Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre/Archive 3

message: This article has been censored by those who insist on removing images that depict the results of violent protests against the PRC government. The images removed are public domain images and depict burned out busses. The false reason cited for removing this evidence of violence against the legitimate PRC government is a false claim that the images are not public domain material. The truth is that the images were removed by advocates of a nation that sheds blood in the streets of Baghdad while making idle accusations against more peaceable governments -- in this case a government that patiently waited weeks while its capital city was occupied by protesters and which eventually dispersed the out-of-control assembly in proper fashion - by forcing the crowd out an exit of the square, left open in keeping with standard riot-control tactics practiced by responsible forces worldwide. I would fix the article, but I have no interest in playing Web war with Wikipedia administators who have nothing better to do with their lives than harrass and abuse donors they recruit to the so-called encyclopedia "anyone" can edit if they have the approval of Jimmy Wales and his quixotic cabal of fanatical anarchist administrators. Oroja 17:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article isn't even available in China.  When you click on the link to this article the connection is immediately reset.205.212.73.14 23:24, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has been censored 

message: I have a problem with this section, which was inserted about a month ago:
: "In 2006, when a journalist from the PBS show "Frontline" did an interview at Peking University where many students participated in 1989, four students were shown the picture of the Tank man who stood in front of four tanks, none of them was able to recognize who that person was, and what that event was about. They thought that it was a military parade, or maybe it was a piece of artwork. Because the Chinese government deliberately removed anything associated with this event, many youth in China today have no knowledge of it."
While I have no doubt that the report is accurate, I think the conclusions drawn are too speculative for inclusion here. In particular, I feel the report reached precisely the wrong conclusion from the interview. A more plausible conclusion is that, faced with a taboo subject and foreign (especially American) media, these students feigned ignorance or deliberately supplied false answers. This demonstrates the effectiveness of China's political education regime, rather than censorship. 
At the very least, there is no way to know whether the students genuinely did not know, because no sane person would publicly and openly talk about such things in China, especially not to an American reporter. 
I suggest that the paragraph be removed. --Sumple (Talk) 05:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section is poorly worded, and in the actual video, one of the students says "1989" as if to suggest that he does indeed recognize the image. The section should be rewritten to clearly point out that it is simply an "example" of such ignorance of this subject. I wouldn't quite say that it warrants deletion.--Daveswagon 06:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For reference's sake. As Daveswagon mentioned above, in the video the male student whispers "1989" to a fellow student, who appeared to be dumbfounded. When asked outright by the reporter, though, the student smiled and feigned ignorance by guessing that the picture is of a parade or military ceremony. This I believe is proof conclusive that at least one of the students was feigning it, if not all of them. P0tat03 16:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We're not here to play detective. John Smith's 16:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

text: When i asked a fellow student from China if she had heard or knew anything about Tiananmen Square Protests, surprisingly she said NO. I had to find info on Google and Wikipedia to show to her about the protests that happened in her country. That's why i do not agree that the paragraph about the "Unknown history to the Youth in China" be deleted, for i know a living proof that a lot of people do not know anything in China. Remember, they still censor the internet to an extreme degree. Illuminati 23:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Unknown history to the Youth in China" - suggest deletion 

message: I have heard of several memorial songs, but most of them are in Chinese. The Wound of History (zh-TW:歷史的傷口) is common in Chinese only. So far the only English memorial song that I know is titled "Blood Is on the Square" with lyrics and melody by Philip Morgan (I am unsure which country he is from). the cover page of that song and my listening suggest that Phillip and Teresa Morgan (I am unsure if they are related while they may not be notable) sang the song. Only 748 Ghits are found Googling with "blood is on the square" in quotation marks, so I am wondering whether it is notable in the article. 
After all concerning notability, I would like to ask if we should write anything about memorial songs in the article. Meanwhile, please do not copy the lyrics of "Blood Is on the Square" to Wikisource. Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements in China has a movie (5 min 25 s) with the song, but later parts will be awful. The lyrics starts with peaceful protects but turns into awful history on June 4, 1989. The movie is noted to be copyrighted by June Fourth Foundation, Seattle, maybe in 1989.--Jusjih 16:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Memorial songs 

message: I've listed the article for a FAR.  It was promoted to FA-class three years ago and has never been through a FAR.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 04:47, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: Just regarding the first paragraph under the heading 'Background', it says "By early 1989, these economic and political reforms had led two groups of people to become dissatisfied with the government" Wasn't Deng adamantly against political reform, as laid out in his Four Cardinal Principles? Or were there other reforms that I've missed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.193.229 (talk • contribs) 
:I'm not sure what that extract is specifically in reference to, but remember that Deng was not the day-to-day leader in China by 1989 - Zhao Ziyang was. John Smith's 16:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political Reform? 

message: The section on the number of casualties resulting during the government crackdown on the protests is desperately in need of sources for its claims.  -- TexasDawg 20:51, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Casualties Section 

message: There is a reference to this in an episode of Law and Order: CI.
:Can you be more specific than that?--Daveswagon 22:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  L&O reference 

message: I think we can add the impact of the protest to other Communist countries like Revolutions of 1989, especially the Romanian Revolution of 1989.--24.18.102.154 20:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impact to the other Communist countries 

message: Was Gorbachyov around for any of the protests? Did he express an opinion? Brutannica 07:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gorbachyov 

message: :Britain took charge of the EU Presidency in the summer of 2005
This is ambiguous. It should be replaced by a date or specific month. --B.d.mills 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  When 

message: Due to the requirements of the IOC, China has unblocked the english language version of wikipedia. This would be a good opportunity to allow people in China access to highly suppressed information, by adding it temporarily to the English language site. Thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.128.204 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to Add Chinese Language version temporarily 

message: Where's archive 3? The link goes to archive 2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.103.36 (talk • contribs) 
:I archived the talk page and only cut-and-pasted the archive box line! John Smith's 16:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's archive 3? 

message: eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Massacre
there is no relations between them nor suitable for adding to the article; i just wanted to experiment with the thought if it could this has an influence on Tiananmen. perhaps is adds to why CCP didn't expect such a serious response from foreign states. has there been any studies done on the various protest that occurred in Asia? Akinkhoo 15:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparison with other protest suppression... 

message: "The most reliable account of what actually happened at Tiananmen Square itself that morning is from student leader, Hou DeJian who was on the square till the very end. He said that nobody died on Tiananmen Square. Reports that tanks rolled over students were not true. This is documented in his video appearance on Gate of Heavenly Peace available on youtube at minute 5:57 Hou DeJian eyewitness account on what happened at Tiananmen Square on June 4 at minute 5:57. In the video he said, "There are reports that 2 thousand or perhaps several hundred students died. On the square were tanks that rolled over students. Now, I do not know where people see this, but I myself never saw this. I was on the Square until 6:30 that morning. I keep thinking, do we need to create lies to fight our lying enemies? Isn't the truth strong enough? The danger about creating lies is that it would fulfill our moment of desire but when our lies are exposed, we would be powerless then to confront our enemies". Hou DeJian's testimony therefore agrees with the official Chinese government testimony that there were indeed no deaths on the Square itself."
: The above section was removed.  I am not doubting the source.  Preferably there are 50 videos on youtube to counter this one by people who claim to be on the square too.  What is disturbing is the same 3 people claiming this never happened.  Hou DeJian, Chai Ling and Ma Lik who was definitely associated with an extreme left pro-beijing political party.  User 75.33.15.87 I have taken this out for the time being.  Benjwong (talk) 05:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section removed 

message: Surely the title of this article should be the Tiananmen Square Massacre? As that is the most common and accurate description of events.... Bensonby 13:40, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could see that it is a full blown massacre, without even considering the aftermath, or do you suggest that these were all made in Hollywood: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=Tiananmen+Square+Massacre&search=Search ? --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: I removed the "massacre" name from the beginning - first, the reference was simply a comparison of Google searches. It is true that Google searches can be  used to establish notability, but neutrality is a different matter. Simply because media prefers to call Michael Jackson a "wacko" doesn't mean he is "commonly referred to as a wacko". When comparing two acceptable terms, we can list both or choose the more popular one. But when comparing a term that is neutral and a term that has an immense point of view, we choose the neutral term. The naming is already discussed in a whole section, so whatever controversy there is, put it there. Herunar (talk) 12:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also added the June-Fourth Incident name to the lead. This is the most common name in both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (Republic of China), as well as the largely independent Hong Kong and Macau, so I believe it's the most notable as well as neutral. Herunar (talk) 12:14, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Actually, we DO use the popular term. Nanking Massacre. We call it a "massacre" or even a "rape" if that's the designation history has given it. We don't reinvent history and make up our own "neutral" term. This would be self-defeating because in decalaring its popular designation "non-neutral" we would be making our own value judgement about the designation, which itself is non-neutral. We simply regurgitate what can be verified - WP:V - and we don't introduce our own interpretation - WP:OR. Specifically, we use the name it's referred to in English, because this is an English-language encyclopedia. Issues of terminology and naming are covered at length in the manual of style (WP:MOS) TheBilly (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 2 

message: Sorry for all the spaces, first edit ever. Anyway it seems that this article doesn't have many citations in it. If anyone could find some that would be great Sylvok (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: I will add the current status of the student leaders (Wang Dan, Chai Ling, etc.) to the "Aftermath"->"Arrests and Purges" section. It would be an interesting thing to learn to many of us. The source of the information is from the public speech given by Wang Dan in the University of Michigan in Nov.11, 2007. I will also list the citation in the main article. I attended that speech too, and I can testify the authenticity of that citation.
--Danithaca (talk) 22:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current status of the student leaders 

message: The Western reaction paragraph is very short, and misses nearly the whole point.  It doesn't even mention that it has been frequently described as the "Tiananmen Square massacre".  It doesn't matter whether there really was a massacre, or whether it was in Tiananmen Square.  That term is part of the reaction. Superm401 - Talk 08:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reaction 

message: One of the leaders of the student movement, Wang Yam, is currently on trial for the murder of Allan Chappelow. Ironically parts of his trial are being held in camera  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin451 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wang Yam 

message: Please add a serious mention of the print/television coverage of the incident being successfully supressed by the government, inside mainland China, for up to 6 months outside of Bejing. My family and I were in close contact with Chinese graduate students from Tiensing(a short distance from Bejing), and Shanghai who were in China at the time and were totally shocked when they heard about the incidents in Tiananmen Square after coming to the US. They were under the impression that the protests were local to where they were and were entirely peacefull.
: Funny you should say that, because news of the protests were initially fully and comprehensively reported by the state media - sometimes acting against the wishes of their political minders. Many of these reporters were later disciplined for their insubordination. Of course, the informal conduits of communication were even more effective: people with family and friends in Beijing kept up with the news via telephone. Added to that, there was a mass exodus of people from non-Beijingers from Beijing, helping to spread the stories. Perhaps the situation was different at university campuses, which were often already in protest mode and so may not be keeping an eye on the government press. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial PRC Supression of News inside China 

message: This article is bias, because the people’s point of view is suppressed. The main view is the protests are political. The human rights in China are a very controversial topic, as the government want total control. The Chinese government often play down the troubles of the people. The article gives more overview of the government’s view with bias pieces about the protests and what they want. The article doesn’t outline the real cause for the protests.
The government have forbidden the topic in China and this makes it hard to get the protestors opinion. This causes a problem because the next generation then don’t know what happened, and because the article focus’s on the government’s opinion it makes this article bias. By the government banning any mention of the Protests there is no neutrality through the exclusion of other opinion, the Chinese Government can maintain they were looking out for national interest. 
The government conficated all footage taken by protestors and media, allowing the government to claim thier side only as the truth. Due to the one sided theme this article doesn’t protray the events correctly as there needs to be more consistence with both side.  
Amelia Dunbabin (talk) 02:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do people keep stating that an "article is bias" when correct grammar is "article is biased". Is this an emerging English trend? 128.227.127.134 (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Bias View 

message: Because of the western media's distorted reports on the 2008.3.14 Lhasa riot, people have reasons to doubt the credibility of the western media's report on the 1989 Tiananmen protest and whether they had served as provokers of bigger conflicts between the protesting students and the Chinese government. An investigation of western media's report on the Tiananmen Square protests in year 1989 is proposed. Two things should be taken into account:
1. How had the western media used images and videos to mislead people? The best example: tank and the man. Until today, I still cannot understand why the stopping tanks could have served as an evidence of the toughness of the Chinese government towards the students for so many years? The tanked stopped and hadn't run into the young man, had it? I also don't understand in which country and since when it had become an honor for people to disrupt army from carrying out orders? 
2. During the Tiananmen protest, how much distorted information had the western media deliverd to the students on the square? Had those infotmation served as a plot to worsen the situation? Had those information instigated the students' hatred against the government, violence against the soldiers and riots among people?
I have the confidence to say if the www.anti-cnn.com website had been there in 1989, the Chinese peopoe might have not experienced such a huge disaster.
The role the western media played in the 1989 Tiananmen protest must be fully examined and the conclusions should be added into the article.  Speaker cn (talk) 00:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no doubt the presence of TV cameras and reporters in the square affected the demonstrators, and the government. As to the man stopping the tank, it is a touching image of courage that continues to impress me. As to "I also don't understand in which country and since when it had become an honor for people to disrupt army from carrying out orders?" please see Battles of Lexington and Concord. Fred Talk 16:28, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Go for it.  Write a thesis, but that would include original research that is irrelevant to this Wikipedia entry.165.123.139.232 (talk) 05:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please no thesis either. The world really doesn't need another nutty conspiracy theory. Novidmarana (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

text: So western media and official chinese government reports differ and, of course, only one version can be the right one. Now think: There is only one media in China, the "official" government version. But there are heaps of independent newspapers and TV channels in the west. If the chinese version was right, then at least a FEW western media would tell THEIR story, because saying that other newspapers are wrong is a good way to increase sales for your own paper. But when all the western media take the same view and contradict the only official chinese version, chancess are high they are right.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.163.163 (talk) 01:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good analysis, but it has it's limits. Sometimes Western media think alike, and get it wrong. Fred Talk 01:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is not about the "think" part of the press, this is about the "news" part ie. reporting at least some of each side of the story without fear of retaliation, as would any non-government-controled press. And even if "Western" press were, then you can still freely get your news from Al Jaezera, Latin-America press, Asian (free) press, etc. Hardly "western" press. This situation is so obviously easy to sort of, i wonder how some Chinese people could genuinely believes the conspiracy theory. Benji2 (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A call for an investigation of western media's report on the Tiananmen Square protests 

message: I removed a part of the "Forbidden topic in mainland china" becuase it's pretty ridiculous
"The Chinese government also reportedly brainwashed its citizens at the time into forgetting the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, even to the point of beating several people (especially the victims' friends and families) to give them amnesia[25]."
I watched every episode in the citation and nowhere does it say people were beaten to remain silent, Maybe I missed it, either way it's a stupid comment. Also I think that "brainwashed it's citizens" is pretty harsh too. I don't think china brainwashed it's entire population into forgetting a hugely important part of history and their lives. Maybe a different wording there would be more appropriate, like "removed any information regarding the subject from the public" or "censored information regarding the protests"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.203.217 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point here is not about finding who is right, it's about factually documenting what the government is doing. In this case, the  PRC governemeent is actively preventing Chinese people to try to get information about this part of their own history. Yet i agree that the word "brainwashed" shouldn't be technically applicable at a population-level. Maybe "attempt to brainwash" is better ? Benji2 (talk) 12:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed a bit 

message: Theres no need to have both of these, they should be merged into one. They are essentially the same topic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.52.203.217 (talk) 02:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Deleted/ Forbidden Topic in Mainland China 

message: The image :Image:Chineseart Executionpainting.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --22:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image copyright problem with Image:Chineseart Executionpainting.jpg 

message: I find the innuendo soldiers beat the relatives of victims into 'amnesia' a bit OTT - and I don't care who they use as a reference. Also: the reference points only to an entire website and not to any further proof. As such the remark should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.229.3 (talk) 14:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beating into Amnesia 

message: This section is an almost uninterrupted string of assertions without citation. Although the information in the section seems plausible, it should not be included unless it can be sourced, and I have no idea where one would find reliable sources for such claims. I suggest that it be either heavily edited or removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 0nullbinary0 (talk • contribs) 22:17, August 25, 2007 (UTC) 
:Yes. Exactly. This article should be about truth, not propaganda.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.207.229.3 (talk) 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Generation Gap 

message: Hi, I found these set of pictures on Flickr that appear to be from a Chinese newspaper from after June 4 - that carry images and reports on the army going into Tiananmen Square. I can't read Chinese very well at all so I would like to know if I'm correct in assuming this? If so, I think it may be a good idea to include one of the pictures - I'm not very familiar with licensing and all that.. but surely these newspaper articles are notable enough (especially as they were temporarily reporting without restriction) to warrant inclusion? Thanks. Secrets (talk) 22:07, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese newspaper reports on Tiananmen Square 

message: In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) 
* "reassessment" :
** 
** 
DumZiBoT (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bot report : Found duplicate references ! 

message: what happened to the guy standing in front of the tank in the picture anyways? 220.70.250.166 (talk) 14:20, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  guy in the picture 

message: "Similar numbers were found in major cities throughout mainland China such as Urumqi, Shanghai and Chongqing; and later in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Chinese communities in North America and Europe."
What does Hong Kong, Taiwan, North America and Europe have to do with it, if those places were not ruled by the PRC Government? How could they be involved?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.80.4.113 (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misunderstanding. 

message: A popularly held view is that the protests were trying to put pressure on the government to move to a more democratic mode, this is true and reflected in the article. However, in addition to wanting democracy, the students were ALSO protesting a move to a type of western-style capitalism.
Remember that democracy is just a way to choose who runs your country, it is entirely independent of how your country's economy works. Using democracy, you could vote in either a capitalist or a communist government, and that government can be socially liberal or conservative, or something along the spectrum in-between. However, there is confusion about this because most examples people have of communist countries have also been under some hideous single-party system or dictatorship with conservative social values. There is nothing to stop a country being politically open with a liberal and accepting social agenda, while still having a planned economy. 
This confusion is evident in the article, whereby the explanation for the protests is extremely simple:
"The protests were begun by Beijing students to encourage free-market reforms and liberalization.[6] Protesters believed that China had not gone far enough in economic liberalization and privatization.[6] They also believed that the social reforms made by Deng Xiaoping had not gone far enough and China needed to reform its political systems."
The shades of grey here are thatoio YES, the students wanted social and political liberalisation, some of them may have even wanted reforms towards a free market, but they did NOT agree with the market reforms that Deng Xiaoping was instigating at the time, as it was causing economic mayhem, and harming the country. 
Some weeks ago I made an edit, citing pages as part of a whole chapter about the protests in Naomi Klein's book 'The Shock Doctrine' a book about economic changes from communism/planned economies to capitalist/free market economies. This edit was removed a few days later (Revision as of 22:35, 12 September 2008  was the edit FUCK CHINA made just to remove my addition and the reference), the reason for the removal said that I cited a google video? So they were obviously in confusion.
Rather than just keep on adding it and having it removed, I thought I would comment here on this. As I know that there is a very broad spectrum of opinions about China's government. From people at one extreme who live in a fuge of nationalism who feel that China has no issues at all, to those who feel that China will always be troubled until it adopts a government, culture and economic system identical to that of "us" western countries. The truth, I feel, is somewhere in-between.
Willberg (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you have credible sources that refute the facts of this article, then you are free to cite them - If you don't however, then your information remains commentary; Wikipedia is not censoring anything - It's only demanding that when you make an edit, you produce the information to back it up. If you spend 1/2 as much time digging up the information to refute this article as you do complaining on the Discussion forum of this page, you'd probably have something to contribute. 75.44.50.118 (talk) 00:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

text: So how you explain the fact that this article WAS a featured article, but has no longer been so? As far as I known, it used to contain well-sourced content that analyzed the background of the event in a relatively objective way. However, they were just deleted by somebody. It's simply a shame.99.0.66.200 (talk)
I've never contributed to one of these discussion pages before, I apologize if I mess up on some protocol, but I couldn't let this go.  Han Dongfang was one of the leaders of the Tiananmen Square protests, still barred from re-entering China, I believe. He is a labor organizer, founder of China's first autonomous union. Han Dongfang, along with a great number of others jailed at Tiananmen, were protesting for worker's rights, not primarily democracy, per se. 
Links:
And I could go on all day. Google is your friend. In Han's words:
"People have always said foreign investment is the hope of China. This is our bridge to the world. But what comes across the bridge are 12-hour shifts, seven-day workweeks and only two trips to the bathroom a day. What comes across are factory fires that kill hundreds of workers who are locked in because their bosses are afraid they will steal the products. The Chinese government has put an invisible net across the bridge that allows money to come in but not the freedoms of a civil society, not the rule of law and not free trade unions."
This article has been getting worse and worse.  If you will not reference the major involvement of labor organizers at Tiananmen, it can no longer be called accurate at all. 96.248.99.126 (talk) 17:55, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Democracy (western style) may not be the most efficient form of government in China. Take for example what is happening in the UK http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8053833.stm
, which is a so-called democracy. Even though the UK is a democracy, this system did not prevent government ministers, including the PM Gordon Brown, MPs and Lords from being what in the rest of the world would call corrupt, when it comes to money for personal gain. In China personal leadership now lasts 5 years, with a maximum of a further 5 year term. Chinese leaders are chosen (OK by the Party and not directly by the peopele) for being well-educated, intelligent and be able to put the country he/she serves before himself. In the west, this is often not the case, take the case of Clinton and Blair who are charging and making millions of dallars for having been former leaders of their country, and Sarkozy who uses his office to satisfy his nether regions more than his job of serving his country. Yes when they want to be leaders at elections, these people promise their electorate the world, but once in office they care only about themselves. It would appear that the Chinese have got the method of choosing good leaders correct even though it is not through a direct election. 86.142.162.209 (talk) 14:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Western bias in article 

message: "In 2345, Deng Xiaoping will lead a series of economic and political reforms which will lead to the gradual implementation of a market economy and some political liberalization that will relax the system set up by Mao Zedong."
In some versions that is 1978, and past tense. Is this a typo, or could someone enlighten me?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberalex (talk • contribs) 22:31, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background sectiont 2345? 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/documentaries/2009/05/090519_lostvoices_tiananmen_one.shtml
86.166.125.182 (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC World Service documentary 

message: Can someone who can read chinese have a look at that article and verify it is about the protests. From the pictures of Bill Clinton etcI'm not sure it is.Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Which article are you referring to? F (talk) 12:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I mean the corresponding article to this on Chinese-language Wikipedia, which is linked to down the left-hand side of the page (though even the link is in chinese, so I could have made a mistake)Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 16:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked out both the Chinese and Cantonese versions of the article and did not see any pictures of Bill Clinton. Both of them are quite to the point. So there should be little to worry about.Kxx (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link to Chinese article 

message: "The ban of Wikipedia in mainland China was lifted recently, but the link to this incident in Chinese Wikipedia remained dead."
I'm in Shanghai and I can access all the forbidden pages that I know... Tibet, Tiananmen Square, etc. I'm really surprised! - 2009-05-13 Flood78 (talk) 09:19, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on your location and service provider, as well as the time of day. L talk 10:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, from Guanghzou and Shanghai, with OCN (cable) and China Telecom I can access this page. Some other pages, we still cannot access but this one, no problem. Flood78 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Censorship 

message: I'm not entirely sure about this but according to most reports coming out of Hong Kong and Taiwan, the initial killings (and some claim, the majority) happened at Muxidi (see map of Beijing subway for approximate location), some 5 kilometres west of Tiananmen, due mostly to barricades being erected by the area by civilians opposing army entry into central Beijing. The military knew they needed to break into the city so they shot civilians, but once they were in indiscriminate fire was not as frequent. 
Tiananmen was but the focal point of the events, and therefore used in English to refer to the event as a whole, but likely not where most of the killing actually occured (although were were reports of shots when the soldiers first entered the square, but a large number of students, upon hearing the events at Muxidi, decided to withdraw to protect themselves). I raise this point because some reports suggest that several hundred were shot at Muxidi, and then some more people were shot alongside the streets because they yelled slogans such as "down with this fascist government!". The point is, it could very likely be that most of the deaths occured not in Tiananmen Square itself, as often mistakenly reported, but much further West. If you look at most Western media reports even, they show mostly footage from outside the Square and on Chang'an Avenue. This is also where the Tank Man incident happened. Colipon+(T) 02:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shootings and Deaths in Tiananmen Square itself 

message: Is this video really credible? Tianamen Love Squared.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joecoolyo (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube link at the bottom of the page. 

message: I do not think, that the Tiananmen Papers are a suitable source for a description of the protesters aims and ideologies. The Tiananmen Papers were published by the chinese governments, which did certainly not have a neutral point of view. A Wikipedia Source must be neutral. Noone would use a party's description of another party in an article. 
The description is not really correct. The protesters were interessted in economical issues but they were not the main issue as this article suggests. --90.146.202.107 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Tiananmen Papers 

message: If the students were demanding democracy, then why were they singing The Internationale, which is clearly communistic? 86.166.125.182 (talk) 00:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying to Reference Desk. F (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not from China, I would try to explain why students were singing Le Internationale:
#From 1949-1976, that is, 1949(communist took over) 1976(end of cultural revolution), every Chinese were living under ultra-leftist Maoist thought control, that means there was hardly any universally known songs that everybody can sing in unision, apart from Le Internationale, and of course, March of the Volunteers, the national anthem.
#Le Internationale was more of a rallying song in this occasion, calling for the solidarity of the students.
#Of course, the most important factor is, by singing this song, the students were trying to tell the government, like don't harm us, we are on your side, we are not really wanting to overthrow the communist regime, afterall, we are communist ourselves. We just unhappy about what you have done, that is all.
I hope my explanation can clearify some of you question. Arilang   talk 08:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: So the students/ demonstrators wanted communism. Thus the West's reports that these were demands for democracy are nothing but western propaganda. 86.142.163.219 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Thanks for that. So she didn't want a free market and Western democracy, but a socialist/ communist iron rice-bowl from the authoritarianism of the earlier state? Don't forget with a free market, the Enrons and Madoffs of this world will always create themselves. 217.42.59.21 (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Student demands 

message: A human rights group in Hong Kong reported that five staff at a Guangzhou TV station were "suspended" for letting a few seconds of footage of the protest slip past censors and on to TV. But a spokesperson for Guangdong's Radio, Film & TV Administration claims to be unaware of incident. I'm reporting this here instead of in the main article. Shawnc (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV employees suspended? 

message: It says in the article that he was taken away by secret police, but no one knows for sure.  Even if they may have been plain clothes secret police, I think it would be more accurate to say that he was ushered away into the crowd by a few unknown onlookers.
What do you think?  I did not want to go in and change it without hearing out a possible reason for the current wording.
Also, the separate article on Tank Man phrases it as onlookers, as well.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.73.95.69 (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you joking me. Have you seem some of those photos? There are dead bodies mingled on bicycles etc. There's actually a picture slideshow on news.com.au this morning, although the headlines have been replaced and I can't seem to find it. But That photo was what inspired the monument in Poland with the bicycle and tank. Dengero (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The proof you wanted: . I am not familiar with Wikipedia's policies dealing with fair use of non-free images. Is it possible to get at least one or two photos into the article?Kxx (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bit here if you want as well...http://media.news.com.au/multimedia/mediaplayer/skins/v2/index.html?id=1240 Dengero (talk) 11:39, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

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

text: Wow! You are ignorant!.  In 1989 CNN was still tiny compared to the broadcast networks and Fox News would not be founded for another 7 years.  Time magazine was the major news magazine of the era. 208.90.183.32 (talk) 14:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Chill back on the WP:CIVIL violations a bit ok?  Now... are the photographs in question a) from Time magazine and b) showing multiple people getting shot in the square.  Because my understanding, from BBC, the main news agency to report this event was that the vast majority of the 800 deaths (if not all) actually happened on the streets near the square and not in it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tank Man 

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

message: This edit, made from the IP address 58.248.25.240 (which WHOIS confirms to be a Guangzhou address), says the following:
:However, as of the 4th of August 2009 all internet information on the topic seems to be viewable from Mainland China. Curiously, I'm editing this Wikipedia page from Guangzhou...
Reverted the edit from the article, however, as it doesn't belong there. — Jeremy 06:55, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, the Chinese censorship system is full of holes, and is subject to constant ridicule by Chinese internet users - to the point where they are mocking Hu Jintao's "Harmonious Society". But I think the government's been more relaxed lately about Wikipedia anyhow, which we can all agree is a good thing. Colipon+(Talk) 20:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unblock 

message: This section of an otherwise very helpful article suggests a paragraph is missing between these two as below is no previous mention of APCs.
At about 1:00 a.m., the army finally reached Tiananmen Square and waited for orders from the government. The soldiers had been told not to open fire, but they had also been told that they must clear the square by 6:00 a.m. - with no exceptions or delays. They made a final offer of amnesty if the few thousand remaining students would leave. About 4:00 a.m., student leaders put the matter to a vote: Leave the square, or stay and face the consequences.[21]
These APCs (Armoured Personnel Carriers) rolled on up the roads, firing ahead and off to the sides, perhaps killing or wounding their own soldiers in the process. BBC reporter Kate Adie spoke of "indiscriminate fire" within the square. Eyewitness reporter Charlie Cole also saw Chinese soldiers firing Type 56 assault rifles into....
Anthony Barnett Anthony Barnett (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? Simonm223 (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALERT something is missing 

message: Changed subheading  "Arrests and purge" with "Arrests and persecution".
Reason-Purge means "to make (something) clean by clearing it of everything that is bad, not wanted etc." which is certainly improper to be used for students who were unarmed and holding a peaceful protest.
Persecution means "the act of subjugating by cruelty; "the tyrant's oppression of the people"" which I think is more accurate.
Cheers,
Swift&silent (talk) 06:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edit 

message: North Korea, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, East Germany and Pakistan, among others, supported the Chinese government and denounced the protests.[41]
In [41] there is no mention of Czechoslovakia and by the way that was the same year the communist regime was overthrown here. Also I would rephrase it so that it states that the governments supported it, not the states, as in the totalitarian regime state does not equal its people and the way it is phrased now is highly agitating. Or rather I'd delete the whole section preface as there is no merit in having it there. Later in the section, there is a citation ... "highly valued the understanding shown by the Czechoslovak Communist Party and people" ...[49]. In [49] again there is no mention of Czechoslovakia!
86.49.78.125 (talk) 22:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  International reaction 

message: 152.13.95.76 (talk) 20:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone has sabotaged this page with profanity 

message: Well this page seems to have experienced a wave of vandal-style entries.  I am uncertain whether to count all the CN tags in the lede, some of which appeared to be valid and others invalid as part of that.  If the CN tags were good-faith edits I'd suggest the editor who put them in consult WP:LEDE before editing further. Simonm223 (talk) 16:12, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Wave of Vandalism 

message: http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=fsheathhampstead&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=fsheathhampstead&itemid=WeED22%20Jan%202009%2014%3A32%3A17%3A457
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7837059.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/dec/16/comment.humanrights
Does anyone know what role this Wang Yam played in the Tiananmen 1989 Protest, and does anyone know his real name? Given he apparently worked for British Intelligence, was a fraudster, conman, and now murderer in the UK, was he instrumental into fooling his fellow students in 1989? Was he already a British agent in 1989, and did he act as an agent provocateur in the protest? From the news reports, he is certainly a pretty nasty and evil person who is trained to kill and who'd do anything for money. 86.181.65.207 (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but this is the place to discuss about how to improve the article. If you have new information about Wang Yam that is sourced and significant, you can write it yourself.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.244.152.119 (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wang Yam 

message: John removed my addition to the main page that included an eyewitness statement (a direct quote) from a CBS journalist that stated that there was no massacre in Tiananmen square. Here's the link to the statement that I included. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503543_162-5061672-503543.html 
John please explain your biased non-neutral decision to undo my contribution.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldsgeordie (talk • contribs) 16:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection to including sourced information here. We cannot use wording like "no shred of evidence" though as it would breach WP:NPOV. --John (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok, I will be specific. You added "Kate Adie who allegedly spoke of indescriminate fire within the square wasn't in the square." That is badly written, which we could fix. But it is also not supported by a reference, and it relates to a living person. Finally, it sounds like something you came up with yourself. We don't normally report on someone not being there; how is that news, unless it has been reported as such in reliable sources? A censor is a rather rude name to call someone, but I will wear it with pride if it helps keep poor and biased material off our articles. I hope that makes it clear what you are doing wrong. --John (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok John. I should have included a reference for Kate Adie not being in the square. Maybe a google video of her report on 4th June 1989. When someone allegedly makes a claim that there was shooting in the square then its only reasonable to point out that that person wasn't actually in the square. How did that justify you removing a sourced quote from a CBS reporter who was actually in the square and then replacing it with a comment. I didn't want to get into a dispute with you but it came to that as a result of your ruthless deleting of everything without explanation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shieldsgeordie (talk • contribs) 23:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Click the links in my post above and it might help you to see where you went wrong. --John (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  John is a censor after all 

message: This section isn't backed by citations or evidence and a simple search carried out by a Chinese student friend on Baidu (a Chinese search engine) has just yielded 47000 results. In addition all the Chinese students I've met know about the Tiananmen protests from their media. It doesn't appear to be a secret. The second paragraph in this section also contradicts the first by talking about China's media coverage. More than likely the Chinese government just wants to block the Western mainstream media propaganda on the issue not their own coverage. The Chinese government and media's version of events likewise receives little attention in Western countries. I would suggest that the inaccurate heading be changed and most of this section rewritten including citations and omiting speculation and baseless mainstream media propaganda. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 00:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are missing the whole significance of the censorship issue.  Yes, in Western media the Chinese version does receive little coverage.  However, both sides are viewable and able to be researched into by anyone who cares to do so, without limitation.  Also, having just come from Baidu myself, you are correct in that many results are listed for Tienanmen square massacre.  However, every hit is a simple list of talking points given by the Chinese government.  From within the great firewall of china, which limits access to the internet by all Chinese citizens, it is impossible to locate a single discussion from the Western viewpoint.  This difference is very significant.  Outside of China, any occurrence, current event, or political ideology can be investigated or even acted upon without any fear of government limitation or crackdown, so long as you do not break any fundamental laws along the way.  For example, I can research Nazis and even join a neo-nazi party, so long as I do not join in robberies or hate crimes along the way.  In China, simply researching the Western view of the Tienanmen square massacre is a crime punishable by prison terms.  People are in prison right now, as verified by Amnesty International and the Red Cross, for having been caught researching such things and/or attempting to spread the information about them.  Proof the West doesnt do this is seen in the 9/11 truthers.  A simple search for 9/11 conspiracies blaming the government for 9/11 returns a number of hits.  If the US were to follow China's example, this information would be unable to be discussed on the internet in the US.  Ultimately, this allows the information to be discussed and compared, and hopefully bring about a more educated population and progress in the search of the truth, whether the government likes it or not.  China does not allow this to happen on most controversial issues involving the government of China, including the Dalai lama.  Thus while the topic of the massacre itself may not be "forbidden" per say, discussion of it outside of the government talking points is a criminal offense punishable by economic and legal repercussions and is most definitely appropriate on the site.173.72.44.60 (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I haven't missed the point at all. The Western media ignores the truth and pushes propaganda making it very difficult for people to find alternative points of view. They are just better at censorship and propaganda than China. It isn't a crimnal offence in China to circumnavigate the great firewall and tens of thousands of Chinese do this without consequence. In addition there are websites in China with the Western media's version of events displayed but they are few just like there are few websites in the Western world with the Chinese version of events on them. The point is the paragraph in question states that the topic of Tiananmen is forbidden and that there are no websites about it. This just isn't true. 
Amnesty international work for whoever pays and the red cross has a history of controversy and scandal. As for Chinese people serving prison sentences for whatever, these need to be looked at on a case by case basis because who knows what their real crimes were. The Chinese government generally tends not to openly accuse Western governments of interference in its affairs but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Thus sometimes the real reason for some people's convictions may be that they worked for foreign governments and were trying to destabilise the country. 
To begin with I took everything at face value but I've learned from experience that everything is more complicated than it first appears. Google the following one at a time with 'Tiananmen square': 'George Lakey', 'Col. Robert Helvey', 'Gene Sharp' 'the National Endowment for Democracy' NED, CIA and maybe 'International Campaign for Democracy'. What you'll find are articles stating that the US government's National Endowment for Democracy was operating in China and training some of the Tiananmen student leaders in mass demonstration techniques in Hong Kong. Over the years with the declassification of US government documents and with more investigations by sceptical independent journalists a lot of new information will come to light.Shieldsgeordie (talk) 13:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forbidden topic in mainland China 

message: This section was previously called 'government crackdown on protestors'. In any Western country in which people attacked the police with molotov cocktails and bricks, burned soldiers alive and beat soldiers to death whilst constantly advancing on the soldiers it would be called a riot not a protest and those responsible would be called thugs not democracy campaigners. Just google 'Tiananmen burning vehicles to see examples of the scale and ferocity of the rioters' attacks. Imagine what kind of ruthless leaders such people would make if they'd seized power. I can only guess at how many people the police would have killed if this had happened in the USA or a European country. Of course the authorities had to restore order and of course the soldiers had to open fire at times. They were under attack after all. So I dispute the use of the words 'crackdown' and 'protestors'. In another country it would be 'rioters' and 'restoring order'. I removed the sentences refering to violence within the square itself as there is literally zero evidence of any violence within the square. 
I took the liberty of making the changes without discussing them first for two reasons. One there seems to be very little activity on this page and two all I removed was heresay which wasn't backed by any evidence and all I added was more realistic balanced terminology and a few comments about evidence Shieldsgeordie (talk) 02:44, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree to a very limited extent:  "government crackdown" has a negative connotation that should be avoided per Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view (NPOV), so the crackdown section needed to be renamed.  However, calling the protestors "rioters" is also non-neutral, so I will be renaming the section again.  As far as your personal analysis, such as using a Google search of "Tiananmen burning vehicles", this seems to quality as original research, which goes against Wikipedia policy.  If you would like to add negative characterizations about the protestors, please provide reliable sources to verify the characterizations, and be sure to balance them with positive characterizations.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

text: No, I'm saying that using the term "rioters" to refer to the violent protestors is also non-neutral.  I will be taking that wording out.  (I'd take it out now, but I've used up my available time for Wikipedia work for the moment.)  You should also be aware that using Getty Images as a source is generally not allowed, as Getty's site exists mainly to sell photos.  Using many other sites, such as Amazon.com, as sources is generally not allowed for the same reason.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 04:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

text: Ok I fully get your meaning now. Interpretation of non-neutral is subjective but I don't mind you taking out 'rioters' because it would be difficult to know where to use it without tarring innocent protestors with the same brush. So I concede that in this case protestors is the safer option. As for the photos thanks for explaining the rules on those. I suppose it would be free advertising for getty images, amazon etc. Shieldsgeordie (talk) 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rioters confront military and deaths 

message: Someone who knows how to do it; "Beijing Coma" by chinese writer Ma Jian should be added to the list of books dealing with the protests. It has been released in 2008, and focuses on the student movement Beijing. The book has been reviewed by various newspapers and magazines, check the Ma Jian Article for three references. Thanks! (85.5.88.208 (talk) 14:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books 

message: First line of current Sport-section text includes "...the Tiananmen Square protest massacre...".  Is that consistent with the careful distinctions made in the rest of the text? 86.146.160.60 (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sport? 

message: Reading over the events from "1-5 June," I almost get the impression that the PLA members were simply defending themselves from attacks by protesters.
The paragraph that cites the interview with John Pomfret (Note #21) seems to indicate that the protesters caused the first casualties. However, Mr. Pomfret doesn't mention this, in his interview. He mentions the barricade, and unruly protesters, which the PLA then fires upon.
On a personal level, if I were a person who is just reading about these events, I would immediately sympathize with the PLA, and consider their actions as an act of self defense. Mr. Pomfret does mention an instance of the protesters killing a tank driver, but this is mentioned later in the interview. Also, the murder of the tank driver seems to have happened when the riots were in full swing -- after the PLA has opened fire, and after the protesters have began to retaliate.
The way it is presented in the article, however, I am to imply that unruly protesters charged a tank with no provocation. I was not there, but I can't imagine this being the case.
It's important to truthfully, and unbiasedly state these events, and I imagine that some protesters might have been guilty of crimes. However, reading the article now, I almost get the impression that it seeks to justify what is generally viewed as an over-reaction from the PLA, during the 1989 protests.
kenohki (talk) 16:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Military Action" section bias towards the Chinese Military? 

message: Nine required reverts in the last 14 days due to vandalism from anon IPs...time for WP:SILVERLOCK? --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just double checked the edit count and not counting edits for reversion, it actually looks to be almost half of edits to the page have been vandalism; my count is 11 edits out of 26 in the last 14 days (30 april to 13 May) have been vandalism. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to semi-protect? 

message: I think the coding is messed up...Here I am reading the article, and I keep seeing something like "{{Cat handler ".....?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.219.104 (talk) 01:50, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uhh.... 

message: For this saying:
In P.R.China, there's no official name for the protests.All the people, media, website, etc., are almost entirely forbidden to mention it, how can there be an "official" name? What exist is just a most common Chinese name for all the Chinese speakers, in China, in HongKong, in Taiwan, and other places. So I edited it to:
--Joseblanc (talk) 20:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  no official name 

message: "六" means "6", "四" means "4", "事件" means "incident". In Chinese, the words for the 12 months (January to December) are formed by a number with a "月" (month). The date "June 4th" in Chinese is "六月四日" or "6月4日", literally "6 month 4 day". So "六四事件" is literally (one word by one word) "Six Four Incident / 6 4 Incident", and generally it is translated to "June Fourth Incident".
Chinese is my native language, these basic Chinese lauguage grammatical things about the number and the month words above mentioned are very real. Also, these things can be confirmed by looking up at most of Chinese-English dictionarys and wiktionary or asking any Chinese teachers or Chinese native speakers. This sentence is added as a note in "notes" section. I think further reference is no need.--Joseblanc (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese names etc 

message: Are you sure that 3,000 people were killed during the protest, some articles state that <1000 people were killed, or around 1000 killed. WCLL HK (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of death and Causalties 

message: I'm sorry -- this is my very first Wikipedia post and I don't know how to add a citation properly.  I thought the opening paragraph didn't give a fair sense of the fact that protests did in fact turn violent in Beijing, Xi'an, and Hunan, so I made a small change to reflect that and found a contemporaneous article to back it up.  So far so good, I think, but while I tried to copy the format of the citations I saw in the editing text box (surrounded by braces), it still showed up in the text of the article.  I'll figure out how to do it right from now on, but if for now someone could fix it, I'd be grateful.
Damoiseau (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi! Citing is very easy, by using ref tag, as follows: Put a webpage link/a book name here.. Andyso(talk page) 16:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't know how to code a citation 

message: I don't think the two months of pro-democracy demonstrations leading up to the June 4th Tiananmen Square massacre are commonly referred to as the Tiananmen Square Massacre.  That just doesn't make any sense.  The two months of nonviolent demonstrations in 1989 are not the same as the 1-2 day massacre that ended them.  The massacre is commonly referred to as the Tiananmen Square massacre, not the whole two months, right?71.35.163.148 (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro misleading 

message: The caption incorrectly describes this as a photo of the protest.  This famous photo was taken the morning after the protests had been crushed by the massacre.71.35.163.148 (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tank Man photo 

message: The headline is inadequate and should be changed to Tiananmen Square massacre of 1989.
It is part of history because it was a bloody massacre and not just a protest.
Now the headline is a euphemism. 95.223.116.99 (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline of the article should be changed to '''Tiananmen Square massacre''' 

message: Although it is lengthy and seems to contain a lot of details, it is too meticulously and superficially focused on (one person's view of) economy, leaving out a lot of deeper observations. For example, one important issue the earlier version mentioned was the divergent effects of the reform on rural / urban Chinese society in 1980s: while in cities the reform of State-owned Enterprise, the price reform, and the rampant corruption have resulted in a great number of urban dissents, in country side the reform, as well as Deng Xiaoping himself, remained hugely popular. That's why the protests, as noted by many observers, were mostly a urban revolts with most of China's rural population standing indifferent. That's why when CCP ordered a crack down, the PLA soldiers, many of who were from the country side and therefore shared little sentiment with the urban protesters, executed with little hesitation. I found those contents really insightful and well backed by reliable sources, and I was extremely disappointed that they had been replaced by the narrowly-focused discussion of Friedman in the current version.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.10.127.153 (talk) 16:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback.  I could look into this if you could supply the date and time of the earlier version which you think is better.  -- JTSchreiber (talk) 05:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. The new "background section" is very lengthy and too focused on economics. There are some social issues that deserve mention as well. Colipon+(Talk) 20:54, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Background Section still NOT As Good As the Earlier Versions 

message: After reading the entire background section of this article, I concur with an opinion raised above that it is much too focused on economics. There are three main causes for the events that unfolded, in no particular order they were:
*Economic liberalization under Deng produced a system that favoured officials and their families and cronies, induced widespread inflation, and stirred discontent by breaking the iron rice bowl. Camps emerged within the party as well as general public as to whether the reform had gone too far or not far enough.
*China was in a stage of 'experimentation'. News and intellectual discussions were quite open and not entirely state-controlled in China during this time; this provided impetus for the flow of new intellectual ideas.
*Communist governments around the world were struggling for legitimacy and the Soviet Union's political liberalization put pressure on other socialist systems in the world.
I feel that the best articles explain the subject well while using layman's terms. The background section should be reworked to reflect a more wholesome picture of China's political and economic climate. Colipon+(Talk) 21:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reworking the Background Section 

message: I find the statement "The exact number of civilian deaths is 1" in third paragraph very much clashing with the numbers given under the subsection "number of deaths" - if the reason is that the quote is regarding the number of persons who died on the Square itself, geographically, this needs clarification (and furthermore seems much less interesting than the subsequent numbers).
--Osquar F (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of civilian casualties 

message: With very long sections and a giant picture across the introduction this looks very messy. Could we clean it up and include a better summary? Quark1005 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: According to the article found here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8555142/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html US embassy staff noted at the time that there was little evidence of a massacre in the square itself and that the deaths which occurred in the surrounding streets resulted mostly from the attempts by soldiers to fight their way towards the square against resistance.
I also wonder if it is appropriate to list the estimates of the number of deaths in descending order without comment. That listing places the highest - and least plausible - estimate in the most prominent position in the list. The casual reader, confronted with a high (not to say absurd) estimate of 10,000 and a low estimate of 186 might be lazily inclined to split the difference and take away from the article the notion that many hundreds and possibly thousands of people died in the square that day.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.187.233.172 (talk) 08:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not commenting on your proposal here, but just wanted to ask: in your opinion, why is it inappropriate to conclude that "many hundreds and possibly thousands of people died"?  I think that is the consensus, in fact.  Or is it the "in the square" bit that you're taking issue with? Homunculus (duihua) 03:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm removing the claim that Wikileaks revealed something substantially new because, in fact, this is old news.  Malcolm Moore, who wrote that Telegraph story, may suggest there is something new of note but that is a rebuttable presumption.  See this document?  It is the embassy's summary cable and it was declassified in the 90s.  That summary says that several "western press accounts" were in error in the embassy's view and, in fact, "the PLA did not fire directly on students ... on Tiananmen Square."  Also, "civilian deaths probably did not reach the figure of 3000 used in some press accounts..."  That said, some Beijing apologists have been using that Telegraph story to, in effect, misrepresent the the views of the US embassy by implying that the US embassy cables support the official version.    In fact, the summary cable explicitly rejects the official version, while also rejecting much of the western press coverage as exaggerating the atrocity.  But it is still an atrocity in the view of the embassy: "it should be kept in mind that whatever the casualty figures, whatever the occupation of the civilians who were killed, and however violent some members of the crowd may have become, the order to move heavily armed troops on Tiananmen was cynical and inhumane."--Brian Dell (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with your last statement. The problem is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because this is old news does not suggest that the cable does not belong here. One can argue almost all of the information on Wikipedia is "old news". If your intention of removing the cable part is purely to promote a certain POV, then I have the same right to place the information back in as it is my judgment to ensure fairness of all views, which, you can argue, is also a POV. As such, due to neutrality, I suggest putting in all facts. You can also input your verified facts if you can find any. To remove facts, unless out of concerns of notability or brevity, is against the principles of this encyclopedia.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Btmachine333667 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Leaked US embassy emails