Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

Template:China Portal Selected Article

Title not NPV - Why bow to Chinese censorship?

I have been directed to this site from one entitled 'Peterloo Massacre' (c 1820). That, as students of British History will know, was a massacre in which under 30 people were killed.

In addition, the "Boston Massacre" (c 1770) is referred to in that way on wikipedia.

It is completely non-NPV to refuse to rename this site 'The Tianaman Square Massacre'. That is how it is known around the world. That is what it was. I note that mention is made below of the fact that conservative estimates put the number killed at between 200 and 300. That is 10 times the number killed at Peterloo.

This seems to me an obvious example of kowtowing to the Chinese Government - perhaps because of a fear that they will bar wikipedia from Chinese sites unless the site is called by this ludicrous, non-NPV title. I long to be proved wrong and for the title to be changed.

Francis Hoar 212.183.134.209 (talk) 18:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

First para equally non-NPV and now edited. Totally untrue according to any sources about the incident to call it a 'violent conflict'. There is no doubt that the deaths were of unarmed protestors by the PLA.

Tank Man

It says in the article that he was taken away by secret police, but no one knows for sure. Even if they may have been plain clothes secret police, I think it would be more accurate to say that he was ushered away into the crowd by a few unknown onlookers. What do you think? I did not want to go in and change it without hearing out a possible reason for the current wording.

Also, the separate article on Tank Man phrases it as onlookers, as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.95.69 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A real problem with Tianamen Sq is the lack of any proof that one single person was killed there, let alone '100's. There were dozens of international Press in the Square that day, the photograph in Wiki depicts 'Tankman', why is there not one single photograph of a dead student? An accusation made that 'many protesters did die later in Prison' or that 'Protesters were killed outside the Square' is an 'Accusation' nothing more.Johnwrd (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you joking me. Have you seem some of those photos? There are dead bodies mingled on bicycles etc. There's actually a picture slideshow on news.com.au this morning, although the headlines have been replaced and I can't seem to find it. But That photo was what inspired the monument in Poland with the bicycle and tank. Dengero (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The proof you wanted: [1][2]. I am not familiar with Wikipedia's policies dealing with fair use of non-free images. Is it possible to get at least one or two photos into the article?Kxx (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bit here if you want as well...http://media.news.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/skins/v2/index.html?id=1240 Dengero (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I can only again ask you for reasonable proof that even one person was shot that day in Tienanmen Sq. You give readers of Wiki an obscure Web Address purporting to have photographs of dead Chinese students? are you joking? How did CNN and Fox News somehow overlook these photographs?. Perhaps they have them filed with the latest snapshots of Elvis sunbathing on Dana City Beach.Johnwrd (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Time magazine is hardly "obscure" 82.69.90.226 (talk) 14:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You are ignorant!. In 1989 CNN was still tiny compared to the broadcast networks and Fox News would not be founded for another 7 years. Time magazine was the major news magazine of the era. 208.90.183.32 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Chill back on the WP:CIVIL violations a bit ok? Now... are the photographs in question a) from Time magazine and b) showing multiple people getting shot in the square. Because my understanding, from BBC, the main news agency to report this event was that the vast majority of the 800 deaths (if not all) actually happened on the streets near the square and not in it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Please let us know why you are editing!

Ok in the last two days one editor added a reference. The reference was to a book. There was no addition to the text. No reason given for addition. Then another editor deleted the reference. No reason given for the deletion. Perhaps you could both use the edit summary function in order to tell us why little changes are being made so that we know how best to preserve the neutrality of this potentially contentious issue.Simonm223 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral lead paragraph

Facts are facts. You can't include an exaggerated death estimate in the lead when consensus indicates between 200-250 and 'several hundred' is now the consensus estimate, but you don't include that fact. Also, the number of Chinese police and military killed should be included as well. Was the leader who died 'pro-democracy'? The protestors appeared to agree on little except that they were protesting deep corruption. The inclusion of 'in the year when many Communist government fell' in the lead is also off-topic (in a lead paragraph) and biased, it seems to me.Haberstr (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to above: "Hundreds, and possibly thousands, of people were killed in the massacre, although it is unlikely a precise number will ever be known." This is from a reasonably reputable source: BBC news online. URL below. http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/4/newsid_2496000/2496277.stm I think it's true that the article lacks neutrality, not to mention citations, particularly with respect to its discussion of the role of economics (and the characterization of the protesters as not organized/unified). For an alternate reading (or bias, perhaps) I recommend The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.

Take a look at the following:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/8219452.stm

It seems the British had done even worse things than the Chinese years before them. Did the Chinese learn their trade from the British? A neutral lead should state that any government (including the British government) would have reacted in the same way. 86.137.251.212 (talk) 00:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The BBC currently reports "likely 800" and generalizes to "hundreds, and possibly thousands" more frequently than not.

This article is about a specific incident that happened at a specific time. Within the context of this incident the BBC is one of the most reliable sources available. Although they do undoubtedly have a bias (as all news media does) it tends to be considerably less than that of other news outlets; the BBC can be faulted for some Chinese coverage however they tend to be among the best for reporting reliable figures.

The history of British colonialism does not abrogate the reliability of the BBC as a source. Furthermore, as I mentioned previously, this article is about a specific incident that happened at a specific time. As such mentioning a completely unrelated country and speculating on how they might have behaved if placed in the same situation in the lede would be entirely inappropriate.Simonm223 (talk) 11:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that CCTV is any less accurate than BBC in this day and age? 86.137.251.212 (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Marginally.Simonm223 (talk) 19:18, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering- I read a book about someone who witnessed the massacre and they said that the chinese red cross made an estimate of 2600 shortly after the massacre. This is written in the article too but at the beginning of the article there is some other estimate given. I would assume that any figure given by the red cross who were there would be a minimum, particularly as the chinese government forced them to retract it. Basically if they admitted there were that many there were at least that many- since when have chinese authorities been open or willing to admit mistakes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.127.211.251 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Unblock

This edit, made from the IP address 58.248.25.240 (which WHOIS confirms to be a Guangzhou address), says the following:

However, as of the 4th of August 2009 all internet information on the topic seems to be viewable from Mainland China. Curiously, I'm editing this Wikipedia page from Guangzhou...

Reverted the edit from the article, however, as it doesn't belong there. — Jeremy 06:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ALERT something is missing

This section of an otherwise very helpful article suggests a paragraph is missing between these two as below is no previous mention of APCs.

At about 1:00 a.m., the army finally reached Tiananmen Square and waited for orders from the government. The soldiers had been told not to open fire, but they had also been told that they must clear the square by 6:00 a.m. - with no exceptions or delays. They made a final offer of amnesty if the few thousand remaining students would leave. About 4:00 a.m., student leaders put the matter to a vote: Leave the square, or stay and face the consequences.[21]

These APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers) rolled on up the roads, firing ahead and off to the sides, perhaps killing or wounding their own soldiers in the process. BBC reporter Kate Adie spoke of "indiscriminate fire" within the square. Eyewitness reporter Charlie Cole also saw Chinese soldiers firing Type 56 assault rifles into.... Anthony Barnett Anthony Barnett (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)