Talk:1976 Tiananmen incident

message: 73.158.38.239 (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

message: * Wait. What? Given "Tiananmen Square protests of 1975", "a very significant protest in Tiananmen in 1975" and "Tiananmen Incident for the 1975 protests" in Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1975) ... how was a 1975 event "catalysed" by a 1976 death? Kwantus 16:31, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)
* The Tian'anmen incident took place in the People's Republic of China immediately following the April Fifth Movement.
*: I don't see why it was immediate following the April Fifth Movement, which took place in 1919.Fangyuan1st 16:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Year?

message: * This section seems to suggest that (a) the main issue between the Gang of Four and the moderates was ideology, rather than the struggle to succeed Mao; (b) Mao was able to be "consulted;" and (c) that Deng Xiaoping did not successfully escape and find a base from which to plot his return under the personal protection of General Xu Shiyou, commander of the  Guangzhou Military Region but rather was somehow sentenced to house arrest. I believe all three are wrong. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Government Response

message: * This article describes the time, and the location, but not what happened.  Was it a protest?  Was it a celebration?  —Sladen (talk) 17:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  High-level overview 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Tiananmen which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 05:29, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: It seems that this event, in 1976, is being conflated with the 1989 incident, at the end of the section headed "The Incident". At the end of that section the last sentence reads: "Deng Xiaoping was formally stripped of all positions "inside and outside the Party" on 7 April, following this "Tiananmen Massacre".[4]", where the WP link at the end of the sentence about the 1976 event takes the reader to the WP article on the 1989 incident.
Am I reading this correctly?
Wayne 05:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion of two events 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: :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 to 1976 Tiananmen Incident. And redirect to Tiananmen Square protests (disambiguation). Rough consensus to move but some disagreement on the new name. Per WP:NOGOODOPTIONS a new RM can be created at any time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vpab15 (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Tiananmen Incident →  – The 1989 Incident is the clear primary one, so I think this should specify the one for 1976. Jishiboka1 (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

text: *Or  or , per AjaxSmack. That would also be OK, but in my opinion, "protest(s)" is a more clear description of the event. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *And in fact, per 力 below, if we can't agree to use one of my favorite titles, the proposed title  would at least be an improvement. I think some renaming of this article is needed. If necessary, there could be some secondary RM to consider other candidate titles. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , these ngrams with square and without square compare the three spellings.  They would indicate that "Tiananmen incident" (regardless of spelling) primarily refers to the 1989 event. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: "'Tiananmen incident' (regardless of spelling) primarily refers to the 1989 event." Not necessarily from the info in the ngram without perusal of the sources.  A 1989 hit simply means the source came from 1989; it could have been about the 1976 event (like these).  But I agree with you on the point; I put forth the the ngram link for the information of editors here and not to argue against a move.  —  AjaxSmack  15:03, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

text: *I don't see anything malformed about this RM. The proposed change is to move one article, :Tiananmen Incident, to , asserting that the current title is an ambiguous term. What is malformed about that? If the topic of the current article is not a proper WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Tiananmen Incident", a hatnote is not sufficient to fix that problem. If you want to propose to also rename some other article(s), I suggest to submit an RM for the other changes that you propose. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: *I agree that it is not malformed.  The nominator argued that the present title is ambiguous and advocated  redirect to ; while this is different from where Tiananmen Square Incident redirects, it is an issue that can be discussed along with the proper title for this article.  —  AjaxSmack  00:51, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no actual article title conflict and no actual redirect conflict at this time.  The only remedy required at present is to have the hat note at this article link to 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre rather than being a circular redirect back to this article.  The OP offers no evidence for the proposal, only an opinion. The OP has not disclosed the full consequences of the proposed move (intended or implied) and there has been no clarification to the opening question by Colin M that might resolve this.  Consequently, editors cannot reasonably make an informed decision that fully considers the implications of the proposed move.  There is also the issue of whether 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre satisfies WP:NPOVNAME (which was not raised in the recent RM there). It begs the question as to whether the 1989 event should be titled "Tiananmen Square incident"? This RM is being conducted without explicit notification to that page. For these reason, I would maintain that this RM is malformed and it is too late to remedy these issues. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a WP:RM, not a WP:RfD. The only real question that we need to answer is what should be the title of this article. That's a simple question, and not malformed. The titles of other articles and the targets of redirects are different matters that can be discussed separately. The only question we really need to answer in this RM is whether the title of this article should be changed or not. If the title "Tiananmen Incident" is ambiguous (or improperly capitalized), that title should be changed. We don't need to decide whether to do a bunch of other things or not before we make that decision. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: While it could be decided via a separate RfD discussion, I think it would be ideal if this discussion could, in the event that there's consensus for a move, also establish consensus about whether there's a primary topic for Tiananmen Incident, since it's intimately related to the factors motivating the proposed move. A follow-up RfD would probably just involve rehashing a lot of the same evidence of usage which is being discussed here. I would encourage !voters supporting a move to be explicit about what they think should happen to the base name. (If nothing else, it will be helpful to the closer. They have to do something with the base name, and it's not obvious to me what the "default" fate should even be.) Colin M (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But I think we shouldn't let other questions get too tangled up in the discussion and become something that blocks a decision on the basic question posed by this RM, which is what the title of this one article should be. Calling the RM "malformed" does not help in evaluating the RM proposal, since this RM is just a proposal to rename this one article, which is not a malformed question at all. Personally, I think the current article title should lead to , but that is not necessarily something we all need to agree about at the time of closure of this RM. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

text: support moving this away and converting this into a dab. lots of incidents happened at this place. not all are protests. for example, a recent and notable one occurred in 2013. RZuo (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 29 March 2022 

message: There's a photo in the article ... so why the request for a photo? Prisoner of Zenda (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo request