Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 18, 2004.
Article Milestones Date Process Result April 7, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted Current Status: Featured article

	This article is part of WikiProject China, a project to improve all China-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other China-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)
More information about this article... Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the selected article of the China Portal in July 2006.

WikiProject Echo has identified Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Hebrew or Spanish language Wikipedias.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

	Hong Kong Portal This article is part of WikiProject Hong Kong, a project to coordinate efforts in improving all Hong Kong-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Hong Kong-related articles, you are invited to join this project!
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale.
Hong Kong To-do: edit purge Project Maintenance Participate in the reformation discussion of the assessment criteria. Recruit editors

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents 1 Article has been censored 2 He says, she says 3 Chinese Propaganda Strikes Again 4 Revert SummerThunder's edits? 5 "Unknown history to the Youth in China" - suggest deletion 6 would the US have done any different? 7 Memorial songs 8 "I think never killed."

[edit] Article has been censored

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)

"which eventually dispersed the out-of-control assembly in proper fashion"...they did that all right, mowing them down hundreds of people with bullets and beating them to death with sticks by the sounds of most sources. Hooraay for the "peaceable" Chinese government... Icanhearthegrassgrow 14:31, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] He says, she says

I thought I'd asked this before, but I can't find such a post, so my memory must be playing tricks on me. Anyhow, here's a question that's been on my mind for years. I believe there was a massacre, but many people in China aren't so sure. I was still in China with my family at the time, and my mom, who lived through the Cultural Revolution, believes the Party's version of events: thugs attacked and killed some troops and any bloodshed was the result of that. The lack of any footage of actual assaults on the students only reaffirms her belief.

How would you respond to that? You can't of course point to reports by the BBC or the US embassy. Xiner 02:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Did she take part in the protests or watch them? If not then she has no direct evidence to back up her opinion. John Smith's 17:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

And this Wikipedia article refers to no direct evidence to support an opinion to the contrary. We can respond to that by acknowledging that the wisdom of crowds has failed to identify any direct evidence of a massacre at Tienanmen. What's more, Wikipedia lacks well-informed articles about urban warfare sufficient to allow readers to compare the combat tactics of the Peoples Republic Army in June, 1989 in Bejing with those of the United States Army in Panama City on Dec. 25, 1989. A review of PRA combat tactics in 1989 Bejing can only be conducted in light of US actions in Panama that year, and of US urban-warfare tactics in Iraq, 2003-2006. How many Iraq streets have US troops sprayed with automatic weapons fire and worse, explosive munitions? How many civilians have been gunned down by US troops at checkpoints simply because the civilians didn't understand orders?

Wikipedia lacks any citations of direct evidence of a Tienamen Square massacre because there is none to be found. Wikipedia's article on the government's eventual response to the lengthy and disruptive protests reads more like the content of the advocacy documentary The Panama Deception than like a neutral representation of what happened when the government of the largest nation in the world restored control of its capital city.

How would I respond? I would respond by investigating the likelihood that thugs did in fact attack and kill PRA troops -- this is a widely-reported fact Wikipedia refuses to acknowledge, and for which Wikipedia refuses to cite any of the abundant sources from reputable Asian publications. Guess what -- a careful and concerned investigator will eventually produce the names of PRA troops attacked and killed. Of course reports of such attacks against the PRC government are censored from the Western press, but the rest of the world has a fair idea what happened. Unfortunately, Wikipedia and its cabal that pays homage (and donates free labor) to its libertarian-capitalist founder have no interest in reporting the truth as understood by reputable, established non-Western, non-capitalist publications. Oroja 18:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Follow the external references. There were thousands of foreign journalists in Beijing at the time. The eye-witness reports are many. There are also many video recordings of the masacres. Including random fire at building, demonstrants being shot in back while running away, and an ambulance shot to pieces while rushing in to collect wounded. Of course you can not prove that the entire world is not in a conspiracy against China, you are free to dismiss all the evidence you want. Carewolf 14:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Typical Commie propaganda. They are nothing more than power-hungry bullies-with-guns. They are too weak and cowardly to dare to compete in a democracy.

[edit] Chinese Propaganda Strikes Again

I see that this article, like the history of Tibet has been covered in lies and propaganda. Well done, Wiki editors...how much is the PRC paying you?Iamlondon 01:34, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

100 kuai an hour plus parking validation.--Daveswagon 08:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

50 jin rice ticket, 2 jin meat, 6 liang oil and 3 liang sugar per month -- 我♥中國 19:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh hell no. Why am I only getting 3 jin of pork a month? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. Did you not butter up to your redistribution foreman? I had to use all my 2 liang butter tickets to get some more rice and oil. -- 我♥中國 07:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section should be changed to ANTI-CHINESE PROPAGANDA STRIKES AGAIN. Because like the Tibet article it is covered by lies and propaganda against the Chinese. Ask yourselves what's happened to the so-called student leaders Chai Ling and Wu'er Kaixi? Having incited an angry response from the government and causing the deaths of many of their fellow students, they are now enjoying their lives and living it up with no regards to the death and destruction their actions caused. Come on 'IAMLONDON' how much are you paid for being a stirrer by the anti-Chinese propagandists?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.131.4.14 (talk • contribs).

The victims are responsible for the government killing them. Their crime? Protesting. Hmm. Interesting analysis. Fishhead64 23:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

How many people have been killed by The Protestant and Catholic Churches for protesting? The world should be allowed to move on.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.102.201 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 9 April 2007.

No idea, and also no idea what relevance two religious organisations have to a discussion on a country. You may as well discuss every single Religious Faith group, it would still be irrelevant though ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, in China - protesting IS a crime. LOL. KyuuA4 01:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Protesting is also a crime in many other countries including the USA and the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.102.201 (talk • contribs).

Go Falun Gong! If you want true coverage of China's government, refer to Falun Gong! Colipon+(T) 05:38, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

This is a page to discuss changes to the article, not a space for outpourings of conspiracy theories and rhetoric. Put a sock in it ya load of planks 62.25.106.209 03:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why are Cai Ling, Wu'er Kaixi and the like living comfortable lives when they incited their fellows to die?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.60.106.5 (talk • contribs).

Because they don't really care about their fellows and are just in the employ of certain governments? *hint hint* Pretty much shot the Chinese student democracy movement in the foot with that. Probably their intent all along. -- 我♥中國 23:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

How about because they fled for their lives, as they knew if they stayed they would have been executed? If they've done something with their lives overseas then it's to their credit - somehow I rather think they would have prefered it if they hadn't had to leave their homes. John Smith's 09:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, just like what the Americans would do to some Iraqis right now.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.102.201 (talk • contribs).

We are talking about the same student leaders who said "Personally, I want to live. But for the students on the Square, I think they need to persist to the end, until the government starts a bloodbath in desperation", are we not? -- 我♥中國 01:07, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

If that is a correct quotation that would be only one student, wouldn't it? John Smith's 09:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, quote attributed to Chai Ling, the others did not do anything to stop it. This Chai Ling was quite an Empress Wu or Empress Dowager Cixi.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.102.201 (talk • contribs).

There is no Chinese propaganda on Wikipedia Project, consensus of free editor and respectful administrator guiding hand define content, and neutrality is goal. I see both China supporter and those who defame China accuse propaganda bias - perhaps this indicator more of your bias than article bias. This article page is very Western view of the tragedy eventWen Hsing 21:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revert SummerThunder's edits?

Would anyone support simply reverting this article back to before the majority of User:SummerThunder's edits? I don't have the patience to comb through all of his edits to verify claims and correct spelling, etc. If no one comments on this, I'll go ahead with it.--Daveswagon 02:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I would support it. In particular, I'm concerned about the very poor quality of the writing, as well as the unverifiability of some claims. One problem is that there have been several editors with similar styles to SummerThunder, whose edits, IMO, should also be reverted. I'd like to see the article reverted to around here: [1]

While some of the information is valuable, much of the additions need a lot of work to bring up to standard. We need to be very careful here because this is a feature article. --Sumple (Talk) 05:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's because of the featured status that I'm in such a hurry to get those edits cleared out.--Daveswagon 06:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. --Sumple (Talk) 02:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted it.--Daveswagon 03:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Unknown history to the Youth in China" - suggest deletion

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)

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)

[edit] would the US have done any different?

I was just thinking, Tienanmen's protest is a pretty extreme situation in a very tense world situation. This is Cold War era stuff. What would the US government do in the 80's if hundreds of thousands assembled in Washington D.C.'s Mall demanding the reform of the government and the establishment of Communism? Erecting a great statue of Lenin as the "God of Communism" And these peoples were supported by Communist USSR and Communist China, both countries that had supported US enemies during the Korean War, which was still in fresh history. Cuban missile crisis too. What would the US government have done? Would an American listen to what a Russian reporter's account was? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.126.164.120 (talk • contribs).

What did the US do with the anti-Vietnam war protests? I didn't read about people being gunned-down in the streets because the White House was scared of losing power. Also because there's democracy in the US, and unpopular government could have been voted out - it's unlikely there would have been Tiananmen-style protests in the US. It's also unlikely US commanders would have agreed to shoot their own people when they were already withdrawing.

That says something about the Chinese, unfortunately, that they would kill people who were running away. John Smith's 00:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you forget the Kent State massacre? The US shot at and killed several unarmed students who were protesting the American invasion of Cambodia which President Richard Nixon launched. Sounds familiar. Its interesting how we forget our history. The Bonus March comes to mind too, when they General Douglas MacArthur, under order of President Hoover sent in federal cavalry troops with rifles and tear gas to evict the Bonus Marchers and destroyed their camps. Several were killed, including women and children, I believe. Then lets not forget the FBI cointelpro operations that included assasinations of the Black Panther Party, in concert with local police agents. And, the Red Scare, and Police Red Squads, after World War 1? So, this doesn't say something about the Chinese, per se, as much as it does as the response we see from those in power against those who dare challenge that power in an organized and serious fashion. The US is no exception, even today.Giovanni33 02:19, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you define those deaths you listed as murder? Keep in mind stray bullet is not murder, but shooting directly at the crowd is. And let's not forgot if the operation is covert, there would be no that knows about it to bring on murder charges. Now if you provided evidence you were responsible for the assasinations of Blank Panthers today, I'm sure you will be charged with murder (provided there is no statue of limitation). If Tiananmen Massacre occurred in US, then those responsible (pulling the triiger/ordering the crack down etc) would be charged with murder/attempted murder. --NYC 17:21 26, March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, when was the last time a large, public demonstration called for a change of government in the U.S.? Hmm, I believe that was last week.--Daveswagon 00:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

If such a protest happened, the media would be on it in an instant. The police would be called in and keep a close eye on the protesters. The proteters, being scared by the police presence would then probebly begin to taunt the police, whoch might lead to riots. At that point the police would most likly beat and/or hose the protesters and arrest them. And death would be minimal, and would most likly be from being trampled by fleeing protesters. There would be no bullet fire or tanks, the worst things the police/millitary would do would be using tear gas, hoses and riot sticks.--68.192.188.142 23:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Does any of this actually relate to the article? WP:NOT a debating society? --Sumple (Talk) 04:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

No, American law enforcement agents didn't go around beating up and killing Black protestors did they? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.102.201 (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

And two wrongs don't make a right. You cannot excuse events at Tiananmen Square merely by trying to point out the faults of another country.Tangerines 01:46, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Neither does it allow people from one of these countries to throw stones at the other.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.157.102.201 (talk • contribs) 23:48, 9 April 2007.

[edit] Memorial songs

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)

[edit] "I think never killed."

At the end of "The crackdown" section, there is a quote from Jiang said to have been extracted when Barbara Walters interviewed him. However, the citation for this quote (which the main article lacks) in the Tank man article uses the Time 100 article, which doesn't mention Barbara Walters at all. Furthermore, the quote in the article is "the young man was never, never (sic) killed", which doesn't appear in the Time article. Do these inconsistencies matter, or did I miss a source? And if so, why aren't they cited? z ε n ♪ 06:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The clip of the interview in question is part of FRONTLINE's Tank Man video[2]. From what I recall, the quote above sounds about right, but I'll try to find that part of the video at some point and verify this.--Daveswagon 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for clearing it. z ε n ♪ 04:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Here's the conversation (from "The Struggle to Control Information" part of "The Tank Man"), at according to what is sounds like to me:

Walters: (holding a picture of the tank man) What happened to the young man?

Jiang: I think this young man maybe [possibly said "will be"] not killed by the tank.

Walters: No, but did you arrest him? We heard he was arrested and executed.

Jiang: (speaking in Chinese) I can't confirm whether this young man you mentioned was arrested or not.

Walters: You do not know what happened to him?

Jiang: (in English again) But I think never...never killed.

Walters: You think he was never killed?

Jiang: I think never killed.

--Daveswagon 20:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Am I right to think that this discussion page has been edited and comments removed? The item on the events at Tiananmen Square is a travesty of the truth.There are many unsupported and factually incorrect statements. Just one example - Kate Adie was nowhere near Tiananmen Square and could not possibly have witnessed indiscriminate gunfire in the square. I dont think anyone now believes that there was a massacre in Tiananmen Square. Why is this not reflected in this item?

I dont think it is unfair to say that much of the material relating to modern chinese history could have been written by the CIA or other western propaganda organisations and interests. This is no use at all to people trying to understand events in China over the last 50 years. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.94.191.251 (talk • contribs).

There is discussion of the argument deaths didn't occur in the square. But it is still disputed. Also you have no evidence to say that such material was written by the CIA or anyone else. So it is unfair to say so. John Smith's 13:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)