The origins of the political showdown in Tiananmen Square in the spring of 1989 date to the end of the Cultural Revolution, the Tiananmen Incident of 1976, the rise of Deng Xiaoping and the onset of economic reforms.

Deng Xiaoping was purged by Chairman Mao Zedong at the outset of the Cultural Revolution in 1966, rehabilitated by Premier Zhou Enlai in 1974, purged a second time by the Gang of Four in 1976, following the Tiananmen Incident of 1976 only to re-emerge in 1977 and become Paramount Leader of China from 1978 to 1992. Deng launched the Chinese economic reforms in 1978 and presided over the crackdown of the student protests in Tiananmen Square in June 1989.

At the beginning of 1976, China’s political leadership was nominally headed by the aging Chairman Mao Zedong but was divided between the Maoists led by the Gang of Four and the old guard cadres including Deng Xiaoping, who had been purged at the outset of the Cultural Revolution in 1966 but was rehabilitated by Premier Zhou Enlai in 1974. After Zhou died in January 1976, he was mourned by a massive outpouring of public grief in March and April during the traditional tomb-sweeping festival, when thousands of Beijing residents placed floral wreaths at the Monument to the People's Heroes in Tiananmen Square. Attached to many wreaths were allegorical poems expressing anger at the Gang of Four. On 5 April 1976, the Maoists declared the gathering in the Square to be “counter-revolutionary” and ordered the people's militia and workers armed with billy clubs to clear the Square. Deng Xiaoping was blamed for the counter-revolutionary gathering and purged from power.

After Mao died in September, the Gang of Four was arrested in October and Deng was rehabilitated again in 1977. Thereafter, Hua Guofeng, Mao's anointed successor and Deng differed over the direction of policy and the treatment of the victims of the Cultural Revolution. Hua sought to continue the Maoist line and refused, among other measures, to reconsider the verdict of the 1976 Tiananmen Incident. Deng outmaneuvered Hua politically, drawing on the support of the old guard in the military as well as popular support for undoing the injustices of the Cultural Revolution, and sidelined the remaining Maoists. At the Third Plenum of the 11th Central Committee in December 1978, Deng launched a program to reform the Chinese economy, the party leadership also reversed the verdict of the 1976 Tiananmen Incident. At this time, some Chinese intellectuals, including Wei Jingsheng called for political reform and posted essays on the Democracy Wall in Beijing. This period of toleration of dissent, known as Beijing Spring, was short-lived. Wei Jingsheng was arrested in March 1979 and the Democracy Wall closed in December.

Deng promoted allies to run the reform agenda. Hu Yaobang was appointed the General Secretary of the CPC in February 1980 and Zhao Ziyang replaced Hua Guofeng as premier in September. By 1981, 73% of rural farms had decollectivized and 80% of state industries were permitted to retain profits. The advent of reforms created new political differences over the pace of marketization and the control over political ideology.

NumbiGate (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I think we should split the article since on one of the Wikipedia guideline pages it states that any article with >75 KB of info should be split, and this article is over >165 KB, so I am going to suggest to split it into appropriate subpages. Thanks, Tomandjerry211 (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Tank Man

It would be fantastic if you had the Sybil of the event in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ridland (talkcontribs) 14:09, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

New intro

In the spirit of constructive discussion I will open this discussion, and I invite all interested parties to contribute. The state of the current introduction is not acceptable and does not adequately sum up the causes of the protests. The revision from my own edits, in my view, better reflects the contents of the article. Rather than wholesale reverts, I would invite interested parties to discuss specific content details so we can come to a constructive conclusion on a new introduction. My revision below:

The Tiananmen Square protests, commonly known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident (六四事件)[a] were student-led demonstrations in Beijing in 1989. More broadly, it refers to the popular national movement inspired by the Beijing protests during that period, sometimes referred to as the '89 Democracy Movement (八九民运). The protests were forcibly suppressed after the government declared martial law and sent in the military to clear the Square in what became known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre or the June 4 Massacre. The number of civilian deaths has been estimated at anywhere between hundreds and thousands.[1]
Set against a backdrop of rapid economic and social changes in post Mao-era China, the protests reflected anxieties about the country's future in the popular consciousness and among the political elite. The reforms of the 1980s had led a nascent market economy which benefited some groups but seriously disaffected others. Common grievances at the time included inflation, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. The students drew inspiration from liberal democratic ideals from the West and called for greater accountability, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.[2][3] At the height of the protests, about a million people assembled in the Square.[4]
As the protests developed, the authorities veered back and forth between conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership.[5] By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support for the demonstrators around the country and the protests spread to 400 cities by mid-May.[6] Ultimately, China's paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and other party elders resolved to use force.[7] Party authorities declared martial law on May 20, and mobilized as many as 300,000 troops to Beijing.[6]
The Chinese government was widely condemned internationally for the use of force. Western countries imposed economic sanctions and arms embargoes.[8] The Chinese government initially condemned the protests as a counter-revolutionary riot.[9][10] In the aftermath of the crackdown, the government conducted widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, suppressed other protests around China, expelled foreign journalists and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic press. The police and internal security forces were strengthened. Officials deemed sympathetic to the protests were demoted or purged.[11] More broadly, the suppression temporarily halted the policies of liberalization in the 1980s. Considered a watershed event, the protests also set the limits on political expression in China well into the 21st century. Its memory is widely associated with questioning the legitimacy of Communist Party rule, and remains one of the most sensitive and most widely censored political topics on mainland China.[12][13]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colipon (talkcontribs) 17:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Colipon, this is a reply to the message you left on my talk page. I wrote that your edit seemed "excessively euphemistic". I don't have any problem with adding extra information but I don't understand the move toward glossing over the most salient points, i.e. changing the phrase "troops with assault rifles and tanks killed unarmed civilians trying to block the military's advance towards Tiananmen Square" to "the government declared martial law and sent in the military to clear the square". Encyclopedic language is simple, direct and concise. Citobun (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Ok, I understand your concern. I am fine with leaving that phrase in. Do you have any other concerns about the remaining paragraphs? See second revision below. Colipon+(Talk) 16:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Second revision

The Tiananmen Square protests, commonly known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident (六四事件)[b] were student-led demonstrations in Beijing in 1989. More broadly, it refers to the popular national movement inspired by the Beijing protests during that period, sometimes referred to as the '89 Democracy Movement (八九民运). The protests were forcibly suppressed after the government declared martial law. In what became widely known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, troops with assault rifles and tanks killed unarmed civilians trying to block the military's advance towards Tiananmen Square. The number of civilian deaths has been estimated at anywhere between hundreds and thousands.[14]
Set against a backdrop of rapid economic and social changes in post Mao-era China, the protests reflected anxieties about the country's future in the popular consciousness and among the political elite. The reforms of the 1980s had led a nascent market economy which benefited some groups but seriously disaffected others. Common grievances at the time included inflation, limited preparedness of graduates for the new economy, and restrictions on political participation. The students drew inspiration from liberal democratic ideals from the West and called for greater accountability, freedom of the press, and freedom of speech.[2][15] At the height of the protests, about a million people assembled in the Square.[4]
As the protests developed, the authorities veered back and forth between conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership.[5] By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support for the demonstrators around the country and the protests spread to 400 cities by mid-May.[6] Ultimately, China's paramount leader Deng Xiaoping and other party elders resolved to use force.[7] Party authorities declared martial law on May 20, and mobilized as many as 300,000 troops to Beijing.[6]
The Chinese government was widely condemned internationally for the use of force. Western countries imposed economic sanctions and arms embargoes.[16] The Chinese government initially condemned the protests as a counter-revolutionary riot.[9][10] In the aftermath of the crackdown, the government conducted widespread arrests of protesters and their supporters, suppressed other protests around China, expelled foreign journalists and strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic press. The police and internal security forces were strengthened. Officials deemed sympathetic to the protests were demoted or purged.[17] More broadly, the suppression temporarily halted the policies of liberalization in the 1980s. Considered a watershed event, the protests also set the limits on political expression in China well into the 21st century. Its memory is widely associated with questioning the legitimacy of Communist Party rule, and remains one of the most sensitive and most widely censored political topics on mainland China.[18][13]
Thanks for reworking the lead. The second version is more accurate from an important point of fact, that it's the CPC that controls the army and not the government. The first version conflates these. -- Ohc ¡digame! 07:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Jan Wong, Red China Blues, Random House 1997, p.278
  2. ^ a b Nathan, Andrew J. (January–February 2001). "The Tiananmen Papers". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved November 3, 2010. 
  3. ^ Tiananmen Square, 1989: The Declassified History; George Washington University
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference zhao171 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Anthony Saich, The People’s Movement: Perspective on Spring 1989 M.E. Sharpe 1990, ISBN 0873327462, 9780873327466 P.172
  6. ^ a b c d Thomas 2006.
  7. ^ a b Miles, James (June 2, 2009). "Tiananmen killings: Were the media right?". BBC News. Retrieved January 15, 2012. 
  8. ^ Clayton Dube, Talking Points, June 3-18, 2014
  9. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference vog was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference TheAge was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  11. ^ Miles, James (1997). The Legacy of Tiananmen: China in Disarray. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08451-7. p. 28
  12. ^ "The Consequences of Tiananmen", Andrew J. Nathan.
  13. ^ a b Goodman, David S. G. (1994). Deng Xiaoping and the Chinese revolution. Psychology Press. ISBN 978-0-415-11252-9. p. 112
  14. ^ Jan Wong, Red China Blues, Random House 1997, p.278
  15. ^ Tiananmen Square, 1989: The Declassified History; George Washington University
  16. ^ Clayton Dube, Talking Points, June 3-18, 2014
  17. ^ Miles, James (1997). The Legacy of Tiananmen: China in Disarray. University of Michigan Press. ISBN 978-0-472-08451-7. p. 28
  18. ^ "The Consequences of Tiananmen", Andrew J. Nathan.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:28, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Rename article "Tiananmen Square Massacre/Tiananmen Square protests of 1989"

I think the current name of the article is misleading as much more than a protest happened in Tiananmen Square in 1989, so the name of the article should be changed to reflect that. Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park is an example of a double name that is logical. Aaabbb11 (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Or perhaps have a separate article for the later event. 165.120.146.32 (talk) 00:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

This article's name is in contravention of wikipedia's policy. It should be called "Tiananmen Square Massacre" as this is the common name of the event WP:POVTITLE. Ragooon (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:03, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 26 August 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved, WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) — Andy W. (talk ·ctb) 07:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)


Tiananmen Square protests of 1989Tian'anmen Square protests of 1989 – 按照中文规定,混淆的拼音之间应该加入分隔符。 SolidBlocktalk/中文留言 07:50, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Oppose. This is the English Wikipedia, and no move rationale has been given in English. The intended rationale, to reflect proper syllabification of romanized Chinese, is irrelevant since this is the English Wikipedia and the article title should be written in English, using the most common name in English. The most common name in English is as given in the current article title, without an apostrophe, so that is the way that it should be spelled. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose: No reason is given by the proposer. It would make little sense to move the article about the protests, while the main article on the square remains at Tiananmen Square. Skinsmoke (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose, comma isn't in the WP:COMMONNAME of the event.--Prisencolin (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose move and WP:SNOWclose.  ONR  (talk)  04:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Citobun (talk) 05:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose' – this is English Wikipedia. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 23:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Per above, plus: nominator claims that the pinyin is wrong, but it is actually correct.ch (talk) 04:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Misleading first paragraph

I'm going to avoid being WP:Bold here because sensitive subjects. The first paragraph has at some point been edited into reading: "tanks killed at least several hundred student demonstrators trying to block the military's advance towards Tiananmen Square.". Well, according to the 'death toll' section further down, the number of *students* killed was likely below a hundred, and it was mainly normal citizens who had died. --87.112.25.94 (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 13 March 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Primefac (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2017 (UTC)


Tiananmen Square protests of 1989Tiananmen Square Massacre – This is obscene. Look at popular usage, look at media consensus outside the Chinese dictatorship, look at common human decency. What next, an Armenian Relocation article? 66.91.236.73 (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  • I'm not taking a stance here, but I believe that the naming is so because the article is mostly about the democracy protests and background rather than the massacre itself. Laurdecl talk 08:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
neutralthe reason is hard to convince the reader.Can not see your main demands.If you can,please make a detailed description.--Tr56tr (talk) 16:12, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose While the massacre grabbed headlines, this article is about the protests itself (of which the massacre was a part). I think the current title is NPOV and I certainly don't see any problem with it. In fact, changing the title could imply a change in scope of the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
Lemongirl1942 is correct.--Tr56tr (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - The page is about the larger picture, not just one particular aspect. --Elnon (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Per Elnon; Not just about the massacre. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: It seems very strange that we do not have an article or even a section of an article explicitly on the topic of the Tiananmen Square Massacre, considering that we have two articles on the incident of which it is part, this one and People's Liberation Army at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, and considering that the phrase Tiananmen Square Massacre is so commonly used. Andrewa (talk) 06:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Opose per -Elnon --Temp87 (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).