Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre/Archive 2

message: 550 000 hits:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=fi&q=tiananmen+massacre&btnG=Google-haku&meta=
429 hits:
http://www.google.cn/search?hl=zh-CN&q=tiananmen+massacre&btnG=搜索&meta=
should this be in the article? or perhaps under censorship, i dunno but i think people should be aware of this!
:I think it belongs in 'Internet censorship in mainland China' rather than in this specific article - the Tiananmen protests are censored like any number of other controversial topics. --Artificialard 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google vs Google.cn 

message: The picture under the section Crackdown does not appear and, if you click on it, apparently does not exist and under the section Future of Political Reforms, the picture of the broken bicycle and tank track obscure some text. I am unsure how to fix these problems, can someone help?
Hydraton31 14:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved the second picture to make it look a little better. But the first picture has been deleted because someone listed it for deletion and the relevant info wasn't provided. If you can find the picture again and give it the correct copyright tag (and sourcing info) then it can be put back in. Until then I'll remove the reference to it. John Smith's 15:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture problems 

message: I've reverted this addition three times now; twice it was unsourced, once it was only vaguely sourced with something that I could not locate.  Obviously I think that if you're going to make claims like that it's going to have to be pretty-well documented.  Does anybody else have a take on this?  Fightindaman 02:35, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow .. whoever did the edits to this article either has a major problem or has a distinct propaganda intention .. sheesh Bob K 15:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Involvement 

message: I cannot see how this article doesn't have the NPOV tag on it.  Look at this one quote alone:
At present, the Western world still uses this event, which occurred almost two decades ago to break down the Chinese unity. This is a propaganda still used by the West. It is clearly obvious that China is the world's next superpower and has changed a great deal since 1989. However the West still insists that nothing has changed, even though an immense change has taken place.
The term propaganda is used numerous times by the pro-PRC author/editor(s) on the article page, with nary a citation in sight.  The American/Western (see: Response of Western Powers) involvement portions also reek of actual propaganda, if not inaccuracy, as though the West was responsible for 100k people gathering in a foreign land.
: An anon editor keeps making these changes.  They've been reverted.  Fightindaman 21:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can find more POV remarks though. "Bravely ventured" for one. These need to be cleaned up. --The1exile - Talk - Contribs - 17:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I took out "bravely." Just fix what you see when you see it. The lack of sources is a bigger problem. I'm going to offer extra credit to my students if they help add citations. Sigrid 22:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This is incorrect I am putting the first paragraph back in, because its fact. Shahathens 20:00, 13 April 2006
===Accuracy===
Soldiers and tanks from the 27th and 28th Armies of the People's Liberation Army were sent to take control of the city. The 27th Army was led by a commander related to Yang Shankun. The army was well experienced and armed unlike the ones sent on May 20 that was reluctant to put down the students(Spence 1999, 701).* In his press conference of the 5th, announcing sanctions on Communist China in the face of threats to do the same from US Senator, Jesse Helms, President Bush also suggested intelligence he had received concerning not only some disunity in the military ranks, and even the possibility of some military on military clashes during those days, but that these units were brought in from outside provinces because the local PLA were considered to be somewhat sympathetic to the protest and the people of the city. Reporters described elements of the 27th as having been most responsible for the carnage, and after the attack on the square of having established defensive positions in the center and east in Beijing, not the sort against civilian uprising, but as if anticipating attack by other military units. The 38th Army, on the other hand, was said to be one sympathetic to the uprising. They had no ammunition. And it was they who were said to be torching their own vehicles, on various streets, as they abandoned them to join the protests.
* In his press conference of the 5th on the 5th of May ?  no other mention of 5th in the article     who Bush Sr. I guess, this could be better wrote.
* 38th or 28th which was it ?
* May 20 martial law was declared, no armys were sent. Although the government declared martial law on May 20, the government failed to enforce it and the demonstrations continued.
mcpaige 04:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hugely POV, inaccurate, and lack of sources 

message: Soldiers and tanks from the 27th and 28th Armies of the People's Liberation Army were sent to take control of the city. The 27th Army was led by a commander related to Yang Shankun. The army was well experienced and armed unlike the ones sent on May 20 that was reluctant to put down the students(Spence 1999, 701).* In his press conference of the 5th, announcing sanctions on Communist China in the face of threats to do the same from US Senator, Jesse Helms, President Bush also suggested intelligence he had received concerning not only some disunity in the military ranks, and even the possibility of some military on military clashes during those days, but that these units were brought in from outside provinces because the local PLA were considered to be somewhat sympathetic to the protest and the people of the city. Reporters described elements of the 27th as having been most responsible for the carnage, and after the attack on the square of having established defensive positions in the center and east in Beijing, not the sort against civilian uprising, but as if anticipating attack by other military units. The 38th Army, on the other hand, was said to be one sympathetic to the uprising. They had no ammunition. And it was they who were said to be torching their own vehicles, on various streets, as they abandoned them to join the protests.
* In his press conference of the 5th on the 5th of May ?  no other mention of 5th in the article     who Bush Sr. I guess, this could be better wrote.
* 38th or 28th which was it ?
* May 20 martial law was declared, no armys were sent. Although the government declared martial law on May 20, the government failed to enforce it and the demonstrations continued.
mcpaige 04:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: Looking over the page history, I'm not inclined to protect this page.  It's having to be reverted a few times a day, yes, but that appears to be being handled well enough.  In the case where an article is being reverted multiple times by a single editor (or a few determined editors) awareness of the three revert rule is usually better than protection. - brenneman{T}{L}  02:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for page protection 

message: As a note, this page was featured in an article on the Chinese censorship of the Internet that aired on the CBS Evening News, 2/14/06. 216.26.131.177 04:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured on CBS 

message: I think the article is not too neutral, you'll have a feeling against the students after reading the article, it seems that someone should use better words to describe the protests.
User:TonySapphire 15:31, 18 February 2006 (HKT)
This article is terrible. If it's going to stay this way, then we need to remove its featured article status. The text, particularly the "aftermath" and "present" sections, is very poorly written. I just went through killing a bunch of stub sections and restoring the lead section and image captions, but didn't manage to rewrite the prose or fill some jarring gaps in the chronology.--Jiang 09:12, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not too neutral

message: I suggested someone to create a new article about the protests in other parts of China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan, Canada and Western Europe at the same time. This article mainly talks only the protests in Beijing, but there were many mass protests in other cities such as Shanghai. On June 4, besides a massacre in the Tiananmen Square, there was a massacre in Chongqing as well. This was not mentioned in this article. Tony Sapphire 02:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Creating a new article

message: This edit war should be resolved by addressing the issue of relevancy. I agree that tacking Yu Dongyue's release from prison onto the end of the article risks turning the page into a current events bulletin. On the other hand, the incident of the spattered ink was significant, not only in what it said about the ink-spatterers' opinions of Mao, but also in what it said about the students who helped police arrest them. For these reasons, I removed the blurb about Yu Dongyue at the end of the article and added a bit on the incident itself to an earlier section of the article (while also mentioning Yu Dongyue's time spent in prison). I hope this moves us toward consensus! Sigrid 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine. John Smith's 15:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states that Yu Dongyue fled to Canada. I believe this is actually Lu Decheng.   heqs 00:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Working for compromise on the issue of Yu Dongyue

message: Added information on how Yahoo, Google, Cisco, and Microsoft gave into the PRC's requirements, and that their technology has censored the internet, captured (and led to their torture and death) dissidents, enforcing police and PRC control over the populace, intercepting messages, and have violated US law concerning American companies and the PRC.
I have also added a sentence on economic "sectors", which have introduced business and led to the prosperity of many urban Chinese.
This is all information directly from Frontline by PBS
--64.75.187.197 04:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expanded on Computer firms/economic impact 

message: There are only seven citations/footnotes in the entire document.  Considering the importance and relative controversy surrounding the massacre (the Chinese wiki page is, of course, marked as controversial and under protection at the moment) you would expect lots of pretty blue footnotes throughout this "featured article".
(Some of the prose is quite laboured as well, and the article contains some of the longest paragraphs I have ever seen on Wikipedia. This pretty much put me off reading the article in its entirety.)
I considered suggesting that it be delisted, but I thought I'd post here first. I don't know enough about the event to be of much help, but I really think someone should really go through this article and start adding citations.  Bueller 007 01:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend we list this for removal of featured status. Anyone else agree? Skinnyweed 00:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: Am I right in thinking this is no longer in place? I was under the impression that the arms embargo was removed during British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw's visit in 2005. There was quite a lot of media hubbub about the effectiveness of the EU embargo, including the suggestion that arms exports to the PRC from the EU actually increased under the embargo.
I cannot provide citations, so I leave it for someone else to have a crack at.
:I don't know who said that, but their information is simply wrong. The embargo is still active and won't be lifted in the foreseeable future. The issue was still being discussed by Barroso after he became President, and he made it clear he wouldn't push for it to be lifted while China's human rights record was so poor. Also Angela Merkel made it very clear before she became Chancellor that she wouldn't back lifting it either. John Smith's 16:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU Arms Embargo 

message: There are a number of problems with this statement: "However, it is important to note that NSA documents declassified in 1999 show that their intelligence gives an estimate of 180-500 killed."
#Whether or not it is important to note is a matter of opinion.
#It's not clear that the documents were National Security Agency documents.
#The documents were made available by the National Security Archive... big difference!
#It's not clear that National Security Agency intelligence actually estimated 180-500 killed, but rather they passed along reports of that many killed after the first day.
::To answer your question, the report was from the intelligence secretary of the US embassy in Beijing. He does not need to lie.
#A cable from the US Embassy in Beijing stated that "the true figure is probably over one thousand" . It also stated that "civilian deaths probably did not reach the figure of 3,000 used in some press reports"  and that the Chinese Red Cross figures (2,600 military and civilian deaths, 7,000 wounded) were "not an unreasonable estimate."
I'm preserving the comment here in case anyone wants to rework it, but I'm going to remove it from the article in that it is not entirely accurate and does not add new information about the figures. -AED 06:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Casualties

message: Hello. The Nanjing Anti-African protests page states that it was the precursor to the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989. But I find no reference of that event on this page. Can anyone verify that the information at that page is true? Ewlyahoocom 03:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt the claims that it was a "pre-cursor" to the Tiananmen Square protests simply because the two events are about totally different themes, it would seem. I'm also not sure about the notability/infamy of these "Anti-African" protests, because I can't seem to find any reference to them outside of scholarly books/articles about racism/xenophobia in or outside of China. --Sumple (Talk) 10:13, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It would certainly be an extreme irony if what many view as a great democratic uprising started out as a simple racist backlash. (Although I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time for that.) Ewlyahoocom 05:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nanjing protests probably could have taught the students something about demonstrating and organising the masses (something they'd otherwise only learn from CPC organs, haha), but I doubt there is much direct correlation. -- Миборовский 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nanjing Anti-African protests 

message: :According to universities, 23 students were murdered.
Murdered is a strong word. For consistency and balance, unless the universities actually claimed they were murdered (as opposed to killed) we should stick with killed as with most of the rest of the article. However as this claim is not cited, I can't check to see whether it says murdered or killed (although it could be in Mandarin or something anyway) Nil Einne 00:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Murdered" requires a mental element - intending to kill or to at least cause grievous injury. It really shouldn't be there. --Sumple (Talk) 07:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it depends who it's referring to. If you say the State murdered them, then that's debatable. But it isn't necessarily wrong to say they were murdered at all. From the reports they were deliberately fired at - they weren't accidental. So that would indicate mens rea and thus murder. John Smith's 09:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For soldiers, killing is business. Where's the mens rea for that? -- Миборовский 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if the requisite mens rea exists, they have a valid defence (legally - note that I'm not condoning the suppression of the protests). In this case, state security. --Sumple (Talk) 00:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Murdered? 

message: Some time ago I got Amnesty International's report on this, it's not available online from their website, but if anyone wants it, I can scan it and email it to him. It's titled "Preliminary Findings on Killings of Unarmed Civilians, Arbitrary Arrests and Summary Arrests Since 3 June 1989", dated 30 August 1989. It is 49 pages long. As my only motivation for getting that report was to prove the protestors were commies, it's unlikely I'd be touching it any time soon. If anyone wants a detailed chronology and eyewitness reports of the incident (I've scanned through it, it's quite thorough) I'd be more than happy to get it to him. -- Миборовский 00:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I've sources available 

message: The title of this article is "Tiananmen Square protests of 1989". However, I've seen a lot of articles using a slightly different title notation for such events, such as the 2006 FIFA World Cup, for example. Maybe we should use this notation as well, since it seems to be the trend by now? It would mean a rename to "1989 Tiananmen Square protests". —Michiel Sikma (Kijken maar niet aanraken) 09:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a good idea, actually. John Smith's 12:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know... the Communist tanks don't exactly drive onto the square and run down thousands of people once every four years... How are other historical events named? E.g. the 19xx Battle of Wherever?? --Sumple (Talk) 05:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's another protest at Tiananmen, Tiananmen Square protests of 1976, which is why there is a year in the article name. I would prefer to see Tiananmen Square protests (1989), to tell the truth. -- Миборовский 23:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was also the May Fourth movement of whenever (1918? 1919?). --Sumple (Talk) 00:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The May Fourth Movement is at May Fourth Movement. -- Миборовский 01:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename 

message: Hi could someone revert my edits (Addhoc), as there appears to be a software problem and the end of the article has not been saved. Thanks. Addhoc 10:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been taken care of by another user. Thanks for letting us know. Luna Santin 15:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apologies for a Software Problem 

message: Is this article about the Tiananmen Square protests only (that is, the protests which occurred in and around Tiananmen Square, Beijing), or is it about the June Fourth movement generally (by which I mean the whole series of student and civil unrest across China in 1989)? In my edits I've proceeded on the footing that it is about the latter; and parts of the article, e.g. the last section about compensation, can only be about the movement generally. However, many parts of the article read like the former is the case. --Sumple (Talk) 09:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conceptual question 

message: The protests did not take  place on June the Fourth.   We may call the series of protests 1989 movement.  We may call the crack-down June Fourth Incident.  They should not be confused.   A correct way to phrase it is, The June Fourth Incident was the end/endgame/outcome of the 89 Movement.  Please note that May Fourth Movement did take place on May the Fourth, 1919.Hillgentleman 11:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:OR. --Sumple (Talk) 11:10, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What is the relevance here?Hillgentleman 11:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I mean is, sure it might be a misnomer, but that's how it is referred to by ppl everywhere, so whether or not that name is inaccurate is irrelevant. --Sumple (Talk) 12:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I mean what I said.  The term is a misnomer.   We may use it out of habit, but it is still wrong. Hillgentleman 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

text: *I have not seen the term June Fourth Movement in any serious news report.  There are only June Fourth Incident (referring to the crackdown) or 89 Movement.  In this sense I say that the usage "June Fourth Movement" is a piece of original research.Hillgentleman 09:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "June Fourth Movement" is a misnomer

message: The newly formed student organization called "北京市高校学生自治联合会" was illegal based on the law in China. -- Pingbal1 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal organization 

message: The occupation of public property "Tiananmen Square" was illegal based on the law in China -- Pingbal1 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal occupation of public property 

message: It's illegal to possess incendiary devices and guns, but those students did possess or used those against the government. -- Pingbal1 02:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal possession of weapons 

message: article should be titled Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.140.5.249 (talk • contribs) .
: First, please should put your signature. Second, you should read about the meaning of "Martial Law", in China, it was called "Martial Order". --Pingbal1 02:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one claims the responsibility for this section, the section SHOULD be removed. -- Give source pls 16:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: John Smith, please state clearly why this article should be titled Tiananmen Square Massacre of 1989 and also provide the source for this. -- Pingbal1 03:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have to do anything like that, because the article has not been changed in such a manner. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if they don't back it up and thus cannot get people to agree with them to make such a change. John Smith's 13:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I was not the person who brought this up, but I had actually never heard of the term "Tiananmen Square protests" until I came to wikipedia--I thought that people had always referred to the event as the Tiananmen Square Massacre. It seems to me 2 main factors come into play in whether we should call this article "...Protests" or "...Massacre": 1) What is the common name to which this event is referred to?, and 2) Historical accuracy. Regarding point 1), I got curious, and quickly googled both the phrases "Tiananmen Square protests" and "Tiananmen Square massacre", and got 73,600 hits for protests, and 242,000 hits for massacre. This is certainly not proof, but my quick-and-lazy test does seem to give us reason to think that "...massacre" might actually be the more common name to which the event is referred, so maybe we should do a more detailed study on that. As for 2), all I am saying is that we should take into account whether the term "massacre" or "protest" better reflect the actual event. I do think that both factors have influence as to how we should name this article. -- Notveryfunny 07:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "massacre" is somewhat POV, whereas the term "protests" is more encompassing of the entire event. Overall the event was a protest and during part of the protest a massacre occurred. Just because the world takes a POV stance that it was overall a massacre, does not mean that wikipedia has to take that stance, as long as there is reference to it being, in large part, a massacre. Oh and it certainly was more than a riot. --Mattarata 17:21, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikiapologia? 

message: Should this article be included in the Massacres category?  The criterion for inclusion is defined as "A mass killing of a number of people done for some aim".  Although the killings (which certainly fit this definition) largely occurred (as the current form of the article correctly states) in the surrounding streets and not the Square itself, they were clearly related to and arising out of the protests in the Square, and any reader searching for details of what has become known as the Tiananmen Square Massacre would be led to this article.  I approached this by way of the category listing and was surprised to not find it there.
Rodparkes 04:15, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be in Massacres category? 

message: Why do we have traditional Chinese spelling for the names here? As far as I know, the traditional spelling isn't used anywhere near Beijing. --Apoc2400 10:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it is Wikipedia convention to use both forms. -- Миборовский 18:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why traditional Chinese spelling?