Talk:Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former featured article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 18, 2004.
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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (see comments)
More information about this article...
This article was the selected article of the China Portal in July 2006.
Other languages 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.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
*Archive 1


Contents

[edit] Proposal to Add Chinese Language version temporarily

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)

I agree - but what do you mean? Is there an English-language Chinese Wikipedia site? If so, where do we access it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.236.196 (talk) 12:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Generation Gap

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)

[edit] Where's archive 3?

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)

[edit] comparison with other protest suppression...

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)

[edit] Contraversal

I think that some may find this page highly contraversal, and while i support the partial bias indicated in the article, i think that the administration would be best advise to closely watch this page and any others concerning even slightly contraversal chinese topics, including Tiananmen Square, Tibet, anything having to do with the Tibetan National Uprising, or Taiwan.

Politicalnerd08 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Censored google

I think there should be also a comment about Chinese censorship of the google.cn - try to navigate here: [1] - that's google.cn's image search result for "Tiananmen", comparing with [2], which is a common English version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.250.6.15 (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


BBC reporter Kate Adie spoke of "indiscriminate fire" within the square. Kate Adie was nowhere near the Square at the time - I think this statement should be amended to reveal this fact or better deleted from the article. There are many other similar problems with this article - resulting in western propaganda masquerading as fact. Maybe some people who were in China at the time could add some material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.164.71 (talk) 13:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section removed

"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[1]. 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)

[edit] Title

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)

There is a problem with using Tiananmen Square Massacre as the title for this article - no one died in Tiananmen Square. The deaths were the result of clashes between citizens of Beijing and the PLA in the streets around the square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.158.94.229 (talk) 09:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

The tianamen square massacare is actually a popular misconception. It should be called the Beijing massacare. Because the massacare did not actually happen in the tiananmen square. i was thinking if i should change this in the article. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.117.137.95 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

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)


Any proof that these are indeed from the square? If so then the name should be changed but to my knowledge noone was massacred in the square. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.15.80.65 (talk) 00:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title 2

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)

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)
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)

[edit] Title 3

See a google compare: [3] [4] [5] [6]

As you can see I compared:

  1. Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
  2. Tiananmen Square Massacre
  3. Tiananmen Square protests
  4. 1989 Tiananmen Square military action


It's pretty clear that Tiananmen Square Massacre score highest, followed by Tiananmen Square protests which is actually all inclusive with several major event since on Tiananmen is the official appeal office, so this term will cumulate even the recent Falun Gong protests together with many other as well. Also the current very diluted title Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 which does not rank anywhere.

If you are going to use a more diluted term you could use The 1989 Tiananmen Square military action as it is referred here: [7]. This term is also better known according to a google battle test [8].

Best, --HappyInGeneral (talk) 14:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed, "Tiananmen Square Massacre" is the common name for the event and should be the title for the Wiki page. Some watered-down "neutral" term such as "incident" would do this event a serious injustice. Are we going to call the Wiki page for the Darfur Genocide the "Darfur Incident"? or the Armenian Genocide the "Armenian Incident of 1915"? Watering down the title does make one neutral. Thats my thoughts. I hope the Wiki community will agree Leahcim506 (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to add the phrase "Tiananmen Square massacre" (which is obviously the most common name in English) to the lead of this article and have provided reliable references. However, I have been reverted. I am worried that this article is subject to some sort of POV-pushing. There is no way this article can be said to be neutral without a prominent mention of its most common name in English. Further proof: the Chinese name which has been bolded in the lead, "June 4 incident", clearly refers to the massacre rather than the protests as a whole. --Folantin (talk) 12:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
"Clearly" is not good enough. If you are requesting the change, you need to supply the evidence. None has been supplied so far.
As I have explained already, the Chinese name "June 4th incident" refers to the entire movement, and not just the final event. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You need something stronger than "obviously the most common". This issue has been argued to death. The current name is what it is because it is the most NPOV out of the common names for the incident. "Massacre" is inherently inflamatory and has not been shown to be overwhelmingly the common name. In the absence of clear proof of a most common name, we defer to the WP:NPOV policy.

Furthermore, please WP:AGF and do not insinuate that anyone who disagrees with you is "POV-pushing". It assumes that other editors are stooges simply because they disagree with you, and is insulting.

On the point of Chinese linguistics - again, please do not assume that, because June 4th was the date of the crackdown, it must refer to the crackdown and not the entire episode. Nothing is so "obvious", especially when it involves a foreign language. As with any other mass movement in Chinese history, the date merely refers to the key or pivotal event in the entire movement, but the name covers the entire movement. See also May Fourth Movement, which refers to the entire "new culture" movement and not just the protests on May the 4th. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 13:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily arguing that we move the whole article to "Tiananmen Square massacre", but that's because it covers the entirety of the protests. I merely want a prominent reference to "Tiananmen Square massacre" in the lead (there should probably be more mention of it in the body of the article too). In spite of your assertions, "Tiananmen Square massacre" (or "Tiananmen massacre") clearly is the common name in English for the event that ended the protests ("June 4 Incident" will mean nothing to most Anglophones). Since this is the English-language Wikipedia, that's what goes in. Our NPOV policy insists that all major viewpoints must be included - and we aren't censored either. --Folantin (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Folantin. If this is a verifiably common name for the event (and it seems it is), the title really should be in bold, in the lede, per WP:NPOV, WP:LEDE etc. --John (talk) 03:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I too agree with Folantin. WP:RS generally call it "Tianenmen Square Massacre" which passes WP:V. I have no idea what it is called by the Chinese but that is not relevant. It is not POV but fact (that it is called so). Kittybrewster ☎ 07:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Going by a very westernized search engine like google is not a good idea. IMHO it is quite lacking for anything having to do with China. Obviously the mainland censorship makes it pretty pointless to use their search engine too. So let's not use any search engines please. If you want to go by the most globally popular term, "June 4th incident" is it. Even pro-democracy politicians in China regions who recognize the event as a massacre call it the June 4th incident. Benjwong (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Absolute sophistry. The fact is this incident is called the "Tiananmen Square massacre" in the English-speaking world. That's a mainstream view and it has to be represented prominently in the article. --Folantin (talk) 08:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Nobody is denying it as a massacre. An event in China involving chinese military and chinese citizens, you are asking people to completely overlook the 6-4 chinese name. It seems a bit much, if not unreasonable. You can call it what you like in the lead, but a page move will be difficult. Benjwong (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Please read what I wrote above and below. I am not actually asking for a page move, merely that the phrase "Tiananmen Square massacre" be given more prominence in the article (this has now been fixed). The trouble began when I tried to add the name "Tiananmen Square massacre" to the lead and was reverted. I made no attempt to move the article itself. It now turns out there has been a lot of confusion and misunderstanding and we are more or less on the same wavelength. I hope this helps to clear things up. --Folantin (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Can I re-iterate two points:

  1. We need reliable sources for whatever change you are advocating. I don't see clear documentary evidence that "massacre" is the unambiguously most common term used in reliable, English-language sources. A brief JSTOR search yields 441 hits for search term Tiananmen Square massacre, 350 for Tiananmen Square protests. The former has a lead but it is by no means dominant. Given this, my view is that we yield to WP:NPOV and avoid terms apt to sensationalise.
  2. As I have tried to explain above, Folantin, when a political movement is named in Chinese after the date of a pivotal date, that name refers to the entire movement, not to the events of that date particularly. "June 4th incident/movement" refers to the entire episode of democratising agitation leading up to - and in some places following - the crackdown on the 4th of June. Similarly, "May 4th incident/movement" refers to the entire New Culture movement, and not just the crackdown on the 4th of May.
  3. On a similar point, you seem to draw a distinction between the "Tiananmen Square protests" and the "Tiananmen Square massacre", as if the latter is a subset of the former. However, in my experience, the two terms are synonymous with "June 4th", and both refer to the entire episode leading up to the crackdown. Again, I would like to see reliabel sources differentiating between the two concepts in the way that you appear to see them differentiated. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've given you reliable sources. There are entire books on the subject with "massacre" in the title. Your first point is yet more sophistry. You admit that "TS massacre" is in fact the most common phrase on JSTOR, hence it is a significant viewpoint and must be represented according to WP:NPOV. --Folantin (talk) 08:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the JSTOR results prove unambiguously that "massacre" is the most common term. What it shows is that the two terms do not differ materially in terms of commonality of usage. The bone of contention here is not whether "massacre" is used. We all know it is. The question is whether "massacre" is the most common term as you contend. Your book references illustrate that "massacre" is used. They go no way towards proving that "massacre" is the most common term.
However, I feel I should apologise. I acted hastily to oppose your edits without reading the current article carefully. First, I did not realise that the material dealing with the "massacre" term had been wholly deleted from the article. I'd assumed that it was dealt with in the "Naming" section, as it had been in a previous version. Secondly, I'd assumed that you were contending that the title should move to "massacre", since you have posted under a HappyInGeneral post, HappyInGeneral having been an advocate for changing the article name.
For the record, then, I agree with you that "massacre" should be mentioned as a common name (among others) of the incident, though the title of the article should remain where it is due to NPOV and the lack of a single unambiguously most common name. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 08:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That's right. I said: "I'm not necessarily arguing that we move the whole article to 'Tiananmen Square massacre', but that's because it covers the entirety of the protests. I merely want a prominent reference to 'Tiananmen Square massacre' in the lead (there should probably be more mention of it in the body of the article too)". The material I added to the article was aimed at rectifying this. --Folantin (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Current title is hilarious. What's next, "Holocaust" to be renamed to "Jewish incident in WW II"?
Google Print test:

Google Scholar test:

Amazon.com test

-Staberinde (talk) 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that calling the article Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is not NPOV. By deliberately avoiding "massacre" we are in fact taking a POV. There is no good reason that the article should not go by the most common name. TK421 (talk) 03:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I was reading the article on China and specifically about the government's suppression of information. I recalled the protests and wanted to read about them and how they are treated in China. I searched for tiananmen massacre, and was redirected to Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, which I found strange. I'd never heard it called that before. thezirk (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Please look into the archive this has been discussed many times before. If you are looking for the English string of "June-Fourth" you will find nothing cause everybody calls it a massacre in the English speaking world. If you look for the Chinese in google, it is not nearly as common as massacre. Obviously www.google.com is English based. If you look for the Chinese in a Chinese search engine, it is blocked. None of the examples above are any good. Benjwong (talk) 01:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • What, are Chinese now coming on here to try to white wash what happened in Tiananmen Square? Of course this should be set to Massacre, because that is what it is called in the English-speaking World. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.251.26.6 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

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)

[edit] Current status of the student leaders

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)

==Discrepancy in Jiang quote == they all ate cheese cake!!!

This page has this statement: The last official statement from the PRC government about the tank man came from Jiang Zemin in a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, when asked about the whereabouts of the tank man, Jiang responded that "the young man was never, never killed." There are no cites for this quote on this page.

The Tank Man page has this cited quote, purportedly from the same Barbara Walters interview: In a 1990 interview with Barbara Walters, then-CCP General Secretary Jiang Zemin was asked what became of the man. Jiang replied "I think never killed [sic]." This quote is cited here, and the wording "I think never killed" seems to be the correct quote.

I am going to go ahead and change the quote on this page, adding the reference above. Please let me know if anyone has other feelings about this. Tanthalas39 (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reaction

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)

Agree, especially when it refers to "scholers" in the plural sense when it only cites one article. I'm taking down this section as it clearly does not describe the Western perception of the incident and instead seems more focused in describing the specifics of the protesters' ideology in regards to rural populations.--Waxsin (talk) 23:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wang Yam

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)

[edit] Initial PRC Supression of News inside China

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)

[edit] The Bias View

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)

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)

You bothered to post a response reguarding grammar usage? If you have nothing of value to discuss dont bother posting. I know of one western cameraman who caught those pictures of the defiant protester in front of the tank. He hid the fotage in his hotel room toilet so the police would not confiscate it. Chinas actions in many situations is questionable, however this is one of Communist China's most damning momments- do not disrespect this serious topic with redicuolous insults. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.227.32.78 (talk) 00:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you have the footage which showed the truth, why don't you show us? Can you prove somebody guilty on the court based on your imagination?Speaker cn (talk) 23:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] A call for an investigation of western media's report on the Tiananmen Square protests

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)

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)
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)
Please no thesis either. The world really doesn't need another nutty conspiracy theory. Novidmarana (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)

This is pure Chinese propaganda. How can issues like this ever be resolved if we have to choose between polar opposite versions of what happened. This page should be a discussion of BOTH sides of the story, if only to keep nationalistic Chinese happy. Present both sides of the argument and let th reader decide what is most likely to be truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.240.208 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Removed a bit

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)

Agree, if anyone use the word "brainwash" on other governmetn and people, he must consider himself absolutely correct. However, when people have different opinions, there was no way to tell who was absolutely correct. The word "brainwash" is just a humiliation to the one who used it.Speaker cn (talk) 10:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

That would seem a bit better but brainwashing still seems like an innacurate title. They most deffinattly have tried to erase the subject from their history, I just think it's an innacurate term mainly. I read the atricle on brainwashing and there are many refrences to the chinese attempting to brainwash people, but no mention of this event as being considered brainwashing, maybe I should ask them for their opinion on whether this could be considered brainwashing or just extreme censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.170.151 (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History Deleted/ Forbidden Topic in Mainland China

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)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Chineseart Executionpainting.jpg

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)

[edit] Title Image Edited

The Unknown Rebel - This famous photo, taken on 5 June 1989 by photographer Jeff Widener, depicts an unknown man stopped the PLA's advancing tanks, and later supplied food and drinks to the tank soldier.

The full video showed that the man firstly stopped the tanks and then climbed on top of the first tank, said something with a soldier sitting in the bunk then gave the foods and drinks to them. Full video could be seen in NHK's documentary Blood is on the square (1991).

Synyan (talk) 01:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The claims that he supplied food and drinks to the soldiers is novel and unsourced. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
He says it's in the video. Someone needs to look at it. Fred Talk 19:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
The video is well known, and due to the distance and quality of the video there is no way for us to know what he said or what he gave to the soldiers: see here. He may have been giving food and drinks to the soldiers - we can't tell from the video - but there is no source that points towards it.
It's like claiming that Mona Lisa was sitting on a stool. It may be true - it is certainly not inconsistent with what we can see - but it's original research unless it is backed up with a reliable source stating that particular fact. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)