Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

Page move

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

Discussion closed, if you want to add on you can reopen it, but I don't recommend that until after waiting a bit more --2603:8000:9903:663C:843C:FD8F:7AEA:FA32 (talk) 22:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Alright @FormalDude let's reopen the discussion to rename it. The article about both, and should be named accordingly... Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I figured it would probably be undone, hence my comment. I really don't want to restart a discussion two months after such a similar one was closed.
However, the article does describe in detail the Tiananmen Square Massacre, and it is well sourced. So I do think the title should reflect that with something like "Tiananmen Square Massacre & Protests." Or, the article may deserve to be split into a new page altogether titled "Tiananmen Square Massacre." Let me know what your thoughts are @Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 02:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Well I agree @FormalDude-- either rename this one to "1989 Tiananmen Square protests and [subsequent] massacre" (as one interrelated event), or create an article dedicated to the massacre. The former is preferable, since the latter sequence of events is detailed well enough in the current article, keeps the sequence of events streamlined and prevents confusion of having two articles about the same sequence of events with potentially different information, and this also challenges the censorship laws in China, on the Chinese article... Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Even the Chinese article says [via Google translate] Chinese areas outside of mainland China also referred to the clearing incident/event as the "June 4th suppression" or "June 4th massacre". ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 16:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude Okay then I'm opening up the discussion again later (maybe in a week or so). I'll write on your talk page then to set it up (unless you wish to open it up yourself sooner). Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 01:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Case, as you where the closer for the most recent discussion, could I ask you if it's too soon to reopen the topic? We're just looking at the scope of including the word 'massacre' in addition to 'protests' in the title. Appreciate any guidance! ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:19, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@FormalDude: I don't think there's anything in the guidelines for RMs that establish a time limit before the discussion can be reopened; at least I couldn't find any (but my search was rather cursory). If you look down the page at almost any time, you'll see plenty of move proposals that have been revisited, after all, after relatively recent closures.

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

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

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

@Daniel Case: I know you stated that you're going to sit this one out, but a big difference between this queryand the last one you created is that this one formally requests and "addendum," if you will, to the title, rather than a straight up title change. With that being said shall we wait longer to make this query, or do you think doing so now would suffice? FormalDude --Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Whenever you feel the time is right. Daniel Case (talk) 05:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your assistance Daniel Case, much appreciated! ☺ ––FormalDude talk 23:12, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2021

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

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

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

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

Survey

  • Support If we don't split the article this is preferable to just 'protests'—blindlynx (talk) 14:26, 8 September 2021 (UTC)fiarly
  • Support per FormalDude. agreed with the argument given by the proposer. Uttarpradeshi (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Since both the massacre and the protests are covered fairly in-depth in this article, I believe the name of this article should reference both of the events, as they are interrelated to each other and the events overlap. Where I'm from in the Mid-Atlantic United States, I hear the term "massacre" just as, if not more frequently, then "protests," whereas in some other places, the latter is the more preferable term. Looking through the archives of this articles discussion page, it is usually proposed numerous times per year to change the title to "massacre," with the result often having no consensus. Adding it to the title, without removing "protest" could be the answer to this repeated request. Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I believe since the article mentions both the protests and the massacre that the title should as well. 172.58.203.253 (talk) 13:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose – clearly the proposed wordy title is not the COMMONNAME. The last move discussion, for a substantively similar proposal, was only a few months ago, so this new proposal seems premature given that no new evidence or arguments are being presented. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:59, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Mx. Granger: Was hoping for a little more from you.
    The last move proposal ended with no consensus and this is a completely new proposal that seeks to compromise what the vast majority of Wikipedians see as the COMMONNAME.
    You're asking for new evidence and arguments, but they have been clearly presented here. The article title should describe the article body. Since the article body is about protests and a subsequent massacre, the title needs to reflect that. The only way the title should get away with not reflecting it is if the entire article is split into a new one about just the massacre.
    Furthermore, you made no justification for your opposition other than saying it's not the COMMONNAME. Care to explain why you feel that why? ––FormalDude talk 20:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure I've ever seen the entire phrase "Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" used to describe the incident. Typically, the phrase "Tiananmen Square protest(s)" or the phrase "Tiananmen Square incident" is used to identify the incident as a whole. Sometimes the phrase "Tiananmen Square massacre" is used. But the entire phrase "Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" is, in my experience, used much less often than any of the others to refer to the incident as a whole, so the claim above that it is the COMMONNAME is incorrect.
I might suggest a move to 1989 Tiananmen Square incident as a compromise. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
As per your proposal, absolutely not fair to use as per COMMONNAME in the western (English speaking) world. The only people who use "incident" instead of "protests/massacre" are the CCP and their sympathizers as a way to cover up the controversial and, quite frankly brutal, nature of their involvement in the so called "incident."--Jizzygizzyfoshizzyyy (talk) 22:47, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
"Tiananmen Square incident" is the term used by Encyclopaedia Britannica, for whatever that's worth. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 03:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: My claim is that it is the very best COMMONNAME that can be agreed upon, in terms of Wikipedia standards, that still maintains a NPOV. "Incident" is just whitewashing. It was protests followed by a massacre, plan and simple. The article and reliable sources say that, and the title should too. ––FormalDude talk 07:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose too wordly for the purposed title. I suggests the article be changed to just "1989 Tiananmen Square massacre" (without and protests), as majority of very reputable sources stated, or "June 4 incident", as media in Greater China known it. 180.254.174.183 (talk) 12:46, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose. I just don't see how this is an improvement in terms of WP:CRITERIA. It's obviously worse in terms of conciseness, and it also seems far less natural. It's normal that an article about event X is also going to cover related things that happened during or as a result of X, and we certainly don't need to cram mentions of all those things into the title. e.g. we should not rename something like Mary Russell murders to Mary Russell murders and trial. A title serves to identify a topic, not summarise it. Colin M (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
    If we're going by the comparison that Marry Russell murders is named that because it serves to identify the topic rather than summarize it, then this article should be named 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre or possibly June 4th Tiananmen Incident. ––FormalDude talk 07:08, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposed title is more wordy + doesn't mesh with the fact that massacre is not exclusive of protest. Furthermore, the protests were over a large area of Beijing, not all of which were violently suppressed. 142.157.247.204 (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose I just knew it as the 'Tiananmen Square massacre' even before I knew anything about it, but that argument has been lost. It is general practice on Wikipedia to have one title and many redirects not to try to list all possible titles into one. Too wordy and bad precedent. Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
    That argument has not been lost, the most recent discussion about it resulted in no consensus. ––FormalDude talk 08:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose Wikipedia is supposed to stand for TRUTH and not be biased by any world government’s propaganda. There is more evidence to suggest it was peaceful than there is to say it was a massacre. Are we really spreading truth if we just echo what the western governments tell the media to say? — 107.144.146.2 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:19, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (UTC).
  • Oppose Way too wordy, a "compromise" for the sake of political correctness just as bad as the former Football (soccer). I would be neutral on "protests" vs. "massacre", but pick one or the other. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support Given recent events, I think all articles that might potentially be considered critical of the Chinese Government should be examined very carefully perhaps protected. This article was named the Tiananmen Square Massacre (the standard name for this event in Western journalism) for at least two decades until suddenly it required a more "sanitized" headline. It is pretty damn obvious this is the result of manipulation by the Chinese and all those who "opose".. I am not saying you are a bunch of Chinese government sock puppets (or brain washed Chinese citizens).. but you are probably all a bunch of Chinese government sock puppets (or brain washed Chinese citizens). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Northnomad (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
    The CCP killing Chinese people on mass has become mundane, mass protests against the CCP are more notable. Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Support I agree with the guy above me, it seems most of the "(Strong) Opposes" have come from CCP sympathizers, as they keep mentioning "June 4th Incident," which completely abnormal in the western world. The common name for the protests is "Tiananmen Square Protests," and the subsequent "incident," as "Tiananmen Square Massacre," but are often lumped together as one incident, which is why both words are preferable in this article. I do not recommend an article split, since the two incidents are nearly synonymous. Either combine the name or rename the article to just "Massacre." --73.29.82.111 (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose This page shouldn't be used by political tools and considering the current climate between the USA losing its hegemony and China surpassing them, it becomes quite obvious that we are witnessing Yellow Peril propaganda from the West again. Wikileaks recently leaked the secret cables from the US embassy in Beijing during the protest and they found no bloodshed [1]. 2A04:CEC0:110F:39E4:4852:E3AC:2DB4:F91D (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC) (This user has made few or no other edits outside this topic.)
  • Strong support per WP:AND. The protest and massacre are inextricably linked, as no one would be talking about the protest 30 years later if it were not for the massacre. Unless the article is split, it is incredibly negligent to claim in the title that this article is only about a "protest". Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and we should not be bowing to political pressure to use euphemisms like "incident" as some of the WP:SPA !voters here have suggested. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 14:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

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

References

  1. ^ https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is it worth talking about a split

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

A split is definitely a likely option. In fact, if the requested move to include massacre in the title does not go through, I was going to do the split myself. ––FormalDude talk 21:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I mentioned this in the requested moved but it think a split is certainly warranted—blindlynx (talk) 03:36, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Recent recurring reverts

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

Here is the content being disputed.
Froth's version:

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

My version:

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

I don't see why Froth wants to water down well sourced facts from the article, much less how they claim to be doing it in the name of neutrality. ––FormalDude talk 15:16, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this should be necessary but I can elaborate here if you insist.
The first question is whether we're dealing with a "blatant NPOV violation." As I said, that's not reasonable, and this speaks to issues across the whole article. It is sufficient for the article to lay out the facts as the sources report on them and allow the reader to come to their own conclusions. It is, on the other hand, not appropriate for us to editorialize by making sure that statements about China's position are followed by a "but" qualifier to swiftly remind the reader of the arguments against it. See WP:IMPARTIAL. I also want to point out the state of the sentence in question before I improved it slightly a few days ago. Whoever wrote that sentence was writing in an obviously biased way, and some of that bias still remained after my tentative first fix. It's not okay that attempts to chip away at even the most undeniably problematic tone are pounced upon and reverted without explanation as a "blatant NPOV violation." I shouldn't need to say this but a change isn't an NPOV violation just because the text no longer explicitly slaps the reader across the face with your own personal point of view.
Moving on to the specifics of this change. There are three components:
  • As the killings started, it infuriated → The initial killings infuriated. This change is objectively better, even separate from any POV disputes. The original was clumsy and grammatically incorrect. But the new version also makes it clear that it was a smaller number of initial killings by the PLA that led to infuriated protesters and escalating violence. It's not the PLA just deciding to start murdering everyone in a Mai Lai style slaughter, which is what the original version ("As the killings started") implies. This is a critical distinction. And the escalating-violence version comports with even the sources used by the article, so there should be no issue here.
  • as justification for the use of force → to justify the escalating use of force. I'm not really sure what one could object to here. The article itself argues that the PLA fired into crowds, then were attacked/burned/hung by enraged protesters, and then finally used much more severe lethal force in return. That sounds like escalating force.
  • but lethal attacks on troops occurred after the military had opened fire at 10 pm on June 3 and → but. As I said in the edit summary, this information is already present in the surrounding text. Very pointedly restating it here following a "The Chinese government argues ... but" serves no purpose than to explicitly take a stance. This is even clearer given the original version of the sentence which I linked above. But even worse, the phrase I removed doesn't even belong there because that counterpoint doesn't actually counter anything. The narrative was already one of escalating violence initiated by the PLA; throwing in basically a "but remember that the PLA started it" is a non-sequitur. This is the reason that I left the rest of the sentence regarding the death count. You could perhaps reasonably object that the PLA's response to being attacked was excessive, so the relative death counts are relevant (though redundant and potentially problematic for NPOV), but you could not reasonably say that the PLA previously shooting protesters is relevant, particularly with how I simultaneously strengthened the references to escalating violence elsewhere in the same revision.
I guess it gets a little ridiculous trying to litigate every individual word here, but apparently that's necessary. I have to admit that I'm pretty miffed at being 3RR'd with no substantive justification over what I thought was an extremely reasonable good-faith edit. It's unfortunate that even an innocent constructive change like this requires paragraphs of effort to explain; perhaps that exhausting expectation is related to why the article resembles more of a moralizing screed than an objective encyclopedia article. I've used my third revert to put my change back up. If you still have an objection after reading my arguments then go ahead and make your case; maybe there's an acceptable compromise here. .froth. (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

  • Oppose 1976 incidents were also notable. If your arguments are necessary, it suggest renaming Tiananmen Incident to 1976 Tiananmen Incident. 125.167.56.83 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1989 is part of the COMMONNAME. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For now, I think a date is indeed part of the COMMONNAME. I think the question is whether that date should be "1989" or "June Fourth" in the title. Personally, it seems to me "June 4th Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" is the suitable and prevalent title. I'll leave that for another proposal though. ––FormalDude talk 22:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 力 --Spekkios (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above/WP:SNOW. Buffs (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone. EpicWikiLad (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

The sentence "The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process." needs a citation. FrankLloydWright989 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There are sources cited further down in the article at 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre#June 3–4. We generally do not cite every sentence in the lede per WP:LEDECITE as long as it is backed up in the body of the article, as is done here. Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 27 November 2021

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

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 09:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

  • Oppose 1976 incidents were also notable. If your arguments are necessary, it suggest renaming Tiananmen Incident to 1976 Tiananmen Incident. 125.167.56.83 (talk) 21:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose 1989 is part of the COMMONNAME. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:34, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. For now, I think a date is indeed part of the COMMONNAME. I think the question is whether that date should be "1989" or "June Fourth" in the title. Personally, it seems to me "June 4th Tiananmen Square protests and massacre" is the suitable and prevalent title. I'll leave that for another proposal though. ––FormalDude talk 22:01, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per 力 --Spekkios (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per all of the above/WP:SNOW. Buffs (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per others. Dhtwiki (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per everyone. EpicWikiLad (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2022

The sentence "The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June, killing both demonstrators and bystanders in the process." needs a citation. FrankLloydWright989 (talk) 20:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: There are sources cited further down in the article at 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre#June 3–4. We generally do not cite every sentence in the lede per WP:LEDECITE as long as it is backed up in the body of the article, as is done here. Cannolis (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

How is it a massacre if no one could give a precise death tolls?

This isn’t a fact to represent a historical event. Rather it serves a political agenda of some interest groups 203.175.14.5 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The lack of a precise death toll is due to coverup. It is still a massacre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peking Tom (talk • contribs) 16:54, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Even the CCP acknowledges hundreds of killings at minimum, that is a massacre. Period.

I'm still absolutely FLOORED that Wikipedia has somehow sunk 5 different article rename motions, flouting the standard bellwether metric of search engine and press corpus hits, in addition to barely tolerating "Tiananmen Square Massacre" as the third title shown in the article's opening paragraph.2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:9DCE:11CB:249E:F809 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Remove “Kuomintang” from infobox


There is no evidence or citations anywhere in the article that mentions or proves that the Kuomintang had any involvement in the protests nor supported any parties in the conflict, and as such it should be removed from the infobox.

142.219.49.126 (talk) 22:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 22:22, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

More sources on the protests

The Straits Times, a Singapore newspaper, has publically released their archives of the front pages. Some do follow the protests closely.

More headlines can be checked up here. ZKang123 (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

CCP or Chinese government and Chinese law

I changed the word CCP to Chinese Government and Chinese law and my edits were reverted by User:Amigao but I think I they shouldn't be reverted.

Here are the sources:

We shouldn't put CCP in these cases.

AAAAA143222 (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree, it should be 'government', especially considering the wording of press coverage uses 'government' TypeKnight03 (talk) 05:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Ahem.

These jokes are lame. Neocorelight (Talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

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

This did not happen even the wok and jong xia confirmed that it didn't happen WTH Sikeovateas (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I second this. This did not happen. There was no Tiananmen Square Massacre. It did not happen.

DID NOT HAPPEN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hirohami12 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Many people died, people were crushed by tanks. This is disrespectful to their memory! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peking Tom (talk • contribs) 15:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I love how the latest tanky redlib apology is “sure, hundreds or thousands of unarmed protesters were massacred, but maybe none of them technically happened exactly inside the square itself, DEBONKED!”. That's some real prime rib good faith argumentation right there, folks. 2600:1700:DA90:2AB0:9DCE:11CB:249E:F809 (talk) 14:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This is an article talk page, not a discussion about jokes. AAAAA143222 (talk) 15:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Protest

Looked for footage of tankman being run over, none found. Looked for revisionism in the article, similar result TypeKnight03 TypeKnight03 (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

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

There was an ICONIC piece of footage showing a single protester standing in front of a tank with a bag in his hand. The tank RAN HIM OVER. I watched the event unfold on TV. There is NO mention of this and a lot of denial over a massacre that, IN FACT, happened. The revisionist history here is disgusting. 73.186.108.123 (talk) 11:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

And the source for that claim is ...? Kleinpecan (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Tank Man did not get run over. You can simply watch the footage yourself on YouTube; he is ushered away by a few people. Otherwise, if you have a source for your claim feel free to provide it here. Choinierenate (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The "5 June and the Tank Man" section covers Tank Man in the article. Peking Tom (talk) 15:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
Well if you can find some public domain footage of this happening, then I don't suppose there's anything stopping you from adding the footage, with sourced context of course. TypeKnight03 (talk) 05:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:52, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"Two-way selection system" listed at Redirects for discussion

Proposal to delete Two-way selection system redirect (to this page) has been listed for discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 19#Two-way selection system until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The details are:

No mention of this phrase in the target article. The redirect was created in 2011 a few minutes after the original article was created (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Two-way_selection_system&oldid=441118250) - the topic is one of many student concerns that eventually led to the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests. The phrase is not notable - for example Google search "Two-way selection system" has only 1,250 results, with no mention of China in the top ten results.
 DarylKayes (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The result of this discussion on 26 September was soft delete - DarylKayes (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2022

Edit:

Changing "Video footage was smuggled out of the country, although the only network that was able to record video during the night of 4 June was Televisión Española of Spain (TVE)."

for

"Video footage was smuggled out of the country. The only network journalist that was able to record video during the night of 4 June and smuggle it out of China was José Luis Márquez Leon, for Televisión Española of Spain (TVE)."


Edit 2:

Credit him under the images that are his used in the webpage (the man standing in front of the tank being the most famous)


Goal and reasons of the edit:


-To credit José Luis Márquez Leon, the TVe reporter that managed to smuggle his images out, by including his name in the article. Beyond how important (and nuts)this action was, he is a well known figure in the world of war journalism. I added the "record and smuggle" instead of just "record", because getting the tape out involved him scaping custody and hiding in a truck full of corpses, so I thing it deserves to be recognized as it's own chore beyond just the filming. I changed "by Televisión Española of Spain" to "Televisión Española of Spain" because TVe was unaware of what Marquez was doing, and he did it without the rest of the TVe team involvement.

Sources and references:

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article32115 (ONG crediting his name regarding the images. In English) https://elpais.com/internacional/2009/06/05/actualidad/1244196000_1244201372.html (interview commemorating Marquez's legacy. In Spanish) https://www.rtve.es/play/videos/programa/ojo-noticia-jose-luis-marquez/1339180/ (Documentary of TVe about him and his career) Gosth and the quotes (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This may be a good thing to get some additional opinions on from other editors but I don't believe it uncontroversial enough for an edit request. —Sirdog (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"Resulting in"

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

Regarding "June Fourth Incident"

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

Perhaps instead of:

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

there should be:

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

or maybe:

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

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

It is a euphemism. Chinese Wikipedia uses it because it is under the boot of the Chinese communist party.Peking Tom (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to have to disagree on that front. Firstly Chinese Wikipedia has no obligations towards the Chinese government, and hasn't ever since Wikipedia-CN was banned in China in 2004 (and it would be a violation of
WP:NPOV) and even so, other Chinese language sources such as this article from VOA (Which definitely does not bow to the CPC) use 64, as does this DW article, and this RFI article.
so unless you believe the state-owned press of America, Germany, and France all tow the CCP line, then we can only conclude that June Fourth incident/六四事件 is not a euphemism.
Also the sources attached to the first sentence still don't say anything about "June Fourth Incident" being a euphemism, just that it's an alternate term.
It would be nice for someone else to weigh in on this, but surely if "June Fourth Incident" were a euphemism, then it would get past censors right? But it doesn't. Why would a censored term be used as a censorship-avoidance euphemism?
TypeKnight03 (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Because censors toe a harder line to the general public, they aren't willing to acknowledge in any way it happened. They arrest people for holding toy tanks on the wrong day, see what gets you arrested. "Others were stopped and searched for carrying flowers, wearing black and in one case, carrying a toy tank box." [1]. When police get their orders to do this around June fourth, I'm sure they use June fourth in their inner communications.Peking Tom (talk) 15:33, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
Completely agree on this. Words have context, and context can affect meaning. In usage and in practice, "June Fourth incident" is not a euphemism, despite Westerners being likely to see it as such. DFlhb (talk) 02:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
You're all correct that "euphemism" is absolutely wrong, but is there a specific edit to be made here? I didn't see "euphemism" in the article. If I somehow missed it, or a similar statement, I agree we should certainly fix it. JArthur1984 (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Old comment but it's already been fixed. I still do think the sources for the name should be updated though. They seem to be relatively poor sources given how ubiquitous the names are.
TypeKnight03 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree, 六四事件 isn't a "euphemism". It's a common way of naming events that occur on a particular day in Chinese, in either the Western or traditional Chinese calender. See e.g. Double Tenth, Double Ninth Festival, Double Third Festival. Double Seventh Festival. June Fourth is only not used in English as "Tiananmen Square" has come to be associated with the incident, be a shortcut for it.5.81.136.7 (talk) 03:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
This sounds like a smart move, using the correct name while retaining the redirect. It would be smart to then put in another section on why the name is the way it is. If it comes too a vote, put me as yes.
Finton the magical salmon (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Split

The following is a closed discussion of a requested split. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not split.

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

  • Oppose - The attempt to split appears to be, in my opinion, a bad-faith effort to erase the fact that protests occurred in Tiananmen Square and the objectives of said movement. If appropriate, a separate 1989 Democracy Movement may be created, but that said, the majority of the protests were concentrated among intellectuals and students in Beijing, and it is not particularly independently noteworthy that a minority of individuals elsewhere may have had similar opinions, so long as nothing tangible arose from it. Augend (drop a line) 16:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
    That was not my intention at all. I just thought that the current title didn't acknowledge the fact that protests were not limited to Tiananmen Square and that the massacre was notable enough for its own page. Charles Essie (talk) 22:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment - If this split were to take place, the former article's title should still contain the year; I see no reason to remove it. And the latter article's title should contain the full year and be more specific; I would suggest 1989 Chinese democracy movement. CopperyMarrow15 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The events flow in an unseparable whole. § Lingzhi (talk) 22:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
  • discussion for > 1 month, no Support. Suggest Close discussion. § Lingzhi (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
    I'm good with it. Charles Essie (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

Behind the News

The Myth of Tiananmen

And the price of a passive press

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

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

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

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

For what its worth though, "the slaughter not of students but of ordinary workers and residents — precisely the target that the Chinese government had intended.” isn't exactly a shining vindication. The CJR article still explicitly says "There was a massacre that morning. Journalists have to be precise about where it happened and who were its victims, or readers and viewers will never be able to understand what it meant."
Things may need to be fixed, but if even the skeptic says its a massacre, the title remains fitting. The story given seems not to be of little to no deaths, but deaths of workers etc rather than the students who came iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 01:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
In My Experience the "Neutral Point of View" that Wikipedia claims as one of it's core values, is hard to come by in my experience.
Especially when dealing with polarizing issues, non-mainstream topics and cultures that differ from the mainstream euro-colonist culture.
Some articles/pages are better than others. So, it's not quite the same across the board.
Millions and millions go to Wikipedia as a source of information everyday (instead of doing their own research and critical thought), so it is important to take these core values such as "neutral POV" and writing in an encyclopedic style seriously.
Keep up the good work. Peace Zoongitozi (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I ever heard no one had been killed in the Square on 4th June 1989 but we must remember suppression to people related to the movement has continued since that day. In my opinion, we must understand a massacre is not the event on that day only.
We need inspections about the number of the people who have been killed by the Chinese authorities but I do not think the title is against the NPOV.--Ordinary Fool (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Tank Man

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre#5_June_and_the_Tank_Man 69.248.159.60 (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I know this page exists, but no mention of him on here is whet i'm saying is something that needs to de changed 162.156.45.183 (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
this was me but i forgot to sign in... oops Enter your username. SIKE! LOL nub (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Request to edit lead on July 7 2023

Hello! I am looking to gain consensus to make this change in our article. This proposed edit aims to provide more context to the weeks leading up to June 4 so that readers have a more thorough understanding of history. I have also kept it short (only 9 words longer than the original!) because this is in the lead. Please let me know if any edits need to be made! Thank you all!

I would like to change this: “The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident[1][2][a] were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, during 1989. The protests started on 15 April and lasted until 4 June, at which point Chinese government troops carried out a crackdown on the demonstrators around the city and the Square in what is known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or in Chinese the June Fourth Clearing[b] or June Fourth Massacre[c].”

To this: “The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident[1][2][a] were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, spanning from 15 April to 4 June, 1989. On the night of 3 June, After weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiation from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or in Chinese the June Fourth Clearing[b] or June Fourth Massacre[c].”

This proposed change places more of an emphasis that the protests happened over a series of weeks. Over the course of these weeks, the students and the government both made attempts to peacefully communicate with one another to try and resolve the issue. At one point, crowds of soldiers and crowds of students were singing to one another! It also provides more details mentioning how negotiations occurred from both sides. These negotiations can be expanded upon later in the article too, although I don’t think that level of detail should be in the lead. I also included how the crackdown was specifically martial law (which could be implied, but isn’t outright stated in the lead). Overall, this change would provide more context to the protests. I would love to know what other editors think of this change and what may need to be edited. Thank you!Atinoua (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

@Atinoua: You can make an edit request through WP:ERW. I assume you are unable to edit due to the page being semi-protected at the moment, so you should use the "page is protected" button there. ADifferentMan (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
It seems like I can edit the page now! Thank you for your reply though! Atinoua (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

split massacre and protests into different articles

this article is pretty long, so I think that should help to make both readable DarmaniLink (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

grammar

4 June, 1989 no need comma 119.56.97.199 (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

You're right. I'll edit it now. Thank you! Atinoua (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edit August 15 2023

Hello User:Politixsperson! I wanted to thank you for your interest in editing this article. And I wanted to say that parts of your edit were perfectly fine! I don't want to discourage you from wanting to contribute to the article. I wanted to expand on my reasoning for reverting your edit.

The first part of my reasoning was that relevant context was removed. In the first paragraph, the original version highlighted that the Tiananmen Square Protests was not a singular event, but rather a series of demonstrations. The original version also provides the context that 3 June was the day martial law was declared. Going further it adds more details about how there were negotiations that took place from the sides of both the Chinese government and the protestors. Lastly with the first paragraph, the details of martial law were removed.

Other details you added (such as martial law being declared on 20 May) did not include critical information such as how the troops pulled back to the suburbs. This is something that I wouldn't have any problems with adding. Other editors are invited to contribute to creating a consensus.

The second part of reasoning was that some of the content was moved out of chronological order. In the original version, the estimates of the death toll was located between the military action and the immediate aftermath.

The details you added about Operation Yellowbird and arms embargoes is perfectly fine. I can add them back if you'd like. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Atinoua well I thought my version highlighted a bit clearer the things you want included, namely that the protests was not a singular event but a series of demonstrations and the negotiations that took place between the government and protesters. The martial law aspect, this can go back in but of course it will have to be written in a way we can both agree on. I do not agree however that the death toll should not be in the introductory section given how important that figure is to the event. The version before your "original version" did have the death toll in the intro which stood for quite some time. But nevertheless, in the interest of maintaining forward momentum in our discussion, can you provide a version of what it is that you are proposing? In the mean time, it looks like we have agreement on the other parts of my version, so I will put that back in Politixsperson (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Politixsperson! I'll try to answer all of your questions.
By including "The Tiananmen Square protests and massacre . . . was an event that began on April 15 with student led demonstrations" This may confuse the reader because it could be interpreted as the massacre beginning on April 15. If we instead have our article say "The Tiananmen Square protests . . . were student-led demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June, 1989", then there is no room for ambiguity because the following line clarifiers the massacre: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre."
There is also this line you suggest: "after an impasse in negotiations between the demonstrators and the Chinese government culminated in the forcible suppression of the protests on 4 June when the government sent the People's Liberation Army to occupy parts of central Beijing." This takes away emphasis from the multiple attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully. And these attempts were initiated both by the government and by the student protestors. Rather than focusing on the ending, the reader will have a better understanding if we emphasize the build up prior to June 4. This is why I believe that this line is so important: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Another reason why this line is important is because it emphasizes that it was the night of June 3.
By including the line: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." it acknowledges that the majority of deaths occurred outside the square, not directly inside.
The lead section is a summary of the entire article. The article has an entire section dedicated to the death toll and the death toll is already included in the lead. I agree that it's an important figure, and it is included in the lead. I just don't think it should be taken out of where it was originally in chronological order.
I also want to know why this paragraph was deleted and if it can be added back as well: "After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, a meeting held among the CCP's top leadership on 1 June concluded with a decision to clear the square.[1][2][3] The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded." This paragraph is important because it adds emphasis on the weeks leading up to June 4 as well as emphasis on the Bejing streets where deaths occurred. It also mentions more details about how protestors attempted to block the advancement towards the square. Keeping the mention of mobilization of troops to Beijing also adds to the same point. Also, by maintaining how various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre, it adds more details about the origins of the label "massacre".
When it comes to a version I would approve on that incorporates your suggestions, it would be this. What are your thoughts?:
"The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June, 1989. On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre. The events are sometimes called the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising.
...
As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. In response, the State Council declared martial law on 20 May however, the troops had pulled back to the suburbs that same day. After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee held a meeting and declared martial law again on 2 June to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.
The event had both short and long term consequences. Various Western media outlets labeled the crackdown a "massacre" and Western countries imposed an arms embargo on China in response to the crackdown which remains in force today. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests." Atinoua (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Atinoua (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Atinoua you have brought up a lot of points so I will do my best to answer all of them. If I missed one, please let me know.
I am not sure how the reader would be confused into thinking that the protests and massacre both occurred on April 15 when my version clearly makes reference to the date range in which the event occurred. However, since the version before yours did actually split the protest and massacre portion up, I am ok with structuring the lead in that way.
For the "impasse" part, I really cannot agree with describing the resolution process peacefully. As the article notes, there was already rioting by the protesters and harsh commentary by the government before negotiations between the two even took place. When they did, they were in beginning peaceful as you pointed out, but they soon turned hostile. As the the "Escalations" and "Military Action" sections makes very clear, the position of the hardliners - on both sides - won out in the end. Had the moderates won out, the "build up" would look very different and indeed there would have been no "June 4" to speak of at all.
This line here: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Once more, I cannot agree with this. The sources all refer to it as a massacre, so there is no need for the qualifier. It isnt necessary to make the distinction whether the deaths occurred inside or outside the square. What is important is that the deaths occurred at the square itself.
For the "June 1" paragraph, putting in information about how protestors attempted to block the advancement and how the government mobilized troops strikes me as being far too detailed for an introductory section. While I think we can put a sentence about the protesters, it will have to be included in a way that reflects the proper chronology of the event.
"various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre". There are no sources in the article to support this assertion so this proposal is one I cannot support.
Here is my suggestion:
The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held at Tiananmen Square, Beijing, that began on April 15, 1989. After a months-long impasse in negotiations between the demonstrators and the Chinese government, the government forcibly suppressed the protests when the People's Liberation Army cleared the square of the protesters on June 4 in what is referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or in Chinese the June Fourth Clearing or June Fourth Massacre. The protests and massacre are collectively known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident and sometimes referred to as the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square crackdown, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising.,
...
As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20 and on June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee on June 2 made the decision to use force to clear the square, leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.
The event had both short and long term consequences. Western countries imposed an arms embargo on China in response to the crackdown which remains in force today. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. The government also invested heavily into creating more effective police riot control units. More broadly, the suppression ended the political reforms begun in 1986 and halted the policies of liberalization of the 1980s, which were only partly resumed after Deng Xiaoping's Southern Tour in 1992. Considered a watershed event, reaction to the protests set limits on political expression in China that have lasted up to the present day. The events remain one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China. Politixsperson (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for your reply. I'll number the replies so that it's organized better.
  1. "I am not sure how the reader would be confused into thinking that the protests and massacre both occurred on April 15 when my version clearly makes reference to the date range in which the event occurred." The reader may interpret the massacre as lasting throughout teh date range. A massacre that spans across multiple days.
  2. "For the "impasse" part, I really cannot agree with describing the resolution process peacefully. As the article notes, there was already rioting by the protesters and harsh commentary by the government before negotiations between the two even took place. When they did, they were in beginning peaceful as you pointed out, but they soon turned hostile." There were numerous attempts from both sides to resolve the conflict peacefully. Clashes with protestors and police were nonviolent on numerous occasions (could they even be called clashes at that point?) and negotiations were also done on numerous occasions in a nonviolent way. Just to name a few, on the night of April 18, students tried to break into Xinhuamen. There were police present but there were no clashes between police and students. On April 27, there was a student demontration and police had set up barricades. Students had broken through the barricades. Liang Xiaoyan, a teacher, noted in an interview: "...it was obvious that the police were not ordered to beat people up. They only tried to form a human blockade.” On May 14, the government agreed to talk with the protestors. There are more instances but I'm sure you get the point.
  3. "This line here: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Once more, I cannot agree with this. The sources all refer to it as a massacre, so there is no need for the qualifier. It isnt necessary to make the distinction whether the deaths occurred inside or outside the square. What is important is that the deaths occurred at the square itself." While it's true that some western media outlets refer to it as a massacre, there are sources that do not refer to it as a massacre.[2] It's important to make the distinction that the deaths were outside the square because it's referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, not the Beijing massacre. This is something the source above also points out. There is also the idea (that probably comes from propaganda) that students were gunned down at the monument, but this is not what happened. It's important to present all the facts, especially when propaganda (from both side) is heavily influencing what people think. The truth is what's most important and our article should not allow for misinterpretation of the facts.
  4. "For the "June 1" paragraph, putting in information about how protestors attempted to block the advancement and how the government mobilized troops strikes me as being far too detailed for an introductory section. While I think we can put a sentence about the protesters, it will have to be included in a way that reflects the proper chronology of the event." The protestors attempt to block the advancement of the square is extremely important and should be included because the troops were ordered to use force if their path to the square was stopped. Because their path to the square was stopped, then violence was used. Without this detail, it may contribute to the idea that the protestors were gunned down at the monument. This is again important to prevent the misinterpretation of facts.
  5. "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre". There are no sources in the article to support this assertion so this proposal is one I cannot support." My guess is that there's no source because it's implied intuitively that western governments like the US label this event as a massacre. Are you suggesting that western countries do not label it a massacre?
These are additional points that I don't feel like were addressed:
6. And these attempts [to resolve the conflict peacefully] were initiated both by the government and by the student protestors. Rather than focusing on the ending, the reader will have a better understanding if we emphasize the build up prior to June 4. This is why I believe that this line is so important: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Another reason why this line is important is because it emphasizes that it was the night of June 3.
7. I also want to know why this paragraph was deleted and if it can be added back as well: "After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, a meeting held among the CCP's top leadership on 1 June concluded with a decision to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded." This paragraph is important because it adds emphasis on the weeks leading up to June 4 as well as emphasis on the Bejing streets where deaths occurred. It also mentions more details about how protestors attempted to block the advancement towards the square. Keeping the mention of mobilization of troops to Beijing also adds to the same point. Atinoua (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
1. Well my version makes clear that the the massacre occurred specifically on June 4. But again, it seems like this is not a point we need to really argue over. As I have already said, I am okay with splitting the two portions up.
2. "Clashes with protestors and police were nonviolent" But a clash by its nature cannot be non-violent. So I am not really sure what you are arguing here. Yes, they initially agreed to talk, but as the article shows, the talks soon broke down. This is why the government declared martial law - not a move that I would think could be called a peaceful way to resolve a dispute.
3. That is one person quoted in one source. If we use the Telegraph source, a quick search shows four articles which use the phrase Tiananmen Square Massacre [3][4][5] [6] We include what the sources say, not what we wish they said, and if the preponderance of source refer to the event as a massacre, then that is what we go by.
4. "Because their path to the square was stopped, then violence was used." But we can just as easily say the violence occurred because the army made the decision to clear the square in the first place. The easiest solution would just be to say there were clashes between the protesters and military and to leave it at that. Remember, this is an introductory section so it is best to keep things short and simple
5. If it is "intuitively implied", then maybe its sheer obviousness means the point does not need to be mentioned in the article. My point though is that we need to go by what the sources say. If there are no sources which say "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre" then it does not belong here.
6. I do not mean to be offensive, but I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.
7. I think you have covered your arguments here in point 4.
I fear we might be going in circles, so in the interest of keeping the discussion moving along, I am going to suggest using my version as a base template to work off of and ask that you make proposals for changes to the text as suggestions for improvement. Politixsperson (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Let me know if there's anything I haven't responded to:
2. The point about "a clash by its nature cannot be non-violent" is just an argument about the word choice. If a clash cannot be non-violent then the non-violent attempts to resolve the disagreements are not clashes. Regardless, it's important to include that both the government and the students had attempted to resolve the conflict peacefully. The reader will have a more nuanced understanding of events if we continue to emphasize the peaceful confrontations and negotiations took place the weeks prior to June 4. You're right to say that the peaceful attempts to negotiate were ultimately not successful and that is also emphasized in the original version with the clearing of the square through martial law. This does not mean that the peaceful attempts didn't exist though.
3. The primary source is cables sent from the United States embassy in Beijing, not simply 1 person. Here is just 1 quote from the article (there are many more that we can get into if necessary): "Inside the square itself, a Chilean diplomat was on hand to give his US counterparts an eyewitness account of the final hours of the pro-democracy movement.
"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," a cable from July 1989 said."
I am not arguing that this is The Telegraph UK's official perspective, my point is that there are sources that do not refer to it as a massacre. This is one of those sources. This is why the line "...often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." is important to have. It is often referring to as a massacre, but there are sources that say otherwise.
4. I'm not yet convinced that the details about how protestors are attempting to block them is too detailed. From my view, this information is so important because the reasoning for the deaths wasn't because the troops were out to kill students, it was because the troops were ordered to clear the square. This counters common propaganda myths about the protests and it's important to have a balanced article. I agree that every detail about how protestors attempted to block them shouldn't be included in our article, but I worry that by deleting this important information, it is oversimplifying the events and hurting the balance of the article.
5. I agree with you that we need to follow the evidence. This distinction is important because not all media and countries label it as a massacre. I'm sure this isn't the first instance, but here is 1 source from the US government which calls it a massacre.[7]
6. My point here is to say that our article will be improved by emphasizing not only June 4, but also protests that had occurred before June 4. Atinoua (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
2. How about this: "While negotiations between the two sides started out amicably, this soon changed as hardliners came to increasingly dominate the discussions." We can put this in the third paragraph as that is where it goes into the course of events in a bit more detail.
3. The overwheming majoritity of sources including the ones used in this article refer to it as a massacre. That is what we need to go by. I am sorry if I am a blunt on this, but I do not see how I can state this in another way.
4. "because the reasoning for the deaths wasn't because the troops were out to kill students, it was because the troops were ordered to clear the square." Well then in that case your focus should be on the order, not the protesters blocking them. Putting the focus on the blocking would be no less propagandistic than putting the focus on the military order. Better to simply say there were clashes between the protesters and military and to leave it at that.
5. We will need sources that specifically say Western countries and outlets called the square a massacre. We also need to keep in mind that there are many non Western sources which do refer to the event as a massacre. [8] [9] [10] [11] Politixsperson (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
2. The problem I have with this suggestion is that it takes away the important information about the peaceful negotiation process that had happened. The language of peaceful negotiations from both sides shows the nuance and remains balanced. I wonder what @ADifferentMan thoughts are on this. He might have a better solution that neither of us are thinking of. I don't think internal party struggle is something that should be in the lead for this article.
3. Both can be true. The majority of the sources in our article can refer it as a massacre and at the same time, not all sources agree that it was a massacre. This is why I think it's important for our article to say "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." The word "often" (instead of using a word like "sometimes" or "rarely") reflects how the majority of our sources refer to it as a massacre.
4. I partially agree with you here. I think that both the order to clear the square and the details about protestors blocked their advancement. We will need ADifferentMan's perspective to build a consensus.
5. I don't think a secondary source is necessary in this case. Why wouldn't documents from the US government calling it a massacre suffice the question of whether western sources label it a massacre? Also, something being "western" in this context doesn't mean that it has to be literally in the west. It just has to be westernized: The west has to have significant influence in a country. Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan are all westernized. Some countries that aren't westernized are China, Russia, DPRK, and Iran. If there's evidence of non-western/western-aligned countries reporting on this, it would show that not all non-western countries agree. Maybe instead of having it say: "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre"" we could say "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre"". What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Most of the material you want kept were written by ADifferentMan. If we want to build proper consensus, then it will have to come from some one else who did not already work on the parts of the article we are discussing. I'm not clear how my suggestion takes away information about the peacefulness of the negotiations. It says at right at the get go that they "started out amicably"
3. The sources which do not call it a massacre are in the very tiny minority. As such, the description of the events as a massacre can and should be stated as fact.
4. As with #2, we will need some one else to take a look at this.
5. "Why wouldn't documents from the US government calling it a massacre suffice the question of whether western sources label it a massacre?" But you are already assuming that you have an accepted criteria for determining what makes something "Western." This same assumption appears to underlie your assertion that "Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan are all westernized." I think a lot of people myself included would find fault with that assumption, and that is a reason why I keep asking you to provide sources that specifically say (only) Western countries and outlets called the events at the square a massacre.
A final point I notice that the current version of the introduction section especially the first paragraph includes some of the material which you added and we are discussing. But out of basic fairness, it would seem like the version should instead go back to the one that existed before you added your material [12]. Can I go ahead and make this change? Politixsperson (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
2. All editors are invited to contribute to building consensus and ADifferentMan is no exception. Everybody wants what's best for our article. With that being said, my point is that the language that was there originally places much more emphasis on the peaceful negotiations and my argument has been that level of emphasis is needed.
3. When you're presenting information, it's important to look at all evidence and present your conclusions in an unbiased way. By ignoring evidence that contradicts the status quo majority, it's hurting the balance of our article. This is why "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." is better for the reasons we had already discussed.
5. You're right that I'm assuming the United States is western, but this is a common understanding. I get your point when you say not everyone would agree that, for example, Japan, is westernized (although the west has had huge influence in their country). To clarify, a better sentence might say: "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre""
6. Before making any big changes to our article, I recommend that we discuss the problems with the article on the talk page like what we have been doing. For example, I made a suggestion to edit the article on July 7 and waited for any other editors to voice their opinion of my proposal. I edited the article on August 3. What's more important is not who wrote the article, but what information is presented within the article and I'd argue what's fair is what can be concluded from the available evidence. Please let me know your thoughts. Atinoua (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Asking ADifferentMan to build consensus would undermine the process by stacking the votes to your advantage. We are going to need another editor to give an unbiased look at this.
3. The "status quo majority" language would be to state the massacre as a fact because that is how the vast majority of the sources describe the event. Going through your talk page, this is something that another editor has also informed you of (When reliable sources report information as fact, it is reported as fact in Wikipedia articles. For example, if CNN says that that one million Uygurs are currently incarcerated, then the article says that.) and of which you already appear to be aware.
4. "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre". This is still relying on the same problematic assumption.
5. "waited for any other editors to voice their opinion of my proposal. " Well I am using my voice here to tell you I do not agree to what you are proposing. You made big changes to the article and I do not agree with them. So out of basic fairness, it would seem like we should go back to the version that existed before you added your material Politixsperson (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
2. I only say that we should ask ADifferentMan because he has been active on this page. He may disagree or he may agree with either of our suggestions. Regardless, nobody should be excluded from consensus building. This is not votestacking, ADifferentMan is very active here.
3. My point is that our article should not exclude facts and historical analysis on the basis that they disagree with the status quo. That is not what the editor on my talk page was talking about. The situation on my talk page was referencing sources that are deprecated and therefore considered unreliable on Wikipedia. However, The source I used in our discussion was The Daily Telegraph and is considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. This source shows that not all sources agree that it is a massacre. As a result, it is important to use the language of "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." The word "often" shows how there are many sources that call it a massacre.
4. The words "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre" works around the problem you had brought up earlier because the eastern countries you sourced are all economically supported by the west. For example, when you compare America's support for South Korea vs North Korea, it becomes clear which country is western-aligned and which is not. This is a very common understanding of the words.
5. If you do not agree with any information in the article, use the talk page to discuss it (as we have been doing). Please give specific reasons why you do not agree with a particular edit. Atinoua (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I have asked some one to come here and take an independent look at the discussion. Respectful as it has been, I do not think we are going to make progress given how wide the gap between our positions is. Politixsperson (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Atinoua: I will attempt to stay active here for any discussions. Unfortunately, I can't make guarantees, since I've been a bit busy in real life, so my apologies in advance. ADifferentMan (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You made big changes to the article and I do not agree with them. So out of basic fairness, it would seem like we should go back to the version that existed before you added your material

This sounds a whole lot like "These changes are unfair because I don't like them, therefore they should be removed". ADifferentMan (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
It sounds like that you because you have not read WP:BRD Politixsperson (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverted Edit August 15 2023

Hello User:Politixsperson! I wanted to thank you for your interest in editing this article. And I wanted to say that parts of your edit were perfectly fine! I don't want to discourage you from wanting to contribute to the article. I wanted to expand on my reasoning for reverting your edit.

The first part of my reasoning was that relevant context was removed. In the first paragraph, the original version highlighted that the Tiananmen Square Protests was not a singular event, but rather a series of demonstrations. The original version also provides the context that 3 June was the day martial law was declared. Going further it adds more details about how there were negotiations that took place from the sides of both the Chinese government and the protestors. Lastly with the first paragraph, the details of martial law were removed.

Other details you added (such as martial law being declared on 20 May) did not include critical information such as how the troops pulled back to the suburbs. This is something that I wouldn't have any problems with adding. Other editors are invited to contribute to creating a consensus.

The second part of reasoning was that some of the content was moved out of chronological order. In the original version, the estimates of the death toll was located between the military action and the immediate aftermath.

The details you added about Operation Yellowbird and arms embargoes is perfectly fine. I can add them back if you'd like. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Atinoua well I thought my version highlighted a bit clearer the things you want included, namely that the protests was not a singular event but a series of demonstrations and the negotiations that took place between the government and protesters. The martial law aspect, this can go back in but of course it will have to be written in a way we can both agree on. I do not agree however that the death toll should not be in the introductory section given how important that figure is to the event. The version before your "original version" did have the death toll in the intro which stood for quite some time. But nevertheless, in the interest of maintaining forward momentum in our discussion, can you provide a version of what it is that you are proposing? In the mean time, it looks like we have agreement on the other parts of my version, so I will put that back in Politixsperson (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Politixsperson! I'll try to answer all of your questions.
By including "The Tiananmen Square protests and massacre . . . was an event that began on April 15 with student led demonstrations" This may confuse the reader because it could be interpreted as the massacre beginning on April 15. If we instead have our article say "The Tiananmen Square protests . . . were student-led demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June, 1989", then there is no room for ambiguity because the following line clarifiers the massacre: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre."
There is also this line you suggest: "after an impasse in negotiations between the demonstrators and the Chinese government culminated in the forcible suppression of the protests on 4 June when the government sent the People's Liberation Army to occupy parts of central Beijing." This takes away emphasis from the multiple attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully. And these attempts were initiated both by the government and by the student protestors. Rather than focusing on the ending, the reader will have a better understanding if we emphasize the build up prior to June 4. This is why I believe that this line is so important: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Another reason why this line is important is because it emphasizes that it was the night of June 3.
By including the line: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." it acknowledges that the majority of deaths occurred outside the square, not directly inside.
The lead section is a summary of the entire article. The article has an entire section dedicated to the death toll and the death toll is already included in the lead. I agree that it's an important figure, and it is included in the lead. I just don't think it should be taken out of where it was originally in chronological order.
I also want to know why this paragraph was deleted and if it can be added back as well: "After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, a meeting held among the CCP's top leadership on 1 June concluded with a decision to clear the square.[1][2][3] The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded." This paragraph is important because it adds emphasis on the weeks leading up to June 4 as well as emphasis on the Bejing streets where deaths occurred. It also mentions more details about how protestors attempted to block the advancement towards the square. Keeping the mention of mobilization of troops to Beijing also adds to the same point. Also, by maintaining how various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre, it adds more details about the origins of the label "massacre".
When it comes to a version I would approve on that incorporates your suggestions, it would be this. What are your thoughts?:
"The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held in Tiananmen Square, Beijing, China, lasting from 15 April to 4 June, 1989. On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre. The events are sometimes called the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising.
...
As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. In response, the State Council declared martial law on 20 May however, the troops had pulled back to the suburbs that same day. After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee held a meeting and declared martial law again on 2 June to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.
The event had both short and long term consequences. Various Western media outlets labeled the crackdown a "massacre" and Western countries imposed an arms embargo on China in response to the crackdown which remains in force today. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests." Atinoua (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC) Atinoua (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Atinoua you have brought up a lot of points so I will do my best to answer all of them. If I missed one, please let me know.
I am not sure how the reader would be confused into thinking that the protests and massacre both occurred on April 15 when my version clearly makes reference to the date range in which the event occurred. However, since the version before yours did actually split the protest and massacre portion up, I am ok with structuring the lead in that way.
For the "impasse" part, I really cannot agree with describing the resolution process peacefully. As the article notes, there was already rioting by the protesters and harsh commentary by the government before negotiations between the two even took place. When they did, they were in beginning peaceful as you pointed out, but they soon turned hostile. As the the "Escalations" and "Military Action" sections makes very clear, the position of the hardliners - on both sides - won out in the end. Had the moderates won out, the "build up" would look very different and indeed there would have been no "June 4" to speak of at all.
This line here: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Once more, I cannot agree with this. The sources all refer to it as a massacre, so there is no need for the qualifier. It isnt necessary to make the distinction whether the deaths occurred inside or outside the square. What is important is that the deaths occurred at the square itself.
For the "June 1" paragraph, putting in information about how protestors attempted to block the advancement and how the government mobilized troops strikes me as being far too detailed for an introductory section. While I think we can put a sentence about the protesters, it will have to be included in a way that reflects the proper chronology of the event.
"various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre". There are no sources in the article to support this assertion so this proposal is one I cannot support.
Here is my suggestion:
The Tiananmen Square protests, known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident were student-led demonstrations held at Tiananmen Square, Beijing, that began on April 15, 1989. After a months-long impasse in negotiations between the demonstrators and the Chinese government, the government forcibly suppressed the protests when the People's Liberation Army cleared the square of the protesters on June 4 in what is referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, or in Chinese the June Fourth Clearing or June Fourth Massacre. The protests and massacre are collectively known in Chinese as the June Fourth Incident and sometimes referred to as the '89 Democracy Movement, the Tiananmen Square crackdown, the Tiananmen Square Incident, or the Tiananmen uprising.,
...
As the protests developed, the authorities responded with both conciliatory and hardline tactics, exposing deep divisions within the party leadership. By May, a student-led hunger strike galvanized support around the country for the demonstrators, and the protests spread to some 400 cities. In response, the State Council declared martial law on May 20 and on June 2, the CCP's Politburo Standing Committee on June 2 made the decision to use force to clear the square, leading to clashes between the military and demonstrators. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded.
The event had both short and long term consequences. Western countries imposed an arms embargo on China in response to the crackdown which remains in force today. In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government suppressed other protests around China, carried out mass arrests of protesters which catalyzed Operation Yellowbird, strictly controlled coverage of the events in the domestic and foreign affiliated press, and demoted or purged officials it deemed sympathetic to the protests. The government also invested heavily into creating more effective police riot control units. More broadly, the suppression ended the political reforms begun in 1986 and halted the policies of liberalization of the 1980s, which were only partly resumed after Deng Xiaoping's Southern Tour in 1992. Considered a watershed event, reaction to the protests set limits on political expression in China that have lasted up to the present day. The events remain one of the most sensitive and most widely censored topics in China. Politixsperson (talk) 03:36, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Hey! Thanks for your reply. I'll number the replies so that it's organized better.
  1. "I am not sure how the reader would be confused into thinking that the protests and massacre both occurred on April 15 when my version clearly makes reference to the date range in which the event occurred." The reader may interpret the massacre as lasting throughout teh date range. A massacre that spans across multiple days.
  2. "For the "impasse" part, I really cannot agree with describing the resolution process peacefully. As the article notes, there was already rioting by the protesters and harsh commentary by the government before negotiations between the two even took place. When they did, they were in beginning peaceful as you pointed out, but they soon turned hostile." There were numerous attempts from both sides to resolve the conflict peacefully. Clashes with protestors and police were nonviolent on numerous occasions (could they even be called clashes at that point?) and negotiations were also done on numerous occasions in a nonviolent way. Just to name a few, on the night of April 18, students tried to break into Xinhuamen. There were police present but there were no clashes between police and students. On April 27, there was a student demontration and police had set up barricades. Students had broken through the barricades. Liang Xiaoyan, a teacher, noted in an interview: "...it was obvious that the police were not ordered to beat people up. They only tried to form a human blockade.” On May 14, the government agreed to talk with the protestors. There are more instances but I'm sure you get the point.
  3. "This line here: "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Once more, I cannot agree with this. The sources all refer to it as a massacre, so there is no need for the qualifier. It isnt necessary to make the distinction whether the deaths occurred inside or outside the square. What is important is that the deaths occurred at the square itself." While it's true that some western media outlets refer to it as a massacre, there are sources that do not refer to it as a massacre.[13] It's important to make the distinction that the deaths were outside the square because it's referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre, not the Beijing massacre. This is something the source above also points out. There is also the idea (that probably comes from propaganda) that students were gunned down at the monument, but this is not what happened. It's important to present all the facts, especially when propaganda (from both side) is heavily influencing what people think. The truth is what's most important and our article should not allow for misinterpretation of the facts.
  4. "For the "June 1" paragraph, putting in information about how protestors attempted to block the advancement and how the government mobilized troops strikes me as being far too detailed for an introductory section. While I think we can put a sentence about the protesters, it will have to be included in a way that reflects the proper chronology of the event." The protestors attempt to block the advancement of the square is extremely important and should be included because the troops were ordered to use force if their path to the square was stopped. Because their path to the square was stopped, then violence was used. Without this detail, it may contribute to the idea that the protestors were gunned down at the monument. This is again important to prevent the misinterpretation of facts.
  5. "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre". There are no sources in the article to support this assertion so this proposal is one I cannot support." My guess is that there's no source because it's implied intuitively that western governments like the US label this event as a massacre. Are you suggesting that western countries do not label it a massacre?
These are additional points that I don't feel like were addressed:
6. And these attempts [to resolve the conflict peacefully] were initiated both by the government and by the student protestors. Rather than focusing on the ending, the reader will have a better understanding if we emphasize the build up prior to June 4. This is why I believe that this line is so important: "On the night of 3 June, after weeks of attempts to resolve the conflict peacefully, including negotiations from both sides, the Chinese government declared martial law, and deployed troops to occupy the Square in what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." Another reason why this line is important is because it emphasizes that it was the night of June 3.
7. I also want to know why this paragraph was deleted and if it can be added back as well: "After several weeks of standoffs and violent confrontations between the army and demonstrators left many on both sides severely injured, a meeting held among the CCP's top leadership on 1 June concluded with a decision to clear the square. The troops advanced into central parts of Beijing on the city's major thoroughfares in the early morning hours of 4 June and engaged in bloody clashes with demonstrators attempting to block them, in which many people – demonstrators, bystanders, and soldiers – were killed. Estimates of the death toll vary from several hundred to several thousand, with thousands more wounded." This paragraph is important because it adds emphasis on the weeks leading up to June 4 as well as emphasis on the Bejing streets where deaths occurred. It also mentions more details about how protestors attempted to block the advancement towards the square. Keeping the mention of mobilization of troops to Beijing also adds to the same point. Atinoua (talk) 02:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
1. Well my version makes clear that the the massacre occurred specifically on June 4. But again, it seems like this is not a point we need to really argue over. As I have already said, I am okay with splitting the two portions up.
2. "Clashes with protestors and police were nonviolent" But a clash by its nature cannot be non-violent. So I am not really sure what you are arguing here. Yes, they initially agreed to talk, but as the article shows, the talks soon broke down. This is why the government declared martial law - not a move that I would think could be called a peaceful way to resolve a dispute.
3. That is one person quoted in one source. If we use the Telegraph source, a quick search shows four articles which use the phrase Tiananmen Square Massacre [14][15][16] [17] We include what the sources say, not what we wish they said, and if the preponderance of source refer to the event as a massacre, then that is what we go by.
4. "Because their path to the square was stopped, then violence was used." But we can just as easily say the violence occurred because the army made the decision to clear the square in the first place. The easiest solution would just be to say there were clashes between the protesters and military and to leave it at that. Remember, this is an introductory section so it is best to keep things short and simple
5. If it is "intuitively implied", then maybe its sheer obviousness means the point does not need to be mentioned in the article. My point though is that we need to go by what the sources say. If there are no sources which say "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a massacre" then it does not belong here.
6. I do not mean to be offensive, but I cannot understand what you are trying to say here.
7. I think you have covered your arguments here in point 4.
I fear we might be going in circles, so in the interest of keeping the discussion moving along, I am going to suggest using my version as a base template to work off of and ask that you make proposals for changes to the text as suggestions for improvement. Politixsperson (talk) 04:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. Let me know if there's anything I haven't responded to:
2. The point about "a clash by its nature cannot be non-violent" is just an argument about the word choice. If a clash cannot be non-violent then the non-violent attempts to resolve the disagreements are not clashes. Regardless, it's important to include that both the government and the students had attempted to resolve the conflict peacefully. The reader will have a more nuanced understanding of events if we continue to emphasize the peaceful confrontations and negotiations took place the weeks prior to June 4. You're right to say that the peaceful attempts to negotiate were ultimately not successful and that is also emphasized in the original version with the clearing of the square through martial law. This does not mean that the peaceful attempts didn't exist though.
3. The primary source is cables sent from the United States embassy in Beijing, not simply 1 person. Here is just 1 quote from the article (there are many more that we can get into if necessary): "Inside the square itself, a Chilean diplomat was on hand to give his US counterparts an eyewitness account of the final hours of the pro-democracy movement.
"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," a cable from July 1989 said."
I am not arguing that this is The Telegraph UK's official perspective, my point is that there are sources that do not refer to it as a massacre. This is one of those sources. This is why the line "...often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." is important to have. It is often referring to as a massacre, but there are sources that say otherwise.
4. I'm not yet convinced that the details about how protestors are attempting to block them is too detailed. From my view, this information is so important because the reasoning for the deaths wasn't because the troops were out to kill students, it was because the troops were ordered to clear the square. This counters common propaganda myths about the protests and it's important to have a balanced article. I agree that every detail about how protestors attempted to block them shouldn't be included in our article, but I worry that by deleting this important information, it is oversimplifying the events and hurting the balance of the article.
5. I agree with you that we need to follow the evidence. This distinction is important because not all media and countries label it as a massacre. I'm sure this isn't the first instance, but here is 1 source from the US government which calls it a massacre.[18]
6. My point here is to say that our article will be improved by emphasizing not only June 4, but also protests that had occurred before June 4. Atinoua (talk) 13:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
2. How about this: "While negotiations between the two sides started out amicably, this soon changed as hardliners came to increasingly dominate the discussions." We can put this in the third paragraph as that is where it goes into the course of events in a bit more detail.
3. The overwheming majoritity of sources including the ones used in this article refer to it as a massacre. That is what we need to go by. I am sorry if I am a blunt on this, but I do not see how I can state this in another way.
4. "because the reasoning for the deaths wasn't because the troops were out to kill students, it was because the troops were ordered to clear the square." Well then in that case your focus should be on the order, not the protesters blocking them. Putting the focus on the blocking would be no less propagandistic than putting the focus on the military order. Better to simply say there were clashes between the protesters and military and to leave it at that.
5. We will need sources that specifically say Western countries and outlets called the square a massacre. We also need to keep in mind that there are many non Western sources which do refer to the event as a massacre. [19] [20] [21] [22] Politixsperson (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
2. The problem I have with this suggestion is that it takes away the important information about the peaceful negotiation process that had happened. The language of peaceful negotiations from both sides shows the nuance and remains balanced. I wonder what @ADifferentMan thoughts are on this. He might have a better solution that neither of us are thinking of. I don't think internal party struggle is something that should be in the lead for this article.
3. Both can be true. The majority of the sources in our article can refer it as a massacre and at the same time, not all sources agree that it was a massacre. This is why I think it's important for our article to say "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." The word "often" (instead of using a word like "sometimes" or "rarely") reflects how the majority of our sources refer to it as a massacre.
4. I partially agree with you here. I think that both the order to clear the square and the details about protestors blocked their advancement. We will need ADifferentMan's perspective to build a consensus.
5. I don't think a secondary source is necessary in this case. Why wouldn't documents from the US government calling it a massacre suffice the question of whether western sources label it a massacre? Also, something being "western" in this context doesn't mean that it has to be literally in the west. It just has to be westernized: The west has to have significant influence in a country. Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan are all westernized. Some countries that aren't westernized are China, Russia, DPRK, and Iran. If there's evidence of non-western/western-aligned countries reporting on this, it would show that not all non-western countries agree. Maybe instead of having it say: "various western countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre"" we could say "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre"". What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Most of the material you want kept were written by ADifferentMan. If we want to build proper consensus, then it will have to come from some one else who did not already work on the parts of the article we are discussing. I'm not clear how my suggestion takes away information about the peacefulness of the negotiations. It says at right at the get go that they "started out amicably"
3. The sources which do not call it a massacre are in the very tiny minority. As such, the description of the events as a massacre can and should be stated as fact.
4. As with #2, we will need some one else to take a look at this.
5. "Why wouldn't documents from the US government calling it a massacre suffice the question of whether western sources label it a massacre?" But you are already assuming that you have an accepted criteria for determining what makes something "Western." This same assumption appears to underlie your assertion that "Japan, Hong Kong, South Korea, and Taiwan are all westernized." I think a lot of people myself included would find fault with that assumption, and that is a reason why I keep asking you to provide sources that specifically say (only) Western countries and outlets called the events at the square a massacre.
A final point I notice that the current version of the introduction section especially the first paragraph includes some of the material which you added and we are discussing. But out of basic fairness, it would seem like the version should instead go back to the one that existed before you added your material [23]. Can I go ahead and make this change? Politixsperson (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
2. All editors are invited to contribute to building consensus and ADifferentMan is no exception. Everybody wants what's best for our article. With that being said, my point is that the language that was there originally places much more emphasis on the peaceful negotiations and my argument has been that level of emphasis is needed.
3. When you're presenting information, it's important to look at all evidence and present your conclusions in an unbiased way. By ignoring evidence that contradicts the status quo majority, it's hurting the balance of our article. This is why "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." is better for the reasons we had already discussed.
5. You're right that I'm assuming the United States is western, but this is a common understanding. I get your point when you say not everyone would agree that, for example, Japan, is westernized (although the west has had huge influence in their country). To clarify, a better sentence might say: "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre""
6. Before making any big changes to our article, I recommend that we discuss the problems with the article on the talk page like what we have been doing. For example, I made a suggestion to edit the article on July 7 and waited for any other editors to voice their opinion of my proposal. I edited the article on August 3. What's more important is not who wrote the article, but what information is presented within the article and I'd argue what's fair is what can be concluded from the available evidence. Please let me know your thoughts. Atinoua (talk) 12:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
2. Asking ADifferentMan to build consensus would undermine the process by stacking the votes to your advantage. We are going to need another editor to give an unbiased look at this.
3. The "status quo majority" language would be to state the massacre as a fact because that is how the vast majority of the sources describe the event. Going through your talk page, this is something that another editor has also informed you of (When reliable sources report information as fact, it is reported as fact in Wikipedia articles. For example, if CNN says that that one million Uygurs are currently incarcerated, then the article says that.) and of which you already appear to be aware.
4. "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre". This is still relying on the same problematic assumption.
5. "waited for any other editors to voice their opinion of my proposal. " Well I am using my voice here to tell you I do not agree to what you are proposing. You made big changes to the article and I do not agree with them. So out of basic fairness, it would seem like we should go back to the version that existed before you added your material Politixsperson (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
2. I only say that we should ask ADifferentMan because he has been active on this page. He may disagree or he may agree with either of our suggestions. Regardless, nobody should be excluded from consensus building. This is not votestacking, ADifferentMan is very active here.
3. My point is that our article should not exclude facts and historical analysis on the basis that they disagree with the status quo. That is not what the editor on my talk page was talking about. The situation on my talk page was referencing sources that are deprecated and therefore considered unreliable on Wikipedia. However, The source I used in our discussion was The Daily Telegraph and is considered reliable according to Wikipedia's standards. This source shows that not all sources agree that it is a massacre. As a result, it is important to use the language of "...what is often referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre." The word "often" shows how there are many sources that call it a massacre.
4. The words "various western-aligned countries had labeled the crackdown a "massacre" works around the problem you had brought up earlier because the eastern countries you sourced are all economically supported by the west. For example, when you compare America's support for South Korea vs North Korea, it becomes clear which country is western-aligned and which is not. This is a very common understanding of the words.
5. If you do not agree with any information in the article, use the talk page to discuss it (as we have been doing). Please give specific reasons why you do not agree with a particular edit. Atinoua (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I have asked some one to come here and take an independent look at the discussion. Respectful as it has been, I do not think we are going to make progress given how wide the gap between our positions is. Politixsperson (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@Atinoua: I will attempt to stay active here for any discussions. Unfortunately, I can't make guarantees, since I've been a bit busy in real life, so my apologies in advance. ADifferentMan (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

You made big changes to the article and I do not agree with them. So out of basic fairness, it would seem like we should go back to the version that existed before you added your material

This sounds a whole lot like "These changes are unfair because I don't like them, therefore they should be removed". ADifferentMan (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
It sounds like that you because you have not read WP:BRD Politixsperson (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

renhua, cpim and riot control

wu renhua's claim in the "Clearing the square" section uses a blog in apparent violation of WP:BLOGS. The sentence on the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in the "Reactions" section cites four sources, but two of them (India Today and World Socialist Web Site) do not say either that the CPIM "was the only political party in the world to pass a resolution supporting the crackdown on the Tiananmen Square protests," or mention its declaration that Tiananmen was "an imperialist attempt to internally subvert socialism, [which] was successfully thwarted by the CPC and the PLA." The paragraph about riot control in the "Politics" section appears to be misplaced. I will make the corrections if nobody has objections Politixsperson (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

1. I agree that blogs should not be used as evidence.
2. I cannot find any other sources for other political parties supporting the crackdown. If there are others, then I don't see a problem with mentioning them. I also agree that the India Today and World Socialist Web Site articles are unrelated and should be removed.
3. From my perspective, " efforts have been made to create effective riot control units in Chinese cities increased spending on internal security" is what makes it political. What are your thoughts? Atinoua (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I am not seeing how that sentence makes it political. Riot control is obviously about law enforcement and the emphasis on security is not just an illustration of how that is the case but reason why the paragraph deserves its separate section. Politixsperson (talk) 23:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I think it's political because it's governmental policy that is using their resources for these riot control units. But where do you recommend this text moves to? Atinoua (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
We can move it to a sub-section under the political section and call it Law enforcement or something like thatPolitixsperson (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Right now the political section is pretty small. It's already a subsection of Reactions. I feel like breaking it up into more subsections would hurt our article if we don't have much information for it yet. Atinoua (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I will see what I can do to expand the political section Politixsperson (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Expanding bullets

The sentence about expanding bullets in the “Soldiers attack protesters” section doesn't talk about Tiananmen Square. I will remove it if there are no objections Politixsperson (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

My interpretation was that the expanding bullets were used against the protestors. I haven't watched the documentary sourced yet to see if the evidence supports it. Atinoua (talk) 04:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference papers was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Miles 2009.
  3. ^ a b Declassified British cable.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre/Archive_6&oldid=1172293856"