Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre/Archive 1

message: The following was removed by 172; some may be legitimate, some may not:
Unlike the Tiananmen protests of 1987, which consisted largely of students and intellectuals, the protests in 1989 commanded widespread support from the urban workers who were alarmed by growing inflation and corruption. In Beijing, they were supported by a large proportion of the population, perhaps by a majority. At their height, the protests involved over a million people. Similar numbers were found in major cities throughout Mainland China.
The Politiburo Standing Committee was hopelessly divided between those who advocated a soft approach to the demonstrations and those who advocated a crackdown. The decision to crack down on the demonstrations was ultimately made by a group of Party elders. Although most of these people had no official position, they were able to control the military, as Deng Xiaoping was chairman of the central military commission and was able to declare martial law, and as Yang Shangkun was President of the People's Republic of China. The Party elders believed that lengthy demonstrations were a threat to the stability of the country, and saw abandoning one-party rule as a recipe for chaos. 
Some lists of the victims of what became known as the Tiananmen Massacre were created from underground sources. Estimates of the number of civilians range up to 2,600 (Chinese Red Cross). Injuries are generally held to have numbered from 7,000 to 10,000. The Chinese government has claimed that no demonstrators were killed within the Square. This claim appears to be technically true, in that the demonstrators within the square itself decided to leave rather than provoke a bloodbath; but it ignores the large number of casualties in the streets leading up to the Square.
The Tiananmen Protests seriously damaged the reputation of China in the West. Much of the impact of the protests in the West was due to the fact that western media had been invited to cover the visit of Mikhail Gorbachev in May, and therefore were able to cover the government crackdown live through networks such as the Cable News Network. 
Many Chinese students in the United States expressed considerable sympathy for the student protests, and the Tiananmen Square protests triggered the formation of Internet news services such as the China News Digest. In the aftermath of Tiananmen, organizations such as the China Alliance for Democracy and the Independent Federation of Chinese Students and Scholars were formed, although these organizations would have limited political impact beyond the mid-1990s. 
Within Mainland China itself, the effects of the protests were more mixed. In the immediate aftermath of the protests, conservatives attempted to roll back some of the reforms that had been undertaken as part of Chinese economic reform and to re-institute administrative controls over the economy. These efforts met with stiff resistance from provincial governors and collapsed completely in the early 1990s, as a result of the collapse of the Soviet Union and Deng Xiaoping's trip to the south. The continuance of economic reform led to economic growth in the 1990s, which stood in contrast to the collapsing Soviet Union and allowed the Chinese government to regain much of the support that it had lost in 1989. 
The Tiananmen Square protests did put an end to discussions on political liberalization that had occurred in the late 1980s. Although some increase in personal freedom in mainland China has occurred since Tiananmen, discussions on structural changes to the PRC government and the role of the Chinese Communist Party remain taboo. 
However the Communist Party of China (CPC) managed to rebuild much of the legitimacy it lost in the late 1980s by addressing the root causes of student discontent. The economy reached a relatively good shape, with low inflation; overcrowding in dormitories is far less pressing; the massive migrations from the countryside to the cities in the 1980s, perhaps the largest-scale human migration in history, are far more orderly. 
In addition, the CPC has followed a policy of discouraging local demonstrations from becoming national ones by a combination of incentives and repression. The Party now responds quickly to economic protests by quickly and sometimes simultaneously making concessions to the demonstrators while arresting leaders. 
Moreover, rising  living standards facilitated by market reforms within the framework of tight CPC control of the vast, rapidly-changing country have eased anger, at least domestically, over the Tiananmen crackdown.
----
I only noticed the fact that the image had been removed, I didn't actually read the article before or after 172's edit. However, I can clearly see now that an awful lot of useful information has simply been deleted, rather than reformatted into the rewritten article. 172, was all of the information above redundant? Mintguy 21:34 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
I have restored the article with its links and analysis.  NPOV cannot include deletion of valid information which places the event in its international and historical context and replacing it with garbage out of the People's Daily Fred Bauder 22:03 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)
---------
The removal of those sections was accidental. In fact, some of the sections removed were my own additions. When correcting the atrocious spelling on Microsoft Word, I guess I lost those sections when cutting and pasting. This is an embarrassing oversight, but thankfully the changes are not permanent. However, I do intend make sure that Fred did not restore the misspellings and emotive language that I was trying to correct. 172
Hey Bud, mass murder stirs the emotions. Fred Bauder 09:43, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sections

message: It seems to me that the bloody crackdown that ended the protests was the most significant part of the event; shouldn't it be mentioned in the opening paragraph? One who is unfamiliar with the event would have to read pretty far down to be aware of its true importance. -R. fiend 22:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I've summarised the relevant section in a new lead paragraph. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Mention of the massacre

message: The newly added "Today" section would work better if it's integrated with the last part of "Aftermath". The last few paragraphs of "Aftermath" are indeed about attitudes and reactions prevalent today. -- ran (talk) 23:50, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
:I've copyedited slightly, but agree that it could be integrated.  I snipped some text that I assume that this is quote in Chinese:
(眾所周知，一九八九年那場政治風波發生後，我們黨、我們國家迅速採取果斷措施予以平息，我們繼續堅定不移地執行（中共的）基本路線，走中國特色的社會主義道路。
:I can't read Chinese - does this add much?  If so, perhaps a translated version should be added instead?-- ALoan (Talk) 11:30, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  The new "Today" section 

message: I just noticed a recent edit of the Background section by user 68.222.53.11 changing some of the wording from "group" to "faction". 1) How does everyone feel about the change in wording? Is the word "faction" appropriate? 2) As it stands, right now, there is a minor mistake in the paragraph. If the word "faction" is okay by everyone, then word "other" should be added to one of the sentences making it: "The other faction, including urban industrial workers, believed ..."   --Wang123 Saturday, January 8, 2005 at 19:35:27 UTC
:I don't think "faction" is an appropriate term in the context of the situation and suggest reverting the anon's edits. --Jiang 04:38, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Jiang. I also don't think "faction" is appropriate in this context. I would support changing the wording back to the way it was before. How about the other parts of the recent edit, like the deletion of the last paragraph of the Background section and the addition of the sentence "Both factions were united by their desire to counter corruption in government and state-owned industries, a desire that many members of the Communist Party itself also shared." Should those parts be reverted too? --Wang123 Tuesday, January 11, 2005 at 11:07:28 UTC
I reverted. I think those edits were a net loss--Jiang 07:15, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Recent Change to Background 

message: Rachel Corrie seems get little attention.
:: What does Rachel Corrie have to do with the Tienanmen Square Massacre?   She chose to go to a war zone and get in the way of soldiers who were doing their duty.  Sucks to be her, but she was hardly an innocent bystander.
XXXXmarcus lepidusXXXX
Nice touch! 'Rachel Corrie in a war zone...getting in the way of soldiers doing their duty'.  Wasn't she the human shield run over by Israelis bulldozing Palestinian homes?  How is she less "innocent" than 
those in Tienanmen Square?
Never one to support a dictatorship of either the proletariat or the corporatocracy, I'm no apologist for the anti-democratic leaders of the PRC (I'm a democrat of the syndicalist variety)....but if my 50 year old memory serves me right...weren't the protesters empowered by the thought that the US Cabinet official visiting at the time might somehow shield them from their government's predictable reaction?  One can imagine what the reaction of the US government would be if a similar protest took place on the White House lawn during a visit from the Cuban Foreign Minister!
With the doctored pictures of the toppling of Saddam's statue in that Baghdad square and the choreographed montages of the Orange, Yellow, Pink, and (what color is it this week?) Revolutions still whirling in my head, questions about that'lone protestor vs the tank 'picture...and indeed, who was really behind the whole Student Democracy Movement come to mind.
: What? You're saying that the examples of people demanding political rights/freedoms were all stage-managed? Ok, why not add that to your list of conspiracies. You can go discuss them with JFK, Elvis and Hitler who are currently being kept in Area 51 to work on the Roswell spaceship :p
: Most people that believe the "revolutions" were created by foreign influences are inhabitants of repressive regimes that believe no one can ever willingly desire democracy. The rest are lone political extremists. John Smith's 12:42, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: arguable crush

message: Can we get a tranlated version of the Chinese Wikipedia article? It won't even display properly for me to get the gist with online translation tools... 69.242.90.133 04:38, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chinese version 

message: The lead section is much too long. It should be at most two or three paragraphs. --Jiang 04:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with that. John Smith's 12:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead section 

message: Does anyone know what the following lines are actually supposed to mean?
:Another current in follow-up to the protests was anti-foreigner sentiment, particularly amongst students who believed foreigners were given more rights than native Chinese (see Nanjing Anti-African protests).
"Current in follow-up"?
:In Beijing, a majority of students from the city's numerous colleges and universities participated with support of their instructors and other intellectuals.
Participated in what? In the protests? If so, as the first sentence of the paragraph, this should be clarified, since it certainly doesn't lead clearly from the previous paragraph (which ends with the comment on anti-foreigner sentiment).  FireWorks 04:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing Sentences 

message: Should this not be at 1989 Tiananmen Square protests rather than "of 1989"?  Compare 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: This article states that Hu Yaobang was General Secretary from 1981 to 1987, while the articles on the Communist Party of China and on the General Secretary of the Communist Party of China both state that he was General Secretary from 1980 to 1987. This needs to be sorted out. -- gspr 20:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hu Yaobang as General Secretary of the CPC

message: 'Zhao Ziyang was ousted from political leadership as a result of his failure to prevent military action.'
This statement makes no sense at all. It is common knowledge that Zhao was removed from all position in the party and put under house arrest because he was sympathetic to the protesters and was viewed as a dangerous element that could be a catalyst for further disturbance. Not because he failed to stop the military. On the contrary, it was his failure to curb the unrest that saw his downfall.
219.95.236.249 16:09, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it does make sense. He was ousted because it got to the point where it was believed military action was necessary. Perhaps it could be slightly re-worded. John Smith's 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misstatement 

message: 'A Chinese woman at Tienanmen Square that night, who wishes to remain anonymous, relates that she witnessed several bodies crushed by tanks as well as many more shot, although the soldiers were not entirely willing to carry out the government orders.'
A claim of fact must be credible. A sentence like this has no qualification for entry into an encyclopedic article.
219.95.236.249 16:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would depend on if and where this is published. Fred Bauder 16:16, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know who made the edit, so perhaps we should look into it. If someone can try and find out where that comment was at least made it would be helpful. John Smith's 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources that wish to remain anonymous should not be quoted. 

message: What about the report that armed police force was dispossessed of their firearms by protesters that led to the killing of some soldiers and policemen. This incident irritated Deng Xiaoping.
(219.95.236.249 16:25, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That would need evidence. John Smith's 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Within the city (not in the square) a few soldiers were isolated and killed by the public. These incidents are in the literature. Fred Bauder 13:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detailed description of events has a curious omission. 

message: Since this sub-topic is discussed in such detail, would it not be proper to also discuss about the limited impact of this embargo as China have the option to source military hardware elsewhere. Willing suppliers have been the former Soviet bloc and Israel.
(219.95.236.249 17:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps. But then again if it is such a trivial problem, why has China expended so much effort to have it lifted? John Smith's 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US - EU arms embargo 

message: Links provided is utterly biased towards the protesters. One would fail to see how this featured article adheres to the NPOV policy of this site.
(219.95.236.249 17:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well there is a significant problem that the CCP refuses to have any debate about the issue, so how could sources from the Chinese government be objective? John Smith's 18:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't have to be objective, just give information from their viewpoint. for example it is claimed by the government that no one was killed in the square itself. There must be some government source for that. Fred Bauder 18:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: Should we have a small section about the political turmoil in the Chinese government over what to do, Zhao's removal from power, etc? There's a bit on his page, but I think we need to have a spot about that here. Currently it does not give a proper reason as why military action was approved. John Smith's 19:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look in The Tiananmen Papers Fred Bauder 19:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know about that, I was just wondering if someone might like to describe it. John Smith's 19:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you will look back in the page history a couple of years to when I was actively editing I think you would find it. Fred Bauder 19:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You oversimplify. The Chinese leaders put on a brave and united front after they had decided what to do, but were torn by both idealistic and practical considerations which were not easily reconciled. The protests created difficult problems which they solved as well as they could, but to imagine that they did not both sympathize with the idealism of the students and fear a dissolution of the government in the same way it was happening in Eastern Europe it to imagine them not human. After all, they are revolutionaries, Marxists and ultimately humanists. The Tiananmen Papers contains material which has insight into these phenomena. Fred Bauder 14:39, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually my original language remains mostly intact:
The Standing Committee of the Politburo, along with the Party elders (retired but still-influential former officials of the government and Party), were, at first, hopeful that the demonstrations would be short-lived or that cosmetic reforms and investigations would satisfy the protesters. They wished to avoid violence if possible, and relied at first on their far-reaching Party apparatus in attempts to persuade the students to abandon the protest and return to their studies. One barrier to effective action was that the leadership itself supported many of the demands of the students, especially the concern with corruption. However, one large problem was that the protests contained many people with varying agendas, and hence it was unclear with whom the government could negotiate, and what the demands of the protesters were. The confusion and indecision among the protesters was also mirrored by confusion and indecision within the government.  The official media mirrored this indecision as headlines in the People's Daily alternated between sympathy with the demonstrators and denouncing them.
It could be more explicit in terms of personalities and issues, but in my opinion sufficiently expresses the internal political crisis, such as it was. I don't think giving up power to the Chinese electorate was considered. Fred Bauder 14:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political crisis 

message: This is pasted from the edits Free Citizen made. They're fairly pro-China, and should be discussed on whether to include them here.
 
"...I knew Deng Xiaoping was right. I have not changed my mind. There are more than 300 cities in China. When you have that kind of wildfire, you either stamp it out quickly or you are burnt out yourself. ...You have to remember that this is China. When you attack the emperor, that's it. He paid in blood for the right to govern." 	 —Singapore Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew in an interview at the 2001 World Economic Forum held in Davos, Switzerland	 
	 
"Deng [Xiaoping] asked Henry [Kissinger] why we were so shocked over Tiananmen. When the Cultural Revolution was going on when we opened relations with the PRC. He pointed out that surely that was much worse. He had a point." (Edited for clarity)—Former First Lady Barbara Bush relating a November 1989 dinner conversation with Henry Kissinger who had just returned from China. In Barbara Bush: A Memoir. New York: Lisa Drew Books, Charles Scribner's Sons, 1994.	 
"How the GPRC [Government of the People's Republic of China] decides to deal with those of its citizens involved in recent events in China is, of course, an internal affair. How the USG [United States of America government] and the American people view that activity is, equally, an internal affair. Both will be governed by the traditions, culture, and values peculiar to each." 	 
—Declassified USA State Department document entitled "Themes" dated June 29, 1989.
There is absolutely nothing wrong about statements that are pro-China as there is absolutely nothing wrong with statements that are anti-China or critical of China. These are quotations made by eminent people and they serve notes of interest to those who care to read them. Readers may have their own biases, that is their right. An encyclopedic entry does not care which way readers may perceive information. Only that the statements are not false or fabricated. If there are no more convincing argument, that edit should stay. BTW, the last statement by the USA State Department is rather balanced. (Free Citizen 08:05, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These opinions are what is to be expected from those three sources. They round out the spectrum of world public opinion. Fred Bauder 14:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This paragraph is directly copied and pasted from http://www.sinomania.com/CHINANEWS/tiananmen_perspective.htm which may be a copyright violation. It also happens to be the link Free Citizen is insistant on including, which includes lines such as "no evidence anyone died in Tiananmen Square.". If anything this link needs to be framed with some context. --Jgritz 21:42, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A site with a rather apologetic point of view Fred Bauder 22:04, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The comments can be quoted, that would be fair use, although it would be good to go back to the original sources, rather then use that sinomania site which has a strong apologetic point of view. However as they compiled the three quotations, to avoid plagiarism you will have to mention them. But look for the original sources for those three quotes and give them too. I don't consider any of the three quotes as pro-Chinese anyway, just expressions of practical reactions to the situation. Fred Bauder 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Right, the fascist view is important Fred Bauder 21:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment from various leaders

message: I removed the reference to the Statue of Liberty in the caption to the image of the Goddess of Democracy. An account of the construction of the Goddess of Democracy by a sculptor present explicitly states that the students chose not to model their creation on the Statue of Liberty. See my fix to the Goddess of Democracy page for a more full explanation and a citation. Sigrid 01:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relationship of Goddess of Democracy to Statue of Liberty 

message: Whoever did that deserves a pat on the back! John Smith's 23:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New format