Talk:1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre

General Questions

How did protesters merely attempting to block the soldiers end up killing them? How many soldiers died and what methods were used to kill them?

Additionally, the 1995 US State Department funded documentary The Gate of Heavenly Peace shows Chai Ling giving a speech in which she openly calls for violent insurrection and received loud cheers from those near her. Doesn't this imply that there were people at the protest who were not merely demonstrating for democracy, but were openly supporting the violent overthrow of the government? - MikaelaBasher

Requested move 8 June 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Polyamorph (talk) 09:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

---

1989 Tiananmen Square protests and massacre → 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and conflicts – The incident was mainly conflicts between soldiers and students, which then led to the massacre. Coddlebean (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose and suggest alternative title While the 1989 events in China primarily centers about the conflict between students and soldiers, "massacre" is major part of the event and cannot be removed whatsoever (unless there are pro-CCP editors who brainwash the story of the Tiananmen protests). So i suggest to kept the title as it is, or removed the name "Protest and" from the article title, so i becomes 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. We don't need the word "protest" in the article title because it was too wordly and the scope of the protest already covered in the article. 2404:8000:1037:178:C433:663:55BF:9D67 (talk) 10:06, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  You are only taking into account the views of the students and not the establishment, which is a violation of Wikipedia's neutral policy. Coddlebean (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  We are not required to give WP:FALSEBALANCE. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

  WP:FALSEBALANCE, just like WP:BALANCE, WP:UNDUE, etc., must be demonstrated with the same rigor as any other source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.231.87.23 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. The word "massacre" is important in representing the day's events. (I'd support the shorter title 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre in theory, but slightly prefer the current, longer title.) O.N.R. ^(talk) 11:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose - The massacre itself is the main historic point of the entire event. There is no policy reason to remove that from the title. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support the shorter title per opposers argument. Actually "massacre" cannot be removed from the title given that it was main important element that representing all Tiananmen-related events at the time. The alternative option aside from this is kept the current title as it is. 103.111.100.82 (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose "protests and conflicts", support the shorter title - use the event's COMMONNAME. BoldGnome (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, since it is not the event's common name. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 05:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose "Protests and conflicts is redundant, the massacre was also one of the most important parts of the event. 99.254.43.34 (talk) 06:11, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose In this case, the term "protest and conflicts" is unknown for most readers who want to learn more knowledge about the Tiananmen Square-related events in 1989. If this article needs to move per nom, i rather support the page move into more shorter title (1989 Tiananmen Square massacre), since "massacre" is the most important part of the event and far more important than just ordinary demonstration or clash between students and security forces. 103.144.14.0 (talk) 10:16, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. The suggested move violates WP:COMMONNAME. I have never seen this event referred to as the "Tiananmen Square conflict", and changing the name to something less recognizable just makes it more confusing and difficult to find information on the topic. 133.32.217.18 (talk) 10:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
• Keep existing name. Both the protest and massacre are important. The protest lasted longer and was known for camping at the square. Most of the killing took place outside the square. Comment. some of the IPs look like they're from the same people. Vacosea (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The protests directly led to the massacre, plus the fact that the massacre itself is more likely what comes to mind for most people when "Tiananmen Square in 1989" is brought up. GalaxyDoge72 (talk) 02:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe the term "protest and conflicts" is relatively unknown for most people (except maybe for those in Mainland China). So, we need to either keep the existing title that already moved in 2021, or move the article into shorter title per WP:COMMONNAME as 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre, as massacre is a major focal point of the event although protests also have some significance but received little attention than the main event on June 3 and 4. 2404:8000:1037:456:1117:8A1B:1FDD:E21E (talk) 10:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. Stop denying history. PoisonHK _{Sapiens dominabitur astris} 20:18, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. It seems like the suggestion is meant to water down the event. It is a massacre by definition and the title should not be touched. rektz (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close per WP:SNOW. - Amigao (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a missing link to Hu Yaobang's Wikipedia page.

There is no link to Hu Yaobang's Wikipedia page, it should link to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Yaobang

Edit: nevermind, Hu Yaobang is linked, but above. I think there should probably be a second link, as there is an area with "the left" and "the right", for easier navigation to both sides' leaders. 2A00:1EB8:C217:C51A:78CF:F79:4537:DC52 (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Article rename discussion

Not much of a "massacre", where is the "massacre"? I think article should be called, Tiananmen Square incident RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're going to be a denialist, you're not going to last long here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

There was no an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people, lol. This never happened, or reliably so. In fact I'll be looking to eventually expand sections of the article. Maybe then the article name can be changed. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 06:47, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

We don't care what your personal feelings are. We go by reliable sources, who designate it a massacre. Please see the previous discussions about trying to rename this article. You're not going to get far. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:04, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't given you any sources though.. Odd start to the comment.

Thank you i'll read up on it eventually. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

It's not odd if you'd bothered to read what I wrote. Or perhaps English is not your first language. I stated that we already have reliable sources calling it a massacre. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

That's nice, but I've never proven anything to you about it so it is odd you are commenting on the evidence I haven't given you. Just engage normally next time. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 16:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

You're not doing anything to provide evidence against it being a massacre, you're just sniping at me. Either drop it, or provide your evidence. Otherwise, this entire discussion was pointless from the start. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Was hoping someone would get around doing it for me, I'll do it myself within a year. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

If you want a name change find sources. This is like saying Nanjing massacre is fake. Rynoip (talk) 22:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

That's not a well thought out comment, or even a decent thing to say. This speaks a lot to the psyche behind declaring a tiananmen square "massacre" and the fanatic manufacturing of history you shamelessly publish to the world to lay eyes on and read. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, that's enough. This is not a place to POV-push or throw out insults. I strongly suggest you stop posting here until you have your sources to share. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

He doesn’t have any sources, hes just trolling us at this point with no sources and that constant denialism. Rynoip (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Why are you reassuring yourself in the comments section? Keep it to yourself.

I have already communicated that i'll make edits within a year. It's all in your head. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

"This is like saying Nanjing massacre is fake." What a disgusting comment. RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 15:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

How is it disgusting? Your denialism is the same thing like denying the massacre was fake.

Make your edits then. Rynoip (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

(Redacted) RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Also you should look at the above requested move on why the name is protest and massacre not protest and conflict. Rynoip (talk) 22:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose, it was obviously a massacre. [1][2][3][4] Adriazeri (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Definitely some more sources will be added by me on this RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose, Stop denying history, we have hundreds of sources. Rynoip (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Miles, J. (2009, June 4). "The first draft of history can be crude. Even if the thrust of a story is well described by journalists on the scene, some of its details might need refinement, and sometimes even correction. Such was the case with the massacre in Beijing on 3 and 4 June, 1989. I was one of the foreign journalists who witnessed the events that night. We got the story generally right, but on one detail I and others conveyed the wrong impression. There was no massacre on Tiananmen Square." Tiananmen killings: Were the media right? BBC News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/803556.stm

[Roth, R. (2012, June 3). "The last group of protestors filed out of the square to the south soon after." There Was No "Tiananmen Square Massacre". CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/

Roth, R. (2012, June 3). "Dawn was just breaking. There were hundreds of troops in the square, many sitting cross-legged on the pavement in long curving ranks, some cleaning up debris. There were some tanks and armored personnel carriers. But we saw no bodies, injured people, ambulances or medical personnel — in short, nothing to even suggest, let alone prove, that a 'massacre' had recently occurred in that place." There Was No "Tiananmen Square Massacre". CBS News. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/news/there-was-no-tiananmen-square-massacre/

Winnett, R. (2011, June 3). "Inside the square itself, a Chilean diplomat was on hand to give his US counterparts an eyewitness account of the final hours of the pro-democracy movement. 'He watched the military enter the square and did not observe any mass firing of weapons into the crowds, although sporadic gunfire was heard. He said that most of the troops which entered the square were actually armed only with anti-riot gear – truncheons and wooden clubs; they were backed up by armed soldiers,' a cable from July 1989 said." Wikileaks: No Bloodshed Inside Tiananmen Square, Cables Claim. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8557631/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

Winnett, R. (2011, June 3). "Secret cables from the United States embassy in Beijing have shown there was no bloodshed inside Tiananmen Square when China put down student pro-democracy demonstrations 22 years ago." Wikileaks: No Bloodshed Inside Tiananmen Square, Cables Claim. The Telegraph. Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8557631/Wikileaks-no-bloodshed-inside-Tiananmen-Square-cables-claim.html

Kluver, R. (2010). Rhetorical trajectories of Tiananmen Square. Diplomatic History, 34(1), 71-94. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from [5](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24916034). "Moreover, the Chinese government was suspicious of the movement's foreign origins and support. A June 1 emergency report of the Beijing Party Committee argued that 'one important factor in this turmoil has been the large amount of spiritual support and material aid that various hostile forces, organizations, and individuals at home and abroad have directly or indirectly provided to the organizers and plotters,' and went on to particularly indict the Voice of America (VOA) for its 'extremely inglorious' role, for airing programs which added fuel to the fire and 'inciting turmoil.' The report also accused newspapers and organizations in the United States, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom for publishing false reports and for providing the financial support to the movement. Whether or not the reports arising from the movement were false, there is little doubt that much of the money supporting the movement did indeed come from outside of the mainland."

Becker, B. (2021, June 4). Tiananmen: The massacre that wasn’t. Liberation News. Retrieved from [6](https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt-2/). "Chai Ling, who was recognized as the top leader of the students, gave an interview to Western reporters on the eve of June 4 in which she acknowledged that the goal of the leadership was to lead the population in a struggle to topple the Communist Party of China, which she explained would only be possible if they could successfully provoke the government into violently attacking the demonstrations. That interview was aired in the film the 'Gate of Heavenly Peace.' Chai Ling also explained why they couldn’t tell the rank and file student protestors about the leaders’ real plans."

Becker, B. (2021, June 4). Tiananmen: The massacre that wasn’t. Liberation News. Retrieved from [7](https://www.liberationnews.org/tiananmen-the-massacre-that-wasnt-2/). "In an article on June 5, 1989, the Washington Post described how anti-government fighters had been organized into formations of 100-150 people. They were armed with Molotov cocktails and iron clubs, to meet the PLA who were still unarmed in the days prior to June 4."

Kluver, R. (2010). Rhetorical trajectories of Tiananmen Square. Diplomatic History, 34(1), 71-94. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from [8](https://www.jstor.org/stable/24916034). "On one avenue in western Beijing, demonstrators torched an entire military convoy of more than 100 trucks and armored vehicles. Aerial pictures of conflagration and columns of smoke have powerfully bolstered the [Chinese] government’s arguments that the troops were victims, not executioners. Other scenes show soldiers’ corpses and demonstrators stripping automatic rifles off unresisting soldiers." 64.124.75.150 (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

1. The BBC link goes to an article about Al Gore. Tiananmen is not mentioned.

2. The reporter states he could not see into the square, and was detained. He also makes it clear this is his opinion. This could be a good cite, but doesn't affect the article name.

3. Gives a 404 error.

4. Nothing in the quote affects the article title, it just repeats the Beijing Party Committee's opinion.

5. Does not appear to be a reliable source.

6. Is the exact same link as 4. Again, the quote does not affect the article title.

So the few RS you have basically amount to "I didn't see it happen." Which is not enough to refute the evidence from other RSes nor overturn WP:COMMONNAME. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

About the last part of your comment, let me clarify what you may have just communicated, if i understood it correctly

So if Tiananmen Square was not a massacre, you think that wikipedia should still call it a massacre by putting it in the article name? RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:06, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Nevermind you meant OVERTURN the current common name reason RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 14:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Oppose and speedy close per WP:SNOW. - Amigao (talk) 00:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Tank man section thumbnail

Are you sure that a mural from Cologne is more suitable for the section thumbnail than the actual photo? May be, just may be we should place an original photo to the section? 45.15.16.52 (talk) 09:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a copyright thing. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 12#File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg. Given it's a commercial image, the debate wound up falling on the idea that there's a legitimate non-free use argument for having it on the article for Tank Man, but that's the only valid use. So we can't use it in this article.

Now, that is a 13-year-old discussion, so it's possible consensus has changed. But when it comes to copyright, Wikipedia tends to be pretty strict, so I doubt the community would be willing to overturn that decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:04, 28 September 2024 (UTC)