Jump to content

Talk:Kate Adie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

St Hugh's College, Oxford

[edit]

The list of alumni includes Adie, although from the article a connection is not apparent. Is it an error? Philip Cross 21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not mentioned in Debrett's People of Today, not even in the honorary degrees. --jmb (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's an error. Anyhow, she's no longer on the list.Ausseagull (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seminars

[edit]

Maybe somebody could include a bit about the talk she held at the Cambridge International School in Dubai, UAE ?? Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Findiver (talk • contribs) 16:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kate Adie. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some editors writing false history and pretending she was the only journalist in the sqaure when there are too many contradicting evidence proving otherwise

[edit]

Kate Adie AND HER CREW, claimed to be the only journlists in Tianammen Square. Except no verified eyewitnesses had ever seen them there. A reuters journalist, a chilean diplomat, a taiwanese pro democracy activist were also there in the square that night, and their accounts completely contradicts her.

They can't all be correct and more likley than not, given that her own government doesn't acknowledge that she was there and the us gov embassy cables even admitted there were no massacre inside the sqaure. Presenting kate's story as if she's bravely and HONESTLY telling the whole truth. ie - the article wRites - she "recalled' or that she and her crew WERE THE ONLY JOURNALISTS in the sqaure. Instead of being netutral and just saying she "claims" to be the only journalists in the square. Editors here are saying that her accounts are all true and her words are to be taken at face value, despite the so many contradicting evidence. That is bias and a neutral apporach is NOT MISLEAD, and give contradicting info that shows that she is not being straightforwrad and that her claims of being the only journalists in the sqaure - SHOULDN'T BE TREATED here AS hard FACTS BUT FOR WHAT IT REALLY IS - her own self claims, NOT HARD FACTS. Even the renown china bashing Colombia journalism review and china hawkish Nicholas Kristof challnged her square massacre story. sources - [1] + https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php 49.180.0.62 (talk) 06:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see nothing in your sources claiming that they were the only journalists there, and what you have added is unsourced, possibly libellous, and irrelevant to Kate Adie. The source you've quoted is clearly not WP:NPOV (he's written numerous articles, from what I can see mostly nitpicking about where exactly the killings took place, not whether it happened) - but in any case, this relates to the Tiananmen Square article, not Kate Adie. She was clearly there and reporting on events as they happened around her, as cited in numerous sources and can be seen in video footage.[2]
Please self-revert your changes, or I will be reporting you to the admins and you may be blocked. You would do well to familiarise yourself with the links provided in the Welcome panel on your talk page, before you continue to obstinately re-state your opinion and revert the changes of a more experienced editor. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not the one vandalising and I should be reporting you for reverting correct edits. First off, this is the sentence that we are mostly discussing - "Adie's BBC crew were the only journalists in the square and were able to document much of the atrocity, which was not acknowledged by the government"

That ENTIRE SENTENCE IS just clearly misleading and false. First please answer these basic questions? What ATROCITY HAPPENED in the middle of the sqaure? According to my sources, the soldiers arrived and the students all left peacefully. There was no atrocity unless you call a couple of students murdering a soldier in a vehicle at the entrance, as atrocity? [3]

Secondly stating her crew as the only journalists in the sqaure? My source shows that she CLEARLY WAS NOT THE ONLY JOURNALISTS in the sqaure. A reuters journalist, spanish TVE channel tv crew and a chilean diplomat were the few official VERIFIED WESTERN eyewitnesses who were there at the sqaure, and they did not see any massacre or even any actual deaths at the sqaure. [4]

My sources includes the LATER Declassified US GOVERNMENT EMBASSY CABLES, "UPDATED" COLOMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW, more etc [5] That entire sentence is wrong and wikipedia can't publish false or DISPROVEN information in the light of authoritative sources that clearly disproves that sentence not just once but MULTIPLE TIMES with numerous sources. 49.195.103.117 (talk) 13:52, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lastly READ the source - https://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment/film/96266502/bbc-veteran-kate-adie-on-her-role-in-kiwi-directors-new-movie - the only people who EVER claimed that kate adle and her team, were the only crew out in the sqaure, was kate adle herself. It's a self-claim and not even true as a reuter journalist Graham Earnshaw and a spanish tv crew were in the sqaure on the very night the soldiers cleared the students, and why I wrote that she "self claimed" it, to show neutrality and instead of taking her words at face value in a biased loose way. 49.195.103.117 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It looks as if you are the same editor using two IP addresses? As I have mentioned above, this "controversy" does not belong in a BLP, and shouting about it doesn't help. I have now found the source that you were talking about, and clarified the content extracted from it. That is what she said, and that is what is stated in the article - nothing more, nothing less. If you find a reliable source that specifically mentions her name and challenges her assertion, that may possibly be worthy of inclusion, but what you have been adding is irrelevant and/or WP:OR. The rest of your argument is about what may or may not have happened in the square or in the surrounds, which is covered in the Tianenmen Square article. Now please desist from adding this material to this biographical article or I will have to report you. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 01:09, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
obviously it's me. Mobile broadband ip do change automatically. No, if you actually read the actual source. The article in your new zealand movie review, was spun as it deliberately misleads people that she was at the square and had witnessd thousands of democracy students massacred. First off, only a minority like chai ling were fighting for democracy. Most were fighting against corruption but not systematic change. Look at wiki article for tianammen square and it verifies that basic fact. Secondly if you actually had read early articles and additionaly her narratives, [6] [7] - you would see that she specifically talks about Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing and "claimed" the protesters didn't give up and leave the square peacefully back 3 decades ago. She herself wrote the massacre specifically happened when estimated 2,000 pro-democracy demonstrators were shot in cold blood and MASS shooting by Chinese government troops at the square. She even stated that she also "escaped" Gunfire whilst in the square herself. Not that different from chai ling's narrative.

Read the express paper [8] - VETERAN news reporter Kate Adie was "grazed" by a bullet as she ran through Tiananmen Square. And later returned to the alleged place of massacre. Very heroic EXCEPT today We all know the authoritive sources exposing THERE WERE NO MASS FIRING in the square. Not even any fighting in the sqaure. Why would they shoot students who ALREADY agreed to leave the square? Additionally there was a tv crew - the spanish tv crew who actually filmed the students leaving the square without bloodshed. Yet bias ignored all that and took her VERBAL story at face value.

Future evidence later emerged and showed the BBC had falsely misled on what happened when students were cleared from the sqaure and she was one of the original swaure massacre reporters backing the MYTH. There are so many MISLEADING articles that soldiers mass fired on the students as they stood demonstrating at the square - when wikileaks and actual evidence like declass cables, spanish tv crew footage, etc shows that never happened. [9] the sources i use are US GOV EMBASSY CABLES and verified western witness accounts. Wiikpedia needs to be neutral and not aid myths and too mamy people today believe in a tianamem swaure massacre myth where reports in the Western press gave the impression that Chinese troops and tanks had fired indiscriminately into the crowds of students in the square, massacring thousands of them on June 4, 1989.

You can do the right thing, look at the express uk paper that quotes Kate stating she RAN THROUGH THE SQUARE and witnessed mass firing in which a bullet scraped her. And then show the Wikileak US EMBASSY CABLES that showed without any deniability, she was making up lies. Only a very biased persom can deny that fact. I'll give you a chance to fix it up yourself and state that her story of what happened to the protest in the square and how exactly soldiers cleared the square , plus her wild time of dodging bullets in the square, was later ALL debunked by wikileaks as obvious untruths. If not, i will return, give my sources on EXACTLY what she said happened in the square and how it was later disproven, and even an experienced editor will not be able to revert them without being exposed as biased. Cheers. [10] 49.195.103.117 (talk) 04:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2008/07/21/commentary/birth-of-a-massacre-myth/#.XmcndEpxU2w
  2. ^ "Documentary - I Was There Kate Adie on Tiananmen Square". Dailymotion. 10 March 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2020.
  3. ^ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2004/09/15/commentary/the-tiananmen-square-massacre-myth/
  4. ^ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2008/07/21/commentary/birth-of-a-massacre-myth/#.XmehP0pxU2z
  5. ^ https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php
  6. ^ https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt/
  7. ^ https://www.radiotimes.com/tv-programme/e/gmjnfq/i-was-there-kate-adie-on-tiananmen-square/
  8. ^ https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/965651/Tiananmen-Square-veteran-news-reporter-kate-adie-protests-1989
  9. ^ http://www.outcastjournalist.com/index_files/tiananmen_square_massacre_power_of_words_vs_silent_evidence.htm
  10. ^ https://amp.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3012879/tiananmens-story-hasnt-been-told-truthfully-china-can-change
  • I'm tempted to close this entire thing as a bunch of forum posts essentially denying violence during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, and I've semi-protected the article itself because the IP editor is committing BLP violations in it. If the IP continues to try and turn this into some discussion about the generally accepted version of the protests, impugning reliable sources and spouting propaganda, we'll need to look at other measures. Drmies (talk) 00:16, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

[edit]

See above. Editor wants to place information about events in Tiananmen Square that contradict the subject's of this BLP's own version of events. And the rest. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible people want to hide this but..

[edit]

I know it's unlikely to stay. But Kate claims she was at the square yet witnessed soldiers arrive at the square and started firing. Maybe she thought she could get away with it, except Wikileaks and Colombia journalism review, shows major sources contradict her story. They say there was no bloodshed in the square so if Kate was inside the square, she would not be able to witness any massacre. I Watched her video and she doesn't show any footage of soldiers actually mass firing in the square. Just crazy wild camera angles which is mostly pointed at her face and not the surroundings. So someone is lying here.

Is it Us embassy cables via Wikileaks and Colombia journalism review? Or Kate Addie? As they cannot both be right. I added in the major sources that contradict her as I feel people need to be aware. But I know some wants to hide it though which in that case, go and let the b.s roll. But the fact is you know that info is right. Yet I see people actively still being in denial. And illegally censoring people on it on Wikipedia.

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

https://archives.cjr.org/behind_the_news/the_myth_of_tiananmen.php 49.186.60.182 (talk) 02:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tiananmen square denialism

[edit]

It seems that this page has been targeted with denial of the commonly accepted events of the Tiananmen Square massacre, alleging that the video of Kate Adie on the scene is fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.35.94.87 (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And actually if you look at the current Wikipedia page of Tiananmen square. It agrees that Western media might have intially misled about what actually occurred when soldiers arrived at the square to clear the students. It doesn't say that Katie was right but instead quotes reliable sources like Hou Dejian as well as US embassy cables who both indeed confirms that soldiers didn't use violence when they cleared the square. Regardless Colombia journalism review is a strong reliable source and the information was attributed well. Hiding it is ironically what people accuse China of. The necessary facts should not be hidden from public awareness.49.195.7.89 (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, am still the same person as directly above. Just wanted to remind you again that when someone makes an extraordinary claim. Make sure that all other sources confirms it and not contradict it. And the fact is that Colombia Journalism Review is a real source that is also very unlikely to lie or be a bad source. Many eyewitness accounts indeed saw soldiers arrived at the square and let students leave the square peacefully. There were deaths that night but different location and different circumstances. Given how so many eyewitness accounts dispute Katie Adie's account. Then that's serious. I am not suggesting to call her a liar but to simply point out that many significant sources do in fact dispute her accounts. And people should be aware that other eyewitnesses including Hou Dejian, and Nobel prize winning Liu Xiaobo, as well as a Chilean diplomat were also all there that night and they do not see a massacre at the square when soldiers arrived. We owe it to readers to inform them that major sources do not confirm her story of what occured in the middle of the square when it got cleared, and not hide it from them. Unless you have proof that Colombia Journalism ReView, Hou Dejian, Liu xiaobo, Us embassy cables, etc are all wrong. You really don't have a fair relevant reason to keep hiding that factual and very well backed information. 49.186.227.116 (talk) 23:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've tried to undo the above user's edits but I don't normally edit on Wikipedia. I don't know what standard practice is but they clearly have an agenda, and to my knowledge pages for living people are sensitive. If a more experienced editor could take over that would be much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.85.255.61 (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Adie was shot in her elbow while exiting the square to evade military gunfire and tanks on manoeuvre. It was never claimed her's was the only newscrew reporting from the square that day when the protestors were killed, injured and maimed.
Her immediate team however, were the only BBC representatives at the scene, as the others had all retreated to their hotel. Nobody could blame them for that, only the bravest of the brave witnessed all of the atrocities committed that fateful day as confirmed by the US State Dept. https://www.state.gov/on-the-34th-anniversary-of-tiananmen-square/ Jaymailsays (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kate_Adie&oldid=1252200131"